Do you need to understand everything that you read?

[Lumens]

I'm asking because some times I love reading, even if I don't understand what's going on. Why? I guess it has something to do with the imagery and the flow of the language. Also, some times it does magical things to my mind, especially if I'm tired.

It comes from reading books as a child which were not meant for children. I was making up for it by filling in the gaps with my imagination.

The hardest for me to understand (apart from maths equations) is poetry. I can still enjoy it though, if I'm in the mood for it. Walt Whitman is a favourite.

I am also asking because I am writing a novel where there are expressions that are purely made up, and if the reader wants to understand it, currently there is no Google for that...

 

[WarriorMouse]

Short answer is NO.
I read stuff I don't understand as a way of educating myself. I may not understand it when I read it but, at some point in time I'll be reading something else and *DING* suddenly that previously not understood stuff makes sense.
My e-mail quote is this;
"My education started the day I graduated high school"

 

[BAYLOR]

If I find something hard had to understand, I'll reread it until I do .

 

[Lumens]

But if there is no chance that you will ever understand some things, will that put you off?

 

[Extollager]

I suppose I don't stick with things I don't understand, like, say, The Signature of All Things by Jacob Boehme. But I think it's pretty neat that that book was, once upon a time, an offering in the old Everyman's Library.

 

[WarriorMouse]

But if there is no chance that you will ever understand some things, will that put you off?

I guess that depends on the subject.
I have been struggling to understand cryptography for years, but that has not stopped me from reading books about the subject. Same goes for physics and mathematics.
But political philosophy, I dumped reading that pile of bilge years ago.
When It comes to fiction it depends on the story. If the story flows then I'm good to go but if the story dosn't flow then the stuff I don't understand tends to stop me reading.

 

[tinkerdan]

Poetry maybe: if they are no longer than a few pages. I love to go through them several times to try to understand then.
Epic poetry-if I can't understand it--I'll put the book aside.
I have Nikos Kazantzakis' The Odyssey A Modern Sequel.
Could not read it--it goes on for 775 pages and I was so put off I didn't even try to read the synopsis at the end, which I just know is so much easier to get through. (Perhaps the translation is poor.)
I still have the book and won't force it on anyone unless they say they love Homer and then I'd want them to give me a review of Kazantzakis.

I tried reading Tolkien's LOTR when I was seventeen and it took a long time to get through and had I not read the Hobbit (and met Bilbo) and been interested in how Frodo makes out--I'm pretty sure I'd never have finished it and I won't read it again.

Fiction:
If I can't understand it I have to put it down. If I get to the bottom of a page and don't recall what I just read then that is bad and that's what happens when I don't understand the stuff. I read fiction for both entertainment and comprehension.

That said:
All day at work I end up reading things I don't fully understand; however there are engineers all over the place that can answer questions and even if I don't understand it all, most of those books are the type that I can just remember where a subject is and come back to it later when I've picked up the pieces I need to fill my knowledge in and bring me up to date. I'm definitely not going to ever know everything; however I have to trust the author of fiction to give me enough understanding of their world that things make sense and I have a fair picture in my mind of what is happening and where and how to everything that is important and if there is something I don't understand that is not important(then it shouldn't be there)and then I shouldn't be reading that novel anyway.

However there is some latitude for certain types of nonsense that rise out of deliberate gibberish for humors sake and I can be forgiving.

 

[Parson]

If your question refers to understand what's going on in a work of fiction the answer is an unequivocal yes. If I don't understand what's going on after a couple of hundred pages at most the book is dumped. Now text books that's a different answer. I read them hoping someone can help me understand.

 

[Quisizyx]

Greets- I don't recall reading any SF that I didn't at least partially or generally understand. Most authors provide an explanation either thru character dialogue or descriptive detailed exposition like Tolkien's LOTR first 50 to 80 pages. Most authors explain in bits and pieces as the story unfolds as describing the universe before starting the story can be boring. I came close to putting LOTR down due to describing and explaining everything before starting the story.

. Heinlein's Moon is a Harsh Mistress explained things as encountered and, if requiring extensive explanation, would explain or describe certain details or aspects as they came into or impacted the story instead of one huge detailed description or explanation all in one go. Things pertinent to the story that aren't understood have a tendency to alter, or completely stop, the pace of a story. Mysteries that are revealed later can enhance the dramatic affect but shouldn't alter the pace or confuse plot, goals, or function of the story. Intentionally misleading hints or clues in the story line can improve the impact of the final reveal as long as the reader doesn't feel abused.

. Samuel Delaney's Dhalgren was a surrealistic interesting apocalyptic read with a circular reference tying the ending to the beginning. His Titan was even thicker, more pages, but was pointless. Since I had enjoyed Dhalgren I forced myself to read it to the end hoping it would improve. Once finished I threw the book across the room. It seemed to consist strictly of the interactions and relationships of the many characters.

. Perhaps more to the point, newly created expressions by your characters could make it hard to understand the characters, their attitudes, their preferences, or their feelings. If the meaning of the expression can't be understood from the context of the dialogue or situation then your characters are likely to appear vague or indecisive. If it can't be understood from the context then you should provide some clue at that time.
. Hope you found this helpful.

 

[Alex The G and T]

Like you, Lumens, I've been reading above my age level since I was 4 years old. I learned to grok unfamiliar vocabulary from context. If I was really baffled, I might have to (gasp) look it up. A developed skill that carries well to SF&F where invented words and expressions are common andmust be interpolated from context.

Meanwhile, shorter form stories derive their power from keeping the reader guessing what the surprise ending will be. The reader has to enjoy the confusion and trust that the author will reveal the nature of the oddities, in the end.

Real life is like that. Always some uncertainty. If one thinks they know what is going on; they are probably wrong.

And what's the fun in Mysteries, Noir.... if the reader already knows the whole story.

 

[nixie]

No, normally you can sort of work it out by the context it is written.
Long as I can follow the plot and enjoy it what does it matter if I'm occasionally left scratching my head.

 

[Dave]

If your question refers to understand what's going on in a work of fiction the answer is an unequivocal yes. If I don't understand what's going on after a couple of hundred pages at most the book is dumped. Now text books that's a different answer. I read them hoping someone can help me understand.

I'd agree with this. If it is an academic book then there is usually some other text to refer to that will help understand the first. However, if you ever studied English Literature then you must have had those study guides that give all kinds of subtle meanings to phrases and structures that you could never have picked up on just a single reading, and especially if it is a classic book or play. Most of what they say is well above the head of the average reader, though sometimes I think they might ascribe a greater meaning than the author had ever intended.

 

[Lumens]

Samuel Delaney's Dhalgren was a surrealistic interesting apocalyptic read with a circular reference tying the ending to the beginning.

That sounds interesting. On my to read list.

And welcome to Chrons too!

Real life is like that. Always some uncertainty. If one thinks they know what is going on; they are probably wrong.

Very true this.

 

[nixie]

Defenestration, I was about seven when I first came across this, my imagination was running riot on what it meant. I'd say I would have been about ten or eleven when I discovered what it actually meant.
Tad disappdisappointed when I discovered it wasn't removing someone's intestines with a piece of wood.

 

[Pyan]

No, normally you can sort of work it out by the context it is written.
Long as I can follow the plot and enjoy it what does it matter if I'm occasionally left scratching my head.

That nails it, for me - the best example I have is in just about any David Weber book, where the results of relative velocities, navigation information and interception vectors consume whole paragraphs that may as well be in Sanskrit as far as I'm concerned. However, I learned long ago that even if you don't understand the maths (to the extent of skipping the whole thing) it very rarely makes any difference to my appreciation of the plot, which is the important thing after all.

Harry Potter and Star Wars fans combined must be a fair proportion of the human race. I don't think that ignorance of how a potion/hyperdrive works makes the slightest difference to their enjoyment of the story...

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Any Gene Wolfe fan will tell you - no.

 

[Vince W]

If I don't understand something I'll read it again. If I still don't understand it, it's probably because I missed something earlier on that provides an explanation, so I'll go back a bit and find a passage that makes me understand.

As for made up words, context usually provides the means for understanding, so no dictionary or google should be necessary.

 

[CTRandall]

You've got to be careful making up new words/phrases and such but, when it's done well, it can really draw a vivid picture of a world. Alex the G and T used one of Heilein's terms from Stranger in a Strange Land--excellent example. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it to all my little droogs.

At the extreme, there are stories that are specifically intended not to make sense. Check out some Zen koans in The Gateless Gate. It's also easy to find a bunch of koans online. Here's one example:

Mokugen was never known to smile until his last day on earth. When his time came to pass away he said to his faithful ones: "You have studied under me for more than ten years. Show me your real interpretation of Zen. Whoever expresses this most clearly shall be my successor and receive my robe and bowl."

Everyone watched Mokugen's severe face, but no one answered.

Encho, a disciple who had been with his teacher for a long time, moved near the bedside. He pushed forward the medicine cup a few inches. That was his answer to the command.

The teacher's face became even more severe. "Is that all you understand?" he asked.

Encho reached out and moved the cup back again.

A beautiful smile broke over the features of Mokugen. "You rascal," he told Encho. "You worked with me ten years and have not yet seen my whole body. Take the robe and bowl. They belong to you."

 

[hitmouse]

Any Gene Wolfe fan will tell you - no.

Yes exactly.
I think we need to distinguish between tricky technical/academic/non-fiction works, and some of the more layered/gnomic/implied aspects of some fiction, which is what I think this thread is really about. I give you Shakespeare and James Joyce, Thomas Pynchon, and Dylan Thomas.

 

[hitmouse]