I wrote this title in reference to Karen Rosenberg’s Reading Games, the reading assignment for today. In it, she describes solutions for reading the horrid scholarly articles. (N.B. If scholarly articles are your thing, congratulations. You’re a better person than I) At the end were conveniently placed discussion questions. Let’s dive in.
Pick one reading strategy above that you may have used in reading a text previously. Discuss the ways in which this strategy worked for you and/or didn’t work for you. Would you recommend friends use this strategy? How might you amend it, and when might you use it again?
I love the idea of making reading a social event. My thoughts are clarified through talking them out with other people. Plus, it’s cool to see how differently others deciphered the same reading. It usually works well for me, right up until the conversation turns from the symbolism in the text to the latest buzz throughout the hallway. And there, my friends, is the downfall. There’s no way to fix it, either. The teenage brain is wired to figure out who has the cutest semi date or nicest car. You can’t get in the way of it, it just happens. Back to the strategy: I’d use it next time I don’t quite comprehend a reading. It’s sort of like killing two birds with one stone.
The author writes in several places about reading academic texts as entering a conversation. What does this mean to you? How can you have a conversation with a text?
I think Rosenberg is trying to say that one should pick apart a reading to see what he or she does and doesn’t agree with and challenge that. It’s another way to get yourself involved and focused. Have a conversation by voicing your opinion as well (in your head most likely).
Until next time,
Rach
rachel moffitt 