By William Waterway (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
At first glance, summary and analysis can seem quite similar; they both answer questions and describe a piece of work, but the similarities stop there. Summaries describe by answering the questions who, what, when and where, but not why. They are flat, lack depth, and relate the story in black and white. While an analysis also briefly answers who, what, when and where, it focuses on why. To be more specific; the why of the who, what, when, and where. Analyses are more personal; they get into the meaning behind the story, which can vary from person to person. A summary gives a general outline of a story (e.g., the characters, setting and plot), where as an analysis gets into the meaning behind the story and what gives it depth; covering things like symbols, motifs, and character development. If the ocean was a novel, a summary would only show the surface, while an analysis would show what lurked beneath the waves.
By Mikhail Rogov (Canon S-60) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-SA-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons
Here is a link to the summary and analysis of chapters 9-11 of To Kill A Mockingbird on SparkNotes.
What does Nabokov think makes a good
reader? Do you agree? What do you believe are the characteristics of a good
reader? Do you consider yourself a good reader?
In "Good Readers and Good Writers" Vladimir Nabokov
expresses his view of a good reader. He
feels that a good reader should pay attention to details and begin a book
without preconceived notions, maintaining an open mind at least for the
duration of the book. Narbokov believes possessing certain qualities, such as
memory, imagination, an artistic sense, and using a dictionary, are factors in
being a good reader. In Narbokov's opinion, to be a good reader means to be a
rereader. He contrasts reading a book with looking at a painting, explaining
that the process of reading gets in the way of the reader savoring the work in
an artistic sense; likewise, good readers must reread the piece to be able to grasp
the details and fully appreciate it.
While I
do agree with Nabokov on most of the aspects of what makes a good reader, I
think he focuses too much on the importance of rereading. He goes so far as to
say "one cannot read a book: one can only reread it. A good reader, a
major reader, an active and creative reader is a rereader." Although
I do reread a fair amount of books, I do so out of a desire to experience it
again because I so appreciated it before and wish that the world created
existed, and for the story to continue, not out of a need to better understand
the work. I do concede that for some people rereading is necessary to truly take
in a story, in which case, it should be applauded; however, some people have a
mind for reading and an eye for detail in which case I think rereading is not a
necessary part of being a good reader. I do agree that a good reader, should
keep an open mind, pay attention to details, and take the time to understand
the words (e.g., using a dictionary). I also think part of being a good and
active reader is to discuss what you read with others. I would consider myself
a good reader seeing that I always try to start a book with a clean slate, delight
in the details, have a good memory, and am willing to look up a word when I do
not fully get the meaning or context.
This is a BBC documentary on Vladimir Nabokov's Life and Works. It is a bit long but if you have the time (i.e., an hour) I would encourage you to watch it. I think when reading a piece of work, it is helpful in understanding where the author is coming from to have some background information on them. It was actually fairly interesting, and as a result when I read "Good Readers and Good Writers" I could hear it in his voice which was pretty cool. Enjoy. :)