As you can plainly see, these rules are geared towards books that try to convince you of something, primarily philosophy, but also theology, science, and social science. The first four “rules” correspond roughly to the traditional trivium notion of grammar-level understanding, the next four to logic-level analysis, and the last seven to rhetoric, where one expresses one’s opinion, I mean, judgment of the book.
Show wherein the author’s analysis or account is incomplete. Show wherein the author is misinformed. Demonstrate that you recognize the difference between knowledge and mere personal opinion by presenting good reasons for any critical judgment you make. Do not disagree disputatiously or contentiously. Do not begin criticism until you have completed your outline and your interpretation of the book. Determine which of his problems the author has solved, and which he has not and of the latter, decide which the author knew he had failed to solve. Know the author’s arguments, by finding them in, or constructing them out of, sequences of sentences. Grasp the author’s leading propositions by dealing with his most important sentences. 
Come to terms with the author by interpreting his key words. Define the problem or problems the author has tried to solve. Enumerate its major parts in their order and relation, and outline these parts as you have outlined the whole. State what the whole book is about with the utmost brevity. Classify the book according to kind and subject matter. The core of their reading method consists of analyzing the book’s structure and argument to understand what the author is trying to say and whether he or she is correct. Applying the method to poetry, drama, and fiction (which is where my reading is particularly weak) is so problematic that the authors basically give up and leave the reader to his or her own devices. As the book progresses it becomes clear, and the authors admit, that they are concerned only with the great classics of Western literature, and that their proposed method is really geared towards classic expository philosophy. A more appropriate title would be How to Analyze the Great Books of the Western World Set, Particularly Philosophy, and Everything Else Not So Much. My main criticism of the book is that it’s focus is much narrower than the authors would suggest. I suppose I was a little intimidated by the book’s exalted status, but after reading I’m not sure it deserves the unqualified praise it often gets. 
It is thanks to Jessica’s Great Books Reading Partnership, which recently read the book with great enthusiasm, that I was inspired to finally finish this highly praised volume. I think How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading has been on my sidebar for almost as long as this blog has existed.
0 kommentar(er)
