Reading Games

This week one of the readings was titled reading games. Using one of the strategies proposed in this piece of reading, which is to pay attention to the title, I did not quite understand what this piece of writing was going to be about. I didn't know what type of reading could possibly be considered a game. After reading it, I still don't understand why the title is "reading games" because the piece of writing was all about things you should pay attention to as a reader. I do not find that to be a game. The author, Karen Rosenberg, thinks that reading to try to get the most out of a particular piece of writing is a "game." I find this funny because I consider reading to try to get the most out of a piece is called "work." Even when I am reading something not assigned in school, something such as Harry Potter, I would just consider that as leisure reading, not a game.

The main thing I agree with in this piece of writing is when Rosenberg said, "First thing to consider is audience." I agree with that completely. I do not always use this strategy of trying to figure out the audience, but I have found that the few times I have done that, I got a better understanding of the text. Maybe I should try to make it a habit. I also agree with reading the abstract of an article first because that way you know the general summary of an article and do not waste your time reading a whole article for no reason. Another thing that Rosenberg touched on was to pay attention to the introduction. I think this is a great idea because most writers, if they are good, will try to make their introduction one of the stronger parts of their article, so if the introduction is weak, I can probably assume that the article as a whole is not the written the best it can be. The same thing goes for the conclusion too because writers usually want to leave you with a strong claim that they tried to prove, or a general summary of what the entire article is about.