People who don't read books.

Chuck Stone

I loved Asterix The Gaul comic-books when I was a wee'un. Always felt hungry when Obelix was stuffing himself with wild boar at the village feasts they'd have after an adventure.

Asterix in Britain is some craic.

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/8114/banquetasterix.jpg

The King of Moo

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I'd say my ratio of watching TV/movies to reading to is probably more the opposite, something like 1:4

Would you read one book at a time or a few?

old hippy

I'd be reading 2 sometimes. But that's only if one is heavy going and I need something a bit lighter...

--Kaiser--

The King of Moo wrote: »

Would you read one book at a time or a few?

I'm counting newspapers in that as well. Usually one book at a time
That said I don't watch a lot of TV!

castletownman

I blame modern technology. Those eBook yokes or whatever they're called have ruined the enjoyment of reading. I much prefer an hour or two getting lost browsing for books in Hodges Figgis on Dawson St. or Easons on O'Connell St. over spending ten minutes on the internet looking for the latest recommended download.

Darkginger

I love reading. I'm one of those who will read anything (Game of Thrones AND Cathy Kelly, yep!) - and even more so recently, since I got my Kindle. Being broke, I hunt down free books on Amazon, and will try anything - I've found a few gems, but also read a lot of badly written books from new authors. I read them anyway - it's interesting to try to define what makes them bad. I also re-read the classics - it's interesting how I perceive them differently since I've grown older. I'm struggling through some philosophy texts (Utilitarianism, Critique of Pure Reason etc.) that I should have read at Uni, but managed to skip. They're not easy, and I do lose concentration, so I can understand, in a way, those who find any reading a bit of an ordeal. There have been some books (Heart of Darkness, anyone?) that I truly loathe - but that's not down to the quality of the writing, it's just that they don't suit me.

I prefer books to films, because with a book, it's like you're the director of your own movie - you create the scenes in your head, you cast the characters, you provide your own soundtrack. Films are someone else's interpretation of a story - the director is like a third party between you and the author. That's why it's often disappointing to watch the 'film of the book' - it can jar terribly with the vision you've created in your own head.

I can't imagine life without books in it - and for me the introduction of the Kindle and other e-readers has saved me from slowly drowning under a pile of paperbacks!

Chuck Stone

castletownman wrote: »

I blame modern technology. Those eBook yokes or whatever they're called have ruined the enjoyment of reading. I much prefer an hour or two getting lost browsing for books in Hodges Figgis on Dawson St. or Easons on O'Connell St. over spending ten minutes on the internet looking for the latest recommended download.

On the up-side those eReaders will probably save an absolute fortune on paper and shipping costs.

castletownman

Chuck Stone wrote: »

On the up-side those eReaders will probably save an absolute fortune on paper and shipping costs.

I accept that point. But for me one of the great pleasures of reading is relaxing in front of a book before going to sleep. After a day in front of a screen at work, and then television on top of that, peering at another screen before hitting the hay loses all appeal. I find books more relaxing.

But then again modern technology is a pet peeve of mine

Chuck Stone

castletownman wrote: »

But then again modern technology is a pet peeve of mine

Yeah, damn those washing machines and dish-washers and fridges and TV's and..

I'm kiddin' :P.

I take your point though that the act of buying a book or record/tape/CD or hiring a video was like a little ritual that people enjoyed and was part of the experience that many enjoyed.

Now-a-days you can have most media at the touch of a button while sitting in an armchair with the crumbs of a tin (yes, tin) of Pringles cascading down ones flabby folds.

Mindkiller

Regarding video games I think they're really about 1000 years behind literature as a serious art form. The whole interactivity and 'multiple choice' thing really is just a lot of smoke and mirrors right now. They're really don't offer much more free choice than a 'Choose you own ending' Goosebumps book.

Maybe in time, in like, 50 years time, videogames will become something more.

paddyandy

Inflaaaaaaaaaaaaaaated stories a waste of time and energy .Sleep inducing mischief makers there is little good in them.Teaching Mischief.

Yahew

paddyandy wrote: »

Inflaaaaaaaaaaaaaaated stories a waste of time and energy .Sleep inducing mischief makers there is little good in them.Teaching Mischief.

You were born in 1832 to a peasant family in Louth, I am guessing.

old hippy

paddyandy wrote: »

Inflaaaaaaaaaaaaaaated stories a waste of time and energy .Sleep inducing mischief makers there is little good in them.Teaching Mischief.

Yeah, books - giving people ideas above their station, entrancing millions throughout the world. How dare they!

Fluorescence

Mindkiller wrote: »

Regarding video games I think they're really about 1000 years behind literature as a serious art form. The whole interactivity and 'multiple choice' thing really is just a lot of smoke and mirrors right now. They're really don't offer much more free choice than a 'Choose you own ending' Goosebumps book.

Maybe in time, in like, 50 years time, videogames will become something more.

Video games are quite unique as an art form. I don't think I could compare them to books to be honest. Video games offer a totally different storytelling experience to the kind you get from literature. I enjoy them both

Snakeblood

I think the world is a better place for having words like these in it:

It was a confusion of ideas between him and one of the lions he was hunting in Kenya that had caused A. B. Spottsworth to make the obituary column. He thought the lion was dead, and the lion thought it wasn't.

The acrid smell of burnt poetry.

(Young men in Spats)

The sort of house you look at and say to yourself "Somebody's aunt lives there."

(Carry On, Jeeves)

"Frederick won't be staying long, will he?" Lord Emsworth asked with a father's pathetic eagerness.

Any of them make me laugh, and writing like that taught me the sort of way I would aspire to write.

Yahew

Is that all Wodehouse?

jive

What can you learn from a book that you can't learn from a video? The only argument appears to be that when you read a book you 'are the director'. Can you not just generate alternate scenes in your head while watching a movie? Does the information have to be given to you in text form for you to form your own imagery? If that's the case then aren't you just creating the imagery that the author is planting in your head? (to the readers out there, oviiii)

Obviously not everything in text form is also in video form and there is much more written than recorded. I just question why reading for pleasure is deemed to be 'necessary'. I don't buy the argument that it makes you more empathetic. It might make some people more empathetic (those who for some reason can't grasp someone's circumstances or w/e) but you don't have to read to empathise with people. Personally, I don't need to read a book in order to understand someones situation and sympathise with them.

Mindkiller

jive wrote: »

What can you learn from a book that you can't learn from a video? The only argument appears to be that when you read a book you 'are the director'. Can you not just generate alternate scenes in your head while watching a movie? Does the information have to be given to you in text form for you to form your own imagery? If that's the case then aren't you just creating the imagery that the author is planting in your head? (to the readers out there, oviiii)

Obviously not everything in text form is also in video form and there is much more written than recorded. I just question why reading for pleasure is deemed to be 'necessary'. I don't buy the argument that it makes you more empathetic. It might make some people more empathetic (those who for some reason can't grasp someone's circumstances or w/e) but you don't have to read to empathise with people. Personally, I don't need to read a book in order to understand someones situation and sympathise with them.

With books you share a level of intimacy with the characters that just doesn't seem possible with movies. Stream of consciousness novel like Ulysses and The Sound and the Fury would be a nightmare to adapt as a film.

imo, the mind's eye can create an infinitely richer world than any TV or cinema screen

edit: Before anyone points it out, I know there are films of both movies

paddyandy

Read people that's books enough.I don't need a broadened mind as many people seem to think people need.Know what you NEED to know in life the rest is superfluous and useless.Maybe a dozen books in the world worth studying.

Chinafoot

paddyandy wrote: »

Maybe a dozen books in the world worth studying.

Such as?

paddyandy

Books worth reading would probably be too opaque for most people....
We have to choose the list ourselves.There is a lot of coquettish verbiage on these forums and i can't stop believing that the publishing houses are represented here.They are presently fighting a battle for readers.The Internet & tv are giving them a difficult time.People are DUMPING books all the time and a visit to any second hand shop will tell you that.The books must be rubbish too.We hold on to a good book.

Blowfish

paddyandy wrote: »

Books worth reading would probably be too opaque for most people....
We have to choose the list ourselves.There is a lot of coquettish verbiage on these forums and i can't stop believing that the publishing houses are represented here.They are presently fighting a battle for readers.The Internet & tv are giving them a difficult time.People are DUMPING books all the time and a visit to any second hand shop will tell you that.The books must be rubbish too.We hold on to a good book.

Less physical books being sold doesn't mean anything really when ebook sales are soaring.

Azureus

Mindkiller wrote: »

edit: Before anyone points it out, I know there are films of both movies

I love books-its a great way to spend a commute, a lunchbreak or drift off to sleep. Its amazing how much more information I absorb through reading something as opposed to seeing something on tv. Also ebooks just arent my thing, I cant read the same way on a kindle that I would with a physical book in my hands. Theres something relaxing about turning the pages, curling up on the couch with a coffee and a good book.
I find it a very attractive quality in people aswell-without being intentionally judgemental about people who dont read,Im infinately more attracted to people who do.

Mindkiller

Novels of both boo.. films of both books I mean. Derp

Tesco Massacre

paddyandy wrote: »

Read people that's books enough.I don't need a broadened mind as many people seem to think people need.Know what you NEED to know in life the rest is superfluous and useless.Maybe a dozen books in the world worth studying.

Just out of interest, what are the dozen books you deem worthy of studying?

And is any endeavour completely useless if it doesn't have a practical application? Because that would cover all art then...none of it has any practical use at all.

paddyandy wrote: »

Books worth reading would probably be too opaque for most people....
We have to choose the list ourselves.There is a lot of coquettish verbiage on these forums and i can't stop believing that the publishing houses are represented here.They are presently fighting a battle for readers.The Internet & tv are giving them a difficult time.People are DUMPING books all the time and a visit to any second hand shop will tell you that.The books must be rubbish too.We hold on to a good book.

No offence, but that's mostly bollocks.

44leto

I would be regarded as well read, even a sophisticated reader, my reading choice tends to be books that challenge me, take me to a place I have never been to, I can't imagine my life without books, nor could anyone who knows me.

But I have never overly praised the virtue of reading, I don't particularly think there are many, I read the way others would watch a video, a film, read a news paper. To me reading a book is a good escape, a distraction, a pleasure. If people don't get that buzz from reading don't bother.

I don't believe me being well read adds any significant value to my life, for me its just a nice way to pass the time.

Yahew

paddyandy wrote: »

Books worth reading would probably be too opaque for most people....
We have to choose the list ourselves.There is a lot of coquettish verbiage on these forums and i can't stop believing that the publishing houses are represented here.They are presently fighting a battle for readers.The Internet & tv are giving them a difficult time.People are DUMPING books all the time and a visit to any second hand shop will tell you that.The books must be rubbish too.We hold on to a good book.

Meaningless paronoid twaddle. If you read more you could argue better. Also, consider putting a SPACE after a full stop.

paddyandy

Little better than my punctuation to comment on and plenty of quotes .'good.

trish23

When you're reading you draw upon your own point of references & imagination & the book becomes alive & has a message for you personally. Each person who reads the same book will take a different message & a 'unique' take on the story. You can, of course, say the same for film but a film is a lazy way of reading the book as all imagination is taken away - what the characters look like, the setting etc. Most people who have read a book before the film will say that the film was not what they expected. Not necessarily better or worse - just different

Logical Fallacy

paddyandy wrote: »

Books worth reading would probably be too opaque for most people....
We have to choose the list ourselves.There is a lot of coquettish verbiage on these forums and i can't stop believing that the publishing houses are represented here.They are presently fighting a battle for readers.The Internet & tv are giving them a difficult time.People are DUMPING books all the time and a visit to any second hand shop will tell you that.The books must be rubbish too.We hold on to a good book.

The world in bold was used incorrectly.

Also, how do you know so much about the kind of books people do and don't hold on to? I thought you didn't read?

HavingCrack

Paddyandy, you're coming across as borderline illiterate from your posts.* Might be a suggestion to read a bit more eh?

*That or you're completely nuts.

The King of Moo

paddyandy wrote: »

Read people that's books enough.I don't need a broadened mind as many people seem to think people need.Know what you NEED to know in life the rest is superfluous and useless.Maybe a dozen books in the world worth studying.

paddyandy wrote: »

Books worth reading would probably be too opaque for most people....
We have to choose the list ourselves.There is a lot of coquettish verbiage on these forums and i can't stop believing that the publishing houses are represented here.They are presently fighting a battle for readers.The Internet & tv are giving them a difficult time.People are DUMPING books all the time and a visit to any second hand shop will tell you that.The books must be rubbish too.We hold on to a good book.

How have you decided there's only twelve books worth studying?

First of all, what are the criteria for deciding they're worth studying?
Do they have to contain purely practical, useful information, or are you taking other forms of value (emotional, intellectual, artistic) into account as well?

Even if one accepted that only the ones with essential information are worth studying, surely there's more of those than twelve!

Tell a prospective neurosurgeon that there's a maximum of twelve books they can study from.


As for there being shills for the publishers posting here: well, I should hope they have better tactics for increasing book sales than posting in After Hours!

Mindkiller

trish23 wrote: »

When you're reading you draw upon your own point of references & imagination & the book becomes alive & has a message for you personally. Each person who reads the same book will take a different message & a 'unique' take on the story.

That falls under reader response criticism though. I think the text actually loses meaning when you look at it that way

Of course, I get what you mean when you say that a film will fall short of what was imagined by the reader.

Snakeblood

Yahew wrote: »

Is that all Wodehouse?

Yep. It's awesome stuff.

old hippy

paddyandy wrote: »

Read people that's books enough.I don't need a broadened mind as many people seem to think people need.Know what you NEED to know in life the rest is superfluous and useless.Maybe a dozen books in the world worth studying.

I want knowledge. I want to hear the experiences of people across the globe, their stories, their situations. I want to know the history of the world. I doubt I'm going to find that in 12 books.

You don't know what you need to know until you step out of narrow self defined parameters...

paddyandy

I don't regret anything i've said and i don't fear a better opinion.

EddyC15

I'd say people who don't read just haven't found a book they really enjoy. I guarantee that there are books out there that people who loath reading will enjoy.

Yahew

paddyandy wrote: »

I don't regret anything i've said and i don't fear a better opinion.

Given the amount of opinions better than yours, that makes perfect sense. You'd be petrified.

Angelandie

I love reading, my family all love to read. As kids we were always encouraged to read and now as adults you'll find all of us still love to read. My bf doesn't read much, and it annoys him that I hold onto all my books (I've over 200). I've also got a kindle which I love, but I still buy actual books.
I find it weird that he doesn't read a lot, I love to relax with a book. He will read if a book really interests him, but he is a non-fiction person, where's I will read anything I can get my hands on.

Johro

old hippy wrote: »

I want knowledge. I want to hear the experiences of people across the globe, their stories, their situations. I want to know the history of the world. I doubt I'm going to find that in 12 books.

You don't know what you need to know until you step out of narrow self defined parameters...

All that and entertainment as well, there's a reason the book is always better than the film.

The King of Moo

paddyandy wrote: »

I don't regret anything i've said and i don't fear a better opinion.

It's a bit disappointing that you won't explain your position.

Other people have given well thought-out reasons for not reading.

paddyandy

If you need an explanation then you don't deserve to know.

Yahew

paddyandy wrote: »

If you need an explanation then you don't deserve to know.

that makes no sense.

The King of Moo

I was reading Our Mutual Friend by Charles Dickens this evening, and this passage reminded me of this thread, particularly the character's taste in literature.

I'm not saying this is what I think of all those who don't really read, but it pretty much sums up my preconception of non-readers before this thread .

Though I do know a few real-life Mr. Podsnaps .

More importantly, I think it's a great example of comic writing.

Mr Podsnap's world was not a very large world, morally; no, nor even geographically: seeing that although his business was sustained upon commerce with other countries, he considered other countries, with that important reservation, a mistake, and of their manners and customs would conclusively observe, 'Not English!' when, PRESTO! with a flourish of the arm, and a flush of the face, they were swept away. Elsewhere, the world got up at eight, shaved close at a quarter-past, breakfasted at nine, went to the City at ten, came home at half-past five, and dined at seven. Mr Podsnap's notions of the Arts in their integrity might have been stated thus. Literature; large print, respectfully descriptive of getting up at eight, shaving close at a quarter past, breakfasting at nine, going to the City at ten, coming home at half-past five, and dining at seven. Painting and Sculpture; models and portraits representing Professors of getting up at eight, shaving close at a quarter past, breakfasting at nine, going to the City at ten, coming home at half-past five, and dining at seven. Music; a respectable performance (without variations) on stringed and wind instruments, sedately expressive of getting up at eight, shaving close at a quarter past, breakfasting at nine, going to the City at ten, coming home at half-past five, and dining at seven. Nothing else to be permitted to those same vagrants the Arts, on pain of excommunication. Nothing else To Be--anywhere!

paddyandy

Yahew wrote: »

that makes no sense.

To subtle ????

Abi

paddyandy wrote: »

To subtle ????

No no, just nonsensical. Like the rest of your posts in this thread.

paddyandy

Abi wrote: »

No no, just nonsensical. Like the rest of your posts in this thread.

If my posts were nonsensical...why was i quoted so often.Surely you ignore a fool.

mackg

Abi wrote: »

No no, just nonsensical. Like the rest of your posts

FYP

Abi

paddyandy wrote: »

If my posts were nonsensical...why was i quoted so often.

Trolls tend to nab a few in their net.

Surely you ignore a fool.

I have up to now. I was lurking over others posts because I was otherwise enjoying them. Yet your posts kept springing up, and I've yet to find a point in them, or one that looks like it was not written by a drunk troll. I'll happily ignore you again, I'm quite good at that if I feel like it.

Chuck Stone

One of the tougher books I have read is 'A Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawking. It's dumbed down for mere mortals but I still found myself fabricating my own personalized explanations for complex ideas.

I love listening to people extolling the virtues of ABHoT as if they'd digested it's 'simplicity' with the ease of an Enid Blyton novel.