Here’s something a little unusual. I’ve been meeting occasionally with two literary scholars - Professor Chris Morash, the Seamus Heaney Professor of Irish Writing at Trinity College Dublin, and Professor Ronan McDonald, the Gerry Higgins Chair of Irish Studies at the University of Melbourne (who has been on sabbatical at Trinity) to discuss reading, attention, types of reading (close, superficial, deep) and relating this to different aspects of brain 🧠 function. In essence, we’re trying to see if people working on very different things can talk meaningfully with each other.
I think the simple answer is we can - next, we’re going to try and write something together.
We recorded this in what is believed to be room that Oscar Wilde was born in, and is now in the home of the Oscar Wilde Centre at Trinity - and also Chris’s office…
We previously did a public event with an associated podcast which is available here.
We regret that we didn’t record our earlier conversations, but we did this one, for some fun. I fed it through Google’s NotebookLM, and it did an excellent job of summarising the discussion - see below.
Additionally, IA Richards, an eminent early to mid 20th C literary scholar came up in our discussions. Richards must have encountered (as they were both there) Frederic C Bartlett in Cambridge (one of the great pioneers of the early study of memory) in the 1920s and 1930s, who was very interested in overlapping topics to do with narrative memory and related themes.
I found this article on Richards which is fantastic: The English Professor Who Foresaw Modern Neuroscience Science and the humanities weren’t separate cultures to this critic - By Christopher Comer & Ashley Taggart
You can browse the archives here; if you’d like to get these regular in-depth emails in your inbox, you can subscribe here.
And here’s some of my books - go on - buy one!
Talking Heads: The New Science of How Conversation Shapes Our Worlds (latest review is in The Quad: The Oxford University Alumni Association magazine: ‘This is a very important book because it drills down into how we shape realities through conversation and dialogue, including identity, filtering down into bedrock convictions that can result in wars.’
In Praise of Walking: The new science of how we walk and why it’s good for us
Here's what NotebookLM came up with:
Summary:
The source is a transcription of an academic discussion centered around the concept of close reading and its cognitive and physiological underpinnings. The speakers consider I.A. Richards' work, particularly his focus on the practice of reading and the neurological basis of literary value. They explore the differences between close reading and more superficial reading experiences, relating it to depth of processing, memory, and long-term potentiation. The conversation broadens to include schema theory, flow states, and transportation, examining how readers engage with texts of varying difficulty and the neurological impacts of each on readers. Ultimately, the goal is to find common points between engagement, the literary, and that which is valued.
Briefing Document: Themes and Ideas from "220505_0207.MP3"
This briefing document summarizes the key themes and ideas discussed in the provided transcript, focusing on the resurgence of close reading, the legacy of I.A. Richards, the cognitive and physiological aspects of reading, the challenges of difficult texts, and the distinction between different types of reading experiences. The discussion touches on concepts from psychology, neuroscience, and literary criticism, highlighting the interconnectedness of these fields.
1. The Resurgence of Close Reading and Practical Criticism:
The conversation begins by noting a current trend in literary studies towards close reading and practical criticism, echoing I.A. Richards's approach. "At the moment in our discipline there is a turn towards thinking about close reading... and thinking about practical criticism." This resurgence is linked to ideas of literary value and the practice of reading itself. There's a recognition that Richards, a pioneer in literary studies, is being revisited as someone who grounded the discipline in the practice of close reading.
2. I.A. Richards: Psychology, Neurology, and Literary Value:
Richards is highlighted as being deeply connected to the psychology and neurology of his time. His "Principles of Criticism" contains references to these fields, including his famous image of the "reading brain." "Principles of criticism is full of references to... he has kind of the famous image of the reading brain... he goes between visual stimuli to emotions."
Richards' project, while pedagogically interesting, is seen as "designed to fail" because he attempted to find a scientific (neurological/psychological) basis for literary value. While a scientific basis for reading might be possible, linking it directly to value is problematic.
Richards thought of the whole human self being engaged in the act of reading; "the intellect the emotions and the body itself are in harmony." He also discussed the auditory elements of reading.
Richards' concept of "synesthesia" or "kinesthesia," borrowed from psychologist James Ward, relates to attention and the integration of the human self in reading.
Richards' ideas influenced figures like William Empson and Marshall McLuhan, although some, like F.R. Leavis, criticized his "techno-Benthamism."
A book called Speculative Instruments quotes Richards as saying mass media "replace such continuous shaping forces by an incessantly shifting play of light and confusing impacts. It is not surprising that they are a little help in seeing life steady and seeing it bold." He valued texts "read again and again...the enduring ideas."
3. Close Reading vs. Deep Processing:
The discussion explores the difference between close reading of complex texts (e.g., Simon) and quick reading of popular fiction (e.g., Michael Connelly).
"You would never do a close reading of a Michael Connelly... there's no there or there."
The key difference lies in the "depth of processing." Close reading involves deep processing, integration into existing knowledge structures, and a "reverberatory effect."
"When you're reading something carefully, you're processing it very deeply... They're not integrated into your own knowledge structures which changes in turn how you're going to read it when you come back to it."
A "fast food meal" analogy is used to illustrate the fleeting nature of shallow reading experiences, compared to the long-term engagement fostered by deep reading.
4. Schema Theory and its Relevance to Reading:
The conversation delves into schema theory, pioneered by Frederic Bartlett, and its connection to reading. Bartlett studied how people simplify and schematize memories, rendering the unfamiliar into the familiar.
"There was a simplification, an abstraction, and the word that he that he gave us that still in use a schematization of memory that uh and the the unfamiliar will be rendered as the familiar."
Richards also seems to anticipate the idea of schema, writing of "a schema of the mental events which make up the experience of looking at a picture or reading a poem."
Interestingly, the practice of close reading can be seen as "anti-schematization," focusing on the specific words and their operation rather than abstracting a generalized meaning.
"It's like, no, you you don't move away from the words. You stay with the words... It's not about abstracting something from the poem. It's about staying with the language."
Joyce also used schemata in his work.
Schema theory suggests that readers bring their existing knowledge and experiences to a text, shaping their interpretation. Repeated readings further modify and enrich these schemas.
5. The Goldilocks Zone of Reading and Flow States:
The concept of a "Goldilocks zone" of reading is introduced, suggesting that texts should be challenging enough to be engaging but not so difficult as to be boring or inaccessible.
"There are two kind of types of boredom. If you're reading something which is far too easy and if you're reading something which is far too difficult."
An analogy to working out at the gym is used: a challenging workout, while unpleasant, is ultimately beneficial. Similarly, the discomfort of difficult texts can be a signal to "double down" on effort.
Novels, and perhaps other types of texts as well, teach readers how to read them.
"Every novel tells you how to read it."
The discussion also touches on flow states and how getting into a flow state requires the right level of difficulty.
6. Transportation vs. Flow State:
The group distinguishes between being "transported" by a text and achieving a "flow state."
The conversation suggests the former might be more connected to passive absorption or even manipulation.
Flow involves "merging with the activity," a loss of self-consciousness, and is often linked to motoric activities and external feedback.
The discussion then veers into whether something is intrinsically "good" or "bad." A good text is seen to take you "out of yourself," but this can also be ethically neutral.
7. Reverberatory Activity and Thought Lingering:
"Reverberatory activity" is explicitly linked with "thought lingering," suggesting a measurable neurological phenomenon.
Thought lingering in the reader's mind can help differentiate the deep reading of philosophy/literature from entertainment reading.
This lingering effect is associated with cognitive and affective states that persist over long periods, rather than fleeting plot details.
Slowing down, concentrating, and repeated readings are considered essential for promoting thought lingering.
The discussion touches on possible future research involving brain scans to compare the neural activity during different types of reading. This could potentially involve fNIRS, a technique that allows for more comfortable and natural reading conditions.
8. The Role of Memory and Imagination in Reading:
Memory is seen as crucial for prospective thinking (imagining the future). Amnesic patients lack this capacity.
The more we remember from our reading experiences, the more complex our reading process becomes.
Expertise in reading is compared to expertise in chess. Experienced readers have knowledge "hooks" that allow them to quickly access and interpret information.
These patterns can also be connected to imagination.
Key Takeaways:
The study of reading, particularly close reading, is experiencing a resurgence within literary studies.
I.A. Richards's work offers valuable insights into the cognitive and physiological dimensions of reading.
Deep processing and engagement are crucial for achieving a meaningful and lasting reading experience.
The interplay between difficulty, familiarity, and skill is key to fostering readerly pleasure and flow states.
Thought lingering may be a key characteristic in identifying the aesthetic elements of reading and making meaningful distinctions between different texts.
Memory, expertise, and imagination play vital roles in the reading process.
Neuroscientific research offers promising avenues for exploring the complexities of reading and its impact on the brain.
(NotebookLM can be inaccurate; please double check its responses.)
Google NotebookLM also came up with:
How does I.A. Richards's work on close reading relate to contemporary neuroscience findings?
I.A. Richards's focus on close reading has connections to contemporary neuroscience in several ways.
Specifically:
Neurological Basis for Reading and Literary Value: Richards sought a neurological and psychological basis for reading and literary value, envisioning the "reading brain" with connections from visual stimuli to emotions. His work, though considered by some as a project designed to fail, explored a scientific model for understanding reading.
Depth of Processing: Close reading, as Richards envisioned, involves deep processing, contrasting with the fleeting engagement of quickly read content like tweets. Deep reading integrates information into existing knowledge structures, affecting subsequent readings.
Physiological Engagement: For Richards, reading is more than cognitive; it's physiological, involving intellect, emotions, and the body in harmony. He used the concept of synesthesia, derived from psychologist James Ward, to explain attention during reading as an integration and proper ordering of the human self.
Attention and Integration: Richards saw the act of reading as an integration and proper ordering of the whole human self, especially when the text has value and the reader is well-trained.
Schema Theory: Richards's notion of a "schema of the mental events" during reading aligns with Bartlett's schema theory, which deals with how memory is constructed through simplification and abstraction. Close reading, in contrast to schematization, avoids generalized meanings, staying focused on the operation of words.
Long-Term Potentiation: Richards emphasized the importance of rereading texts and the reverberatory effect of engaging with them, which relates to the idea of long-term potentiation. Repeated readings lead to better memory and integration.
Relevance to Contemporary Studies: Richards's work is gaining renewed interest, with some considering him as an English professor who foresaw modern neuroscience. There are studies exploring his ideas in relation to eye movements and attention.
Systematization: Richards aimed to bring rigor to literary studies by connecting it to psychology, addressing accusations of impressionism and subjectivity.
Entrainment: Contemporary neuroscience might explain the effects of deep reading by looking at entrainment of widespread brain systems.
Memory and Imagination: Memory is bound with imagination when reading, as the more one reads and remembers, the more complex the reading process becomes.
Expertise: Expert readers have a knowledge base that allows them to access information quickly and without self-referential thought, changing the brain
I.A. Richards's theories were informed by a neurological model that included the following aspects:
* **The "reading brain"**: Richards had an image of the "reading brain" with connections from visual stimuli to emotions, referencing what were then understood to be neurological processes. He saw the reading process as involving pseudo ganglia that mediated between visual stimuli and emotions.
* **Physiological Integration**: Richards explicitly stated that reading engagement wasn't just cognitive but also physiological. He believed that intellect, emotions, and the body were in harmony during the reading process.
* **Synesthesia and Kinaesthesia**: Richards drew on the concept of synesthesia (or kinesis) from psychologist James Ward. Ward's psychology, particularly his entry in the *Encyclopedia Britannica*, dealt with attention. Richards saw reading as an integration and proper ordering of the whole human self.
* **Schema of Mental Events**: Richards used the phrase "a schema of the mental events" to describe the experience of looking at a picture or reading a poem. This aligns with later work done by Bartlett around schema theory and memory.
While Richards sought a scientific basis for literary value and reading, his project was "designed to fail" in that regard. Nevertheless, his model considered categories that might still be relevant when re-examined.
Literary and entertainment reading experiences differ in several key aspects, especially in terms of depth of processing, engagement, and lasting impact. Literary reading, particularly close reading, often involves a deeper level of engagement and can lead to what is called "thought lingering", contrasting with the more fleeting pleasure derived from entertainment reading.
Key differences between literary and entertainment reading experiences:
* **Depth of Processing**: **Literary reading requires slow, careful attention and a depth of processing that integrates the text into the reader's knowledge structures**. Entertainment reading, such as that of a "page-turner" like Michael Connelly, is often fast-paced and doesn't encourage deep integration or long-term retention.
* **Engagement**: Literary reading, especially of texts with literary value, involves paying attention and creating a "reverberatory effect". This engagement is not just cognitive but also physiological, involving the intellect, emotions, and the body in harmony. Entertainment reading may provide enjoyment, but typically doesn't demand the same level of holistic engagement.
* **Lasting Impact**: Literary reading promotes "deep pondering" and the integration of texts into one's understanding, leading to a more lasting impact. **Rereading literary texts reinforces this effect, creating long-term potentiation**. Entertainment reading, on the other hand, often results in a more fleeting pleasure without the same level of lasting integration.
* **Thought Lingering**: Literary reading is characterized by "thought lingering," where the experience and ideas from the text continue to resonate. This is associated with activity in brain areas concerned with mentation and self-referential thought. Entertainment reading may leave less of a lasting impression, with any lingering thoughts often related to plot inconsistencies rather than deeper themes.
* **Training and Familiarity**: Literary reading often requires training and familiarity with the conventions of literary texts. Over time, readers develop a schema or framework that allows them to engage more effectively with complex narratives. Entertainment reading is typically more accessible and doesn't demand the same level of prior knowledge or training.
* **Aesthetic Experience**: **Literary reading can lead to an aesthetic experience characterized by a dissolution of the boundary between self and other**, a state where the reader becomes deeply immersed in the narrative. This contrasts with entertainment reading which may not produce the same level of immersion or transcendence.
* **Entrainment of Brain Systems**: Slow, repeated literary reading may entrain multiple brain systems, creating space for imagination and deeper understanding. Entertainment reading, with its focus on plot and pacing, may not engage these systems to the same extent.
* **Evaluative Component**: Literary reading involves an evaluative component, where readers are attuned to the nuances of the text and derive pleasure from observing and understanding its complexities. This contrasts with entertainment reading where the primary goal is often simply to follow the plot.
* **Memory and Imagination**: The more one reads and remembers, the more complex the reading process becomes, drawing on memory and imagination to engage with the text and anticipate its direction.
* **Rewarding Effort**: Engaging with more difficult texts can be rewarding as readers learn to navigate the novel's language and rhythm, creating a sense of positive strain and mastery.
Share this post