Brooks talked about his idea of the "heresy of paraphrasing". Brooks believed that when the New Critics began to summarize artists' works that the work lost all its value in the translation. Brooks claimed that excellent poetry or novels could not be condensed into a 2-3 minute summary.
The perfect example of the heresy of paraphrasing is the Reader's Digest Condensed Books. My mother is a big collector of these because she likes getting the "gist" of stories without reading all the "unnecessary fluff" parts. These books take great pieces of work and condense them so that the reader is only getting the most necessary parts. They are great for readers like my mother who like variety, but they do leave out some things. Brooks would not have agreed with reading a condensed book! He would have said that they were engaging in the "heresy of paraphrasing".
As a writer, I completely agree with Brooks' theory. I would not want someone to read a work of mine and simply summarize it. Summaries actually deter readers because they feel like they already know enough about the work and they don't have to put forth the effort to read it. This is why summaries of novels do not appear on the back of the book or on the inside cover - or anywhere on the book, for that matter! Instead, writers provide "elevator pitches" and little teasers that draw the reader in. These do not work to paraphrase the work, but to hook a reader.
I do understand - as I'm sure Brooks did - that certain paraphrasing is necessary. How else would literary critics write analytic essays? If we were to take Brooks to seriously, then essayists would have to quote entire novels in order to avoid paraphrasing. I believe that Brooks could understand the necessity in occasional paraphrasing. I think that he was just warning against habitual paraphrasing and the reading of such summaries. If we read a summary, we get a false sense of knowing enough about the summarized work and sometimes we feel like we needn't read the original text. This was Brooks's main concern.
As a writer, I completely agree with Brooks' theory. I would not want someone to read a work of mine and simply summarize it. Summaries actually deter readers because they feel like they already know enough about the work and they don't have to put forth the effort to read it. This is why summaries of novels do not appear on the back of the book or on the inside cover - or anywhere on the book, for that matter! Instead, writers provide "elevator pitches" and little teasers that draw the reader in. These do not work to paraphrase the work, but to hook a reader.
I do understand - as I'm sure Brooks did - that certain paraphrasing is necessary. How else would literary critics write analytic essays? If we were to take Brooks to seriously, then essayists would have to quote entire novels in order to avoid paraphrasing. I believe that Brooks could understand the necessity in occasional paraphrasing. I think that he was just warning against habitual paraphrasing and the reading of such summaries. If we read a summary, we get a false sense of knowing enough about the summarized work and sometimes we feel like we needn't read the original text. This was Brooks's main concern.
Yes you can do it.and nice and short articl very helpful for me.
ReplyDelete