Thoughts on Close Reading

(This post has been detached after posting from the one above)

Thoughts on Close Reading

The impression I get of close reading:
Analyse the text in detail to find some complexity, ambiguity or flaw which is meaningless and insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and try to use the larger context of the passage to resolve said detail, usually by twisting the text so it can mean (almost) anything you want it to.

In Other Words:
Basically set my mind free from the bounds of reality, and forget about what I think is a reasonable interpretation, as long as the text can support it and it sounds good

It all sounds like a very mechanical, stupid and useless exercise to me (and on non-fiction, too, which makes it even worse!). My bone, I think, is the same as with literature: they assume that (almost) every word and punctuation mark was placed there on purpose and so contains a depth and wealth of meaning, and try to find that meaning. People who are into close reading probably are the ones who likewise construct their works as one would carve a masterpiece, littering them with a wealth of hidden references and meanings. But do real writers really write like this?

Close reading really is like seeing a pin stuck in a green board (the furry board on which you can pin up stuff), and asking why the pin is there instead of another spot on the green board. And if it's elsewhere you'll ask why the pin is there instead of some other spot. But what if the pin’s placement is purely random and arbitrary?

For example, there's no Chorus Prologue to Acts 3-5 of Romeo and Juliet. The literature student will enquire as to why this is so, when Acts 1 and 2 had prologues, and come up with all sorts of funny reasons to explain why. I, on the other hand, apply the principle of parsimony - Shakespeare forgot to put it in, or was guilty of sloppy writing. He wrote for the illiterate and unwashed masses’ enjoyment, and to pay the bills, not for people centuries in the future to slowly decompose and analyse his words and see meaning where none probably exists.

Real texts are not like ‘The Matrix’, with references, homages, in-jokes and meaning jam-packed into each sentence so that idiots will be able to spend the next few millennia dissecting them in orgasmic glee. At least I hope they’re not, and that writers spend more time developing and clarifying their messages than setting up semantic treasure hunts, rubbing their hands in glee as literary peons scramble to uncover the gems scattered throughout the text.

In any case, if close reading were really so efficacious, useful and good, all writers would use it to solve problems with their texts (contradictions, ambiguities, unexplicated themes or such), and then other people would be unable to close read it. The fact that close reading can still be done shows that close reading doesn't work either in that it does not solve problems with the text, or that problems found with it are not genuine ones.

(Someone who did literature at the A levels: i think close reading is worse than lit:P
lit not so bad
i got scared off by close reading coz i think its really reading too much into it)

(Someone else: close readings are basically a test of how well u can say sth out of nth)

In moderation, close reading is actually okay. We should never take what people say at face value. But as the focus of an essay, or even a module? After all, if you dig deeply enough, you’ll be sure to find something. The value of what you find, however, is a different matter.