{"id":5585,"date":"2015-09-05T07:54:52","date_gmt":"2015-09-05T14:54:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/?p=5585"},"modified":"2015-09-05T08:37:29","modified_gmt":"2015-09-05T15:37:29","slug":"an-inspectional-read","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/an-inspectional-read\/","title":{"rendered":"An Inspectional Read"},"content":{"rendered":"

How to Read a Book<\/em> by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren was very foundational and somewhat elementary on the subject of reading and good reading skill. The content could be divided into two categories: basic understanding of reading (part one) and the practices of how to be a good reader (part 2). The remainder dealt with the application of two.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

As the author breaks down the basic understanding of reading (part one) he makes some great observations. He likens active reading to baseball, \u201cthe art of reading is the skill of catching every sort of communication as well as possible.\u201d[1]<\/a> He likens authors to pitchers.\u00a0\u00a0 I find his perspective spot on as well as accurate view of the subject. The ideology of writers being superior to the reader, but the reader\u2019s responsibility to overcome the inequality is a unique perspective as well. One in which I agree. The best summary statement on the subject is: \u201cReading, like unaided discovery, is learning from an absent teacher. We can only do successfully if we know how.\u201d[2]<\/a> Although I do not disagree with Adler on the statement, I do however think that for some or many this process of learning \u201chow\u201d is innate with no need for instruction or explanation.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The four levels of reading: elementary, inspectional, analytical, synoptical are relatively self-explanatory. The idea of \u201creading readiness\u201d in the elementary level is well defined. Although a bit remedial, the process of \u201cskimming\u201d was accurate in systematizing the subject. The best advice given was: \u201cIn tackling a difficult book for the first time, read it through without ever stopping to look up or ponder the things you do not understand right away.\u201d<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Active reading was an interesting concept. I found it to articulate the responsibility of the reader is to \u201cdemand\u201d something from the reading, in order to be \u201crepaid for the reader\u2019s effort given.\u201d[3]<\/a> I find this to be \u201cthe\u201d goal in reading. I do not tend to read for entertainment, but for learning. The idea of demanding from the book knowledge for my effort is the litmus test for me. When it comes to this particular book, I found it wanting. I felt it over explained a simple subject matter. I felt it could have been explained in a fourth of the allotted pages. It was correct in content, but unnecessary in length.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The four basic questions a reader asks of a book, is a good mental framework or exercise to process through any book in which the reader is attempting to learn. \u201cHow to make a book your own\u201d found on pages 48-51 is a practice in which I whole heartily agree and do. I agree that \u201cmarking\u201d makes the book yours.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The subject of \u201canalytical\u201d level of reading, I found to be exhausting. Although I did not disagree content or the author\u2019s perspective, I did find the depth to be unnecessary. It was a minutia of detail that I found over complicated. I also found the \u201cx-raying a book\u201d to be unnecessary work and effort. I am a veracious reader; by involving the work depicted my reading would drop by 40%. Most of the analysis is reflexive like breathing is to thinking. It is very automatic.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The only portion of analysis that I found useful was how to correctly criticize fairly. I agree that it is a copout to state that \u201cI do not understand\u201d or that a book is \u201cnot understandable\u201d unless you have earnestly tried. However it is the responsibility of the author to make the material understandable. As well there is etiquette of how to agree and disagree with an author. I found the guidelines given to be fair and needed, because it creates a baseline in which to judge and weigh a given book. I like the fact that Adler makes this a \u201ctwo way street.\u201d It is not either the author or readers sole responsibility. Rather it is a \u201cboth and\u201d situation. If a writer writes well on a desirable subject matter it is not his or her fault of a poor reader. However, if indeed the material has been earnestly read and is found wanting, that is the responsibility of the writer. It is a \u201cfree market\u201d view that I whole heartily endorse. With this in mind I do not feel this book to be poorly written but rather unnecessary.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In my opinion part 3 is just an application of parts 1 and 2. Again, I do not find it incorrect or poorly written, but just not useful. Therefore it is more like a dictionary, useful here and there as a point of reference. However, not something I am going to desire to digest from start to finish.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In conclusion, I found this reading to be correct but unneeded. Almost like an exercise to check off. I found very little use or value. I found myself tempted to do a lot of \u201cinspectional reading.\u201d The value for me was a few tweetable quotes and a finished assignment.<\/p>\n

<\/h1>\n

[1]<\/a> Doren, Mortimer J. Adler & Charles Van. How To Read A Book.<\/em> New York, NY: Touchstone, 1972. p.5.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> IBID, 18.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> IBID, 45.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

How to Read a Book by Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren was very foundational and somewhat elementary on the subject of reading and good reading skill. The content could be divided into two categories: basic understanding of reading (part one) and the practices of how to be a good reader (part 2). The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[660,405],"class_list":["post-5585","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-adler","tag-reading","cohort-lgp6"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5585","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5585"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5585\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5586,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5585\/revisions\/5586"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5585"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5585"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5585"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}