Tips for tackling dense reading assignments

January 16, 2006 12:28 PM

Metatextualityfilter: When it comes to reading philosophy, critical theory, and other forms of argumentative writing, what sort of active-reading methods or practices have you found successful?

The goals I have in mind are (1) comprehending the overall structure of the author's argument and the role each paragraph serves in that argument, (2) wrapping my head around the way-abstract ideas at the core of the text, and (3) identifying and deciphering idiosyncratic use of words or phrases. While these are all goals that any decent argumentative piece strives to make transparent, I often find them to be a huge challenge in most theory-laden texts. Additionally, meta bonus points awarded to whoever can also offer succinct advice on (4) making sense of textual self-reflexivity, without usurping or imploding the entire thread.

If this question comes off too broad, let me clarify that all I am essentially looking for are some helpful tips anyone may have for performing a rigorous reading of a dense text. Multiple passes? Alternate pacing? Note taking? Different methods for shorter versus longer texts? Help conceptualizing the abstract, seeing the whole text, recognizing unique word usage, etc. You know, those sorts of things.

posted by mikelly to writing & language (17 comments total)

Outline the text. Cross out filler so you don't read over it next time. Find the big ideas, reword them at first. Then go take a walk and think about what you read.
posted by devilsbrigade at 12:38 PM on January 16, 2006

I am no pro at this, but what works for me is not being tired, reading in seclusion, and writing a summary of every page that I have to read (including words I don't understand). Then I re-write the summaries, and do an overall summary by section or chapter.

Note that is is very time consuming, and should be used only when you really need to understand the text.
posted by Quartermass at 12:40 PM on January 16, 2006

I also highly reccomend the walk suggestion.
posted by Quartermass at 12:41 PM on January 16, 2006

As conventional as it is, highlighting important passages as I read through it was always really useful for me. It forced me to pay attention as I read, and then gave me an abridged version of the article, when rereading. In a lot of the longest articles on critical theory, there's basically one simple idea - presented in the introduction, - and then a whole lot of examples. But everything's so obfuscated that it seems like they're constructing a multistage argument the whole way through.
posted by Marquis at 12:41 PM on January 16, 2006

I also write summaries to foster my understanding of a text as I read; it really helps a lot, and I can usually use my summaries as at least a starting point for papers I have to write later on. I should note that I am no so dedicated that I write a summary for each page as Quartermass does, but rather just each section/chapter. And take your time; don't feel bad if you have to read something a few times over before comprehension sinks in.
posted by youarenothere at 12:45 PM on January 16, 2006

(I also keep Wikipedia close by for quick summaries of concepts that I come across and may not yet be familiar with...can be very helpful.)
posted by youarenothere at 12:46 PM on January 16, 2006

I have always found the seminar format helpful - ie, find some people who also wish to understand the same text and create a meeting routine where someone has to present (not comment, present) the day's text section. After the presentation everybody discusses the text both to clarify the presentation and deepen the interpretation. Obviously, for this to work you must have a committed group, people who will be present and read the text before the discussion sections. This is easier to achieve in academic environments.
posted by nkyad at 12:46 PM on January 16, 2006

I find it helpful to read Cliff's Notes first. Then, when reading the actual text, I have frame to hang the ideas on. This seems more helpful with poor authors--those who don't introduce the thought before spending the next 30 pages disecting, extrapolating and applying. This, of course, tends to bias the reading to the specific interpretation of the Cliff's Notes. But hey, beggars can't be choosers.

Regarding reflexivity, there's not much to be done other than re-read the work or find a discussion group. Few texts are cross-referenced.
posted by kc0dxh at 12:50 PM on January 16, 2006

I try to do two readings; I read it once over lightly, try to figure out the main points of the text, and then bring that understanding with me for the second time I read it. And as well, putting the ideas into my own words at every page or half-page--not necessarily writing my own words down, but being aware of it inside my head.
posted by Jeanne at 12:58 PM on January 16, 2006

Read it multiple times.

Figure out what the main points are, but don't just highlight them- rewrite them in your own words so that they make sense to YOU.

Be patient and determined.

If you just CAN'T understand something, formulate a question about it- something more than putting a question mark in the margin. Formulating the question might be all you need to figure it out.
posted by elisabeth r at 1:00 PM on January 16, 2006

Walk up and down in your living-room, book and/or notes in hand, and talk aloud about it. It helps to hammer things home, really.
posted by paperpete at 1:07 PM on January 16, 2006

If I didn't understand a passage, I would write it down word for word. This painstaking procedure worked to slow down my reading and give me time to think about what it was that I read as well as force my concentration. I would then follow that up with my own thoughts / summary of the passage. This took a lot of time (I had the kind of job in school that allowed me to study while earning money); it also took up a lot of paper. YMMV.

Read the preface(s), introduction(s), conclusion first as well as a review of the bibliography to get a sense of where the author positioned him or herself / or who he or she drew on (when warranted).

In some cases, a good secondary source can be a real help as well. Seek out only the best of these.

Sometimes it helps to draw a picture / diagram of different arguments, concepts or even thinkers in relation to each other.

Also, I am a big fan of the seminar format as well as structured study groups. Take advantage of these when they are available. And, if they are not then start your own!
posted by safetyfork at 1:48 PM on January 16, 2006

Dip. Don't feel you have to read the whole article or book. Find the central idea(s). The rest is usually defence against actual or anticipated attack from critics.
posted by Ugandan Discussions at 2:32 PM on January 16, 2006

I will skim over in the first reading, focusing most on catching the main ideas. Summary ideas can be found in the introduction, conclusion, first/last paragraphs of chapters/sections, and first sentences of paragraphs. This is often as far as I go, unless I want or need more depth.

In my second reading, I'll write notes in the margins. Mostly, my notes define concepts/words, restate what the author is saying, and ask questions. Instead of highlighting a ton of specific passages (this can get very unwieldy, sloppy, and useless for really dense texts), I'll generally mark off important blocks or bits with stars or extended vertical lines, all in the margin. I will then do minimal highlighting of key points. This combination makes sure the important stuff doesn't get lost in a yellow mess.
posted by moira at 5:15 PM on January 16, 2006

Oh, and drawing pictures and diagrams, as suggested above, works beautifully if you are a visual/kinesthetic learner. I use this to study for tests, and it cuts down on study time dramatically. It also tends to stick around in my head a lot longer.
posted by moira at 5:23 PM on January 16, 2006

I have to second what UG wrote, insofar as they meant that you don't have to understand everything. However, I would add that the dictum, 'Know thyself,' can also a big role to play in such an approach; if you can formulate your own position, however rudimentary, on one of the central idea(s) being dealt with by the author, you can home in on what is convincing about their point(s) much more easily.

For me, this is why some professors and others well experienced with such reading can cut up 'new' texts in ways that leave the rest of us in amazement. These very open readers nonetheless have basic positions that serve as harbors for new departures. That is, the basic answers or intutitions they carry into a text do not make them blind, but allow them to start comparing what they think with what the author is putting across. From there they begin to evaluate both the author's statements and their own standpoint.

Again, I do not think one's 'position' going into the text has to be very articulate. A few words with someone in the know can be enough to get you on your way, like when someone would point out the phrase you have to listen for when appreciating the different movements of a symphony. Hence, the advice that you do not have to do this all on your own also seems quite helpful.
posted by rudster at 7:01 PM on January 16, 2006

it helps to see what other people say about the text. much as one hates the idea of going in with preconceptions, alot of these thick texts make more sense if you know the core point coming out of it.
posted by BigBrownBear at 3:05 PM on January 17, 2006