Reading Ourselves Stupid

In class we briefly discussed the idea of reading "paralyzing the mind". Schopenhauer argues that when you read, your own mind basically takes a nap and lets the author do the thinking for you. I was skeptical of this argument at first, but I came to agree with him.

It happens all the time in classrooms. You hear a lecture by a teacher who projects their views onto you. And even though you may question a teacher's opinion, rarely will you question the facts that they tell you. You could look at a piece from your art history textbook, pick out all the important visual aspects, study the time period it came out of and formulate your own interpretations about the piece. But that would take a lot of effort and a lot of time. Instead, it is much easier to let your teacher and art historians do the thinking for you, so you listen to lectures and read about the piece instead of trying to interpret it yourself.

I think this is what Schopenhauer is getting at with his argument. He says that if someone spends all of their time reading, not thinking or making, that they will "read themselves stupid", meaning they will no longer be able to form their own thoughts or opinions. I can tell that this is true, at least with myself, over time. The more I read about art history for example, the harder I find it to interpret pieces I see in museums. I often catch myself (and others) glancing at the piece and then going straight to reading the plaque on the wall, which gives us someone else's interpretation or the artist's statement. It's become easier to read about the piece than to rely on visual clues and our own thoughts about it.

I think Schopenhauer's argument is applicable to fiction reading too. The more we read, the more difficult it is for us to think up our own stories. If you've ever asked a little kid to tell you a story, you know that it comes very natural to them. They can go on forever, inventing new plot twists as they go along. But when little kids ask us to tell them a story, we find it more difficult. Adults' stories are more structured and have a plot very similar to that of a Disney movie. Why does that trend occur? I think it is because over time, as we read more stories and see more movies, our own imagination suffers because we become accustomed to letting others do the thinking for us. Whether fiction or non-fiction, I think Schopenhauer is definitely onto something when he says that people can "read themselves stupid."

"posers"

what is a poser anyway? most would say it's "pretending to be someone you're not". that's bollocks, i say. one of my ideas about things is that you can never really know someone. humans are very fluid individuals. based on this idea, in reference to "posers", how do we then that that's not how they really are? i have heard an idea expressed a number of times in a few different ways, and it is this: you emulate that which interests and inspires you. seeing as we're born basically a blank piece of paper, i would say this statement is definitely something i agree with. we all do it, whether it be with our choice of clothing, a way of speaking, or even a certain style of art. "but they're copying me!" i believe copying and emulating to be two completely different things, and i have yet to find someone who copies another out of spite. though, i have heard that "imitation is the highest form of flattery". so what're yew complaining about anyways?!

On Writing and Books

Although I find Schopenhauer's writing to be mostly the complaints of a cynical old man who despises anything new, I was surprised to find that his opinions on the literature of his time period are relevant to this time period, and I even agreed with a few of them.

Schopenhauer's main argument seems to be that literature only has worth if it is a ground-breakingly insightful piece of writing that teaches us all how to be better people or a better society and is written in the most flawless beautiful prose possible. I wholeheartedly disagree. There is nothing wrong with a story intended only to entertain, or to inspire the imagination of the readers. Many such stories contain important perspectives or philosophies as well. I would agree with him that books written by people only looking to make a profit (ie, James Patterson) are not worthy of much praise or attention, but reading them on occasion will not cause society to plummet into the depths of literary despair. It may not even cause anyone to loose brain cells.

Even reading writing that's simply awful can be useful. It helps aspiring writers to learn how not to write. Which brings me to another thing I disagree with Schopenhauer on. Writing is not a talent bestowed in people from birth. Anyone can learn writing techniques by reading work that skillfully incorporates them; they just have to figure out what to look for.

From the point of view of an aspiring writer, one thing I found particularly interesting was Schopenhauer's idea that too much reading is bad. On the surface I disagree completely. You don't just blindly accept the ideas presented in whatever you're reading, you're constantly forming your own ideas that either conflict or compare with the writer's. On the other hand, I sometimes find that I can't read nearly as much as I use to when I was little because as soon as I start reading, I'm inspired to write, either because the book is so good or because it's mediocre and I can think of a way to do it better. I need a balance between reading the work of others and creating my own.

what makes good art?

i believe good art comes from a certain sort of excitement all your own. art should be made for yourself and because you wanted to. good art does not come from instruction. it is the result of individual expression through processed-information-made-personal. good art is not "because i told you so". good art is not "here's a butt-load of money". good art is, however, sharing your mind with someone else.

and then there are technicalities...

elsewhere.

i find i have the best ideas when i really shouldn't be deviating from the subject at hand. a good example being i tend to draw my best doodles in other people's sketchbooks. also, thinking of good blog ideas in the middle of class. or even pondering possible comic plots and drawing designs whilst listening to a story being told by a friend. could it be the natural rebellion in human nature? could it be a subconscious fear of being presently involved? could it be that i'm simply fascinated with distractions? i wonder if others have this odd tendency. do share your theories if, and only if, you can relate.

minds and reading

Schopenhauer says that when the reader reads they are reading the thoughts of the person who wrote the book, and if we read too much we will forget how to think for ourselves, and that we should reserve reading for only good books. I think he is on the right track i have never picked up a book that i wasn't interested in because like Schopenhauer was discussing life is too short to waste time on a bad book, but what qualifies a "bad book" besides opinion, experience, and others opinion's on the book in question. for me most of the time if someone has told me not to waste my time on the book unless i really wanted to read that book I' m not going to read it. I do think the idea of reading the other persons thoughts in there books is interesting because it is a reflection on what the person was doing at the time and that can brought to another level of interpretation when the visual arts is brought in because the artist can create an image or images to match up with the thought process and actions of the author. Besides it is always good to have the visual with the literal, if it is a good interpretation of what Schopenhauer says is a good book.