I hope to get back to finishing something I started…
I have been sharing parts of Adler and Van Doren’s How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading (Simon and Schuster, 1972).
How to Read a Book: Index (for all related posts).
This post will continue to share points of what Adler and Van Doren call Analytical Reading. Analytical Reading is the third level of reading which the authors discuss in helping their readers understand the task of reading a book which involves more than simply decoding words but also understanding what is being read. Use of quotation marks or use of block quotes (more than two full lines of a quote) mean I quote the authors directly and then I summarize their explanations of the rules. Brackets and bolds are mine. Italics are original unless otherwise indicated.
This post will focus on the section in which Adler and Van Doren discuss how to criticize a book (author) fairly. Remember, reading a book is a conversation between the reader and the author. It is not a direct two way conversation necessarily but the author is sharing his or her thoughts on a matter and you are listening to what is being said. Offering fair criticism is part of the conversation. When reading a book, points of agreement and disagreement will arise. How should you proceed in dealing with the disagreements? Any good book deserves an active reading and as part of the process of “reading” a book it is entirely appropriate to offer up some criticisms of the book just read.
No book is so good that it has no weaknesses or is free of criticism – part of the reading process is to note the positive and negative aspects of the book – a good book will have some of both, but hopefully more good than bad. This is called reading a book critically. Not critically in the sense of intentionally looking for the bad but critical in the sense of noting the book’s strengths and weakness and not being afraid to point these out.
So how does one criticize a book fairly?
There are three general maxims when criticizing a book. The first is to suspend judgment.
Rule 9:
You must be able to say, with reasonable certainty, “I understand,” before you can say any one of the following things: “I agree,” or “I disagree,” or “I suspend judgment.”
When reading a book an important point made by an author in which you will agree, disagree, or you will have to think about it. What is important is that before you can agree or disagree one way or the other, you need to understand the argument of the author, this is called “listening.”
It reminds me of one of Covey’s rules “Seek first to understand, then be understood.” This is important because it shows a couple things about the reader: teachability and maturity. It is important to remain teachable and also mature in conversing with others on points of difference or disagreement. It is easy to see that agreeing or disagreeing are parts of criticism but so is the act of suspending judgment. Suspending judgment according to the authors is taking the position that something has not been shown. It is saying you are not convinced or persuaded yet one way or the other but that you are open (143).
If you are not sure you understand then don’t proceed with a criticism until you do. Hold off. To say, “I don’t understand” is, of course a criticism but only after you have tried your hardest does it reflect on the book rather than on yourself (144). Also, recognize too, that not understanding an argument may not be the author’s fault but that you need more time to think it through or to digest it.
Additionally, criticizing a book fairly will be hard to do if you haven’t read it all the way through.
The second general maxim when criticizing a book is avoid contentiousness. This leads to Rule 10:
When you disagree, do so reasonably, and not disputatiously or contentiously.
In other words: be fair-minded (145). There is no point in winning an argument for winning’s sake, especially if you suspect you might be wrong. This is important because it is easy to fall into the trap of needing to always be right instead of possibly learning something new, even the truth. This need not be. The problem is, however, “most people think that winning the argument is what matters not learning the truth” (146). Denying truth for the sake of winning an argument speaks more about oneself than it does about the argument itself. I think it’s called pride. When it comes to reading a book what is most important is having a teachable attitude and a willingness to learn. Adler and Van Doren state:
We are not saying that a reader should not ultimately disagree and try to show where the author is wrong. We are saying only that he [or she] should be as prepared to agree as to disagree (147).
One should be willing to admit a point when he or she sees it. Again, it is not about winning but about learning truth in humilty and maturity.
The third maxim is closely related to the second. Where as the second maxim warned against disagreeing disputatiously, this one warns against disagreeing hopelessly.
Thus rule 11 is as follows:
Respect the difference between knowledge and mere personal opinion, by giving reasons for any critical judgment you make.
Again, disagreements will happen and that is fine (it’s part of human nature) – just be nice about it. As we like to say in the church “be willing to agree to disagree.” The problem again arises from one’s possible insistance that one be right or win an argument. Perhaps this is where Rick Warren’s famous line comes in “It’s not about you.” When reading a book or disagreeing with an author or another person, we need to remember “it’s not about you.” When the focus in on us then we tend to lose reasonableness and become contentiousness in our disagreements. Don’t just disagree for no reason – give a reason for your disagreement(s). Be reasonable and fair-minded.
The point about knowing the difference between knowledge and personal opinion has to with being able to discern the nature of an argument and the points presented. Too often personal opinons (unsupported judgements) about an argument presented (in this case, a book) are simply denials of truth and facts. Other times is is simply a situation of inequalities of knowledge or prejudice. The point is in the need to find a way to resolve the disagreement. Be sure you know the argument and its basis before disagreeing – seek first to understand, then be understood. If you don’t yet understand – suspend judgment. If after seeking to understand an argument still isn’t clear – then be willing to offer up a disagreement in a respectable manner in an attitude of teachability and maturity. There is very little of this occuring in the current discussions of the present election season – myself included.
To conclude: To be fair-minded one must learn to suspend judgements, avoid contentiousness, and seek to resolve differences based on actual knowledge and not mere opinons.
Seems simple enough – now to actually do it.
συνεσταύρωμαι: living the crucified life 