Weighing the difference between summary and analysis

 Hello class.  This is a link to my online presentation about summary vs analysis.  (Let me know if the link doesn't work please)

http://prezi.com/cbp4imh_bons/present/?auth_key=jkz76lq&follow=ddccgvrx15cz&kw=present-cbp4imh_bons&rc=ref-2952970

 WEIGHING THE DIFFERENCE

The difference between summary and analysis is as big a difference as sketching and a final draft in drawing to me.  Summaries, like sketches, only give the mere essence of what’s being written and can be uninteresting or cold.  Analysis really GETS INTO the heart of things, and makes writing more interesting.

 Simply just summarizing a paper leaves nothing on the line.  No thoughts of the writer’s own are involved. You aren’t putting yourself out there in your writing, and it’s really just playing it safe.  Often times summaries follow the same order of the plot structure when recounting events, and does not stray far from the facts of who did what, when.  The whole idea of the story gets across well with summary, but it’s not very useful except for things like movie reviews or giving information to someone who has never read the story to decide if they want to proceed.  In those such situations summary is great and even better than analysis, because people don’t want “spoilers” or in depth thoughts about the story. 

Analysis is much more than simple summarization.  It involves actually thinking about why this or that happened, and interpreting own ideas from what the original author wrote.  Not just simply rewriting what the original author wrote.  Analysis strays far from playing it safe, where one actually has to put their beliefs or ideas on the line.  Analysis is really comprised of claims that can’t be looked up in the story to make sure they are undisputable.  The aim is actually to involve claims that are definitely disputable.  This opens up a whole new world of thoughts from what the original story includes, rather than just making safe summarized claims.  It shows that someone actually put thought into aspects of a story such as “what if this had happened instead,” or “what did he really mean by this?”  Summary doesn’t call for any further thought than what ACTUALLY literally happened in a story.  

- MK

WHO IS A GOOD READER

Attribution: Deutsche Fotothek

To be a good reader, according to Vladimir Nabokov, one must have a good artistic sense, but not be too imaginative at the risk of becoming too subjective.  He says identifying too completely with a story, and making it too personal is the worst thing a reader can do.  Good readers balance their scientific and artistic temperaments to avoid being too subjective or objective.  He essentially boils it down to good readers must have a memory, dictionary, imagination, and an artistic sense.  I definitely agree with Nabokov on these points, because without these attributes there really isn’t much to be gained from reading anyway.  I believe a good reader needs to possess the ability to visualize, and sort of “get into” what they are reading.  Just to the point where reading stops being a mechanical “chore,” and becomes more like looking at pictures almost.  If a reader can’t even slightly “get into” what they are reading, then they won’t fully gain what is to be had.  I consider myself to be a good reader.  I am a very slow reader, and sometimes even “re-reader,” which I believe is one of the things that allows me to soak things up very well.  

INTRODUCTION

Hey classmates! Here is my self introduction video for English One 0 Two.