On Reading: Emerson vs. Pre-test

On my pre-test, I gave a general definition of what I thought reading was, and then began to explain my thoughts on reading as a form of communication. I said that when someone is reading effectively, they are understanding and comprehending what they are seeing, and because of that understanding, knowledge, etc. that they are gaining, the writer is then communicating to the reader.

According to his speech, “The American Scholar,” I think that Emerson would agree that the writer is indeed accomplishing communication as the person is reading the text. Emerson thinks that the scholar is greatly influenced by “the mind of the Past,” and that books themselves best serve this purpose, as well as “perhaps…[a way to]…get at the truth” (American Scholar 3). So for Emerson, the thoughts of the people that wrote before us serve as a way for people to reach the truth.

However, Emerson is sure to bring up his opinion of reading, one issue which is not included in my own definition of reading because I never would’ve thought of it on my own. While Emerson might think that the thoughts of authors before us serve as a way for people to attempt to reach truth, his main opinion comes in through how reading allows for people to attempt to reach truth. Emerson does not think that readers should read to adopt the views of the authors before them in order to find truth, but they should read only for illumination for their own new ideas, because to Emerson, books “are for nothing but to inspire” (American Scholar 4).

This viewpoint, as we have learned in class, is typically Romantic because if reading is meant only for inspiration, then we can conclude that Emerson believes that truth has not yet been found; it is still lurking out there, in another world beyond this one, that we cannot seem to reach. The authors that have already recorded haven’t found it yet, but perhaps by reading, people will be inspired to keep searching through their own writing. Emerson argues that reading is only for “the active soul;” reading is used only for creation (American Scholar 4) because “[o]ne must be an inventor to read well” (American Scholar 5). Reading is only actual reading when it is used to inspire and compose new ideas.

While Emerson approaches his argument in a convincing fashion, I’m not sure that I completely agree with it. Dr. Powers said in class this past Tuesday that Emerson believes that reading makes you an imitator, that reading allows for someone else’s imagination to be in charge of your own. But if reading allowed someone else’s imagination to take over your own, then how could it possibly inspire you? Imagination is a large part of inspiration, and if another’s imagination takes over the reader’s, how will the reader ever create?