You're Not as Good a Reader as you Think

There are a few assumptions about being a good reader of fiction. The first is grade level reading. The assumption being that the more difficult a book you can read, the better you are. This is useful if you’re testing children for comprehension, but I am interested in making someone a great reader not adequate to pass forth grade.

The next assumption is that of speed. That by reading more quickly you are better at reading. This is, in some minor way true, but again it is unnecessary to be a fast reader to be a great reader just as a master artist need not make his work quickly for it to be great. Though it is impressive.

Next is the question of what you have read. This comes in two connected ideas. The first is that of breadth of reading. That having read many books makes you a better reader. This person will talk about having read fifty books this year, or having read every book on the top lists of all time. Connected to that is the depth of reading. This is the assumption that having read Crime and Punishment and Moby-Dick makes you a better reader that someone else. Reading important books and widely can, I believe, make you a better person, but I am not convinced it makes you a better reader.

Finally, is the most toxic of the ideas. That being able to find the flaws, plot holes and weaknesses in a book makes you a great reader. It works from the assumption that a book is a story told to you by an author, and it is the sole job of the author to create a world that the reader can step into without effort. This is not true, and any attempt to make that world in fiction would create an entirely unreadable book.

I suspect some of you now are thinking of books that have done just that. But what they did was a magic trick. They made you think the author had created an entire world that you stepped into, when in fact, you made most of the world yourself. Because if there is a secret to being a great reader, then that is it. That reading a book is not a passive act. A reader must collaborate with the writer to create the world.

Consider for now a moment a simple brief description from The Hound of the Baskervilles “A hound it was, an enormous coal-black hound, but not such a hound as mortal eyes have ever seen.” If you are like me you have a good idea what that hound looks like. But think back to all the assumptions made in the description. It assumes first that you know what a hound is and looks like. It also assumes you understand what coal-black is. So far these are simple, but then it moves on to say it was not such a hound as mortal eyes have ever seen. This bit is where the magic trick really happens. It doesn’t tell you much, but yet you fill it in. Perhaps you add glowing eyes or an aura of danger. Perhaps it becomes something from a half-remembered nightmare or a movie you watched as a child that scared you. Arthur created a hound, you created the rest.

Now that you understand that you can practice becoming a better reader. I suggest you start with something to train yourself that is generally considered good. H. P. Lovecraft is a master at this particular type of magic, and learning to appreciate the horror of not knowing is excellent practice. But it is also good practice because while Howard is a talented writer (we will for the sake of brevity leave his personality out of this), he wasn’t always that and some of his, well say less impressive work leads to the next step in being a good reader.

A great reader is one who can elevate that which he reads. Most people can read a masterpiece and find something of value in it. It is what makes it a masterpiece. And anyone who tries hard enough can find the flaw in those masterpieces this may be a skill, but it is not one that is worth learning. They are there and sometimes even fun to find. But a great reader can pick up something mediocre or even bad and still find a way to enjoy it.

It is perhaps easier to explain with movies. Anyone who has spent time on the internet has seen the questions, usually as jokes, of why they didn’t ride the eagles to Mt. Doom. Finding this funny isn’t a problem, but if you allow it to make watching the movie less enjoyable, then you are bad at watching movies. Not just because there are simple explanations, but because you’re being a bad collaborator. In improve terms you’re saying no instead of yes, and.

The counter of this is people who watch terrible movies and love them. Enjoying something like Battlefield Earth or The Room requires something of the person watching it. They need to understand what makes a wonderful movie to find the humor in that being done wrong. They are good collaborators because they fill in the flaws of the movie and elevate it above what it was meant to be. A great reader can do the same.

The question of how you do this is more tricky. But at its heart is the desire to enjoy a book rather than find flaws in it and practice at doing this. It doesn’t mean that a book can’t bore you or put you can’t put a book down that is bad. It means that if you choose to read a book; you focus on the good. You question your assumptions of its flaw and try to find answers rather than criticizing it. It means that you spend a few seconds thinking about what the author probably meant by that awkwardly written sentence before you assume it isn’t important. It means that you work with the author not against the author to enjoy yourself because at its heart reading fiction is meant to be enjoyable.

Note: None of this is true if you are a beta reader, editor, or even entirely when writing a review. This is advice for reading a book, not for any of those things. Though it is worth considering when listening to a review. Because taking advice from a bad reader on what to read will get you poor results.