Talk:Close reading

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Literature Mid‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

Is that really fair about Derrida? Though technically accurate, I fear the portrayal is less than honest.

J. Hillis Miller is a great supporter of Derrida's, so I don't see a need to doubt the fairness of his description -- in any event, he probably meant it as praise. By the way, please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~). -- Rbellin|Talk 04:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A close reading of the article

Re DEFINITION. In literary criticism, close reading describes the careful, sustained interpretation of a brief passage of text. An excellent definition that will no doubt inspire German Literaturprofessoren. We can look forward to a new chapter of Höhere Deutsche Textkritik called "Sustained Interpretation", which will be defined in Wikipedia as follows: In literary criticism, Sustained Interpretation describes the close reading of a brief passage of text. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 11:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re DERRIDA. To take an even more extreme example, Jacques Derrida's essay Ulysses Gramophone, which J. Hillis Miller describes as a "hyperbolic, extravagant… explosion" of the technique of close reading, devotes more than eighty pages to an interpretation of the word "yes" in James Joyce's great modernist novel Ulysses. Yes, if we take the eminent J. Hillis Miller as a source, that is the extreme knowledge we get. We might of course take Derrida himself as a source, in which case we'd come to slightly different results. His essay is an extravagant explosion of the technique of loose reading and even looser writing. Derrida devotes the essay to discussing Derrida, the adventures of Derrida (Derrida bought a postcard in Tokyo, Derrida nearly had an accident when leaving the airport in Paris etc etc), and above all the opinions of Derrida on everything in the world, e.g. translation: What remains untranslatable is at bottom the only thing to translate, the only thing translatable. What must be translated of that which is translatable can only be the untranslatable, and so on. And on. Yes. This has nothing to do with close reading. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Derrida isn't reading Joyce at all; he's aping him. The essay is a parody of Molly's monologue. An involuntary parody. Oui, oui.
So how do we account for the differences between J.Hillis Miller and J.Derrida? Ah we must be talking about two different essays. Derrida's essay, which I have in front of me, is only 50 pages long. So the close reading mentioned in the article will probably take place in the extra 30 pages that Miller and the editors have found somewhere. Yes. --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that Talk pages are for discussion directly related to improving the article, not for airing personal opinions of its topic. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and much of what you've written constitutes original research. -- Rbellin|Talk 15:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re AIRING. I find your ruminations somewhat difficult to follow, Rbellin. Why bring up Derrida in the article, if you don't want his personal opinions aired? And what exactly makes you feel that I questioned Derrida's originality in my commentary? --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your discomprehension is genuine, please read the policies that I linked. I have no desire to get into a long off-topic derail about Derrida here; as should be clear, the problem with your comments is not that they discuss his opinions and originality, but that they represent your own original research and irrelevant personal opinion. Please use Talk pages to improve the article, not to create endless irrelevant discussion of your personal views. -- Rbellin|Talk 14:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distant Reading

I have a suggestion for improvement of the article, but this is about fixing a link rather than the content. In the article, the definition of close reading is mentioned in contrast to that of distance reading, but the term is only bolded and is not linked to an article about distance reading. Perhaps it had been at one time, and maybe the link got broken somehow. Whatever the reason, I think that a new link between the two articles would help readers understand the differences between these styles of analysis. This is especially important because students in college courses often reference these pages when trying to understand terminology in their literature courses. Thank you for your consideration.--Beachmirage (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addiiton, I noticed that someone provided a definition of "distance reading" in a quotation but had not put a citation for this. A citation would improve the reliability of this article, and I would suggest that perhaps a small paraphrased definition would be helpful in conjunction to this quotation so that the reader can understand the nuances between two types of analysis that are being compared.--Beachmirage (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beachmirage, there is no link because there appears to be no article. The term used btw is 'distant' rather than 'distance'. A citation would probably come from the book of the same name (follow author link). It isn't normal to put citations in the intro (lede), because the intro normally summarises the article, but in this case it WOULD be appropriate.Pincrete (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BeachmirageRe: SUGGESTION. There is no Wikipedia page for distant reading (the term should correctly be "distant reading" and not "distance" which you use) , thus it was only bold and not linked out as you suggest. The page already contained a paraphrased definition of distant reading and included a link to a New York Times article on the subject which appeared in the External Links section instead of the References section -- this has been remedied. -- Snark35 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snark35 RE: SUGGESTION. Thank you for adding the citation for the article :) Also, you are correct that the term is "distant" reading... it was late at night when I wrote in the talk page and hadn't even noticed that I got the term wrong (how embarrassing, lol) Beachmirage (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merger with Slow Reading

I propose that Close reading be merged into Slow reading. Looking over the two articles I am not sure both merit separate entries and having skimmed the discussion on proposal for deletion of Slow Reading it looks like it was kept due to a complete rewrite and general cleanup bringing it up to acceptable standards but from a pure-content perspective, I question the topic separation. Currently the Close Reading article lacks proper citations and has a "rewrite request" banner. As the Slow reading article appears to be more clearly cited and with more appropriate language than the Close reading article, I believe the former should absorb the latter. Theoretick (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. To me it makes more sense to reverse the merge, i.e. make Close Reading the main subject. The Slow Reading entry may be more acceptable from an editing point of view but as content it depends for its existence on a text to be read closely. A student of Liberal Humanism or literary theory/criticism in general will at some time want to know what Wikipedia says about Close Reading but may never have heard of Slow Reading which is not an essential or measurable part of the process. My slow is slower than your slow, for sure. I concede that better examples of close reading would be useful, or even a link there to Peter Barry's Beginning Theory but at least it is a start. The topic of literary theory/criticism is so complex that original research is better than no entry at all. After all, if some undergraduate self-published a B-grade essay, would its citation be acceptable to Wikipedia editors? The reputable sources are out there if someone more knowledgeable than I had the time to search and cite them.Plumitife (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either two articles should be maintained or Close Reading should be merged into Slow Reading. The concept of Close Reading is tightly associated with literary theory and highly prescribed techniques. People will be looking specifically for that, and its article should be improved. Close Reading is one kind of Slow Reading, so if a a merger had to happen, it would make more sense to merge Close Reading into Slow Reading. Slow Reading is the broader concept, drawing not only from literary criticism, but also from religious studies and philosophy, and the Slow Movement. Johnmiedema (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close reading is the term in common usage in literature departments, and has the longer and broader critical lineage. See Jane Gallop, "The Historicization of Literary Studies and the Fate of Close Reading" for a discussion and argument. Plumitife has it right: the entry needs improvement and revision, but as it is it's better than nothing in recognizing that the topic needs an entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batoferudition (talk • contribs) 03:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]