• ✍️ WORDS ✍️

    Welcome Guest!

  • Words Moderators: Shambles

Difference Between Sparknoting and Reading a Book?

sexyanon2

sexyanon2

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 3, 2004
Messages
1,312
I just sparknoted 1984 and Atlas Shrugged and am actually quite pleased with my decision to do so. However, these are more.. what's the word, less novel like. A novel, in this case, would be like 100 Years in Solitude.

Does anyone else Sparknote books here? I don't want an escape. I want to gain information ASAP and get the essence of the book.
 
There's a lot of nuance and subtlety in literature that can only be picked up by reading the text. However, if you just want the general idea of what a piece of literature is about, coupled with a usually sophomoric interpretation of the major characters and motifs, than sparknotes has its uses.
 
Atlas Shrugged is long as fuck, but 1984 isn't. Why not just read it?
 
atlas shrugged ends (almost) with a 60+ page speech... slow slow but good
as 1984 is one of my favorite books i cannot understand why one should not read it ;) and for god's sake never see that movie
 
Benefit - Must all Sparknotes and abridged versions of books be immature and incomplete? Are there any sparknotes out there that aren't?

Finder - I was just pointed to a summary of 1984 online and couldn't stop reading it. Ended up finishing it before I thought of reading the book itself.

wanderlust - Are there any fat speeches worth reading in Atlas Shrugged? I feel I missed a chunk of the book, as the Sparknotes were much.. shorter.
 
its like missing your favorite TV show and reading the little sentence blurb the tv guide gives. you will know only the bare bones of what happened :\

try reading sparknotes for a book you have read and understand. note how much is left out...

Benefit - Must all Sparknotes and abridged versions of books be immature and incomplete? Are there any sparknotes out there that aren't?

abridged versions of books will always be incomplete. its what makes them abridged...

the insight is immature because you can only talk about major literary devices and obvious character points when you are only basing it on the skeleton of the book. its impossible to go into the nuances of each characters development when you haven't read it. you can't discuss the author's use of a motif thru out a story when you are only getting major plot points. see what i am getting at?
 
I see what you're getting at.

And I read some of Galt's speech at the end, and Sparknotes didn't cover the nice details of it.

It's a shame. I want everything from the book, but that means I must read the entire book. Or maybe there's a site that points out key scenes that should be read by the reader. Perhaps all the key scenes will be the whole book. :(
 
sparknoting Atlas Shrugged was probably a good move lol. i'm reading the fountainhead right now since i want a better perspective of the randists' demented view of the world. you can't completely dismiss an ideology until you fully understand it, and i'd just feel guilty if i only read the sparknotes this time. rand's art is her ability to rationalize an utterly selfish and heartless philosophy in her novels and still elicit empathy from the reader using clever plot devices. these nuances are difficult to pick out through reading a simple summary.
 
1100 or so pages is a lot to delve into just to understand the randist perspective. i know because i did it for that reason too... i had someone pick up atlas shrugged for me and when i saw the actual copy i was stunned. shame on me for thinking it would be a quick 300-500 or so page trip. but i did it and i am quite pleased.
galt's last speech is long and droning in some parts. it was, while insightful and so on, one of the lagging parts of the book... or perhaps i had just had too much at that point. the poiint was made earlier a few times in the book not only my radio annoucment speeches but by actions as well. the last speech clarified, explained and carried it on. the entire book is worth reading if you have the time and are a pretty quick reader. the beggining had me not wanting to stop reading when i had work to go do.
 
thursday - you mind if I PM you about her philosophy of objectivism? I find it very interesting and logical, and I want to hear some arguments against it. Perhaps we'll post it in T&A?
 
I usually read about the fifty pages or so of a book to get the authors style and similiar things that can't be picked up in sparknotes, and then I read the sparknotes for the stuff I need to memorize. Worked like a charm in my english lit class. I also got used to the types of question my prof. would ask, so I combined all this stuff with a bit of studying and came out with an A. I'm also really, really good with understanding and picking apart most literature which also helped alot.

Edit: Oh yea, I use many different book sites besides just sparknotes. Also, I would never sparknotes a book I planned on reading for pleasure.
 
I assume from this a `sparknote` is an abridged summary of an author`s work, and I wholeheartedly disagree with this concept. To fully understand an author`s perspective, one must read their work in it`S entirety, and in Rand`s case endure her biased drivel. There can be no justification for choosing a sparknote, or abridged version of a work, either read it, or don`t, IMO. Like I said before, I feel a deep sense of regret and failure if I quit reading a book midway, I mean, it`s not hard to skim through boring paragraphs while taking in the gist of the script- something which I definately did when reading the long, convoluted self-obsessed monologues of various shallow characters in Atlas Shrugged. Shimmer.Fade, different to you, I never read purely for entertainment or enjoyment, my choice of reading material is always to develop my vocabulary, knowledge or understainding on any given topic. I find it ridiculous that someone might read a cheap paperback best-seller with a predictable plot, and cliched writing style, simply because it kills time. No offense intended, but if you`re going to read something, you may as well benefit in some way from it, rather than escape reality into a world of mediocrity like one does when watching most TV.
 
compare this: the sun setting

with this:

1999_Denver_Sunset_2.jpg


qed?

alasdair
 
SardonicNihilist said:
I find it ridiculous that someone might read a cheap paperback best-seller with a predictable plot, and cliched writing style, simply because it kills time. No offense intended, but if you`re going to read something, you may as well benefit in some way from it, rather than escape reality into a world of mediocrity like one does when watching most TV.
Click to expand...

My my, aren't we an elitist? Aside from the fact that you just assume that "cheap paperback best-sellers" are inferior (in fact, mediocre) in comparison to your more "intellectual" pursuits, who are you to say that people don't benefit from them? Why do you assume that all benefits have to be in the way of academic or scholarly knowledge? Enjoyment, emotion, passion...all are perfectly valid reasons, in my opinion, for a person to do many many things...including reading.

And perhaps you should be praising the people who reading, even if you feel the books are devoid of any intellect, as they could be watching TV. In a society where people seem to be reading less and less (especially with age), viewpoints like yours only encourage people to *not* read.
 
Sparknoting is good, but I would use it in junction with reading the book. There are a lot of things you can pick up from reading the book that you can't from Sparknoting. But if it gets you through, by all means do it.
 
Frankly, I've never had time for those book notes - basically because I figure I am going to get more/different stuff out of the original text than the note writer did. Read the original or forget about it..

Alternatively - someone I know is into recorded books - quite a large range available for visually impaired people; you can probably getthem from your local library. She listens to them when driving (when you can't read!)
 
why is it wrong to enjoy reading again? i initially started reading to improve my vocabulary and my writing, but i've since grown to get a lot of enjoyment out of it. if you don't enjoy reading, you're just wasting your time with it. you should read what interests you and what captivates your mind, not what you consider to be the most "intellectual" so that you can name drop and sound smart in front of others. i think those who don't pursue reading for pretentious reasons will likely get the most out of it. those who enjoy intellectual pursuits for its own sake will gain much more out of it than the those who only read dense works to improve their image.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top