How do you put aside your own feelings when reading?

I imagine, for me at least, with a book (the written medium) it is easier to process.
You may find it harder to divorce your personal feelings from the content consumed if it is being received visually (television/movies etc).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I don't think its possible to put aside feelings when reading. Reading is not a robotic process. Its not like making laundry. If you want to truly understand a text you need to somehow reflect on it and to reflect on the text you need to evaluate the feelings the text invokes in you.

But I am able to deal with my feelings. If one have problems with emotional regulation, I can understand how it becomes difficult for them to read content that invokes unpleasant feelings like anger or sadness. But if I would need to put a book aside because an authors or even worse a fictional character makes me for example too angry or mad - I would see that as a sign to work on my emotional regulation.
Why does it have to come down to emotional regulation? What about just not wanting to waste several hours of time on something you don’t enjoy or agree with?
 

I don't. But I also don't mind having my views challenged, so don't mind reading things I disagree with.

I also generally separate my opinion of the work from my opinion of the author, so also don't really have any issue there. Except that if the author turns out to be terrible I'll make sure to get a used copy of the work, rather than new, to ensure they don't benefit. But since most of the authors I read are dead now, that doesn't come up all that much.
 

I presume you mean about Starship Troopers' political/social subtext, and therefore other works' political/social subtext.

I'd say that my political/social views aren't based on my feelings, but rather my conclusions after many years of study. My feelings about books that try to play on my feelings is that they're shallow and manipulative, and I dislike that.
 

Why does it have to come down to emotional regulation? What about just not wanting to waste several hours of time on something you don’t enjoy or agree with?
Not enjoying something is not what I interpreted when reading "putting your feelings aside". I interpreted this as "I feel mad or angry or sad or other negative feelings because of what author or characters are saying and thus can't read it anymore". If emotions have a grip on you like that, thats an issue of emotional regulation in my eyes.

But yeah, its not as easy as that, there are of course tons of reason to not wanting to read something that has disagreeable content on it. I am just saying that putting your feelings aside is an impossibility to do when reading, so either you are able to handle your feelings (emotional regulation) or you don't. When you do so, you still might have other reasons to not continue the read of course, but that's not what my comment was about.
 


As an example - A woman (or even a man) does not have to have a "problem with emotional regulation" to get really annoyed when an author engages in "fridging" female characters, or using rape as a way to substitute trauma for character depth.
I did not state otherwise, I certainly get annoyed myself by those tropes - but its a difference for me if you stop reading these because these are just bad writing practices or if you get an overwhelming emotional response because of that. I was talking about the latter. But I have the feeling I am at the limit of my language barrier here (English is not my native language) and I seem to fail to bring my intention across. I edited my first post to hopefully make my intention clearer but I will expand here:

I hope my main point is at least clear: It is in my eyes impossible to put feeling aside when reading and either are able to handle them or you don't. If you NEVER can read any book that handles for example a political position that is contrary to yours, because it makes you too mad - that is a sign to me that you are not able to handle your feelings in a good way. Even worse if its not clearly the author but just a character.

For example I've just recently read "The Secret History" and afterwards did a little deep dive in reddit discussions. I've read multiple times that readers disliked the book or couldn't finish the books, because they hated the characters so much. Not because they were badly written, but because their fictional actions and statements made the blood of these readers boil so much.
Its clear though that the author did not share the sentiments of her characters, the whole story is a critique of the academic context and bubble these characters live in. They also made me angry, because they are supposed so. Emotional regulation is not about not feeling these emotions, but about validating them, accepting them, and moving on.

I might also add that I don't mean this as any sort of negative qualifier and judgement of persons who might happen to do that. Being overwhelmed by emotions and not being able to handle them is completely normal and common and happens to almost everybody at some point and some situations. For me its not when I read, but certaintly when I talk to my mother. And when someone doesn't want to read something because it makes them too mad - thats perfectly fine. But the main root is that they are not handling their emotions, at least for that topic and that medium.

I know I am walking on eggshells here because certain political parties use similar phrasings to discredit other political parties because they are getting "triggered too much" etc. - I am not a supporter of these stances at all.
 
Last edited:

I'll give an example of when I have difficulty put aside my personal feelings. Infidelity. Maybe it's my background. Maybe it's just how tropey it has become that the protagonist is "a fine person who just happened to cheat on their partner." To me, that's not a fine person. Most recently I just couldn't keep watching the SciFi show "La Brea" for this reason.
 

I did not state otherwise, I certainly get annoyed myself by those tropes - but its a difference for me if you stop reading these because these are just bad writing practices or if you get an overwhelming emotional response because of that. I was talking about the latter.

Maybe passing judgement on the emotional responses of folks you don't know isn't such a great idea.
 

I'm not sure why I would put aside my feelings when reading. Even for non-fiction: reacting to facts or interpretations, to history, to things said and unsaid, and figuring out why I feel that way, it's good, right? Unless it's learning calculus or organic chem or something, feelings are kind of the point. (Looking at you, old-style sci-fi about scientific principles and/or solving immediate crises with science! Get with the program!)
Yeah, isn't the point of art to make us feel?

It’s easier when the author is dead and the objectionable stuff has long since been denounced by (at least most of) the wider society. Like the racism in Robert E. Howard’s Conan stories. If the author is still around and the bigotry still widely accepted, nope. Like the transphobia of J. K. Rowling.
An author that is dead does not have the opportunity to change. A living author, does, and certainly in the case of Rowling, chooses not to.
 

Remove ads

Top