![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Pitfalls of Becoming a Critical Reader
Jan. 3rd, 2012 08:06 pmHappy 2012! I decided to write this post after seeing a conversation about the same topic on the AntiShurtugal LJ community, in which some people discussed how they can no longer seem to read many books due to a shorter attention span and more critical eye.
I'm one of those people. I used to be able to sit down and read 500+ page behemoths, but not anymore. It may be due at least in part to the fact that very few 500+ page books these days actually contain quality writing--I now shudder when I see doorstoppers, because the chances are high that most of the book will be filler/description/people not actually doing things.
A few people over at the AntiShurtugal comm have pointed out that you shouldn't be trying to find the flaws of a book when you read it. I don't think that I intentionally rip a book to shreds on a technical/literary level when I first read it. The fact is, because I'm now a much more critical reader than I was before--and because by now I've read many more books than I have before--I've become much, much more difficult to entertain. I don't put a book down because I see wasted potential, terrible plot structure, or underdeveloped characters, per se. I put a book down when it bores me. And oftentimes, a book with terrible plot, 2D characters, and bad writing will bore me.
I don't believe that readers have to stick with a book for a certain time until it gets good. I don't believe that literary genius translates into a difficult to read book (quite the opposite, in fact). My standards for literature have already lowered considerably since my younger days: a book doesn't have to do something radically new, but whatever it's doing, it has to do it well. A book doesn't have to have a profound message, but at the very least it shouldn't have questionable subtext or implications. And finally, a book doesn't have to be "good," but at the absolute minimum, it has to be entertaining. Otherwise, if it's a novel that I can neither learn from nor be entertained by, why should I bother to read it?
I'm one of those people. I used to be able to sit down and read 500+ page behemoths, but not anymore. It may be due at least in part to the fact that very few 500+ page books these days actually contain quality writing--I now shudder when I see doorstoppers, because the chances are high that most of the book will be filler/description/people not actually doing things.
A few people over at the AntiShurtugal comm have pointed out that you shouldn't be trying to find the flaws of a book when you read it. I don't think that I intentionally rip a book to shreds on a technical/literary level when I first read it. The fact is, because I'm now a much more critical reader than I was before--and because by now I've read many more books than I have before--I've become much, much more difficult to entertain. I don't put a book down because I see wasted potential, terrible plot structure, or underdeveloped characters, per se. I put a book down when it bores me. And oftentimes, a book with terrible plot, 2D characters, and bad writing will bore me.
I don't believe that readers have to stick with a book for a certain time until it gets good. I don't believe that literary genius translates into a difficult to read book (quite the opposite, in fact). My standards for literature have already lowered considerably since my younger days: a book doesn't have to do something radically new, but whatever it's doing, it has to do it well. A book doesn't have to have a profound message, but at the very least it shouldn't have questionable subtext or implications. And finally, a book doesn't have to be "good," but at the absolute minimum, it has to be entertaining. Otherwise, if it's a novel that I can neither learn from nor be entertained by, why should I bother to read it?
