Image Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2010/aug/25/short-story-vladimir-nabokov
Nabakov suggests a “good reader” must have a multitude of
different qualities and abilities. Most are within the control of the reader
while a few are not. A reader does not have much control over their memory
capacity or artistic sense, but I would agree with Nabakov that both lend a hand in being a “good
reader.” According to Nabakov, being a
good reader starts before one has begun reading. He believes when one begins a
reading with presumptions or generalizations, they tend to fail in recognizing important
details. He recommends treating the literature as if it were a new world to
explore. Only after sufficient exploration has taken place should one begin to
make links. I would agree with this as well. I think it is important to have an
open mind and avoid preconceived notions so one may truly appreciate what the
author has illustrated. Nabakov states that a “good reader” should not expect
to learn accurate information about time and place. I disagree with this premise
because I believe it is relative to the author. In many cases, this is true;
however, some authors are very much capable of accurately describing a specific
historical context with little bias. I would agree with Nabakov that a “good
reader” would make use of a dictionary. A dictionary allows the reader to
further appreciate the details articulated by the author which may, otherwise, not
be understood. Nabakov thinks a “good reader” should reread literature to allow
the mind to fully interpret it as if it were direct stimuli. He postulates that
the processes involved with reading itself may hinder the gifts of the mind.
Again, while this may occur, the mind varies from individual to individual and,
in my opinion, is relative to the reader.
I think some readers are capable of full appreciation the first time
reading literature. It also depends on the literature itself. With regards to
imagination, Nabakov believes a “good reader” should be more objective than
subjective. He emphasizes impersonal approaches that allow “artistic delight.” He
warns that relating to context or indentifying with a character, may limit the
imagination to what has already been experienced. In my opinion, this it true,
but I would lean more towards a happy medium. I believe the author’s artistic
presentations are much more meaningful when they resonate with an individual’s
reality.
All in all, I agree with Nabakov’s description of a “good
writer.” If I had to add to his list, I would include the following qualities.
I believe that a “good reader” must have interest in what they are reading. It
seems that when interest is lacking, the imagination performs poorly and, in
some cases, completely shuts down. Another
important quality of a “good reader” is perception. If one has limited
perception, they cannot appreciate reading as much as, perhaps, a play or
movie. The last quality I would include in a “good reader” is patience.
Patience allows one to fully appreciate detail. This entails reading at slower
pace or rereading all or part of the literature. When lacking patience, one may
rush through reading or become distracted easier. This results in incomplete processing. I
consider myself to be a “good reader.” One limitation I face is a lack of time.
This impairs my patience and imagination. Another limitation I experience is a
tendency to make assumptions about literature. I struggle with not judging a
book by its cover. My strengths include artistic sense and imagination when
time permits patience. My artistic sense
allows me to experience vivid imagery and understand complex characters. I tend
to find an ideal balance between personal and impersonal imagination that put
my mind and the author’s mind on a the same wavelength. To learn a few more tips about being a “good reader”
click here for more opinions.
Work Cited
Nabokov, Vladimir. An Anthology of Nonfiction. 11th
Edition. Norton Reader, 613-17. Print.
