Notes: “How to Read Like a Writer” (RLW)

Key Terms and Main Idea

• Les Miserables >>
• Read like a writer >> you work to identify some of the choices the author made so that you can better understand how such choices might arise in your own writing
• Architect >> a person who designs buildings and in many cases also supervises their construction
• Carpenter >> a person who makes and repairs wooden objects and structures
• Genre >> a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter

Main Idea: The main idea of this written piece is to teach the reader a new technique of reading, that allows one to learn even more. 

Summary

Mike Bunn begins with a story about how he used to be a graduate living in London, working at the Palace theater, and he describes a realization throughout this time. He created the concept of reading like a writer (RLW). He then goes on to explain what reading like a writer means (you work to identify some of the choices the author made so that you can better understand how such choices might arise in your own writing). The technique of reading like a writer is described, such as it is similar to a carpenter and an architect. There are many pieces that go in to creating a piece of art (whether that be a building or a written piece). He explains how reading like a writer is different from normal writing, meaning you gain more information and insight by using RLW than you would by just reading normally and understanding content only partly. He expresses why this type of reading is very much so important, similar to how to read like a writer. He gives examples of questions to ask before you begin reading, such as who is the author and what is the intention or genre of this book. And he ends with a clear example of what reading like a writer looks like, incorporating each of the parts listed above. 

Analysis

I believe that what Mike Brunn describes in his article is partially correct. He is quite passionate about what he is speaking about, I see that, but I don’t necessarily agree that you don’t gain as much from reading normally and that reading like a writer is superior. Reading normally and RLW each have their own advantages and disadvantages. Reading normally allows one to get lost in thought in what the author describes in their careful words. This allows the reader to gain a better understanding of the author and his/her purpose by simply getting lost in text. From this technique, you gain an understanding of the content, purpose of the other, and plot. Reading like a writer allows the reader to understand the purpose of the author a little bit more, but it is different than reading normally, because you are physically analyzing the choices that the author made. Reading like a writer, though, doesn’t allow one to feel as deeply connected to the text as when you read normally and let yourself get lost. Each technique has its pros and cons, but neither one is better than the other, as Mike Brunn suggested.