This blog has become, more or less, an excercise in close reading--which suits me just fine, because it's what I enjoy the most! However, I do see myself as being somewhat outside of internet book culture because, with few exceptions, I avoid book reviews. I also tend to write critically--not only in terms of exercising "critical thinking" and having a "critical eye," but also by being somewhat negative. By offering critique. By saying what I see as being wrong with a book. And this is something that many book bloggers avoid or sugar coat. I think it's part of the culture.
This is how I do close reading, although most of the time my close reading has more to do with interpretation and analysis, discourse and association. At least, I think so. I haven't been told otherwise--yet! But what I'm wondering is. . . where else is Close Reading happening on the web in general, and on blogs in particular? Book reviews are not close reading. They can't be! Their goal is to give an overview and promote the book (usually)--or else not so much.
I will actually be presenting a paper in September on the "close reading" method of blogging, because I know it's out there. I can't see that anyone has labeled it as such, but I've seen it in political and religious contexts, when a blogger focuses very closely on words and phrasing in order to reach a fuller understanding, as in Melanie's Waste Land and Nicene Creed projects, or in order to argue for a particular point or interpretation. I have also seen it in Ann Althouse's Great Gatsby Project, which must be getting an absurd number of hits since the movie re-adaptation (and here's Althouse getting indignant about her idea--*sigh*).
So I will be gathering some data on this particular topic, and if I find anything interesting, I'll share. It's good practice and good accountability! Because you know. I might be writing the conference paper in the hotel otherwise...
And please--if you find any examples of close reading, no matter what the context (well, okay, I do have some limits, but I don't think my readership will take it there...), please leave a comment and link and tell me about it!
6 comments:
Father Zuhlsdorf often does close readings of Church documents. He used to do close readings of prayers, I'm not sure if he does that anymore. Check out his close reading of the new encyclical Lumen Fidei. It's an interesting attempt to tease out authorship, which passages are Pope Benedict and which are Pope Francis in the co-written document.
That's excellent! Thanks, Melanie! Especially since the conference is actually literature and religion. :)
In regards to book reviews on book sites, I think it depends on the type of book you are critiquing/reviewing and/or the type of readers you friend. I agree most book review sites/posts are very short and very drab - not really offering much of critique. BUT, as you said, these sites CAN BE places for critique and are for some posters. What's disappointing is that there is usually very little discussion/feedback - again, though there could be. It's a shame because, there is a lot of potential when it comes to the book sites. I admit I have not checked out the forums that Goodreads offers but I have heard that the forums - that target readers of certain genres or interests - are more discussion centered.
Actually, Cecilia, I am not faulting the reviewers. I think it's a function of the book review genre that it is not a place for close or critical (this time in the sense of analytical) reading. It is the rare book review that not only picks out a passage from a book, but also endeavors to offer a reading of that particular passage beyond "this is the kind of writing that makes this a good book" or something similar.
What passes for "critical" in the negative sense in some book review venues (like Good Reads) reads more like personal preference--often harkening back to my idea of resistence. So many people post things like "It wasn't my taste, but if you like X, Y and Z, you should definitely read this nove." Not terribly helpful--or critical, really. Other times, it's a rant. So book reviews, which are not a "close reading" genre, can be fairly sloppy online, or function as a mutual admiration society of writers, readers, and bloggers. And I'm not *exactly* knocking that--it can be fun, as my friend <a href="http://www.dream-stuff.com/>Chris</a>, who is part of a lively book community, could attest! But it's not the same level of analysis--sentence-, word- or discourse-level analysis.
Hmmm... I forgot to grouse about the taboo against "spoilers." Oh well. Maybe next time!
I'm afraid of forum-type discussions because of the ugliness and one-upmanship that goes on, especially with "fan" culture. That's another factor. Fans like to try to out-fan one another! I had that happen at a conference on Tolkien (go figure). It was a matter of one minute point from the Silmarillion or something. Pretty frustrating when THAT's the kind of feedback you get! :P
Oh yes there's a big difference between book reviews and close readings. My reviews tend to be pretty sloppy, informal, and not terribly critical. Not even good examples of useful reviews, much less close readings. I mostly use them as a kind of list to keep track of what I've read and a way to recommend titles I enjoy to like minded readers. But close readings or even good reviews are a lot of work and I don't have time or energy or even desire to do that for most things that I read. I love your close readings and really wish I had the time and energy to devote to that kind of blogging. Sigh.
It's funny back when I was single and had plenty of time, I didn't have a very good idea of what to read. Now the world of blogs feeds me more recommendations than I can actually read, and I really don't have time to do them justice. Well I know life won't always be this crazy.
Post a Comment