Trying to ascend plebeian status and get back into reading. I was reading Camus' The Rebel, at the introduction, and I came across one of those moments when I don't quite know what an author means specifically. Do you just skim through that, /lit/?
Here, I didn't know what he was quite referring to at: "There are crimes of passion and crimes of logic. The boundary between them is not clearly defined. But the Penal Code makes the convenient distinction of premeditation and perfect crime. Our criminals are no longer helpless children who could plead love as their excuse. On the contrary, they are adults and they have a perfect alibi: philosophy, which can be used for any purpose - even for transforming murderers into judges." But I understand the gist of it, people seeming to use philosophy and ideology to justify their actions, rather than their passions? Not until the next page do I get a bit of a clearer image on what he's talking about. How does /lit/ read when they're not quite sure what they're reading?
p-pls no bully
>>7831213
Hi,
I will not reply to you regarding The Rebel because I didn't read it, but about the "not understanding part".
I often spend a lot of time re-reading the same part before going to another, but it's out of pure obsessiveness (it's hard for me to accept the fact I'm not getting it, and I believe that's your point?). It's not really wise, because a first read is only a first read, and things will emerge later. So I re-read (entire book and the parts which interest me), re-read, re-read and so on. It also implies reading secondary sources, texts the author is referring to, authors referring to the text I'm reading, "history" or context around the text, etc. (so, a never-ending work, as long as the text interests you)
Sometimes, not understanding is just because of one's "dumbness" on the moment of reading, but I think the fact you couldn't "get it all" is necessary for a book to be good. A good book should not be understandable at first glance (or even second, third, etc.). Or rather, one should be able to squeeze something from each reading, without being able to say : "I understood it all". I don't know if this is the kind of answer you wanted?
Camus is a fucking quack, OP
he contradicts himself often
>>7831213
a child can use his passions as an excuse, and they are forgiven since they are children
but for an adult, this no longer excusable. but, ideology/philosophy gives the adult an adequate excuse, and can even make himself appear as the righteous rather than the judged.
that's what i get out of it.
Just read it more than once, or even come back to it later.
>>7831302
>>7831302
This makes a lot of sense. Do people read entire books witout having getting the feeling of understanding it all? Is it ok to read through a book, only to re-read it on the next reading somewhat more carefully?
>>7831340
In context, he seems to be referring to a historical trend in European law, perhaps that crimes nowadays are focused more on defending an ideology rather than something else?
>>7831379
>>7831302 here
Well, I never have a feeling of understanding all of a book when I first read it. So, indeed, I do what you say : (ideally) I read it first quite "lightly", then more carefully. And of course, as it is implied in what >>7831313 said (quite abruptly), you don't have to agree with everything you're reading. Keeping an openness doesn't mean not being critical, but rather refraining from emitting a definitive judgement, once for all. Kind of "giving the benefit of the doubt" to the author. (Plus, being critical is also a way of being "faithful" to an author when you like his or her work : when you begin to spot contradictions, you could actually try to see where does the text comes from and may go, how it is functioning, when does it stop do to so, how it is problematic in one's writing, what is hidden, etc.)
All in all, what I mean is : as long as you're reading a text that interests you, it's an infinite job of trying to "get it" (or in other words, one could say that once you got it, it's in fact because the text is dead : it doesn't interest you anymore)
>>7831213
If I can't figure it out through context, and it's bothering me enough, I just look it up online.
not /lit/ here, but whenever i have a reading, I'll do a few readings of it to really get it down. are you skimming OP? idk if its appropriate to skim a book like that, though
Anyone else have something to say about this? Just trying to collect opinions, thanks!
bumping for better reading skills
Bumperino for op
>>7833848
In Human, All Too Human, two successive aphorisms which may interest you :
621.
LOVE AS AN ARTIFICE.—Whoever really wishes to become acquainted with something new (whether it be a person, an event, or a book), does well to take up the matter with all possible love, and to avert his eye quickly from all that seems hostile, objectionable, and false therein,—in fact to forget such things; so that, for instance, he gives the author of a book the best start possible, and straightway, just as in a race, longs with beating heart that he may reach the goal. In this manner one penetrates to the heart of the new thing, to its moving point, and this is called becoming acquainted with it. This stage having been arrived at, the understanding afterwards makes its restrictions ; the over-estimation and the temporary suspension of the critical pendulum were only artifices to lure forth the soul of the matter.
622.
THINKING TOO WELL AND TOO ILL OF THE WORLD.—Whether we think too well or too ill of things, we always have the advantage of deriving therefrom a greater pleasure, for with a too good preconception we usually put more sweetness into things (experiences) than they actually contain. A too bad preconception causes a pleasant disappointment, the pleasantness that lay in the things themselves is increased by the pleasantness of the surprise. A gloomy temperament, however, will have the reverse experience in both cases.
I skim through details when reading fiction, personally. Can't say much for philosophic texts
