I had originally planned to try and do a couple more articles to cover the second half of the book but it was getting pretty dense and I didn't know if it would appeal to everyone. I think I covered the important stuff and if readers are interested they can dig further.
“In the same way, a great book is an architectural achievement. Each chapter may function like the room of a house, but within each chapter, there may be further subdivisions of ideas.”
I really resonated with the points made in chapter 7! I struggle horrendously to remember the content of nonfiction books, so a family friend recommended writing down a summary of each chapter before moving onto the next. I did that last year with a political history book, and it helped a lot actually. I don’t remember every major point, but I can remember the main ideas of each section. Thanks for sharing these tips, Matthew!
Macy - I am right there with you. I used to read so many books and have no recollection of what I had read. Taking notes has made a huge difference for me. Glad this resonated with you.
Matthew, you’ve offered a clearly organized, systematic review of Adler. He’d be pleased!
In part one you quote him saying, “Your success in reading is determined by the extent to which you receive everything the writer intended to communicate.” I certainly agree, but I think there is more, in theories and practices of textuality that developed over the last decades of Adler’s life with which he might not have been particularly sympathetic. There are kinds and levels of meaning in a text that the writer may not have consciously intended, yet close readers can excavate them to still richer experiences. You quote him here in part 3 saying, “If language were a perfect medium for thought…if words could not be used ambiguously…language would be a diaphanous medium. The reader would see straight through the writer’s words to the content of their mind.”
We can turn that around to say, “If language were a perfect medium for thought…if words could not [function] ambiguously…language would be a diaphanous medium.” Writers could see straight through to all the sources of meaning making that inform their words.
Jay, thanks for your kind comments and your detailed response. You and I are on the same page here. Adler's guidance has value, but some of it is dated, and indeed, textual analysis has come a long way in the intervening years. While I primarily stuck to providing a synopsis of Adler's guidance in these articles, it would be interesting to assess where current practices diverge from his methodology. In particular, as you mention, the ability for readers to discover meaning that the author may not have originally intended. Since language is often ambiguous, particularly in English, there are so many ways to say the same thing or the same word to have many meanings that unintended but relevant interpretations can be made from a deep evaluation of the text.
Thank you for this wonderful summary of great book. It’s good to think about how we read books and how to get the most out of them.
I had originally planned to try and do a couple more articles to cover the second half of the book but it was getting pretty dense and I didn't know if it would appeal to everyone. I think I covered the important stuff and if readers are interested they can dig further.
“In the same way, a great book is an architectural achievement. Each chapter may function like the room of a house, but within each chapter, there may be further subdivisions of ideas.”
I really resonated with the points made in chapter 7! I struggle horrendously to remember the content of nonfiction books, so a family friend recommended writing down a summary of each chapter before moving onto the next. I did that last year with a political history book, and it helped a lot actually. I don’t remember every major point, but I can remember the main ideas of each section. Thanks for sharing these tips, Matthew!
Macy - I am right there with you. I used to read so many books and have no recollection of what I had read. Taking notes has made a huge difference for me. Glad this resonated with you.
Matthew, you’ve offered a clearly organized, systematic review of Adler. He’d be pleased!
In part one you quote him saying, “Your success in reading is determined by the extent to which you receive everything the writer intended to communicate.” I certainly agree, but I think there is more, in theories and practices of textuality that developed over the last decades of Adler’s life with which he might not have been particularly sympathetic. There are kinds and levels of meaning in a text that the writer may not have consciously intended, yet close readers can excavate them to still richer experiences. You quote him here in part 3 saying, “If language were a perfect medium for thought…if words could not be used ambiguously…language would be a diaphanous medium. The reader would see straight through the writer’s words to the content of their mind.”
We can turn that around to say, “If language were a perfect medium for thought…if words could not [function] ambiguously…language would be a diaphanous medium.” Writers could see straight through to all the sources of meaning making that inform their words.
Jay, thanks for your kind comments and your detailed response. You and I are on the same page here. Adler's guidance has value, but some of it is dated, and indeed, textual analysis has come a long way in the intervening years. While I primarily stuck to providing a synopsis of Adler's guidance in these articles, it would be interesting to assess where current practices diverge from his methodology. In particular, as you mention, the ability for readers to discover meaning that the author may not have originally intended. Since language is often ambiguous, particularly in English, there are so many ways to say the same thing or the same word to have many meanings that unintended but relevant interpretations can be made from a deep evaluation of the text.