In this essay, Good Readers, Good Writers, Vladimir Nabokov talks about how to be a good reader, which makes you a good writer. I think that his thesis was that we cannot read with our hearts, or our brains, but we need to read with our spine. Nabokov says that, as a reader, we must remove all emotional connection and just use our imagination. He makes a good point where he says that even though we read a novel about, let's say, Jane Eyre, we cannot really look at it to show us history. Nabokov says that novels are just fairytales, and that we need to look at them with artistic views and imagination.
I think that this thesis is implicit, because Nabokov never comes out specifically and says the thesis. I just read the text and analyzed what he probably meant. I do think that he has a little part where part of the thesis comes out. I think it is in the very last page where Nabokov talks about how we must remained detached while we read. For example, Nobokov says, "In order to bask in that magic a wise reader reads the book of genius not with his heart, not so much with his brain, but with his spine." He points out that to fully enjoy the author's creation, we need to remain detached and use our imaginations with little or no emotional connection.
Nabokov, Vladimir. "Good Readers and Good Writers." Lecture
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Why Read the Classics: Discussion Topic 8
My reaction to this essay is a logical reaction. I don't really have any emotional connection to this essay, it actually kind of bored me, which I think is understandable. Italo Calvino makes some good points, but I don't think its going to change my mind that many classics are just boring, dry books that make for a good story. I think that a lot of times people just look for a lesson in things, but I just read the print. I don't look for a message or anything like that. I comprehend the text, and I can tell you the message, but I don't know if I necessarily agree. I think a book is a book, and that it can teach you things, but I disagree completely that it can be a guide to life like Calvino thinks it can be.
I do think it is important to read the classics, but I think it is important for a different reason than Calvino does. In my opinion, we should be reading the classics because they show us the different styles of writing that took place in the time period they were written, the types of people that existed, and the behavior. I disagree with Calvino in that we should be looking at these books for a message. All books have a message, I don't see how these books are any different.
I do think it is important to read the classics, but I think it is important for a different reason than Calvino does. In my opinion, we should be reading the classics because they show us the different styles of writing that took place in the time period they were written, the types of people that existed, and the behavior. I disagree with Calvino in that we should be looking at these books for a message. All books have a message, I don't see how these books are any different.
Why Read the Classics: Discussion Topic 7
I think that Italo Calvino has much authority as a writer. He almost commands people to listen to him and hear his point of view, which I see as authority. Calvino says in the concluding paragraph that if anyone disagrees that the classics are not worth the effort, that he will tell them a passage from a not yet classic. I think that this shows that he wants people to understand and that he will almost try to make them understand.
Calvino also has authority over his own writing. He is able to put together his words and make people understand what he means very simply. I think that this shows a lot of intelligence and authority. He makes good points and his writing seems commanding. Calvino shows his points easily. He makes a number with the point, and then a paragraph to describe what he is talking about. Before this essay, I thought the classics were just old books. But, he described them as much more. Calvino uses them as lessons to look at about life. He tells us to look at these books and read the underlying message. If Italo Calvino thinks that reading the classics is important, then it must be, otherwise he wouldn't be writing about them.
Calvino, Italo. Why Read the Classics? London: Vintage, 2000. Print.
Calvino also has authority over his own writing. He is able to put together his words and make people understand what he means very simply. I think that this shows a lot of intelligence and authority. He makes good points and his writing seems commanding. Calvino shows his points easily. He makes a number with the point, and then a paragraph to describe what he is talking about. Before this essay, I thought the classics were just old books. But, he described them as much more. Calvino uses them as lessons to look at about life. He tells us to look at these books and read the underlying message. If Italo Calvino thinks that reading the classics is important, then it must be, otherwise he wouldn't be writing about them.
Calvino, Italo. Why Read the Classics? London: Vintage, 2000. Print.
Why Read the Classics: Discussion Topic 6
Italo Calvino has a point blank introduction into his first chapter. It is one sentence that immediately makes you want to read the essay because the introduction isn't full of a whole bunch of unnecessary things. "Let us begin by putting forward some definitions." That is the only thing Calvino says before he launches in to the definitions of classics. I think that this really grabs the attention of the audience. Also, he seems to be personal even though he is just writing. Calvino tells people to put their hands up. He makes you believe as if you are sitting in his lecture and he is talking to you, which I think is a great thing to have in this essay to grab the attention of the reader.
I think what characterizes the conclusion is that Calvino talks about himself. He does not have any facts in his conclusion, he talks about himself and his experiences. This made me think that he really cares about what he is writing about. Calvino showed some feeling in his essay, making it much easier to read, since you don't feel as if someone is talking to you monotonously. Calvino talks to his audience at the end and shares his opinion, not just facts.
Calvino, Italo. Why Read the Classics? London: Vintage, 2000. Print.
I think what characterizes the conclusion is that Calvino talks about himself. He does not have any facts in his conclusion, he talks about himself and his experiences. This made me think that he really cares about what he is writing about. Calvino showed some feeling in his essay, making it much easier to read, since you don't feel as if someone is talking to you monotonously. Calvino talks to his audience at the end and shares his opinion, not just facts.
Calvino, Italo. Why Read the Classics? London: Vintage, 2000. Print.
Why Read the Classics: Discussion Topic 5
This essay has two main ways it is organized. One way Why Read the Classics is organized is with numbers of the definitions Calvino makes about the classics. Calvino puts the numbers right before large paragraphs to show what he will be talking about next, which makes this essay simple to read and comprehend. It is a tad slow, but that is not the fault of the organization.
Calvino also puts in large paragraphs after the numbered points. He does this to explain what his points mean and to describe what we should be doing, in almost a persuasive way. Also, this essay is organized almost chronologically in my opinion. I think this because the first definition of a classic is simple, and what a fifteen year old would think. But, with Calvino's last definition he shows one of the deepest definitions that someone older than me would think. By the end of this excerpt, Calvino makes the younger audience stretch what they know and to think more about what the classics mean and the real definition of classic.
Calvino, Italo. Why Read the Classics? London: Vintage, 2000. Print.
Calvino also puts in large paragraphs after the numbered points. He does this to explain what his points mean and to describe what we should be doing, in almost a persuasive way. Also, this essay is organized almost chronologically in my opinion. I think this because the first definition of a classic is simple, and what a fifteen year old would think. But, with Calvino's last definition he shows one of the deepest definitions that someone older than me would think. By the end of this excerpt, Calvino makes the younger audience stretch what they know and to think more about what the classics mean and the real definition of classic.
Calvino, Italo. Why Read the Classics? London: Vintage, 2000. Print.
Why Read the Classics: Discussion Topic 4
There were only a few passages that stuck out for me in this excerpt. The one that really made me appreciate what Calvino was trying to say was "A classic is a book which with each rereading offers as much of a sense of discovery as the first reading." (Calvino 5) I think that this one stuck with me mostly because I agree with it. I have read the novel Jane Eyre twice, it was around this time last year, and the most recent time, earlier this summer. I had changed a lot, so the second time I read it, I discovered new things in the novel and learned a little bit more from what the message was.
There are two more passages that stuck out to me, mostly because the totally contradict themselves and it confuses me slightly. "A classic is a work which relegates the noise of the present to a background hum, which at the same time the classics cannot exist without." (Calvino 8) This passage makes sense to me, but the one that confuses me is its opposite, "A classic is a work which persists as background noise even when a present that is totally incompatible holds its sway. (Calvino 8) These three passages stuck out at me becuase I felt that the first one was very true, and the last two stuck to me because I keep trying to figure out what Calvino means.
Calvino, Italo. Why Read the Classics? London: Vintage, 2000. Print.
There are two more passages that stuck out to me, mostly because the totally contradict themselves and it confuses me slightly. "A classic is a work which relegates the noise of the present to a background hum, which at the same time the classics cannot exist without." (Calvino 8) This passage makes sense to me, but the one that confuses me is its opposite, "A classic is a work which persists as background noise even when a present that is totally incompatible holds its sway. (Calvino 8) These three passages stuck out at me becuase I felt that the first one was very true, and the last two stuck to me because I keep trying to figure out what Calvino means.
Calvino, Italo. Why Read the Classics? London: Vintage, 2000. Print.
Why Read the Classics: Discussion Topic 3
Italo Calvino uses a few rhetorical devices in his essay. One main device he used is parallelism. Parallelism is defined as "Several parts of a sentence or several sentences are expressed similarly to show that the ideas in the parts or sentences are equal in importance. Parallelism also adds balance and rhythm and, most importantly, clarity to the sentence." (Harris 2) Calvino repeats himself many times in this essay to make it clearer and to stress the importance. An example is when Calvino says, "A classic is a book which with each rereading offers as much of a sense of discovery as the first reading." (Calvino 5) I also thought that a similar point was another point of his. "A classic is a book which has never exhausted all it has to say to its readers. (Calvino 5)
Calvino also uses the opposite of parallelism, which is chiasmus. An example of this is in another one of Calvino's points. "A classic is a work whcih relegates the noise of the present to a background hum, which at the same time the classics cannot exist without." (Calvino 8) But then he says, "A classic is a work which persists as background noise even when a present that is totally incompatible with it holds sway." What I understood from this is that he says a classic mutes background noise, yet at the same time, is background noise.
Calvino, Italo. Why Read the Classics? London: Vintage, 2000. Print.
Harris, Robert. "A Handbook of Rhetorical Devices." VirtualSalt. 5 Jan. 2010. Web. 20 Aug. 2011. http://virtualsalt.com/rhetoric2.
Calvino also uses the opposite of parallelism, which is chiasmus. An example of this is in another one of Calvino's points. "A classic is a work whcih relegates the noise of the present to a background hum, which at the same time the classics cannot exist without." (Calvino 8) But then he says, "A classic is a work which persists as background noise even when a present that is totally incompatible with it holds sway." What I understood from this is that he says a classic mutes background noise, yet at the same time, is background noise.
Calvino, Italo. Why Read the Classics? London: Vintage, 2000. Print.
Harris, Robert. "A Handbook of Rhetorical Devices." VirtualSalt. 5 Jan. 2010. Web. 20 Aug. 2011. http://virtualsalt.com/rhetoric2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)