People who don't read books.

Donald_ducked

I used to read books but the access to the interweb has pretty much stopped that

Chinafoot

ToiletFusion wrote: »

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...

Well then perhaps you fall into the category of people who find it just isn't for them. You're assuming that those of us who say "they tried it, wasn't for them" mean that they just couldn't do it or that there is something wrong with them. I don't mean that at all. I mean that it's not for them for whatever reason and that includes perceived time constraints. I say perceived because, personally, I think those who really enjoy reading always find time for it.

Edited to add: If I gave up on every book that didn't immediately grab me in the opening pages I would have missed out on some amazing reads.

Spazdarn

I definitely did enjoy reading at one stage in my life, but it seems to have dwindled since.

Another weird thing would be I find it much easier and more comfortable to read a book on a pdf on the screen as I would with a paperback. The last few books that I read, were off the computer screen during my break at work.

Acacia

jive wrote: »

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.

Yeah, I know a lot of people who gave it a chance and just didn't like it. That's fair enough.

RE: the elitist thing... I find sometimes (not saying you're doing this ), the elitist/snob label is thrown around to justify the dumbing down of society. To me, it's like the grown-up version of calling somebody a nerd for reading. It can promote the idea that to be in anyway into anything 'intellectual' is a bad thing and to be discouraged.

Realistically there are probably far more people who know who Snooki is, than who Leopold Bloom is. If it's snobby of me to say that I think that is quite sad , then so be it. Nobody is 'wrong' or a terrible person for liking ''Jersey Shore"... but maybe if they gave "Ulysses" a chance they might find a more worthwhile and fulfilling kind of entertainment. What other people do in their spare time is up to them though.

Chinafoot

ToiletFusion wrote: »

I definitely did enjoy reading at one stage in my life, but it seems to have dwindled since.

Another weird thing would be I find it much easier and more comfortable to read a book on a pdf on the screen as I would with a paperback. The last few books that I read, were off the computer screen during my break at work.

Would you consider an ebook reader like a Kindle? Could be a good way to get you back into it and reading those books you've wanted to get stuck into.

jive wrote:

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.

I agree with the sentiment of your post but your example of Jersey Shore is something I completely disgaree with. Jersey Shore, The Only Way is Essex, Real Housewives and all that other reality tv muck plays a huge part in the dumbing down of society and it's really, really depressing. They put these, inevitably, intellectually challenged "reality stars" up as people to be admired. It feeds into the attitude that being intelligent is bad and wrong and being vacuous and cheap is something to which the young people of today should be aspiring.

Acacia hit the nail on the head with the below post.

Acacia wrote:

the elitist/snob label is thrown around to justify the dumbing down of society. To me, it's like the grown-up version of calling somebody a nerd for reading. It can promote the idea that to be in anyway into anything 'intellectual' is a bad thing and to be discouraged.

Abi

I love reading, time is my enemy though just lately. I've tonnes of books, some fictional some factual. I've bought two books in the last fortnight, and I've started to read them both - I'm greedy and my schedule can't handle it.

I love the emotions and imagery a book can evoke. Taking your mind away from the every day grind, it creates a release for me. I think everyone would be just that little calmer, would put things into perspective for them, and I suppose open their minds in general if they read more.


People that don't read, well they don't read. Those that do, it just keeps giving, and keeps your mind sharp

ameliadad

"You know I've noticed a certain anti-intellectualism going around this country ever since around 1980, coincidentally enough. I was in Nashville, Tennessee last weekend and after the show I went to a waffle house and I'm sitting there and I'm eating and reading a book. I don't know anybody, I'm alone, I'm eating and I'm reading a book. This waitress comes over to me (mocks chewing gum) 'what you readin' for?'...wow I've never been asked that, not what am I reading, what am i reading for? Well god damnit you stumped me...I guess I read for a lot of reasons the main one is so I don't end up being a fcukkin' waffle waitress" (Bill Hicks)

Latchy

Abi wrote: »

I love the emotions and imagery a book can evoke. Taking your mind away from the every day grind, it creates a release for me

. I think everyone would be just that little calmer, would put things into perspective for them, and I suppose open their minds in general if they read more.


People that don't read, well they don't read. Those that do, it just keeps giving, and keeps your mind sharp

That's the whole key and beauty of it ,when you can lose yourself and be taken back to some place in time ,be it early twenty century Dublin with all the imagery ,characters and smells , or New York in the 1940s ...or some hick American town in the 1960s .It's like you are walking in somebodys shoes

Abi

Latchy wrote: »

That's the whole key and beauty of it ,when you can lose yourself and be taken back to some place in time ,be it early twenty century Dublin with all the imagery ,characters and smells or New York in the 1940s ...or some hick American town in the 1960s .It's like you are walking in somebodys shoes

Nailed it Latch

Deki

and seeing life through their eyes not from your own perspective. To me that's a gift and I relish it.

jive

Acacia wrote: »

RE: the elitist thing... I find sometimes (not saying you're doing this ), the elitist/snob label is thrown around to justify the dumbing down of society. To me, it's like the grown-up version of calling somebody a nerd for reading. It can promote the idea that to be in anyway into anything 'intellectual' is a bad thing and to be discouraged.

I disagree. Reading doesn't make you an intellectual but people who read always 'feel sorry' for those that are missing out on the magic of reading when the reality of the situation is that a lot of people just don't enjoy to read. Many of them have a condescending attitude towards those that don't read. I find seminars and talks (be it in real life or video form) a lot more intellectually stimulating than sitting down to read a book. Many people get that mental stimulation from reading books, I don't. Like I said I have to make a conscious effort just to get through a book and as much as I'd like to read I simply don't enjoy it for whatever reason.

Chinafoot wrote: »

I agree with the sentiment of your post but your example of Jersey Shore is something I completely disgaree with. Jersey Shore, The Only Way is Essex, Real Housewives and all that other reality tv muck plays a huge part in the dumbing down of society and it's really, really depressing. They put these, inevitably, intellectually challenged "reality stars" up as people to be admired. It feeds into the attitude that being intelligent is bad and wrong and being vacuous and cheap is something to which the young people of today should be aspiring.

The only people who admire people on Jersey Shore etc. are those dumb enough to interpret the show incorrectly. Being an intellectual will always be 'frowned upon' so to speak due to the fact that humans are jealous creatures and those which are not capable of achieving any form of excellence (or just impressive) academically (the majority) will then try to belittle those that can.

kowloon

I think the way reading is approached in school/college kills the fun for a lot of people. Nothing cures a reading habit like being forced to skim read through a mass of crap for an essay.
I remember being told how I should interpret things for the leaving cert, almost ruined it all for me.
I'd imagine an English Lit. course would destroy me.

Latchy

Abi wrote: »

Nailed it Latch

I really shudda been an actor Abi ...I tell's ya .:D

Acacia

jive wrote: »

I disagree. Reading doesn't make you an intellectual but people who read always 'feel sorry' for those that are missing out on the magic of reading when the reality of the situation is that a lot of people just don't enjoy to read. Many of them have a condescending attitude towards those that don't read. I find seminars and talks (be it in real life or video form) a lot more intellectually stimulating than sitting down to read a book. Many people get that mental stimulation from reading books, I don't. Like I said I have to make a conscious effort just to get through a book and as much as I'd like to read I simply don't enjoy it for whatever reason.

Well, I didn't say that reading automatically makes you an intellectual. What I said was some people who don't enjoy reading go out of their way to put down people who do enjoy it by insinuating that they elitist or snobby. Presumably they would also denigrate those that enjoy seminars, etc as well. Basically, they would put down anyone who enjoys being intellectually stimulated, and I guess books are the most traditional form of that, so reading bears the brunt of the ''anti-intellectual'' attack.

I also maintain there's nothing 'wrong' with not enjoying reading, nor is it condescending to say I 'feel sorry' for those who watch ''Jersey Shore'' rather than read a book. What I mean is , as I find it so enjoyable, I just feel those that never even give reading a chance (because they might like it!) are missing out. It doesn't mean I think they are inherently thick, stupid,etc, etc.

Chinafoot

jive wrote: »

The only people who admire people on Jersey Shore etc. are those dumb enough to interpret the show incorrectly. Being an intellectual will always be 'frowned upon' so to speak due to the fact that humans are jealous creatures and those which are not capable of achieving any form of excellence (or just impressive) academically (the majority) will then try to belittle those that can.

Well I hate to break it to you jive, but there are plenty of people out there dumb enough. The popularity of this muck, it's moronic protagonists on the covers of multiple magazines, and internet websites featuring every little thing that they do shows that there are people out there that like and admire these people.

Your use of the word "intellectual" makes me sad. However, since you seem to think it carries negative conotations, why not just use the word intelligent. You don't have to be a genius or have a multiple degrees or doctorates to be intelligent. It has nothing to do with excellence. I find it really sad that you seem to think that it's just the way life is and sure what can do...

I'll stick with my books thanks all the same.

Chinafoot

kowloon wrote: »

I'd imagine an English Lit. course would destroy me.

English Lit. in university is nothing like the joke of Leaving Cert. English. Freedom of thought is not only allowed, it is actively encouraged believe it or not

Tesco Massacre

I have no problem with people who've tried books and can't seem to get into them, but I do have a problem with anti-intellectuals who think reading's a complete waste of time and who seem to derive some smug pleasure from admitting they don't read. In my experience, those people are, and probably always will be, incredibly dull. (I'm not trying to imply here that people who are avid readers are fascinating. We're all boring from time to time.)


I think someone brought up the difference between the experience of watching tv and reading a book earlier in the thread. To me, reading's a far more immersive experience than watching tv. Obviously tv can be fun, intelligent, morally instructive and all sorts of sh*t like that, but reading (for me at least) is like a two-way compact between me and the writer. When fiction's done well it's like a story just for you...especially when a writer who may have been dead for decades or even centuries describes a feeling or experience that up to that point you'd thought was exclusive to you. It's like a hand has reached across generations and tapped you on the shoulder, or a sense that 'yeah, I've felt that way too'.


What tv does is administer large doses of pleasure in short, sharp bursts. For the most part, it requires little or no work on the part of the viewer. And for those who are addicted to tv, concentrating on a book can be really difficult. They don't get that quick pay-off that tv can provide from a book.

I'm not sneering at tv or tv-watchers here. I watch it too. But for me, the experience of reading a good book totally outweighs the experience of watching a good tv programme or film every single time.

Ulysses Gaze

Chinafoot wrote: »

Well I hate to break it to you jive, but there are plenty of people out there dumb enough. The popularity of this muck, it's moronic protagonists on the covers of multiple magazines, and internet websites featuring every little thing that they do shows that there are people out there that like and admire these people.

Your use of the word "intellectual" makes me sad. However, since you seem to think it carries negative conotations, why not just use the word intelligent. You don't have to be a genius or have a multiple degrees or doctorates to be intelligent. It has nothing to do with excellence. I find it really sad that you seem to think that it's just the way life is and sure what can do...

The thing is though that people who I know are smart are sucked into watching these shows. I ask them why and I get the response of:

'Oh if I've had a hard day at work I just want to unhook my brain for a while.'

I don't watch TV anymore because of the proliferation of Reality TV garbage - do we really need ANOTHER TV show about Peter "I was famous for 5 minutes in the 1990's" Andre?

I'll stick with my books thanks all the same.

Same here.

keithb93

Iv'e probably finished about 6 books in my life. I just find them incredibly boring. I still haven't met anyone who has a problem with me hating books or my sister who reads a book a week.

jive

Acacia wrote: »

Well, I didn't say that reading automatically makes you an intellectual. What I said was some people who don't enjoy reading go out of their way to put down people who do enjoy it by insinuating that they elitist or snobby. Presumably they would also denigrate those that enjoy seminars, etc as well. Basically, they would put down anyone who enjoys being intellectually stimulated, and I guess books are the most traditional form of that, so reading bears the brunt of the ''anti-intellectual'' attack.

I also maintain there's nothing 'wrong' with not enjoying reading, nor is it condescending to say I 'feel sorry' for those who watch ''Jersey Shore'' rather than read a book. What I mean is , as I find it so enjoyable, I just feel those that never even give reading a chance (because they might like it!) are missing out. It doesn't mean I think they are inherently thick, stupid,etc, etc.

But maybe the people who watch Jersey Shore feel sorry for you for not enjoying Jersey Shore? Putting it simply it's different folks for different folks. If people enjoy reading then they will naturally get progress into it just like many other things in life e.g. if you are fast you will probably try your hand at athletics. If you enjoy reading you will end up reading.

The thing is it's obvious in this thread that there are people here who say people shouldn't be anti-intellectual and at the same time they are advocating being anti-reality show (making up lots of anti-anything here). Why not just enjoy the books and worry about yourself rather than feeling sorry for others who haven't found the 'joys' of reading.

Chinafoot wrote: »

Well I hate to break it to you jive, but there are plenty of people out there dumb enough. The popularity of this muck, it's moronic protagonists on the covers of multiple magazines, and internet websites featuring every little thing that they do shows that there are people out there that like and admire these people.

Your use of the word "intellectual" makes me sad. However, since you seem to think it carries negative conotations, why not just use the word intelligent. You don't have to be a genius or have a multiple degrees or doctorates to be intelligent. It has nothing to do with excellence. I find it really sad that you seem to think that it's just the way life is and sure what can do...

I'll stick with my books thanks all the same.

It is the way life is though. People are jealous by nature. A 'smart' (some choice of word) comment by someone to someone else who is reading should put in or out of anyone. Who cares like. As a wise man once said - haters gonna hate.

kowloon

Chinafoot wrote: »

English Lit. in university is nothing like the joke of Leaving Cert. English. Freedom of thought is not only allowed, it is actively encouraged believe it or not

Leaving cert was my only exposure. One of my housemates a while back was doing her masters in Lit. Helped her out with a few bits on the military (I like my military history). Either way, it all went over my head.

Wasn't trying to offend anyone or equate the leaving cert with college level English Lit.

The King of Moo

Just to chime in on a few points that have been raised since I was last on here.

A small number of people have mentioned that some avid readers tend to look down on non-readers. While there are doubtless some people like that, I haven't noticed that attitude in anyone's opinions expressed in this thread as was claimed.
I've only seen examples of people expressing their love of reading, which have been really wonderful to read.

If I came across as snobbish in starting this thread I apologise, but I tried to make it clear that I simply didn't understand people who don't read, not look down on them, and I was interested in hearing from non-readers.
For me, reading is as much a part of my life as watching films and tv and listening to music, so I find it hard to see things from the perspective of a non-reader.
I freely admit that I may have an initial prejudice against a non-reader, but their good qualities will always shine through and trump that prejudice pretty much instantly, and I acknowledge that a non-reader can still be an articulate, sexy intellectual.

I've also no problem with people who've given reading a go but just aren't that into it.
I've also really been enlightened by some of the accounts of people who find it hard to visualise things while reading. I'd never really considered that as an issue people might have. I suppose it's a case of people's brains working in different ways (neither better or worse).
The same goes for people who don't see the appeal of fiction. I might have once seen that as a simple lack of imagination, but so many people have mentioned it that I think it's also a case of people's minds just working in different ways from mine.

On e-readers: I've nothing against them as a matter of principle: anything that allows people to read is great.
Personally, I prefer the feel, look and smell of a book, especially an old one. I also have a particular love for old Penguin and sci-fi covers, some of which can be amazing.

Having said all that, I would say even if you only give reading a try, give it a good try please. Some books can be initially be hard to get into, but I can thank reading not only for giving me pleasure or helping me with expressing myself, but also for giving me an insight into human nature that I think you can't really get with non-fiction.
I think one of the great skills of a fiction writer is to understand humanity, and express this in print in a manner you'd never known previously or been able to articulate. But when you see it on the page you get it and can get inside people's heads in a way you can't just do from seeing the surface (unless you're a great writer!).
I think George Orwell was one of the best at that, in both his fiction and non-fiction work: there's a real non-judgemental humanity in all of his work.
Joseph Conrad too: he could take you inside a character's head without you knowing it, and show you all their vices and virtues without prejudice.

In addition, there's an indescribable feeling beyond mere pleasure that the greatest works of fiction, I believe, can give you, as can the greatest works of other artforms.

Dudess

keithb93 wrote: »

I just find them incredibly boring.

Kinda strange, seeing as there are so many different types of books.

christ on a bike!

I love books. I love the feel of them which is why I dont think I could ever get a kindle
A bookcase is a fantastic piece of furniture in any room
I love new books and their smell and the new story within
I love old books, and am lucky enough to have some really old ones in my house. Read Dickens on a gardback with yellowing paper and you have an atmosphere before he creates one

If people dont read they dont read, it's no biggy. Different strokes for different strokes and all that
I know a girl who reads 1 or 2 books every week and I actually find it incredibly attractive. That and the fact she is hot too

oppenheimer1

The King of Moo wrote: »

If people try it and aren't into it that's fair enough and I'd try not to judge them (though I'd admit I'd find it hard not to, even though I know that's unfair), and of course if you've got certain circumstances like your medication that's fine.

I think it's people who never even consider reading that I don't understand.

The King of Moo wrote: »

A small number of people have mentioned that some avid readers tend to look down on non-readers. While there are doubtless some people like that, I haven't noticed that attitude in anyone's opinions expressed in this thread as was claimed.

Well done, you've managed to contradict yourself.

First of all, I'm a non-reader. I haven't read a novel since I was in school, and the only novels I've read were the ones I was forced to. I don't say this with pride or shame, because it is part of who I am. I find fiction boring and ultimately serves me no use. My time can be better spent reading something that will make me more informed and is relevant to my interests. I would rather read a newspaper or a journal than waste my time getting lost in a writers fantasy.

Perhaps people (The King of Moo) will look down on me for this. They'll say I don't know what I'm missing, and they cannot understand my stance. They shouldn't though. Writing is an art form, and is just one which doesn't appeal to me (and many others) and I'm not any poorer for it. Lack of books in my life certainly hasn't made me anti-intellectual or been detrimental to my vocabulary. The truth is I'm missing nothing, because while its true you can learn a lot from fiction, you can learn even more from true stories.


Would you look down on someone who doesn't go to the theatre, the opera or art galleries? I doubt it. Readers don't look down on us because we're not of the same mind as you, don't even pity us.

Da Shins Kelly

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Well done, you've managed to contradict yourself.

First of all, I'm a non-reader. I haven't read a novel since I was in school, and the only novels I've read were the ones I was forced to. I don't say this with pride or shame, because it is part of who I am. I find fiction boring and ultimately serves me no use. My time can be better spent reading something that will make me more informed and is relevant to my interests. I would rather read a newspaper or a journal than waste my time getting lost in a writers fantasy.

Perhaps people (The King of Moo) will look down on me for this. They'll say I don't know what I'm missing, and they cannot understand my stance. They shouldn't though. Writing is an art form, and is just one which doesn't appeal to me (and many others) and I'm not any poorer for it. Lack of books in my life certainly hasn't made me anti-intellectual or been detrimental to my vocabulary. The truth is I'm missing nothing, because while its true you can learn a lot from fiction, you can learn even more from true stories.


Would you look down on someone who doesn't go to the theatre, the opera or art galleries? I doubt it. Readers don't look down on us because we're not of the same mind as you, don't even pity us.

At least you read something (newspapers or whatever). It's the people who don't read at all that puzzle me, although I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

The King of Moo

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Well done, you've managed to contradict yourself.

First of all, I'm a non-reader. I haven't read a novel since I was in school, and the only novels I've read were the ones I was forced to. I don't say this with pride or shame, because it is part of who I am. I find fiction boring and ultimately serves me no use. My time can be better spent reading something that will make me more informed and is relevant to my interests. I would rather read a newspaper or a journal than waste my time getting lost in a writers fantasy.

Perhaps people (The King of Moo) will look down on me for this. They'll say I don't know what I'm missing, and they cannot understand my stance. They shouldn't though. Writing is an art form, and is just one which doesn't appeal to me (and many others) and I'm not any poorer for it. Lack of books in my life certainly hasn't made me anti-intellectual or been detrimental to my vocabulary. The truth is I'm missing nothing, because while its true you can learn a lot from fiction, you can learn even more from true stories.


Would you look down on someone who doesn't go to the theatre, the opera or art galleries? I doubt it. Readers don't look down on us because we're not of the same mind as you, don't even pity us.

I also mentioned that people showing good qualities would reverse that prejudice almost instantly, so no I haven't really contradicted myself.

Your post, for example, is well-written and thought-out, making your intelligence clear, so I would not look down on you for not reading.

christ on a bike!

I understand what yer man above me is saying - what is the purpose of fiction? Well for me its a good story, a de stresser and a form of escapism.
For plenty its just something that is, essentially, meaningless to their lives and thats fair enough

I know a few people who only read biographies as they're real -that also makes sense

I also know people who don't read biographies at all - why read about somone elses life when you have your own?

All these things make sense depending on the person

FFS, the only thing that makes sense is that people should mind they're own f*cking business and (as long as they're not hurting anyone) not be so concerned about what others do and do not do

Dudess

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Well done, you've managed to contradict yourself.

First of all, I'm a non-reader. I haven't read a novel since I was in school, and the only novels I've read were the ones I was forced to. I don't say this with pride or shame, because it is part of who I am. I find fiction boring and ultimately serves me no use. My time can be better spent reading something that will make me more informed and is relevant to my interests. I would rather read a newspaper or a journal than waste my time getting lost in a writers fantasy.

Perhaps people (The King of Moo) will look down on me for this. They'll say I don't know what I'm missing, and they cannot understand my stance. They shouldn't though. Writing is an art form, and is just one which doesn't appeal to me (and many others) and I'm not any poorer for it. Lack of books in my life certainly hasn't made me anti-intellectual or been detrimental to my vocabulary. The truth is I'm missing nothing, because while its true you can learn a lot from fiction, you can learn even more from true stories.


Would you look down on someone who doesn't go to the theatre, the opera or art galleries? I doubt it. Readers don't look down on us because we're not of the same mind as you, don't even pity us.

He made it clear he doesn't look down on non readers, just doesn't get where they're coming from. Christ, the amount of telling people they're looking down on people when they're not, on this thread...

Defensiveness over something imagined.

longshanks

To each their own, and different strokes for different folks, and all that. I wouldn't berate or belittle someone for not reading books, but you do miss out on something by denying yourself that something. Dress it up however you please, 'I just prefer a dvd, etc'. With those mediums the experience is there to see, with a good book your imagination paints the pictures, so to speak. Instead of just observing the action, you live through it.
It's like walking to the fish counter in Superquinn, buying some bass fillets and thinking 'thats where fish come from, already sliced on an ice tray in a supermarket'. Or standing on a rock for a couple of hours, then fighting the bastard for 20 minutes and coming home with the whole fish. You know what's gonna be tastier there.

Dudess

Saying "I find fiction boring" is, to me, like saying "I don't like food" or "I don't like film" or "I don't like music" seeing as it's so diverse. Doesn't make sense to dismiss something so broad and unexplored IMO.

christ on a bike!

Dudess wrote: »

Saying "I find fiction boring" is, to me, like saying "I don't like food" or "I don't like film" or "I don't like music" seeing as it's so diverse.

Delighted you said "to me" as it's entirely subjective

But hey, I know a lot of people who say they don't like fiction but read the tabloids
If I pointed that one out I'd be a dick though

oppenheimer1

Dudess wrote: »

He made it clear he doesn't look down on non readers, just doesn't get where they're coming from. Christ, the amount of telling people they're looking down on people when they're not, on this thread...

The King stated that he'd find it hard not to judge people who tried books and then gave up on them. He then said he noticed no instances in this thread where readers looked down on non-readers. These two statements are contradictory.

Perhaps he clarified his position later in the thread, but I didn't read it all.

The King of Moo

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The King stated that he'd find it hard not to judge people who tried books and then gave up on them. He then said he noticed no instances in this thread where readers looked down on non-readers. These two statements are contradictory.

Perhaps he clarified his position later in the thread, but I didn't read it all.

I would feel prejudiced initially if someone told me they didn't read, but they'd have to be incredibly dull and stupid not to reverse or at least strongly reduce that prejudice straight away.

All of the people in this thread who class themselves as non or infrequent readers have argued their points well or otherwise not given me any reason to look down on them.

But yes, by mentioning that I might have an initial prejudice against someone who doesn't read (by which I was referring to reading books, as per the thread title) I was admitting to a prejudice against non-readers, which I failed to mention when I said I hadn't seen any instances of people looking down on non-readers in this thread.

You got me on a technicality. Well done.

Though of course a pedantic person could argue that that post was referring to me being prejudiced in real life or hypothetical situations, and that the post itself was not an example of looking down on non-readers, rather simply an admittance of my being capable of such an action.
With the post itself thus not being one that looked down on non-readers and rather one that simply referred to such prejudice, I would then be correct in my assertion that I have not noticed anyone looking down on non-readers in this thread.

But as I'm not pedantic I won't make that argument.

oppenheimer1

Dudess wrote: »

Saying "I find fiction boring" is, to me, like saying "I don't like food" or "I don't like film" or "I don't like music" seeing as it's so diverse. Doesn't make sense to dismiss something so broad and unexplored IMO.

Not really. Fiction is a genre, a subset of literature. To compare my position in relative terms to music and food would be to say I don't like rap, or Italian. These are positions which many people take and are never questioned or pitied.

amacachi

I just can't imagine what a kid would turn out like if they didn't spend their time reading books. Then I walk around Dublin.

That's not meant as a slag to Dubliners, it's just more obvious there. I spent my childhood reading fantastical fiction then around 20 started reading non-fiction. My second favorite book is Alive. If anyone can read that without crying then they're a psychopath. Especially towards the end

when they all eat grass and daisies when they get out of the helicopter.

I cried several times at the scenario. The one book everyone should read though is If This is a Man. It's also what everyone should bear in mind on those odd occasions (that even the most liberal of us have) when they call someone an animal or say they're not human. It's all of a disgusting, hilarious, uplifting, enlightening and beautiful thing. The few winter mornings I spent reading that on a bus through the countryside was probably the most rewarding experience of my life. Every 10 minutes or so I'd stop and look at the sheep and cows in the fields and think how brilliant it was. Also one morning during the snow there was white as far as the eye could see except a long fox on its own in the middle of a 10 acre field. One of the most beautiful sighs of my life.

But yeah, everyone should read If This is a Man/The Truce, it'll make even the most desperate person realise just how lucky they are and how they should enjoy every last thing in life. Even just waking up and being able to go outside and breathe the air around us.

amacachi

Dudess wrote: »

Saying "I find fiction boring" is, to me, like saying "I don't like food" or "I don't like film" or "I don't like music" seeing as it's so diverse. Doesn't make sense to dismiss something so broad and unexplored IMO.

Had to respond to this because I saw someone else did. :pac:

I can empathise with people who find fiction boring for the simple reason that there's so much non-fiction out there that's excellently written and is real. So little is real now so non-fiction is a great way to fill that gap. If I did nothing but read non-fiction 12 hours a day I'd never run out of excellent material. Coming from that the idea of fantastical elves would seem pretty hollow.

mickrock

Many people read books as a distraction from or escape from real life or from a restless mind, just as they or others use tv, drink, sex, religion etc.

So, someone who doesn't read could be a happy, joyous person while someone who reads a lot could be miserable and spiteful. And vice versa.

amacachi

mickrock wrote: »

Many people read books as a distraction from or escape from real life or from a restless mind, just as they or others use tv, drink, sex, religion etc.

For those people the point is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over there somewhere.

I don't care if someone reads or not but if they can't see the joy/point of reading then I'd walk away before we came to fisticuffs. :pac:

tjones64

i've read the 1st page of the thread. reading is good and long. i have gaps in my world, i've only read what has been pushed on me. i'd like to read more, but i would have to be sure im not wasting my time.

tjones64

it's a long thing .. a book.

Duckee

I think some of the arguments on this thread comparing reading in general to watching Jersey Shore isn't really comparing like with like. I don't really agree with the idea that reading Ulysses is in some way comparable to watching Jersey Shore because at the end of the day it's all entertainment. There are good books and there are crap books. There's good TV and there's crap TV. In many respects that's a subjective issue about what is good and what isn't but there is also, in large part, a craft element to it as well. Mad Men or the Sopranos are much better TV shows than Jersey Shore because of the way they are crafted. Much like Pride and Prejudice is a better book than PS I love you because of how well it's made.

Yet I imagine someone who favours watching Jersey Shore might also favour PS I love you were they to read instead of watch TV. Does this make them more intellectual because they were reading? And would it make me less intellectual if I felt like watching re-runs of the Wire tonight instead of picking up a book?

Incidently, I tend to chain read. I finish one book and the next one is always waiting in the wings. But if I'm busy it might be weeks before I'd finish one book and start the next one because I also like TV and movies and sometimes favour this medium over reading. I think intellectual snobbery that comes from dismissing people that favour one medium over another is ridiculous but arguments for the dumbing down of society are more about people favouring/accepting **** quality programming/film making/literature which has nothing to do with snobbery as such, but far more to do with a concern over slipping standards.

Logical Fallacy

Chinafoot wrote: »

English Lit. in university is nothing like the joke of Leaving Cert. English. Freedom of thought is not only allowed, it is actively encouraged believe it or not

How English is approached in Secondary is largely all down to the teacher. I had a teacher for 3 years who was very much learn "what i tell you" I had a teacher for the last 2 who was very into getting us to think for ourselves about the material.

In fact there was very little discrepancy in how my teacher for the Leaving Cert approached English and how my Professor for my Eng Lit Major approached it.

There is the chance however that i was just fortunate with my last English teacher in school.

Downlinz

I play a lot of video games, its greater immersion and story based games give a greater opportunity for my imagination to run riot with their plotlines and possibilities. The game itself challenges reactions, decision making as well as thought and comprehension that a book would.

I just don't see what I can get from a good book that I can't from a good game, I do read a bit mind but I find video games much more stimulating. People who say "read more" in my experience seem to live in their own bubble of thinking the only alternative is brainless movies/tv and video games are all shooters and sports simulators.

Abi

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

How English is approached in Secondary is largely all down to the teacher. I had a teacher for 3 years who was very much learn "what i tell you" I had a teacher for the last 2 who was very into getting us to think for ourselves about the material.

I was lucky enough to have the same English teacher throughout secondary. She was exactly the same as the above, and I really enjoyed her classes.

Logical Fallacy

Abi wrote: »

I was lucky enough to have the same English teacher throughout secondary. She was exactly the same as the above, and I really enjoyed her classes.

I think it was largely her influence that led me to choose a Major in Eng Lit. There was no advantage to be had beyond enjoying the subject. In her class it didn't matter what interpretation we had of a piece, or what we said about it, as long as we could back it up and give some weight to our argument.

Used to be my favourite class.

Kaizer Sosa

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Didn't stop him 'writing' an autobiography though and expecting his mug fans to pay for it

I don't think he said that about books. Think it was about movies.

Tesco Massacre

Anyone who reads and enjoys a Cecilia Ahern novel is a bit thick.

Can we all agree on that at least?

Chinafoot

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Not really. Fiction is a genre, a subset of literature. To compare my position in relative terms to music and food would be to say I don't like rap, or Italian.

No. Just no. That is so far from being correct it's quite scary.

There are many, many styles of fiction so your comparison is completely incorrect. I'm actually stunned that you think fiction is comparable to one style of music or one style of food.

Advernture fiction, historical fiction, military/war fiction, westerns, romance, crime, thriller, horror, chick lit, science fiction, fantasy...

You really think that someone saying they don't like fiction because they find it boring, despite the fact that it encompasses all of the above and more, is the same as someone saying they don't like rap music?

If so, then I'm sorry but I absolutely will pity you

Dudess

Chinafoot wrote: »

No. Just no. That is so far from being correct it's quite scary.

There are many, many styles of fiction so your comparison is completely incorrect. I'm actually stunned that you think fiction is comparable to one style of music or one style of food.

Advernture fiction, historical fiction, military/war fiction, westerns, romance, crime, thriller, horror, chick lit, science fiction, fantasy...

You really think that someone saying they don't like fiction because they find it boring, despite the fact that it encompasses all of the above and more, is the same as someone saying they don't like rap music?

Took the words out of my mouth.

Fiction may be a sub-genre, but it is MUCH too broad to compare it to such limited ones. It's a discipline of its own, even if technically a sub-genre.