The argument (simplified),
amongst many, is that the ability to become a close reader can in turn make us
better listeners, enabling us (the student) to become better learners in our
environments. By accomplishing this, we are enabled to challenge ideas and
beliefs that either reaffirm or conflict with our ideas of what should be, and
ultimately can help us to become more ethical human beings. On page 17 in “The
Ethics of Reading” author Jane Gallop summaries this argument with the
following, “Reading, by which I now mean close reading, can school for all our
close encounters. And then maybe, just maybe, we could learn not only to read
better but to fight and love more fairly.” While this is a statement I neither disagree
nor agree with, I did find some of the assumptions and conclusions of the
author’s statements troubling and contradictory.
On the surface what I find
troubling about the statement is you need to consider the perspective of the
writer as well as the lack of scholarly resources in the chapter. Basic college
English teaches you one of the first things to consider are the context in which
something is written. I wonder if the arguments would be similar if written
from the perspective of a musician or even a different type of teacher. Gallop
asserts on page 11, “Thus the most valuable thing you could take from your
education is the ability to learn. Close reading is a technique to maximize
learning, one with wide application.” While I’m not disagreeing that close
learning is a wide application, I don’t know that I give it the same merit as
an English professor. I actually think this is some ways devalues the other
ways that people learn- visually, auditory, etc. And that in it of itself is unethical in my
opinion, and in a lot of ways turns some students into “other”, the very thing
she talks about close reading not doing.
Additionally, I find arguments
like this to be incredibly subjective, which is fine, except that contradicts
some of the other statements about being a better, more open minded
reader. The problem with assertive,
selfish statements is the lack of available resources to support such an
argument. My central problem with the
article is the contradiction. It was repeated throughout the article that most
readers are “big picture” kind of readers, while close reading allows you to
become a “small details” kind of reader. It also states how we often project
our own ideas, thoughts, prejudices and stereotypes into a reading because we
look for what it familiar (pgs. 9, 10, 11).
On page 11, Gallop argues that paying attention
to the details can help us to avoid projection. I would propose that the same way
general reading can reaffirms those ideas and stereotypes; close reading has
the same potential. When learning how to close read you’re trained to look for
things that are odd, or different. Is it possible that because you are
continually looking for something else or a deeper meaning between the lines
that you’re creating something that isn’t there? I don’t know for certain but
it makes me think about film critiques. Sometimes movies are meant to purely
entertain, and I don’t always believe have a deeper meaning. This can be said
about reading as well. The only way to know without a doubt is to hear from the
author themselves the context in which something was written.
While I did have issues with the article as a whole, there are some interesting arguments she makes that I did find myself agreeing with, but figured I shouldn't comment on it, because Gallop would just tell me I was "projecting" what I wanted to be there....
