People who don't read books.

Kojak

I absolutly hate reading - reminds me too much of being back in school.

I honestly cannot see how some people enjoy it

V Eight

Giruilla wrote: »

When someone feels the need to say 'I read voraciously'... I'd be immediately inclined not to believe or trust them...

agreed - same as stating you are 'well read'. I'd be inclined to ignore them as they will more than likley 'know alls'

Dudess

Akrasia wrote: »

T

Temptamperu wrote: »

What do you read is one of the first questions I ask a person when I meet them. I then judge them accordingly.

I have to say that the back of a 1980s cornflakes box is my favourite reading material, but if i still have a few spoons left I'll probably move on to the ingredients on the side. hmmm folic acid

Always liked the word riboflavin, whatever it is.

Chuck Stone

paddyandy wrote: »

Books have simple cameos that most people can understand.There is a limit to what goes into a book.'Packaged reality' prepared like a salad that's how i see them.Big Business though and now with that Clown in the Arus there are new hopes in the breezes for all the media He is their champion.Nothing i ever experienced resonated with what i read in books like pop songs..not real life.A weeks reality in your favourite novel would sort that out.

LoL.

I'm doubled up laffin here paddy.

Moar!

Dudess

Giruilla wrote: »

stovelid wrote: »

I read voraciously and extensively - and always have - but I judge people solely on their intelligence and/or personality, not on their reading list, or indeed their grammar, education or lexicon.

When someone feels the need to say 'I read voraciously'... I'd be immediately inclined not to believe or trust them...

Looking down on people who don't read - bad
Looking down on people who do read/use long words - ok apparently?

Teddy455

I hate reading fiction. It has to be real events, autobiographys, information.

I regurlary don't read books but I read at for at least half an hour on wikipedia every day.

Giruilla

Dudess wrote: »

Looking down on people who don't read - bad
Looking down on people who do read/use long words - ok apparently?

ffs.. voracious is hardly a long word. i'm saying if you round up the majority of wafflers/wannabees/bull****ters in the world they are the exact type of people that use a word like voracious to describe their reading habits.

A person of intellect couldn't care less to describe how they live.

Corkfeen

paddyandy wrote: »

You can't put real life experience in a book.Humans are much too complicated.Books have simple cameos that most people can understand.There is a limit to what goes into a book.'Packaged reality' prepared like a salad that's how i see them.Big Business though and now with that Clown in the Arus there are new hopes in the breezes for all the media He is their champion.Nothing i ever experienced resonated with what i read in books like pop songs..not real life.A weeks reality in your favourite novel would sort that out.

Erm, in fact novels are probably one of the best possible methods to encompass the human condition. Maybe, if you had a go at actually reading something rather than criticising it, you'd understand this. Unless you can suggest another existing medium that can portray the thoughts and movements of characters while also dealing with underlying themes? (And of course the entertainment value).

It's rather worrying that you felt a need to insult our current head of state. You do realise that literature is one of the first things that people associate with Ireland, so why not appoint a person with a passion for it. You're post may have been more legible if you actually chose to read something. Have a go at reading the likes of Camus, Dostoyevsky, Vonnegut, Bret Easton Ellis(I really need to read more modern novels...) and Tolstoy to name but a few. Read just one of their novels and tell me that "Humans are much too complicated" to depict on paper.

pragmatic1

Teddy455 wrote: »

I hate reading fiction. It has to be real events, autobiographys, information.

I regurlary don't read books but I read at for at least half an hour on wikipedia.

Same here. I feel like I'm wasting my time reading fiction.

kowloon

smash wrote: »

Audio books FTW.

I remember having an eye condition where I couldn't see so my Mother picked up audio books at the library for me. Found them very difficult to follow compared to text.

What really got me to hate audio books is when I put one on one day and set it to shuffle by accident. I sat there listening to segments of audio book in random order, couldn't make head nor tail of it.

Really feel bad for the blind.

mackg

Read loads when I was younger, got into it purely by accident when I found a copy of The Lord of the Rings in the attic or some such place. Stopped for a few years but at it again now working my way through Haruki Murakami's stuff, well worth a look if your into fiction. I can't speak for everybody but I know a few people who are of the type who go on about how reading is stupid and I know for a fact that they have severe difficulty with it, not true for everyone but I find it is one explanation for people who seem to have a problem with others reading. Obviously there are people who are just not into it I'm not disputing that.

Giruilla

mackg wrote: »

Read loads when I was younger, got into it purely by accident when I found a copy of The Lord of the Rings in the attic or some such place. Stopped for a few years but at it again now working my way through Haruki Murakami's stuff, well worth a look if your into fiction. I can't speak for everybody but I know a few people who are of the type who go on about how reading is stupid and I know for a fact that they have severe difficulty with it, not true for everyone but I find it is one explanation for people who seem to have a problem with others reading. Obviously there are people who are just not into it I'm not disputing that.

Sorry to hear that..

Dudess

I love Homer for saying "What the hell are you reading books for?!" though, and wouldn't want him any other way... :pac:

Chuck Stone

Harry Wormwood: A book? What do you want a book for?

Matilda: To read.

Harry Wormwood: To read? Why would you want to read when you got the television set sitting right in front of you? There's nothing you can get from a book that you can't get from a television faster.

Dudess

"What ya readin' for?"

Bookworm85

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Harry Wormwood: A book? What do you want a book for?

Matilda: To read.

Harry Wormwood: To read? Why would you want to read when you got the television set sitting right in front of you? There's nothing you can get from a book that you can't get from a television faster.

One of my all-time favourite books!

Chuck Stone

Bookworm85 wrote: »

One of my all-time favourite books!

Didn't actually read that one but read the majority of his other stuff.

Danny the Champion of the World is my fav by a country mile. So exciting as a child.

Fantastic Mr Fox is brilliant too.

Dudess

Roald Dahl was a sharp, sharp man. My faves are Boy and The Witches.

Johnny D. Mudd

Dudess wrote: »

"What ya readin' for?"

"Not what are you reading, but what are you reading for?"

"Urm, I dunno, maybe so I don't end up being a waitress in a waffle house."

Giruilla

His Dark Materials is a fantasy book worth reading

Da Shins Kelly

Dudess wrote: »

Roald Dahl was a sharp, sharp man. My faves are Boy and The Witches.

The Witches was my favourite book as a child - the first book I ever read on my own, and read it about a hundred times thereafter, along with lots of other Roald Dahl books. Years on, he's still one of my all-time favourite authors.

Chuck Stone

Dudess wrote: »

Roald Dahl was a sharp, sharp man. My faves are Boy and The Witches.

He knew how to get inside the head of a kid (not in a surgical way*) and paint images and spark feelings of excitement and joy.

What a skill.


*Preempting smart comments from the messers.

astonaidan

Who are these monsters and where is the mob to hunt them down

tr0llface

You can usually tell who reads books and who doesn't read by their grammar/spelling, but other times, it's the type of books that they read. Reading books that are too young/simple for someone could be damaging as their vocabulary wouldn't widen and therefore their grammar wouldn't be fantastic.

I'm not saying that just because you read books means you'll be smart/have good grammar because I know plenty of people with awful grammar that read books, but usually the type of books can be guessed, like some little Justin Bieber/One Direction fangirl would usually be reading biographies and not really helping their spelling/grammar either.

Dudess

Johnny D. Mudd wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

"What ya readin' for?"

"Not what are you reading, but what are you reading for?"

Oh god how I lolled. :pac:

Giruilla

Anyone who boasts about how many books they read should be ashamed..

GreenWolfe

Giruilla wrote: »

Anyone who boasts about how many books they read should be ashamed..

Much like the same people who point to War and Peace on their bookshelf, even though they've never read the thing.

I don't really like the literary classics, but I don't boast about how wonderful they are when I've never read them. I think it puts people off reading and it's shameful.

Dudess

I feel lucky. I've never encountered these reading snobs.

Deki

I read because I enjoy it. My brothers and I were given library cards when we turned three and books were always in our lives. Reading is just as much a part of living as breathing in and out.

Giruilla

EarthlyPangaea wrote: »

Much like the same people who point to War and Peace on their bookshelf, even though they've never read the thing.

I don't really like the literary classics, but I don't boast about how wonderful they are when I've never read them. I think it puts people off reading and it's shameful.

Take the Bible as a classic example.

K-9

Yahew wrote: »

I get the impression that some people don't see images in their heads when they read. It's just Dickens droning on in Dickens' voice, or something. ( We all read dry academic texts like that). For most readers however, the narration collapses and we see the book as if it were a movie; we see the place, hear the dialog, internally draw the characters. Thats why movies sometimes disappoint, sometimes movies can't live up to our internal experience.

End of thread.

Was just reading the over rated movie thread and Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy came up. Le Carre novels just don't transfer to film and there have been a few, the Constant Gardener not a bad attempt because the acting was good.

The TV series did a far better job because it got the time to flesh the characters out in detail, you start getting involved with the character, identifying and sympathising with them. TV just doesn't allow that any more, you wouldn't get Tinker, Sailor, Soldier Spy or Smiley's People on TV now, the ratings wouldn't allow it. House of Cards another excellent series, not Le Carre.

The book very rarely matches the film and there's a very good reason for it!

Dudess

Giruilla wrote: »

EarthlyPangaea wrote: »

Much like the same people who point to War and Peace on their bookshelf, even though they've never read the thing.

I don't really like the literary classics, but I don't boast about how wonderful they are when I've never read them. I think it puts people off reading and it's shameful.

Take the Bible as a classic example.

I'm confused - I thought the one book an intellectual snob definitely wouldn't have is the bible?

Yakult

I'm must start reading more often so I'm gonna get the Kindle this weekend!

Chuck Stone

Yakult wrote: »

I'm must start reading more often so I'm gonna get the Kindle this weekend!

Can you browse the internet on an eReader? :pac:


Hopefully not.

Elliemental

I personally couldn't give up reading. I love reading, and always have a book on the go. One fiction, and one non-fiction. However, it's not for everyone. I may not be able to relate to it, but it's not adversely affecting me in any way. No harm. :pac:

Yakult

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Can you browse the internet on an eReader? :pac:


Hopefully not.

Not too sure? But I dont need a browser.

murraykil

tr0llface wrote: »

You can usually tell who reads books and who doesn't read by their grammar/spelling, but other times, it's the type of books that they read. Reading books that are too young/simple for someone could be damaging as their vocabulary wouldn't widen and therefore their grammar wouldn't be fantastic.

I'm not saying that just because you read books means you'll be smart/have good grammar because I know plenty of people with awful grammar that read books, but usually the type of books can be guessed, like some little Justin Bieber/One Direction fangirl would usually be reading biographies and not really helping their spelling/grammar either.

:pac:

murraykil

Yakult wrote: »

Not too sure? But I dont need a browser.

The kindle has a web browser. It's like switching back to black & white tv! :pac:

Chuck Stone

murraykil wrote: »

The kindle has a web browser. It's like switching back to black & white tv! :pac:

Aw damn. I would be using the kindle and come across a word that I didn't understand, I'd then google it and eventually end up reading about some completely unrelated topic, like prehistoric fish, an hour down the line.

That's what I love about the internet though.

murraykil

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Aw damn. I would be using the kindle and come across a word that I didn't understand, I'd then google it and eventually end up reading about some completely unrelated topic, like prehistoric fish, an hour down the line.

That's what I love about the internet though.

It has a dictionary too so you just highlight a word and the definition comes up. No excuse to head off to Google! I doubt you would do that anyway, it's a little slow to navigate around, not too bad, but enough to discourage you to move between reading and internet. It's a great device.

Adyx

Dotrel wrote: »

Depends on what you're reading. I find straight-forward fiction to be dull as ditchwater and a waste of time.

Even say something like Moby Dick is only enjoyable because most of the book diverts from the narrative and deals with subjects like cetology and life on the sea rather than Ahab blathering on about his white whale.

Really? :eek: I'm a big Jules Verne fan and I've read 20,00 Leagues Under The Sea more times than I can count and apart from the first time I always skip the pages and pages of descriptions of various sea life they encounter. I admit I've little interest in cetology or marine zoology in general and I couldn't tell a baleen whale from a blue whale but the way those lists just went on and on bored me to tears and almost ruined the book for me.

Adyx

Also if anyone is interested in the Kindle, the software is freely available for PC and Android if you just want to try it out. Even on my shítty Vodafone Smart it works a treat and there's lots of free books.

mrsdewinter

Giruilla wrote: »

ffs.. voracious is hardly a long word. i'm saying if you round up the majority of wafflers/wannabees/bull****ters in the world they are the exact type of people that use a word like voracious to describe their reading habits.

A person of intellect couldn't care less to describe how they live.

No, but you forget the extent to which reading has become a lifestyle choice. Not just reading, but reading the right kind of books, is what's important now. I know very few people who will read both Game of Thrones and the latest Cathy Kelly book. Such people do exist - but they don't drone on about being voracious readers...

im invisible

I used to read a lot, then i signed up to Boards...

mackg

Giruilla wrote: »

Sorry to hear that..

Oh Jesus why? Have I fucked up is he too trendy/not trendy enough? I'm out of the loop on this kind of thing, thanks for the heads up bro :pac::pac:

Giruilla wrote: »

ffs.. voracious is hardly a long word. i'm saying if you round up the majority of wafflers/wannabees/bull****ters in the world they are the exact type of people that use a word like voracious to describe their reading habits.

A person of intellect couldn't care less to describe how they live.

mrsdewinter wrote: »

No, but you forget the extent to which reading has become a lifestyle choice. Not just reading, but reading the right kind of books, is what's important now. I know very few people who will read both Game of Thrones and the latest Cathy Kelly book. Such people do exist - but they don't drone on about being voracious readers...

Where do ye meet people like this? Is it more older people I'm 25 and out of all the peole I know who read I have never met anyone like you describe, is it more among older people?

Rezident

The King of Moo wrote: »

What do you think of people who don't read books?

I don't understand how people can live their lives without reading. It's just such a basic thing for me that not reading seems no different from not watching films or not listening to music.

I know some people say you can just watch films instead as you're still getting a story, only it's less boring and easier to do.

But the experience of reading is completely different from watching a film.
A book is usually more immersive than a film and reading is a great exercise for one's imagination and a great way to expand one's vocabulary and generally improve how one speaks and writes (which goes for adults as well as kids).

Do you know anyone who doesn't read?

Do you yourself not read, and do you think that's ok?

We-he-he-hell, lookie here! We got ourselves a reader!

Sooopie

Am I the only one who would chose a real book over a kindle any day of the week? They are handy, sure & would be great for heading away on holidays - but for me, nothing beats a brand new book, or spending a while, browsing in a book store, picking out what I like

Also, the prices of books to download can be alot more expensive then buying one. I hope the kindle doesen't do away with bookstores in the end!

mackg

Sooopie wrote: »

Am I the only one who would chose a real book over a kindle any day of the week? They are handy, sure & would be great for heading away on holidays - but for me, nothing beats a brand new book, or spending a while, browsing in a book store, picking out what I like

Also, the prices of books to download can be alot more expensive then buying one. I hope the kindle doesen't do away with bookstores in the end!

Your post reminds me of browsing in HMV then going home and downloading stuff that looked good!

Sooopie

mackg wrote: »

Your post reminds me of browsing in HMV then going home and downloading stuff that looked good!

excuse my ignorance, but can ya download books illegally too?

HalloweenJack

I know one person who flat out refuses to read books and he's an ignorant tool. I firmly believe this is directly linked to his refusal to read. He thinks he knows everything based on his own interpretations, which sometimes are plain ridiculous.

I find, even with people who read a small amount, they are more open to other people's opinions and are willing to have their views challenged.

Reading is great, it offers different viewpoints and can make you think about things in a different way than you would have before. It also helps your vocabulary. I don't see anything wrong with reading*.



* Unless it's ****e like Twilight