Summary vs Analysis

After reading Nabokov's "Good Readers and Good Writers", I have decided I agree with some of his statements, and think others are absolute bolonga. It is true that small details must not go unnoticed before a book can be generalized about. It is minute nuances that set a book apart from the rest, and it is a reader who picks up on these tidbits who is a good reader. I also agree that a piece of writing should be read multiple times to be able to pick up on more than bold themes in a book, although it is rather unrealistic for a college student to be expected to read a required reading more than once. In that case, we may all be thrown into the category of "bad readers" by Nabokov due to our circumstances. There were two glaring mistakes that I saw in Nabokov's logic, the first being that a "good reader" must not become emotionally attached to characters in the story they are reading. I believe this emotional bond creates a sort of motivation for the reader to keep reading, because they want to know what will happen to the characters and in turn, themselves, and I think authors are keen to the importance of this connection and would hate to see it diminished. The second qualm I have with Nabokov's writing is that there is absolutely and most definitely a concrete difference between fiction and nonfiction. A person telling their story is much different than a person telling a story. I consider myself a very good reader, and I would never write a true story off as a work of imagination, as that would change the meaning and necessity of the work entirely.

Intro video, sorry it's a little glitchy...