Thinkers and Doers

[andrewducker]

Good piece of writing over here on doers and thinkers.

There are two people reading the same book. Person A is a student of language, well versed in grammar -- fully aware of the literary devices and components of a well structured sentence, paragraph, composition.

Person B, on the other hand, has only enough education in language to read and write. They are aware of grammar insofar as it is necessary to read with comprehension.

Both people read this book from cover to cover, neither necessarily comprehending the book better than the other.

Person A, however, believes that person B cannot truly appreciate the book for lack of ability to understand the inner workings of the literary composition.
Person B, on the other hand, believes that Person A is a fool for having spent so much time studying language when such "excess" knowledge is not necessary, by any practical means, and a book may be easily enough read without the years of studying reading.

Comments

[tisme.livejournal.com]

what about when you believe both points of view equally, and usually have both?

[odheirre.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...let me think about this before I reply. :-)

Seriously though, the part I'd question is this:
Both people read this book from cover to cover, neither necessarily comprehending the book better than the other.

Depending on what you mean by "comprehesion", is this possible? I mean, when we read a text, we aren't passive receptors of the text. We make connections, both literary and personal.

For example, I just finished American Gods, by Gaiman (great book, btw). I could say that someone not familiar with Norse mythology could comprehend the book as well as a scholar in comparative religions, but is that really true? When Gaiman makes sly references to one eye, I can make a link to the proper myths that another person couldn't. Similarly, I'm sure that Gaiman has hooks into his other books, or a general writing style that I'm missing because I'm not that familiar with his stuff. In a sense, reading creates a text, which is what writers like Joyce and Pavic try to illustrate in their work.

Knowing what syntactial constructs the writer is using, why the writer chose "A" instead of "B", is another link the reader can travel upon, if the reader has the background information to create that link.

Which on review has nothing to do with the discussion you linked, just the part you quoted. Don't know if doing is better than thinking. I know I'm a thinker, and I sometimes envy those who can just do (or, better yet, just be, which is possibly the ultimate experience of "doing").