The Things the Reader Can Say

After reading this topic, I can't understand it properly. I think it means reader can express his or her own opinion after reading a book. A person can say is that he understands or that he does not.

But if you say you understand the book, you agree thoroughly with the author says, the work is over.

However if you don't understand, you have two choices. One is to go back to work on the first two readings of the book. The other is to show the book is disorderly, that its parts do not hang together, that some of it lacks relevance.

Not simply by following an author's arguments but only by meeting them as well, can the reader ultimately reach significant agreement or disagreement with his author.

Shall the reader must say he or she understand the author? Obviously the answer is no. We have no need to agree with the author always. I mean that the meaning of agreement and disagreement deserves a moment's further consideration.

Since men are animals as well as rational, it is necessary to acknowledge the emotions...

Because every preson is emotion animal. We are likely to be giving vent to feelings, not stating reasons.We are always think we are right. Other people are wrong.

We should make our own assumption explicit. We must know our prejudices, and have a clear recognazation.

1.You are uninformed  2.You are misinformed 3.You are illogical, your reasoning is not cogent  4.Your analysis is incomplete

If we follow these four remarks,  we will be less likely to indulge in expression of emotion or prejudice.They are certainly the principal points a reader who disagrees can make.

The author in this chapter has told us the relationship between four critical and three readings.Then we should became peers with their authors.To become well read, in every sense of the word, one must know how to use whatever skill one possesses with discrimination-by reading every book according to its merit.