The Battle of the Readers: Critical Readers and Pleasure Readers

This article contains a poll at the bottom of the page!!

With the slow death of the English program and the lack of interdisciplinary interaction within the Humanities department, we are experiencing a decrease in human study. The prestige of literature is dwindling (something the Romantics would be proud of), but with this debasement of sorts, instead of viewing literature as a common human experience, society views literature (and the study of it) as a by-gone, a useless degree, a dead art. I’d like to explore this concept tangentially through separate articles. And so, to start, I’d like to explore the divide between the readers. This article categorizes two types of readers: the critical reader and the pleasure reader. These categories are mere generalizations of styles of reading to help us understand how people interact with literature. When these readers interact without realizing that they are on two different planes of existence, they may subsequently not realize how fruitless their conversations become.

This sort of ignorance is what creates disconnectedness in society. It is not our differences that create disconnect, it is the lack of will to acknowledge or understand these differences. An additional two categories, academic and leisure readers, define the environment of a reader rather than their style. These umbrella categories will help us contextualize the impact environment has on a reader’s interactive style. Most pleasure readers are leisure readers and most critical readers are academic readers due to the expectations of either environments; however, this institutionalized divide perpetuates the divide of readers and thus the divide of society. Pleasure readers are perceived as having an untrained eye, critical readers are heralded for never being able to enjoy what they consume. This disconnect is based in pretentiousness and ignorance that restricts society from understanding literature and its value in society.

Critical readers read to learn; they read to think; they read to contemplate their ideals. They tend to dominate the English Honours seminars and tend to intentionally read the “boring” texts (literary criticism, dense poetry, intricate plays, obscure philosophy, political theory, et cetera). To the pleasure reader, these texts might not be cozy-up-next-to-a-window-and-sip-tea material. Pleasure readers read for entertainment, validation, imaginative exploration, emotional experiences, and escapism. After reading a book, pleasure readers might forget the plot or the names of characters, but they will remember the experience and how it made them feel; pleasure readers might consume books faster and might lean towards direct and relatable poetry, fantasy novels, or romance novels. Pleasure readers have an untrained eye in critical works, just as critical readers have an untrained eye in pleasure works. Neither type of reader is superior to the other, but when both types interact without considering that they each might simply enjoy literature differently, conversations can become tedious.

Critical readers love to pick apart the text, to write in the margins, to decipher the text’s intentions, and to analyze how certain aspects might be transformed into theory or applied to society. Does this sound like the person who ruins movies by pointing out all the symbolism, by explaining gender politics, or by criticizing the writing? Well, it is that person.  A pleasure reader might respond, “I get it, but can you please just enjoy the movie!” Oddly, the crossover of these two styles of enjoying a book (or media) creates annoyance among both parties. When a book is picked apart, that might ruin the emotional experience for the pleasure reader. They don’t want to be lectured about what allusions they missed because they haven’t read a Jane Austen novel or Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. In contrast, these “easter eggs” might increase the critical reader’s enjoyment, especially if they have read the alluded-to texts. Critical readers have their bias as well: they don’t want to be told that there is no extra meaning in the page-turning plot and well written humour. In the end, what drives one crazy, brings solace to the other.

At the core of this disconnect is something these readers have in common. Both types of readers are a symptom of society. That symptom is the desire for escape. It is easy to argue that pleasure readers seek escape. They read to feel good, whether through the vastly different life of a fictional character or through Rupi Kaur’s affirming poetry. Critical readers like to act as if they are above pleasure readers, as if they aren’t also entering a world of their own through the knowledge that they collect. Critical readers don’t like to believe that they are escaping; they like to believe that they are more involved with society because they analyze the flaws of society that no one else seems to see. Pleasure readers are viewed as stupid or lesser-than by critical readers due to their more individual or surface level interactions with the text; however, pleasure readers only escape society because they know that society is flawed. While pleasure readers want to enjoy a good book because life doesn’t make sense, critical readers want to enjoy a good book because they believe that they can make sense of life.

Traditional western education encourages a critical revulsion towards pleasure readers. Although my personal beliefs dictate that critical engagement with literature is important for the development and improvement of society, I also understand that everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. Not everyone can be expected to read Sartre or Marx, Frankenstein or Pride and Prejudice, just like not everyone can be expected to understand climate figures, how the Covid-19 virus behaves on a bacterial level, or the intricate game of policy and politics. A strong society functions as a community, and though people can try to be as educated as possible, not one human can know everything. Humans are incomplete; some form of knowledge will forever be beyond comprehension. Most people rely on experts to simplify their research and technical findings; even experts rely on other experts to expand their own knowledge. This need for simplification isn’t due laziness or stupidity. Academia requires the intermingling of ideas, because we can’t make progress if we all, individually, are experts in one niche topic. Academia seems to be averse to this simplification in the departments of humanities. Of course, this may stem from the fact that society is facing an epidemic of the extreme simplification of ideas through social media. It is no wonder that faculty and students become pretentiously guarded when the disregard for humanities is coming from a 350-character post, a 2-minute video, or a poorly edited internet magazine. Unfortunately, academia, as the advocate for learning and progress, does not have time for petty quarrels. The lack of faith in the humanities from the masses shouldn’t create a divide, it should encourage new ideas and perspectives. This is why critical readers dominate academia, but when critical readers forget to critically read their social media feed (or even when they try to engage in the hellhole that is a comment section), they are never providing any productive forms of intervention; they are just feeding the fire.

The interaction of these pleasure and critical readers with social media warrants another article, so we will return to literature. For the pleasure readers, literature is a valuable form of entertainment that also allows them to escape from that very embedded technological side of society. Reading is not like watching a movie or scrolling through TikTok where most of the thinking is done for the reader. With a book, readers must imagine what is happening—pleasure readers enjoy the imagination. Social media’s bursts of colours and immediate rewards is exhausting. Critical readers might want to ponder why social media is so exhausting, but for pleasure readers, they just need to find something that is not exhausting, something that allows them to blissfully escape and remember how to enjoy life. Reading for pure pleasure of imaginative and emotional experience should not be discredited. It is a human act that is a part of society and should be appreciated just as much as the more cognitive critical style of reading.  Even if the pleasure readers are reading literature that is meant for critical readers, I still see the value in a pleasure reader’s opinion. I believe that the pleasure readers can begin to become a part of the art. Instead of trying to understand the literature, they are experiencing it. Something that critical readers forget to do sometimes. Society needs balance and patience. Next time you see a goodreads review or hear an opinion that you don’t agree with, take a moment to understand (or to experience) the other person’s perspective. They might just interact with the world in a different way than you do, and you might just learn something. Whether you are predominantly a critical reader or a pleasure reader, I hope that you find the time to have a cup of tea, sit in a cozy window, and remember what it feels like to experience.

are you a pleasure reader? or a critical reader?

• pleasure reader. i get lost in my imagination and emotions!
• critical reader. i get lost in obscure ideas and philosophy!
• both. depends on what i'm reading!