According to Nabokov, “the good reader is one who has imagination, memory, a dictionary, and some artistic sense” (615). He also believes a good reader is one who does not identify with any of the characters so heavily that he loses focus.
I agree with parts of Nabokov’s definition, although I seldom have a dictionary on me as I read. However, I do believe that a good reader should have imagination, memory and artistic sense. I would add that a good reader is one who understands human nature. A reader who understands human nature does not need emotions to be implicitly stated and can pick up subtext, allowing the writer to write more naturally and stylistically.
I disagree with Nabokov’s assessment that a good reader doesn’t identify with the characters in a book. He refers to this as “the worst thing a reader can do” and calls it a “lowly variety” of imagination (616). In addition to making Nabokov seem a little bit like a literary chauvinist, I think this misses the entire point of reading fiction. Nabokov seems to be confused about the distinction between a reader and a critic. I feel that Nabokov, both in his definition of good writers and his definition of good readers, fails to recognize that the themes and characters that make the deepest impact are those that resonate with us. A good writer can spin themes that will allow us to empathize with a serial killer or a madman or the devil, but only if he first establishes a common ground that allows you to relate to the character. Because we disagree on this point, I fear that Nabokov might not consider me a good reader. I consider myself a good reader precisely because I have this ability to become engrossed in a character.
Work cited
Nabokov,Vladimir. “Good Readers and Good Writers.” The Norton Reader An Anthology of Nonfiction. Ed.Linda H. Peterson, John C. Brereton. Shorter 11th ed. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company. 613-617. Print.
Image from http://www.humst.com/bid-tv/home-textiles/fairytale-storyteller-with-pointy-ears/4462588.html
Image from http://www.humst.com/bid-tv/home-textiles/fairytale-storyteller-with-pointy-ears/4462588.html
I am choosing to comment on your blog because I like how in depth your response was on the Nabokov. First off, I also disagree with Nabokov's ideas of not becoming relatable to the character in a book. I think the best characters become very influential and popular in pop culture today, such as Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins from Lord of the Rings. We can understand their struggle and celebrate with them when they conquer evil. Therefore, I think your analysis was great and I personally overlooked that part of the document.
ReplyDeleteHey Lorin, I just thought I would drop my two cents about Nabokovs' point on relating with the author. I understand the need we as readers have to identify with a character, just as we do with the people we meet in life. Sometimes we see a character doing things we ourselves have done, or may only have dreamed of. Now, the reason I agree with Nabokov is that often times I have seen and found to be true with myself, when I begin to relate with a character I also become blind to the truths which may be coming forth with other characters in the story. That one character that becomes familiar becomes our main focus, and we can lose sight of the authors ultimate meaning. When we are truly aloof of the story we can clearly see from all available points of view, and every perspective.
ReplyDeleteHello Lorin
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your blog post. I would have to agree with you, that Nabokov does confuse the distinction between a reader and a critic. I also believe that Nabokov was wrong in his opinion that a good reader should not identify with the characters. In my opinion the more imagination you have, the better you are at immersing and identifying yourself to or with the characters. A good book, will give you that I just can’t put this book down till I’ve finish it feeling. A good reader should be able see, feel and relate in their mind to at least one character in book
D Johnson