More "Kindness to Authors," or, how to expand the universe

"We should always remember that the work of art is invariably the creation of a new world, so that the first thing we should do is study that new world as closely as possible, approaching it as something brand new, having no obvious connection with the worlds we already know. When this new world has been closely studied, then and only then let us examine its links with other worlds, other branches of knowledge." (Vladimir Nabokov, "How to be a Good Reader or Kindness to Authors")

My first instinct is to argue with this opinion, but then, I remember that this could skew an entire work. It's entirely limiting to believe that everything is about us--it's "geocentric" and medieval. I didn't create the work, the universe of the creator's mind and so why should it revolve around me? The earth revolves around the sun, and the sun gives warmth to me, not I to it.

I also know that when a work can be examined objectively, as if from above, or from a distance; it allows a fuller appreciation of an author's talent. Every great work is personal and evokes a personal reaction in the reader, but the truth of an author's meaning cannot be known until the reader is objective. I cannot remember how T.S. Eliot put this objective reading, but he too, observed that this made for a better reader and even author.

I remember that it made one of my professors, "The Black Hole," very angry to agree with Eliot. It upset her that it made the world bigger and awe-inspiring. Being objective, actually draws the reader nearer the new world, and evokes empathy for others, rather than judgment based upon personal bitterness and bias. Modern readers are supposed to carry with them through the pages, a bucket of their personal waste, scattering it amongst the text, contaminating the green grass. Modern readers must base everything upon the socio-economic, pretending to be scientific and advanced, and benevolent, stomping uninvited like Mrs. Pardiggle into the brickmaker's home, leaving their meaningless tracts, while ignoring the human soul in the corner cradling her dead child.

If Mrs. Pardiggle had been more objective, had stood back and looked at this new world which she did not understand, did not write the rules for, perhaps, she would not have made the dark residence darker, perhaps, she would have noticed the mother and her baby. Perhaps, she would have been pierced in the heart. But Mrs. Pardiggle, like many readers is geocentric, thinks only of her own world, her own rules, her own ideas, and as a limited reader, she makes judgements based upon her small universe. Mrs. Pardiggle believes that she is advanced and benevolent, and must impose her limited knowledge upon others. Where she goes, the world contracts. Where she goes, divides and bias spring up.

And if we are limited and un objective readers, we may miss out on some important events. We may miss out on saviors, and springs, Shirley, Goodness, and Mercy. We may look at literature as only dark rooms in decay in which it is our duty to leave our own meaningless words, but not as a place where a soul may touch us and improve ours. Does the reader improve literature or does literature improve the reader?

And this is my thought/argument/defence of the day. Enough.