Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Summary VS Analysis


At a first glance, especially from one with a mindset like mine, there seems to be little difference between what is required in a summary of anything and an analysis of it. Thanks to a little patience, and a long presentation, I can say with certainty that this assignment will be more of a summary of what I have learned than an analysis of anything.

A summary is as simple as a restatement or rehash of what has already been said or done. It is so easy, even children, as young as 5 or 6, can do it! How often do parents, entering the room to find an all out brawl among the siblings, ask any child what happened and get a good enough explanation to pass judgment in the case? Even better, ask a child to tell you their favorite story or about their favorite movie. A summary answers the basic who, what, where, when, how.  It is as simple as this: The Lion King is about a lion cub named Simba who runs away from home after his uncle kills his dad and lays the guilt at his feet. Years later an encounter with a childhood friend reveals the deplorable state of his home under his uncle’s rule and compels him to return and reclaim his title and responsibility as king.

An analysis is much more difficult to accomplish, as it requires a questioning and understanding mind. It requires going beyond just looking at the details of what is there, but also why do you think it is there. Asking the why questions, one for which there is not often a clear, stated answer, forms the basis for an analytical argument. The easiest, and possibly some of the best, analyses are born out of questions that naturally arise when you are simply willing to take a closer look and the “weird stuff.” Put better, try to find the things that naturally stick out to you as being a little different than what you would expect; the “moments of cognitive dissonance” as the power point presentation called it. Now, don’t forget that there is a place for summary and facts in an analysis. On the Northern Virginia Community College’s web site, they give some advice for writing analyses of literature. Here you can see how they stress the importance of gathering the who’s, what’s where’s and when’s. After all, these facts will be the data to support your claims. Take those moments and the facts and develop your opinion of them and enjoy it! This will be one of the few times when your opinion is not only allowed, but the whole point! In The Lion King, why does the turning point come when Rafiki the monkey and a storm cloud, bearing the face of Simba’s long dead father shows up and give cryptic advice to the protagonist? I would argue that the story, though bearing an African feel with character names being Swahili words and African style music and lyrics, is quite reminisce of Judeo-Christian theology and story types, with the devil, dire consequences for following his advice, and saving coming in the form of a priest type character and an experience with an all powerful father figure.
Ok, so maybe I was wrong, there is a little more analysis than I thought...

Monday, August 29, 2011

Apparently, I'm a Bad Reader


In his essay “Good Readers and Good Writers,” Vladimir Nabokov suggests that a good writer is one who can experience the piece with as few hindrances as possible. Sighting examples ranging from personal experience indentifying with the story to the very act of having to read for understanding, to Nabokov, reading takes almost as much work to do right as writing does! Only when a reader can remove all of the distractions can one see the world the writer was trying to create, and then can appreciate and recognize and analyze the writer’s creative style. If one has an imagination, knowledge of language (or a book to do so), some decent memory, and the ever ambiguous, ever subjective “artistic sense,” then they can truly appreciate a good book.

Well, I must not be a very good reader then! At least, I must not have the artistic sense that he is looking for. To me, I read for pleasure or instruction, coincidently, the lowest two of his reader-types. I am not the analytical type. I rather enjoy relating with the main character; putting myself in their shoes, looking at how I would react and what I would do in a given situation (something which he says ruins the experience for a reader). I for one would rather live the story, in my own imagination, than just experience in the way Nabokov suggests. Of course, I’m just a poor reader, and an even worse writer… or, I’m just human, and aren’t we all so different anyway that, in the end, reading and writing and appreciating a good book is entirely personal? Who’s to say one way is better than the other? Different styles and different content appeal to different people. A good reader is one who does read and can understand it; after that, what makes us human, our individualism, takes over and who are we to say nay?