Today’s post is a bit different.
On Substack, from one Dr. Jennifer Weber, I came across a post that said this:
“Most people read to confirm their existing beliefs. A few read to challenge it. Almost nobody reads to replace it.
Thinking without reading is guessing. Reading without thinking is memorizing.”
By the way, Dr. Weber’s profile states this: “Using behavior science to decode how we teach, think, build systems and address what schools and cultures are reinforcing.”
I replied to the post with this: “Interesting. And reading poetry…? (say like Dickinson?)
Someone replied to my statement: “How are ‘reading’ and ‘reading poetry’ different?”
I replied with the following:
“I don’t know Dr. Weber or the focus of her ‘existing beliefs’ on ‘how we teach, think, build systems,’ etc.
Her post showed up on my screen late last night – it was literally the last post I was going to read. LOL – I was so tired, I had said to myself, ‘okay, I’ll look at 10 more posts and then put the damn phone down and go to bed’ – and hers was the 10th.
‘Hmm,’ I thought, ‘this is interesting. I’ll think about it more tomorrow’ – and since prose and poetry are written in such different ways – and open to such different interpretations (even over time as one re-reads them) – I remember thinking last night, ‘I wonder what Dr. Weber’s thoughts might be on the reading of poetry?’ Does that differ from reading prose?
I stumbled upon a poem last week that I’m still trying to figure out – did it ‘confirm my existing beliefs’ – or rattle them?”
I’ll get to that poem tomorrow – or soon, depending upon where this rambling post takes me; however, to recap: prose is different from poetry; writing prose is different from writing poetry (and even writing lyrics – a form of poetry – is different from writing poetry). I’m no reading expert nor am I an expert on the brain – but I daresay the act of listening to prose is different from that of listening to poetry – so I surmise that something in the brain differs when reading prose v. poetry?
Hmm…I don’t know Dr. Weber’s expertise (reading? The brain? other?), but I’ll follow up to see if she has any thoughts on this.
In the meantime – so I don’t ramble off in untold directions – let me close with two passages from Millicent Todd Bingham’s “Ancestors’ Brocades, The Literary Debut of Emily Dickinson”:
The first is from Bingham’s discussion of critics’ reactions to the first posthumous publication of Dickinson’s poetry, which ranged from stinging criticism to rousing praise:
“If a test of great poetry is its capacity for evoking emotion, then Emily Dickinson can meet the test. For it is as true today as it was in 1891 that no one can read it with indifference. Even those who disparage it most (sic) do so with fervor.”
The second is a letter to Bingham’s mother and the editor of the first publications of Dickinson, Mabel Loomis Todd, from a resident who had attended one of her presentations on Dickinson in the summer of 1892:
“Mr. Stedman has lately been trying to define poetry. It is a hard task. Emily Dickinson wrote poetry which embalmed and interpreted the most insignificant things in nature. J. Whitcomb Riley writes
Without, beneath the rose bush stands
A dripping rooster on one leg.
I suppose this is also poetry (it rhymes [i.e. his verses do] better than your friend’s) but it merely helps us see the things without doing much to help us see into them.”
This last excerpt called to mind another poem by an entirely different poet which I’ll share later too (in addition to the one I mentioned earlier); plus (once again) I’ll get to Emily Dickinson’s definition of poetry, and I’ll continue my exploration into reading (prose v. poetry).
Stay tuned.
On Substack, from one Dr. Jennifer Weber, I came across a post that said this:
“Most people read to confirm their existing beliefs. A few read to challenge it. Almost nobody reads to replace it.
Thinking without reading is guessing. Reading without thinking is memorizing.”
By the way, Dr. Weber’s profile states this: “Using behavior science to decode how we teach, think, build systems and address what schools and cultures are reinforcing.”
I replied to the post with this: “Interesting. And reading poetry…? (say like Dickinson?)
Someone replied to my statement: “How are ‘reading’ and ‘reading poetry’ different?”
I replied with the following:
“I don’t know Dr. Weber or the focus of her ‘existing beliefs’ on ‘how we teach, think, build systems,’ etc.
Her post showed up on my screen late last night – it was literally the last post I was going to read. LOL – I was so tired, I had said to myself, ‘okay, I’ll look at 10 more posts and then put the damn phone down and go to bed’ – and hers was the 10th.
‘Hmm,’ I thought, ‘this is interesting. I’ll think about it more tomorrow’ – and since prose and poetry are written in such different ways – and open to such different interpretations (even over time as one re-reads them) – I remember thinking last night, ‘I wonder what Dr. Weber’s thoughts might be on the reading of poetry?’ Does that differ from reading prose?
I stumbled upon a poem last week that I’m still trying to figure out – did it ‘confirm my existing beliefs’ – or rattle them?”
I’ll get to that poem tomorrow – or soon, depending upon where this rambling post takes me; however, to recap: prose is different from poetry; writing prose is different from writing poetry (and even writing lyrics – a form of poetry – is different from writing poetry). I’m no reading expert nor am I an expert on the brain – but I daresay the act of listening to prose is different from that of listening to poetry – so I surmise that something in the brain differs when reading prose v. poetry?
Hmm…I don’t know Dr. Weber’s expertise (reading? The brain? other?), but I’ll follow up to see if she has any thoughts on this.
In the meantime – so I don’t ramble off in untold directions – let me close with two passages from Millicent Todd Bingham’s “Ancestors’ Brocades, The Literary Debut of Emily Dickinson”:
The first is from Bingham’s discussion of critics’ reactions to the first posthumous publication of Dickinson’s poetry, which ranged from stinging criticism to rousing praise:
“If a test of great poetry is its capacity for evoking emotion, then Emily Dickinson can meet the test. For it is as true today as it was in 1891 that no one can read it with indifference. Even those who disparage it most (sic) do so with fervor.”
The second is a letter to Bingham’s mother and the editor of the first publications of Dickinson, Mabel Loomis Todd, from a resident who had attended one of her presentations on Dickinson in the summer of 1892:
“Mr. Stedman has lately been trying to define poetry. It is a hard task. Emily Dickinson wrote poetry which embalmed and interpreted the most insignificant things in nature. J. Whitcomb Riley writes
Without, beneath the rose bush stands
A dripping rooster on one leg.
I suppose this is also poetry (it rhymes [i.e. his verses do] better than your friend’s) but it merely helps us see the things without doing much to help us see into them.”
This last excerpt called to mind another poem by an entirely different poet which I’ll share later too (in addition to the one I mentioned earlier); plus (once again) I’ll get to Emily Dickinson’s definition of poetry, and I’ll continue my exploration into reading (prose v. poetry).
Stay tuned.
RSS Feed
