People who don't read books.

mackg

Sooopie wrote: »

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

probably not sure tbh but I just had this menal picture of someone browsing in a bookshop taking notes on stuff to download to their kindle because it's more conveniant!

Logical Fallacy

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!

Nope, i like books, don't own a Kindle and can't see myself buying one.

Give me a well worn paper back any day.

Fluorescence

I dunno. On one hand I would quite like a Kindle, because it would be so much easier to bring around with me day to day than the book I'm currently reading (which can be inconveniently large tomes at times). On the other I love having piles and piles of books around the place. Plus the smell is the best smell in the world.

Mmmmm, books. *sniff*

stupidusername

Dont think i'd ever get a kindle,though the awkwardness of reading some books would be solved by it,if you lose it it's a lot of money down the drain,and you've lost all your books

Adyx

stupidusername wrote: »

Dont think i'd ever get a kindle,though the awkwardness of reading some books would be solved by it,if you lose it it's a lot of money down the drain,and you've lost all your books

You won't lose your books, you can download them again.

stupidusername

Adyx wrote: »

You won't lose your books, you can download them again.

Yeah....after you buy another kindle

kraggy

mathie wrote: »

dares no avantidge to reddin buks shure

Anyone else read this with a Tipperary accent?

Jaxxy

I have a Kindle and I absolutely lurrrrvvve it. I donated all of my books to the library and have saved so much space as a result, it's brilliant. Kindle comes everywhere with me in my bag.

My mother has a Kindle too, which she also loves, but sometimes she'll buy a paperback. She says she misses the "feel" of reading a book every now and then.

confusticated

Mink wrote: »

It seems almost "genetic". If you grew up in a household where at least one parent is an avid book reader, it will then spill down the kids, and they pass it onto their kids etc.

People who don't read/ don't own any books are most likely to have had parents that also didn't read / own books.

I don't know though, I would never not have at least one book on the go, usually 2. My brother has read I'd say 3 books that weren't required for school. We're pretty close in age and played lots of the same games and with the same kind of toys when we were small, he just never took to reading at all. Mam reads a bit but didn't really when we were growing up, Dad reads the paper but only a couple of books a year. It probably has some effect but can't be counted on at all.

Akrasia wrote: »

I used to read a lot but when you work all day, spend all evening feeding playing with and putting the kids to bed and only have a few hours to spend alone with your other half then spending the whole time by yourself reading a book seems a little anti-social.

I know what you mean but I'd see watching a film as no different, it's still a solitary activity...I've often curled up on one end of the sofa, the boyfriend at the other and each of us has our books. Removes the argument of different tastes in films too, we each have whatever book we prefer!

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd be of the opinion that imagination is a skill just like maths is a skill that you learn. If your using your imagination for flights of fancy without grounding it in reality's then your developing your imagination in a particular direction that may not be beneficial when applied to say an engineering project.

Depends on the project. I'm an engineering student, parts of our assignments are communicating to someone without an engineering background what our project is about. I've ended up doing a lot of that communicating part in a group project and I'd put that down to reading a lot in part. If I only read non-fiction I think the explanations would be quite dry, whereas I hope they're a bit more lively than a textbook! Everything in moderation, obviously I'm not going to go off on a tangent about soldier's experiences in WW1 in an engineering assignment just because that's the novel I'm currently reading.

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...

Think this has been the longest post I've ever written!

eirn

My mother had a really tough childhood, and has often said that she felt that reading saved her life, it gave her a chance to shut out what was going on around her. Reading helped her to develop a sense of ambition, and allowed her to expand her horizons.

She encouraged my sister and I to read when we were growing up, would read to us when we were little (one of the most important things a parent can do for their child imo) and brought us to the library.

My brother was less interested in reading, and it was never pushed on him. He went through school and college, and was successful, but has never read for pleasure. I gave him some Ross O'Carroll Kelly books for Christmas last year. He loves them, and was genuinely surprised that a book could be anything other than factual, serious and boring.:)

I think reading anything is good for you. I'm doing a Ph.D. in history, but I think (hope) that reading across a range of genres helps to develop your vocabulary and become a better writer.

One of my dad's favourite quotes is from Mark Twain 'A person who won't read has no advantage over a person who can't read', harsh I know!
But I think people who are readers can find it hard to understand why anyone would choose to deny themselves something so great.

Personally, I find it sad that a lot of children grow up in houses where the only book is the telephone directory.

karaokeman

It depends.

Admittedly I've only read about 4-5 books that weren't school books/college books, but its really because I don't have the time.

My mum can read 4 novels a week, she's mad into reading. I wish I had that kind of dedication but I agree that boards can in some ways be considered just as benefitial.

Boards is more or less like reading a newspaper. When you view a new thread you are reading what someone wrote about a particular topic and then seeing all the people who replied to it. Its very much like reading a review in the paper and then seeing various comments being made on that.

I still strive for that one day when I will have the passion for reading to do it whenever and wherever I want. I feel its coming, I just don't know when. Hopefully the fact I am doing a BA in English will help with that. We need to read a good few books this year but I'm keeping up with it so far.

Bookworm85

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Nope, i like books, don't own a Kindle and can't see myself buying one.

Give me a well worn paper back any day.

Don't knock it 'till you try it, seriously.

I was of the same mid as you until very recently. My OH gave me a Sony eReader for my birthday back in August and I'm glued to it. I've read far more in the last few months than I would normally.

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

Yes, you can download books illegally

Scruffles

not everyones minds are built around words/language though that isnt an intelectual issue it is just the way the brain is wired and the way people think determines what will be strengths/weaknesses.
speaking from own view am probably at the extreme opposite to word thinkers-only able to think in images and in twenty seven years have never read word books apart from temple grandins 'thinking in pictures' in ebook/PDF version [due to problems with reading],but it is like another language as very little goes in.

with forums,am able to read as have always got computers set up a certain way; it allows each letter to be 'drawn' then built together into words.
can write a lot as working/short term memory is non existant so will forget after each sentance where its up to.

everyones different,but there are always the lazy arses though who just dont read because they cant be bothered-its themselves that they are letting down.

Dudess

mackg wrote: »

Where do ye meet people like this?

Their heads I'd say. I'm seeing far more sneering at people here who read, rather than the opposite. And lots of **** being made up too - as if people who drone on about the books they've read are commonplace. I've never met anyone who does. And I'd use a word like voraciously in a written context without thinking about it, not to look intellectual - because I'm a grown-up.

southsiderosie

karaokeman wrote: »

Boards is more or less like reading a newspaper. When you view a new thread you are reading what someone wrote about a particular topic and then seeing all the people who replied to it. Its very much like reading a review in the paper and then seeing various comments being made on that.

I like boards, but I really have to disagree with this. Even the most vile tabloid rag has some kind of editing process, requires some level of critical analysis, and maintains minimal standards for grammar and spelling. You have to sift through a lot of nonsense to find that on boards most of the time.

Yahew

southsiderosie wrote: »

I like boards, but I really have to disagree with this. Even the most vile tabloid rag has some kind of editing process, requires some level of critical analysis, and maintains minimal standards for grammar and spelling. You have to sift through a lot of nonsense to find that on boards most of the time.

I agree with the second boldified point, but not the first. There are better threads here - particularly in the specialised fora than pretty much anything the Sun, or Express has produced.

yoyo

The last book I read was for my leaving cert which is over 5 years ago now... Just never got into reading, which is funny as all my family are big into reading. Most i'll read would be a news article or threads on boards :P tbh.

Nick

flyaway.

I personally love books. I read 150+ books a year and I can't imagine my life without reading.

But... it's a hobby. And just like any hobby, there will be people who like it and people who don't. I can't imagine ever judging somebody because they don't read or judging them because they read different books to me. I don't expect someone to look down at me just because I don't like their hobbies- be it football or stamp collecting- so I would never even think to look down at someone because they don't read.

Do I think it'd be cool if everyone could get the same enjoyment out of reading as I do? Sure, because I think it's amazing. However, I'm sure other people get that level of enjoyment out of their own hobbies.

Eric Cartman

ive never read a full book , even in school i watched the film adaptations of to kill a mocking bird, romeo & juliet etc...

Yahew

But... it's a hobby.

Its a bit more than that. The educational system is not really teaching hobbies. In teaching people to read it is not teaching people to functionally read, we could end education in English at primary school for that. It is teaching people to read good novels, poems, science books, etc. Otherwise its a failure.

Dudess

I do disagree with the notion that the book is always better than the film. The medium of film can do things the printed word can't. I was far more emotionally affected by the end of 1984 the film (with John Hurt and Richard burton) than the book - although overall, the book is far better. Ditto The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas - film ending had me shocked, not so much the book ending, because it was far more understated.

Adyx

stupidusername wrote: »

Yeah....after you buy another kindle

But that's true of anything. Besides as I pointed out above, the Kindle software is freely available so you don't even have to buy one in the first place. I don't have one and have no plans to get one. It works fine on my phone and netbook and the page I'm on is always synced.

stovelid

Giruilla wrote: »

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

When someone feels the need to question it, I'm inclined not to care?

Yahew

Dudess wrote: »

I do disagree with the notion that the book is always better than the film. The medium of film can do things the printed word can't. I was far more emotionally affected by the end of 1984 the film (with John Hurt and Richard burton) than the book - although overall, the book is far better. Ditto The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas - film ending had me shocked, not so much the book ending, because it was far more understated.

The Shining is another example. What is generally lost in movies though, is the thought processes of the epistolary or first person novels. And books, like movies, are good because of how they are written not what they are about.

Pride and Prejudice is really just standard chick lit - and can appear that way on celluloid. Girl meets guy, hates guy but feels a spark, sees guy's pad, guy is nicer than previously thought, girl gets guy.

What is different is how Austen dissects the mores of the day, and her language.

First line:

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

A brilliant opening and clearly ironic, even if you know nothing of the era, you doubt that young men of fortune are seeking marriage, but that others want it for them*. Good writing is not necessarily related to plot.


* partially because the phrase "in want of" in British and Irish colloquial English often means someone else wants it for them.

conorhal

southsiderosie wrote: »

I like boards, but I really have to disagree with this. Even the most vile tabloid rag has some kind of editing process, requires some level of critical analysis, and maintains minimal standards for grammar and spelling. You have to sift through a lot of nonsense to find that on boards most of the time.

I'd agree with this, boards and internet forums in general, are a product of the new 'me' culture and I find that the level of debate tends to be poor, with the exception of a few brave souls, usually readers, and you can spot them because they tend to reference their opinions with published fact.
For most people however message boards are more about expressing 'my opinion' rather than engaging others (I hold up my hands and freely admit to being as guilty of this as most posters) and that is the advantage of reading over other media, it's not passive like watching TV, where you're even spoon-fed the appropriate emotional response with a musical queue that practically shouts CRY DAMNIT! and it's not interactive like a message board with everybody biding their time and waiting their turn to either stick in the knife in or spout some ill informed nonsense.
Reading is the absorption and critical analysis of one's own reaction to the information imparted and when reading you have to dedicate the time to do this in a manner that the clickynextlinky generation don't seem to be able to tolerate. Scientists now wonder if perhaps the internet is 're-wiring' the way the brain works, as people parse information in a superficial manner before clicking on the next link and as a result, are becoming unable to critically evaluate information effectively or explore any subject in any depth. We are becoming more passive, egotistical and superficial by the day. people need to read more and click less.

Yahew

That all depends on moderation. Some sub-fora here are fairly demanding - Politics, for instance.

Latchy

Got hooked on reading back in school days and Enid Blyton would have been the first of many that caught my interest .As I got older , I became more fond of non-fiction and still am although I've got through the first 5 in the Patricia Cornwell series of books not so long ago , which I found gripping but non- fiction, history and autobiography would always be my first choice still . For people who don't read at all ,that's their choice but the must be loosing out on a lot and it must be awkward and boring when they can't relate to a subject matter off hand...assuming they are interested in the first place .

vampire of kilmainham

iam allways reading i have too have a few books around to read or i go crazy if iam not on line im reading mostly read in bed

Deki

I believe you can be taught to read and that will give you access to every bit of knowledge ever written, but you can't make every person seek out that knowledge- some will some won't. Just because a person is capable of reading doesn't mean he will enjoy doing it. I love to read- like spending time in a different world, time or place- a mini vacation in a single afternoon- for me. Can't expect everyone to feel the same way.
I have friends who actually enjoy filling out tax forms and finding loopholes they can bury funds in and derive great satisfaction from crunching numbers but I wait until nearly the last day and then only do it cause I have to.
Snobbery in anything is ridiculous if you think about it. We all have our own interests. Who can say one is superior to the next?

vampire of kilmainham

some people are just not into reading they just cant relax and get into it but those of us who do like reading should count our blessings that we can spend hours carried away into another world the magic world of reading

Latchy

stovelid wrote: »

When someone feels the need to question it, I'm inclined not to care?

Indeed !

'' Losing myself in a book '' is one of the gretest quotes of all .

skylight1987

I adore reading i always have , books , newspapers , magazines, i read them all . I also go quite deaf when i am reading. I really do get so immersed in books that i feel i am actually there , wherever the author has decided to take me, i am there, be it 1920 's New York or victorian England . I feel sorry for folk who dont read . I feel they are totally missing out

Birdie086

My boyfriend has very poor reading and writing skills, he went straight from primary school to work, which is rare enough these days, we are 30. My house is filled with books and he loves to see me read, i think he would love to read himself but has no confidence in his own reading skills.

Although he does know the value of computer skills even though he hasnt any. whenever he wants to source stuff for work he asks me to 'google it' for him!

AudreyHepburn

I am an absolute bookworm.....in fact I spent this morning at a Reader's Day listening to various authors including Brian Keenan and Sebastien Barry give readings and talk about their books.

For me books are enterainment and escapsim. There is nothing I like more when I'm stressed or tired or not feeling well then to sit down and lose myself in a good book.....crime books in particular. I love a good whodunnit.

I would never judge some-one who has genuinely tried to read books and just can't. I would have issue however with those who have never tried or not made a proper effort to try and still say they can't read. Don't knock it til you've tried it is my motto.

I do feel anyone who can't or won't read is missing out but that's their choice and it certainly doesn't ( for the most part) reflect on them as people.

Latchy

Books for generations were the internet of the day except knowledge didn't come in an instant with google etc .

Yahew

Latchy wrote: »

Books for generations were the internet of the day except knowledge didn't come in an instant with google etc .

knowledge doesn't come in an instant, now.

lpjonesy

Never read books , read the news on the net , much prefer figures economics and financial news , never watch films because its all CGI these days no real acting

Latchy

Yahew wrote: »

knowledge doesn't come in an instant, now.

No it didn't ...you have to work at that but libarys weren't open 24 hrs a day either back then .;)

TPD

I read a lot. Mostly fiction. I don't understand people who say reading (or even fiction in particular) is a waste of time. It's enjoyable. What more than that is needed for the time spent to be worthwhile?

ToddyDoody

I find that people who dont read books tend to have no patience.

Acacia

I find there's two types of people who don't read- those who gave it a chance, tried a few books, and it just wasn't really their thing. Then there are those who actively promote the fact that reading is ''boring'', ''nerdy'' or a waste of time , who never even attempted to read a book outside of school and deride people who do read a lot. As you can probably tell, I've a lot more time for for the first group.

Reading to me is as much a part of my life as eating or sleeping. Ever since I learnt to read ( and even before that, I would beg my parents to read me stories), I read pretty much every day, if not full-blown novels then anything I could lay my hands on- magazines, newspapers, the back of a ketchup bottle:pac: It's just something I've always done. I loved English at school, and I'm aiming to be a librarian now so I can work with what I love. I was doing some work experience in a library recently and it saddened me to see children only taking out games or DVD's instead of books. On the other hand, it felt great to have kids coming back in saying they loved a book I recommended and that they wanted to read more.

To each his own, but I really feel those who don't read at all, who never gave it a chance as a leaisure activity and not homework or a chore, are really missing out. There are people who would rather watch crap like "Jersey Shore" instead of reading a great novel (not saying that everyone who doesn't read is a moron though ) and I just feel sorry for them to be honest.

Chinafoot

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9532000/9532475.stm

Recent study about how reading fiction is good for you. I heard this professor being interviewed by Sean Moncrieff around the time this study was released and it was very interesting. It makes sense that those exposed to fiction could have a greater understanding of social situations and inter-personal relationships.

Personally, I'm an avid reader and always have been. I was always a regular visitor to the local library as a child, did better in English than any other subject in school, studied English literature in college and am now working in a library.

I have no problem with people who have tried getting into books and have found it's just not their thing, but this crap of putting others down because they read is something I will never understand. I hate that, for a lot of teenagers, stupidity is cool. Our library is quite near a school and we get a lot of teenagers outside on their lunchbreak. It's really saddening the amount of times I've heard young lads calling other young lads "fag" or "homo" for using the library.

Yahew

Stephen Pinker in the better angels of our nature says something similar.

Spazdarn

The generalisations of people who don't read books are hilarious. Apparently there are only two types of people who don't read books...

I used to read books a lot when I was young, a lot of fiction, probably more suitable for adults more so than a teenager.

There are many, many books I would love to get into, but my life just doesn't seem to have time for them.

Wake up, go to work, by the time I'm home, have ate and watched to two or three tv shows I have downloaded that I actually like, then it's time for bed.

Rinse and Repeat.

Chinafoot

ToiletFusion wrote: »

The generalisations of people who don't read books are hilarious. Apparently there are only two types of people who don't read books...

I used to read books a lot when I was young, a lot of fiction, probably more suitable for adults more so than a teenager.

There are many, many books I would love to get into, but my life just doesn't seem to have time for them.

Wake up, go to work, by the time I'm home, have ate and watched to two or three tv shows I have downloaded that I actually like, then it's time for bed.

Rinse and Repeat.

Perhaps your life would have time for them if you weren't watching two or three tv shows every night. Just a thought

Acacia

Chinafoot wrote: »

I have no problem with people who have tried getting into books and have found it's just not their thing, but this crap of putting others down because they read is something I will never understand. I hate that, for a lot of teenagers, stupidity is cool. Our library is quite near a school and we get a lot of teenagers outside on their lunchbreak. It's really saddening the amount of times I've heard young lads calling other young lads "fag" or "homo" for using the library.

It's quite pathetic really and it's something I've experienced a lot growing up. I remember reading by myself one lunchtime in primary school, a group of kids gathered around me and asked me "Why are you reading?!", as if it wasn't a perfectly reasonable way to spend free time. I probably would have got less weird looks if I'd run around naked!:pac:

I just thought I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Acacia

ToiletFusion wrote: »

The generalisations of people who don't read books are hilarious. Apparently there are only two types of people who don't read books...

I used to read books a lot when I was young, a lot of fiction, probably more suitable for adults more so than a teenager.

There are many, many books I would love to get into, but my life just doesn't seem to have time for them.

Wake up, go to work, by the time I'm home, have ate and watched to two or three tv shows I have downloaded that I actually like, then it's time for bed.

Rinse and Repeat.

Well, I didn't literally mean there are only two kinds of people who don't read, it's just been my (very generalised) experience to date.

jive

Acacia wrote: »

I find there's two types of people who don't read- those who gave it a chance, tried a few books, and it just wasn't really their thing. Then there are those who actively promote the fact that reading is ''boring'', ''nerdy'' or a waste of time , who never even attempted to read a book outside of school and deride people who do read a lot. As you can probably tell, I've a lot more time for for the first group.

The bolded part is me. I phucking hate reading books. I just find it such a boring process and have to make a conscious effort to focus on what I'm reading or I will read while thinking about something completely irrelevant to the book in hand and forget what the phuck the last 10 pages were about and have to read them again. It's just not enjoyable for me. I prefer to watch tv and movies to get my fix of stories. I read articles but never books. I don't see what I 'get' from books. Obviously I have to read parts of textbooks for college but other than that I don't read them.

-

The thing that pisses me off about quite a few (not all) people who read books is that many of them have an elitist attitude. Different strokes for different folks. Just because one person enjoys ulysses and another enjoys Jersey Shore doesn't mean anything. It's for entertainment.

Spazdarn

Chinafoot wrote: »

Perhaps your life would have time for them if you weren't watching two or three tv shows every night. Just a thought

I'm already knee deep, in the plot of those shows. A new book would have to reel me in from the get go and it's rare that I give/get a chance to do so. I was in Thailand/Laos for a month during the summer, perfect excuse to crack into a good book. Got about a 100 pages in and that was that... Though a lads holiday with ten of us was never going to amount to much reading time...

Chinafoot

Acacia wrote: »

It's quite pathetic really and it's something I've experienced a lot growing up. I remember reading by myself one lunchtime in primary school, a group of kids gathered around me and asked me "Why are you reading?!", as if it wasn't a perfectly reasonable way to spend free time. I probably would have got less weird looks if I'd run around naked!:pac:

I just thought I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Ha! Reminds of that amazing Bill Hicks bit!

"I was in Nashville, Tennessee last year. After the show I went to a Waffle House. I'm not proud of it, I was hungry. And I'm alone, I'm eating and I'm reading a book, right? Waitress walks over to me: 'Hey, whatcha readin' for?' Isn't that the weirdest fúckin' question you've ever heard? Not what am I reading, but what am I reading FOR? Well, goddamnit, ya stumped me! Why do I read? Well . . . hmmm...I dunno...I guess I read for a lot of reasons and the main one is so I don't end up being a fúckin' waffle waitress."