Summary Vs. Analysis

Throughout my education; early as fourth grade I have been frequently asked to summarize something.  This was a task of completely reading the content to be summarized, then in my own words, briefly highlighting the important events, places, or ideas that were described vividly and in depth by the author.  Not until recently in my education have I been asked to analyze something.  Focus on something specific in the literature and break it down to form a better understanding of how it is a key player in the overall integrity, and produce a valid argument.  I view it as a mechanical processes, much like the troubleshooting in involved in a dirt bike for example.  You have a task at hand that you are trying to isolate and direct your full attention to addressing that specific task.  Once you have your task, you begin disassembling the surrounding parts in a methodical manner to expose the piece you need to address.  Now you have  briefly gone through every piece, and worked with the intended one extensively; begin placing each piece back together like a puzzle until they are all in the right position or sequence that makes them work together.  As a result of this process, you now have a understanding of the process as a whole, but also a more in depth isolated understanding of a deeper issue.  Once you have gone through these trials, you can formulate a course of action.  In a dirt bike's case; what you have now is evidence of what the underlying problem is.  This evidence is the backbone for your argument.  Many times after pulling apart a bike I would take my problem backed with the evidence obtained to an online forum to have a discussion based argument of what the issue really is.  The evidence I have equipped myself with gave me a better understanding of the process, but still leaves an argument. It becomes an argument when two apposing sides have taken in my information and have concurring ideas.  Often, this is the best way to find a solution to a problem. The argument engages people in my issue and a plethora of information is exchanged between the opposition.  The final product began as my dissection of a problem, and ended as an argument that highlighted the significance of the part in question and how it is affecting the rest of the bike negatively or positively as a whole.  I hope this is a sensible comparison between the troubleshooting of a dirt bike and the analysis of a literary piece  that will be easy for you to relate to.  The specific piece, once fully analyzed, dirt bike or literature, should yield you a detailed understanding of the roll it plays, why its located in the body where it is, and present you with an argument.   

Here is a cool, and very straight forward website that explains what it takes to analyze literature.

 Image source: http://s389.photobucket.com/albums/oo336/mx4god/?action=view&current=2003YamahaYZ250FRebuild001.jpg
 

Good Readers and Good Writers

After reading the Nabokov Good Readers attachment I think it’s safe to say the lack of appreciation I have for what really lies in a good piece of literature is quite evident.  He mentions having an open mind to ideas and concepts found in a book, and how starting closed minded will only drive you away from the intended ideas.  The idea of painting your own image of what your reading versus collecting the image the author is trying to paint for you came to mind when I began reading.  I feel very guilty of this, the detail lacking image I often come up with is sure to make any masterpiece  a black and white doodle.  When I look back to every book I have disliked, I always started the book without actually physically touching it.  I closed my mind to any new ideas or approaches that might only be visible to someone with an open artistic approach.  Not wanting to read a book will always result in a dissatisfying and surely partial understanding, missing a vivid detail of a painting so to speak.  I certainly believe the bit about having to reread to really open up to what an author has in store.  I have started many books without finishing them, after reading this I see it fit to accredit it to my inability to collect everything I need to put a painting together in my mind. 

Image Source: http://www.world-literature.tk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/book-small.jpg

I think it’s ironic that I was able to pull the idea out of his article and see how it relates to me, yet most readings I start never to understand nor relate.  I never put any thought into what might make a good reader until now.  What I believe makes a good reader is no longer valid.  Before this article I would say being a strong reader is most important; even though I didn’t and probably still don’t understand fully what a strong reader is.  It’s quite a complex title to say someone is or isn’t a strong reader, many details from Nabokov’s writing indicate to me being a strong reader is a process that may or may or may not be achieved by reading the text once.  Rereading is a necessary processes for even the most artistic and open minded readers, another processes I have yet to submit to. 

I also find this link interesting.  I think it shares some ideas with Nabokov, while also differing in what really makes a "strong reader".  

About Me Video

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/12406861/dummiez-movie