questions to consider while reading

Here are some general questions to ponder for each week’s reading;

  1. How would you describe or summarize the text to someone who hasn’t read it? Is there a main point or thesis being articulated, and if so, what is it? How would you restate what the piece is saying in your own words?
  2. How does the author succeed or fail in what they are attempting to articulate? If they fail, do they fail in a manner that is intriguing?
  3. How do the ideas presented relate to your life? Do they, or could they, affect the things you do and think? How? If not, why not?
  4. What kind of emotions or thoughts does the text provoke within you? What do you agree with and what do you disagree with? What do you find seductive, and what do you find terrifying? How do your own experiences, positions, and affects diverge from those presented in the text? Why?
  5. What is the context within which the text and its author are situated? How does this context affect their focuses and lacunae, the points they emphasize and deemphasize? How is this context similar to your own and how is it different?
  6. Do you know anyone who speaks or expresses themselves similarly to the author? Someone who makes similar points or takes similar positions? What kinds of conversations have you had with that person (or people)? Where have they been great, and where have they been bogged down?
  7. Does the reading seems inconsistent in places? Where and how do these incongruities exist? Are these contradictions intentional or a matter of oversights?
  8. What are the some consequences of the positions or modes of thinking presented in the reading (if one extrapolates)?
  9. Who or what does the reading include, and who or what does it omit? Are these omissions intentional?
  10. How does the reading relate to anarchy? Is the piece immediately relevant for anarchists, or do we have to read the anarchy into it, and how do we do so? If we attempted to fit this reading into an anarchist tendency/tendencies, where would it fit in? What provocations, tactical considerations, or conceptual weapons can anarchists glean from this text?
  11. Are there jargon terms or margarine words being used? What are they? Is the author hiding behind them or using their discourse to present themselves as worthy of attention? How does the language the author uses function to either reveal or conceal? If it conceals something, what, and is this obscuring intentional?