Can You Read a Book the Wrong Way?

I think it would be difficult to argue that there is one correct way to read something, since as Ms. Holmes implied, there is no single end goal for the activity. Reading, just as in the interpretation of any piece of art, is subjective. Meaning is derived from a combination of the reader’s own experiences and the author’s intent, though an interpretation completely divorced from what the author had in mind is still, of course, acceptable. I especially agree with Mr. Kirsch’s comparison between ethics and the debate concerning the proper way to read - after digging deep enough, there will inevitably come the conclusion that all assumptions upon which your reasoning is built are, in actuality, unfounded. Shift the reasons for reading (pleasure, knowledge, work, school), and the methods will also shift (heavily annotating, skimming, jumping around, etc.).

"Wise writers decline to engage in debates over the right way to read their own words."

And less than 10 people, wise or otherwise, cared.

My library consists 75% of either reference books or mystery novels. Obviously, I read the reference books in whatever order my need for particular knowledge dictates, but rarely from beginning to end (except, perhaps, when first purchased). I read the mystery novels from beginning to end and would not only condemn anyone who went to the last chapter first in order to know who the culprit was before starting the book, but heartily recommend full implementation of the Second Amendment to do away with such people immediately. This is surely not the answer anyone was looking for, but I am pedestrian, pedantic and pusillanimous in varying degrees and do not have the time for such cogitation as is being engaged in here.

All ways are permissible, but also equally debatable. And some ways are indeed wrong, or at least open to spirited challenge. However, in the course of arguing them, we engage with the books and with our fellow readers, so in that sense even the 'wrongest' readings should be given a hearing.
Most of what both authors say here, I would endorse. But ...
Wonderful, though, that Ms Holmes knows in advance which sections of a book are unimportant and therefore can be skipped as 'pedantry and technical detail'. (I'm sure it made 'Moby Dick' go faster, omitting all that tiresome stuff on whaling.) Could it possibly be there to place the reader in the palpable, intricate 'virtual reality' of a milieu utterly alien to his experience? Or could a significant detail of plot, theme, or character be tucked in there? Or both, as in the first chapter of 'Return of the Native', which contains no human characters and does not advance the plot? If I ever shake off my dislike of 'identity politics' sufficiently to try Ms Holmes' work, I shall remember her advice, and just skip the stuff that doesn't float my boat - because she couldn't possibly have had a good reason for putting it in, which I'm just too dense to grasp at first encounter, but which I might understand if I were to persevere.

I am with Lessing regarding the independence and solitude of reading. Do not read a book "because you feel you ought, or because it is part of a trend or a movement." On the other hand, it is good to take literature courses and read works carefully that one might not have read on one's own. Relying completely on your inclinations can be limiting, since you don't know a book until you've read it. I am talking about good books here; I see no need at all to read bad books, and it's pretty clear when a book is bad.

In short, I favor a dialogue between personal instinct and outside wisdom.

Currently reading "Malafrena" by Ursula Le Guin.

Library of America just re-published it.

I know. Science fiction is considered to be real literature to literary critics.

But I am glad I will get to read it while Ms. Le Guin, one of the U.S.'s finest writers, while she is still alive.

I developed a habit of reading books, as a child, in chunks of pages in random order. Hence the "book" I read is rarely the "book" the author wrote. Reading out of sequence requires of the reader, "filling in the blanks".... in short, you "invent stuff".

The only author I know that officially sanctions this behavior, is Julio Cortazar. In his 1963 novel, Hopscotch, he gives some suggested chapter orders, but urges the reader to assemble their own version of this work.

When I write fiction (just for an escape from writing scientific papers), I write the same way, e.g. sections not so much "at random" but as the material occurs to me. I'm sure most writers, fiction or nonfiction, work the same way.

Kirsch says that "Certainly it’s hard to imagine that they [the Bible writers] thought they were secretly encoding a complex legal system, or an esoteric mystical doctrine." I think the writers of Leviticus, a book containing one regulation after another, were quite aware that they were creating a legal system.

Holmes says that The Martian has "occasionally mind-numbing passages of pedantry and technical detail." I suspect that scientists and engineers would not find them mind-numbing at all, but fascinating speculations in their field of work. Apparently she was "reading it wrong".

Of course, the

“None of these (except, maybe, the last one) qualify as wholly “wrong” to me.”

Agreed.

“Preconceived notions, for instance, are impossible to avoid, and I’m not sure it’s even desirable for a person to try to divorce herself from her own experience — “

One should not be afraid to admit one’s assumptions and biases.

“After all, isn’t part of the point of artistic expression to open itself up to possibilities and varying interpretations, even discomfiting ones?”

I don’t want the writer to convince me to think in a certain way. But the writer whose story doesn’t force me to think in a different way has not been successful. Most borders, like the lines on a map, a false or artificial. I want to be a reader, and a writer, without borders.

But, of course, a writer who doesn't pay attention to borders and boundaries may not get published...because most readers live in a world dominated by delineations, some real, but most imagined.

“Wise writers decline to engage in debates over the right way to read their own words.”

We should still be reading Virgil. His life, times and writings are fascinating. Boccaccio’s the Decameron as well.

“…a guideline for interpreting a text: the author’s intention, the expectations of the genre and the internal logic of the work.”

I go with Borges. I know. Who reads Borges anymore? But every reader who reads a text has a chance to change the text, and the book’s degree of “greatness” doesn’t matter.

“Which of these ways of reading is permissible, and which is out of bounds?”

All ways are permissible because reading is freedom.

“…literary interpretation resembles ethical reasoning.”

Ethical reasoning is relative to the culture and the time period.

“Everyone has strong intuitions that certain things are morally wrong…”

I doubt this. I mean, I do feel that certain things are wrong, but I have no strong sense of morality, nor do my instincts (whatever that means) causes to be think certain readings are false or absurd, though I would never use the words “false” and “absurd” together in this sentence.

“No one knows this better than writers themselves.”

No one know this. Period.

“Yet wise writers decline to engage in debates over the right way to read their own words.”

Why would I debate my own work? Once it leaves my hands it is no longer “my” work.

I found a copy of my book, coffee-stained, dog-eared, lying on the floor, a real mess, but that was fine, because that meant my nephew had actually been reading it.