Reading a Book Critically
Reading a book critically means engaging in a dialogue with the author. This means active rather than passive reading. Don't simply let your eyes move over the pages; think as you read, and ask questions. Make demands of the material. And read it like a writer, comparing notes regarding the rhetorical choices the author has made.
Don't just start on page one and read dutifully to the end. Instead, consider using the following system, which is drawn from two hand-outs for history courses at UNC-Chapel Hill (these were provided by Ed Neal, UNC-CH reading specialist). The context is history, but the system can be applied to any discipline.
Getting an overview
(1) Read the title of each chapter in the book (and the subtitle of each subsection in the chapter or article). This overview will serve as a map, telling you
what the author has written about (his title is Recreation in America, but his chapters deal only with organized sports since 1900)
how the author has structured the discussion, or, to put it another way, what intellectual strategy s/he has used (he proceeds topically, sport by sport, rather than chronologically; or she has used Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron as case studies for a theory of social mobility)
Now you know where and how you are being led, so you are less likely to be a passive follower, or worse, to become "lost."
(2) Read the preface and concluding chapter.
(3) Read the first and last paragraphs of each chapter or section. Or in a short piece look at the first sentences of each paragraph.
(4) Now read the entire book.
(5) Theoretically you should now know the main points--that is, the purpose or question, the primary topics, and the conclusion. But how can you be certain? Test yourself by putting the book aside and writing--in no more than a few sentences and in your own words--the purpose or question, the topics, and the conclusion.
Asking questions
Having mastered the challenge of understanding what the author is writing about, you can confront the challenge of understanding what s/he wants you to think about his or her subject and, ultimately, you can figure out what you want to think about it.
Active reading involves asking questions like the following:
(1) What is the author's opinion or interpretation?
Almost all historians--and all interesting historians--express opinions and make interpretations (opinion = a judgment that rests on evidence insufficient to produce certainty; to interpret = to set forth the meaning of, to explain, to explicate). Despite what some of them may claim, they are not simply "objective" compilers of facts. They try to put the facts into a pattern and to draw inferences from the facts, and they thereby go beyond the facts. Of course some historians do this more subtly than others. Consider the following three examples:
"President Kennedy was a hypocrite, splendidly versed in the art of making his ambition seem like statesmanship." In this case the author's opinion is hard to miss.
But consider a second example: "As all presidents must do in order to be effective, Kennedy kept one eye on moral principle and the other on political survival." Here the author is dressing up his opinion more discreetly via a general rule about presidential effectiveness. But it is still an opinion.
And finally: "During his thousand days, Kennedy compiled an impressive record of domestic legislation." This third version sounds less opinionated (more "objective") than the previous two, but essentially it presents the author's point of view as much as the other two examples do. All three are statements of what the author wants you to think about his subject.
As an active reader, you have a two-part job. First, recognize that the author is pushing an opinion toward you. "Impressive record," for example, is not a fact. It is an opinion derived from facts. "Kennedy proposed civil rights and anti-poverty legislation" is a fact that may (or may not) warrant the claim of "impressive."
Second, decide whether the opinion or interpretation is justified. That is, form your opinion about the author's opinion. How do you do this? By asking a second major question:
(2) How good is the evidence supporting his/her position?
There is nothing wrong in a historian having opinions, even very loud and personal opinions such as "hypocrite," so long as he or she has evidence (facts) to support them. The better the evidence, the more valid the opinion. But, you ask, how does one determine whether evidence is better or worse? That is a shrewd question and points straight into the labyrinth of "doing history."
There are no shortcuts, but you can begin to measure the value of evidence by asking three questions:
- what sorts of evidence does this opinion call for?
- how much evidence does it need in order to be convincing?
- what evidence contradicts it?
Suppose that our third historian, having claimed that Kennedy "compiled an impressive record of domestic legislation," goes on to say that "millions of Americans wept when he was killed." True, but irrelevant. The opinion floats in mid-air, unsupported by evidence, hence worthless.
Suppose, however, that our author lists 688 bills that Kennedy signed. True and relevant. But is 688 "impressive"? An active reader will also want the author to tell which of these bills dealt with significant rather than trivial matters, how many bills Kennedy failed to get through Congress, and--most of all--how Kennedy's legislative record compares with that of other Presidents.
At this point it may seem that you need to do almost as much work as the author has done. That is an exaggeration, but not entirely. The more active a reader you are, the more you will get out of a book or, to put it another way, the more you will get out of yourself. The more questions you develop as you read, the more creatively you are functioning.
(3) Other questions to ask:
Questions of intent
- Why do you think the author is writing the book? Are the conditions under which s/he wrote pertinent? What aspects of the historical context are most important in understanding the work?
- In what capacity or role does she speak? (Prophet? Reformer? Moralist? Pessimist? Joker? Chronicler?) How personally does s/he speak?
- Who is the audience or "readers-to be"? What does s/he hope readers will do when they finish this work? (Ponder the vanity of human wishes? Vote Republican? Imitate the author in some way?)
Questions of social conception
- What is the author's concept of society? What model of social and/or individual experience does s/he admire? What form of social organization does s/he advocate? What attitude does the book encourage toward authority? What activities or vocations in society does s/he esteem most? (For example, politics? manufacturing/commerce? art? leveraged buy-outs?)
- What is the author's conception of social class? What kind of economic structure does the work advocate or assume? Capitalist? Socialist? Plantation slavery? Subsistence farming? How are members of different classes characterized? What possibilities for class mobility does s/he depict? What is the relationship between social class and moral virtue? How just is the social system?
- What sort of social and physical environment does s/he assume or advocate? (city? suburb? farm? wilderness? nuclear family? commune? solitary existence?) Does s/he prefer uniformity or diversity?
- What is the author's conception of race and ethnicity? How are racial and ethnic attitudes depicted? How defining are they? Is the vision of the work pluralist or does it call for racial and ethnic separatism? Does it view racial and ethnic issues from the point of view of a minority or from the dominant racial and ethnic group?
- What is the author's conception of gender? What obligations, attributes, and capacities does s/he associate with different gender roles? How defining are they? How is sexuality depicted in the work?
- What is the author's conception of politics and of power in general? What is the role of history? What does s/he see as the moving forces in historical change?
Questions of craft
- In what tradition does the author write? Is s/he writing in a particular genre (epic? mock-heroic? personal letter? novel? memoir?) or in a mixture of genres?
- How is the book structured? (chronologically? topically? around a day? season? lifetime? in flashbacks?)
- How does the author open the book? Close it? Why?
- What sorts of progressions does the author establish in the narrative? Are there significant gaps?
- What structure or devices for focus does s/he use?
- What devices for persuasion does the author employ? How does s/he support the book's main points? How does s/he appeal to the reader? (through logic? by arousing anger? pity? humor? satire?)
- Are the imagery and metaphors significant? Adequate? What are the pivotal terms or categories?
- What are the key sections of the book? Is there a word, phrase, or section by which you can summarize the content?
(4) The final major question of active reading: What is your own opinion or interpretation?
Here you are on your way to becoming a historian.