People who dont read books

Bipolar Joe

Onixx wrote: »

women who were nearly killed by their vagina

Oprah?

AnonoBoy

Honestly Brummytom if you don't enjoy reading you're in for a nightmare of a college course if you do English.

TiGeR KiNgS

mariano rivera wrote: »

Just the last few days in work. 4 or 5 lads who i work with, all with 3rd level qualifications who DO NOT READ Books.



As in the have never picked up a book to read for pleasure


:eek:

The reasons being:

- No time
- One fella said he did read Roy Keanes book but no other and he insisted he never read another book.
- Its boring

They actually were proud of this. (Personally would be embarrassed)


As i said these are all (apparently) educated people


(Dear Mods, I cant put this on the books boards as people who dont read books obviously dont read the books board)

When you come down from your High horse I will entertain you with a productive comment

JustAThought

I can't imagine not reading; nor living in a world without books or where people who enjoy escaping into places they'd never be; or exploring ideas & experiences they've not been exposed to, or finding out about something new, or how do do something or explore a new topic or skill could be " boring".

Mad ted. They're all mad.

Giselle

Onixx wrote: »

Those magazines with stories from women who were nearly killed by their vagina are a pleasure of mine. :cool:

There was a guy once, who was reincarnated into a fish finger! His wife recognised him immediately. He was always a bit flaky, I'd say

Great read that was.


I love a bit of escapism and fluff along with something more absorbing, and I think the slating of readers as bores and non-readers as thicks is a bit childish.

pennypocket

Quite hilarious how defensive non-readers are in this thread. Very much the sore spot indeed.

brummytom

pennypocket wrote: »

Quite hilarious how defensive non-readers are in this thread. Very much the sore spot indeed.

Why is that hilarious? It's non-readers being attacked in the OP, the onus is on them to defend their view.

VEN

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't read fictional books because they're nearly all crap. Most books and films these days are just retelling the same old stories from a slightly different perspective. At this stage you really can judge a book by it's cover.

same here, total waste of time and energy. went into Chapters recently, and noticed in both the new and 2nd hand section upstairs, the massive amount of fiction books. i don't really mind Film as much though i'd agree, a lot of plots and narratives rehashed year after year.

I do find it snobby and tiresome when people criticise others for not reading books. What's it to you? I can understand questioning someone for never having read a book in their entire life, but not everyone enjoys reading fiction for pleasure. I don't, really. I did when I was a kid but now I just prefer to do other things. Play the piano, write articles for blogs, learn languages, go hiking/climbing. Reading books just isn't up there on my list of fun stuff to do. Doesn't make me a braindead moron.

pennypocket

brummytom wrote: »

Why is that hilarious? It's non-readers being attacked in the OP, the onus is on them to defend their view.

Says he who sadistically did an English degree with an aversion to books. No problem with people who don't read, that's their own business, a very big problem with those wearing their anti-intellectualism with a badge.

AnonoBoy

"What you reading for?"

Piriz

IrishExpat wrote: »

Most definitely so. I hope that we've moved on from the old paradigm that you study for one specific period in your life and make do with you have acquired in Uni (for example).

I see the brain as any other muscle; if you don't actively challenge it - with passive reading, at least - it can almost lose power (atrophy?).

And reading should be an absolute priority for everyone. Up there with the need to speak more than one language - I've strong opinions on that one, but for another thread.

The average joe will experience plenty of stimulation in daily life and does not need to read books to 'exercise their brain'!

Reading should not be an absolute priority for everyone...why dont you let people live their lives the way they want to... you come across as very high maintenance.. also not everyone has the capacity to learn another language or has any need to do so..

Values are personal and subjective; bare that in mind when expressing how you think others should live their lives

Chuck Stone

The internet has ****ed my reading concentration. When I read a book these days I feel like clicking on a sentence to explore it further and it distracts me.

I used to read a fair bit as a kid but not much any more. I listen to lectures and watch online documentaries though which makes up for it a bit.

MagicMarker

VEN wrote: »

same here, total waste of time and energy. went into Chapters recently, and noticed in both the new and 2nd hand section upstairs, the massive amount of fiction books. i don't really mind Film as much though i'd agree, a lot of plots and narratives rehashed year after year.

You went into a book store and noticed lots of books?

No shít.

brummytom

pennypocket wrote: »

Says he who sadistically did an English degree with an aversion to books.

I haven't got my exam results yet, a degree's a long way off! I don't mind the reading of the books, but it's not something I'd do in my own time. I more enjoy the criticisms and evaluation afterwards, that's always been a strength of mine. For example, I read Wuthering Heights a few months ago. Absolutely awful book, found it painful to read, but exploring the theories of it afterwards was fascinating.

No problem with people who don't read, that's their own business, a very big problem with those wearing their anti-intellectualism with a badge.

I wasn't trying to parade my anti-intellectualism. It was anti-snobbery. The OP said the being a 'non-reader' is something to be embarrassed about. No it's not. I might not read books often, but I read newspapers (broadsheets) every day. I don't think that I should be seen as someone with a lesser world view, or intelligence, than someone who reads Lewis bloody Carroll.

johnmcdnl

pennypocket wrote: »

Quite hilarious how defensive non-readers are in this thread. Very much the sore spot indeed.

I'm off to make a thread about how stupid people who read books are.. We can watch readers get defensive then. No doubt it will be a sore spot for them

Madam_X

"I'm personally not drawn to factual literature much, therefore it's all shyte, even the vast swathes i havent read, and those who enjoy it are boring."

crazy cabbage

Would read occusionaly but never fiction. Last few books i read were Mine Kamp, No logo and DMT-The spirt Molecule as well as a book on untra runners. Having said that i would go through a book in about a week and wouldn't pick up another for a cuple of weeks.
Would read the likes of them becouse i have a genuine interest in them. I find Fiction mind nummbing though. Having said that i used to read alot of fiction when i was younger.

To say that people who read/dont read are uneducated is simple wrong. Everyone has something that they like to do in there spare time. Some will run or play sport or read or smoke weed or fap or mindlessly paint them selvies or do a bit of gardening or jump out of plains ect. Each to there own in my opinion. Just becouse you fill you time differently than someone else doesn't mean that you are less educated though!!

Giselle

Even among avid readers theres a great deal of snobbery.

People who read exclusively non-fiction tend to think fiction is a lesser occupation, and people who read classics tend to eschew popular fiction. All it does is close off avenues of entertainment and knowledge.

I read anything depending on my mood and what else is going on in my life, all of it has a purpose.

Teyla Emmagan

brummytom wrote: »

For what it's worth, the main reason I get pissed off about people who think books are amazing is because it just seems to be nothing more than snobbishness. I don't have anything against people who read, but there's no need to parade it in a display of supposed superiority.

I took A Level English Literature, and have applied to do the same subject at University, which probably makes me look like a sadist. One thing that always annoyed me in school is that my English teachers used to constantly say "well, it's evident you enjoy reading". How is it? I have never read a book for pleasure in my life, it's just not something that interests me. As someone who doesn't enjoy reading, I find the mentality that that somehow makes me less interesting, and of a more limited vocabulary, insulting.

As I originally said in my first reply, I don't enjoy reading, I don't see the point of reading fiction to be honest. But I don't feel that by not reading, I'm automatically a reality TV show-watching, brain-dead moron.

You're not going to get through an English degree without enjoying reading. It's what you'll be spending 75% of your time doing for the 3/4 years of your course. Are you really going to be able to force yourself through 4 odd books a week (3 of which will be your much hated fiction) if every page is an eye gouging ordeal?

Piriz

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

OP, you sound like a really annoying person.

I read, sure, but I'd rather be listening to music or watching a movie. Not all film is titties and explosions, and not all television is reality talent contests, just like not every book is Lord of the Flies or Animal Farm. I can sit and have long, intense conversations about Michael Haneke films, or philosophical debates about the nature of sound as an art form. Don't tell me I'm a dumb shit just because I don't go through a book or two a week, just don't have a conversation with me.

you mean music? :pac:

Shryke

VEN wrote: »

same here, total waste of time and energy. went into Chapters recently, and noticed in both the new and 2nd hand section upstairs, the massive amount of fiction books. i don't really mind Film as much though i'd agree, a lot of plots and narratives rehashed year after year.

And have been for thousands of years, nothing new there.

brummytom wrote: »

Why is that hilarious? It's non-readers being attacked in the OP, the onus is on them to defend their view.

Wrong. The OP expected educated professionals to have some interest in reading, which is not a ridiculous thing to think, and decided to make a thread about their surprise. Nothing offensive I can see. But oh so many defensive people. The OP is not a slander against anyone who doesn't read. Get over yourself.

Anyone giving out about the state of books being published today needs to get a grip. There's just a couple of books still floating around from pre 2008. You'll find them in specialist shops, just make sure you use the special password and they'll let you in the back room.

Shryke

Giselle wrote: »

Even among avid readers theres a great deal of snobbery.

People who read exclusively non-fiction tend to think fiction is a lesser occupation, and people who read classics tend to eschew popular fiction. All it does is close off avenues of entertainment and knowledge.

I read anything depending on my mood and what else is going on in my life, all of it has a purpose.

Anything as long as it's good.

pennypocket

Fair enough. Let's see what you get in your degree (not that you will necessarily be sharing that with boards). Wuthering Heights - great book. Horses for courses, all art is subjective. In any case, you cannot blanket criticise a medium like this, nor any other medium such as cinema, theatre, TV, etc. People read for all kinds of reasons; knowledge, enlightenment, pleasure, escape ... It doesn't make them 'better' than those who don't, I just find your attack on those who do read (aka 'snobs') very funny. It seems like its hitting a raw nerve. Anti-intellectualism, I do have a problem with. And yeah, Lewis bloody Carroll is great.

brummytom wrote: »

I haven't got my exam results yet, a degree's a long way off! I don't mind the reading of the books, but it's not something I'd do in my own time. I more enjoy the criticisms and evaluation afterwards, that's always been a strength of mine. For example, I read Wuthering Heights a few months ago. Absolutely awful book, found it painful to read, but exploring the theories of it afterwards was fascinating.


I wasn't trying to parade my anti-intellectualism. It was anti-snobbery. The OP said the being a 'non-reader' is something to be embarrassed about. No it's not. I might not read books often, but I read newspapers (broadsheets) every day. I don't think that I should be seen as someone with a lesser world view, or intelligence, than someone who reads Lewis bloody Carroll.

pennypocket

johnmcdnl wrote: »

I'm off to make a thread about how stupid people who read books are.. We can watch readers get defensive then. No doubt it will be a sore spot for them

Well go on. That would be very silly indeed.

Miss Lockhart

I find this very interesing. I love reading. I know that lots of intelligent, well educated people don't like to read so I don't think that not reading makes you less educated/intelligent/interesting. However, in my experience most of the intelligent, well educated people I know read a lot. I'm surprised to hear so many intelligent and educated posters say they don't like reading. Is this a modern/recent development?

Do/Will those who dislike reading encourage their children to read for pleasure? Reading for pleasure and the number of books in a family home are considered one of the reliable predictors of academic achievement for children. (Obviously there are exceptions) Will this change in the modern era of online information?

Bipolar Joe

Piriz wrote: »

you mean music? :pac:

That's for another, even more pretentious thread.

Wibbs

Agricola wrote: »

There are a few posters, Wibbs springs to mind, whose breath of knowledge on a variety of subjects doesnt just come from sitting in watching reality TV every night. If I had to choose to a have a pint with someone like that, or a person who only read Roy Keane's autobiography, there wouldnt be much of a choice.

Ah thanks A. I'll get the first round in. Though I do know Snooki is expecting and Brangelina may be getting hitched today and ohmigod!! did you see the state of yer one from TOWIE after that party the other night. Tired and emotional. Shameless.

brummytom wrote: »

Also, 'books' doesn't mean anything. People who read brain-rotting shite like 'Twilight' can claim to be avid readers - if those books help build a wide vocabulary then I'm an octopus.

You're ok for jeans, but must be a right bugger to get shirts B.

Yea I think the subject matter might have some effect alright. If all you read is the more simplistic stuff. TBH I'd say a lot of my vocab came from reading comics as a kid. Before they became "graphic novels" . It was the first time I noticed the US/UK spelling diffs, between the Marvel stuff and the British stuff. Looking back(and we're talking the 70's here) though aimed mostly at kids compared to more adult audiences today they didn't dumb down for kids and explored some pretty adult stuff among the spandex muscle men and women. I suppose they were my "famous five" or whatever the fcuk was popular then. It seems I need the pickshures *dribbles*

Wibbs

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Do/Will those who dislike reading encourage their children to read for pleasure? Reading for pleasure and the number of books in a family home are considered one of the reliable predictors of academic achievement for children. (Obviously there are exceptions) Will this change in the modern era of online information?

Probably will change ML. Maybe not for the better as the interweb tends to make you impatient and flit from subject to subject. Shít if I told you the tabs I have currently open I'd be sectioned :D And bear in mind I didn't grow up with it. The internet in anything like it's current form only came along in my mid to late 20's. Kids who have it as a background "thing" may find navigating fact from fiction harder. Who knows? Every generation is convinced the following is fcuked in some way by stuff like this yet here we are motoring along fine. Some saw printing as the work of the devil. Going further back some of the greatest minds of Ancient Greece didn't really rate writing much either.

pennypocket

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

I find this very interesing. I love reading. I know that lots of intelligent, well educated people don't like to read so I don't think that not reading makes you less educated/intelligent/interesting. However, in my experience most of the intelligent, well educated people I know read a lot. I'm surprised to hear so many intelligent and educated posters say they don't like reading. Is this a modern/recent development?

Do/Will those who dislike reading encourage their children to read for pleasure? Reading for pleasure and the number of books in a family home are considered one of the reliable predictors of academic achievement for children. (Obviously there are exceptions) Will this change in the modern era of online information?

Interesting indeed. Books were in the late fourteenth century the revolutionary equivalent of the internet today. Books, pamphlets, newsheets were the vectors, along with literacy, through which the impetus for change were spread across societies, whether that be religion, political allegiances, scientific knowledge or a particular worldview. The printed word was also exploited as a medium for societal control. The mechanised printing machine and paper technologies made this a mass medium in the nineteenth century. As technology develops, society does too, and we are moving from the medium of the printed word to that of the electronic. This doesn't dissipate the need for literacy, indeed, homogeneity in language (ie English), is required for discourse on the internet.

DublinWriter

I once worked with a girl who had a BA in English Literature from UCD. Her final year thesis was on the theme of feminine liberation in Ulysses. I asked her what she thought of Finnegans Wake, to which she answered 'Who wrote that?'.

Conversely, it took me a year after finishing the lit. review of my MSc to ever want to pick up a book again.

I think your parents play a big subconscious part in your reading habits. There was never a book shelf in my parents' house when I was growing up but there was always a constant stream of books coming and going.

Although my two-year old has all the whizz-bang toys a toddler would want, the thing he likes best is to pick a book and climb up on the sofa with me so I can read it to him.

At these times all the pleasures of reading Joyce, Orwell and Shakespeare fall into insignificance as I read to him the adventures of Tuffy the Jeep for the 192th time .

Miss Lockhart

I wouldn't be limiting my definition of books to simply printed books - I would think the research would adapt fine to e-books.

However, it seems that they are also out of favour with many here and I wonder if this correlation between reading/exposure to books (be they printed or electronic) and academic achievement will become a thing of the past or whether there will be negative consequences for this move away from reading as a pastime.

Andy-Pandy

I've always thought along the lines of "its not important what you read, as long as you read something", I get so much out of reading books that I cant honestly imagine mylife with out them. I do feel sorry for people that dont read, not in a snobish way, just in that I know that out there, there is a book that they would enjoy so much that it would make them want to read more. The reading experience that will turn the reader into a "reader" so to speak.

VEN

MagicMarker wrote: »

You went into a book store and noticed lots of books?

No shít.

yes thats right, lots more fiction books than in the other sections ya muppet! books, fiction books, can ya not read?

ViveLaVie

@brummytom

Can you explain why you applied to do English in college? You said you don't enjoy reading and that you don't see the point in reading fiction. Why then would you want to do a course in which you will taught to look for value in books?

You also said you find avid readers of fiction introverted and boring. I don't think you'll like your classmates or lecturers very much in that case...

brummytom

ViveLaVie wrote: »

@brummytom

Can you explain why you applied to do English in college?

Not really. I found it very hard to decide what to do at uni. English was my strongest subject at college, so I chose that. Though, I'm considering switching to either Politics, History or Journalism, depending on what grades I get this week. Basically I was just far too hasty in making up my mind.

If this thread's been good for anything, it's making me realise that I was about to spend 3 years of my life in absolute misery!

MagicMarker

VEN wrote: »

yes thats right, lots more fiction books than in the other sections ya muppet! books, fiction books, can ya not read?

So to clarify, there were more fiction books in the fiction section than in the non-fiction section?

Shryke

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

I wouldn't be limiting my definition of books to simply printed books - I would think the research would adapt fine to e-books.

However, it seems that they are also out of favour with many here and I wonder if this correlation between reading/exposure to books (be they printed or electronic) and academic achievement will become a thing of the past or whether there will be negative consequences for this move away from reading as a pastime.

I would be confident in saying that reading in Ireland has always been a minority pass time, with the exception of the odd fad. Remember The Da Vinci Code, Harry Potter or most recently for ladies the Fifty Shades book. What you're seeing here doesn't really reflect a decline in reading (imo) but more the status quo.

I don't agree with slagging Twilight readers and Harry Potter readers and the like for only one reason and that is that these books get people to start reading in the first place. And some will take to reading. I do agree with slagging them for lots of other reasons, but I keep my mouth shut.

And as far as it goes my father has never read a book in his life and my mother wouldn't look passed magazines, but I read as much as I can.

paddyandy

You should learn only what you need to know .That's common sense ...the rest nonsense .

MagicMarker

paddyandy wrote: »

You should learn only what you need to know .That's common sense ...the rest nonsense .

I wouldn't say that's common sense. A better word, in my opinion, would be "bollocks".

Miss Lockhart

Shryke wrote: »

I would be confident in saying that reading in Ireland has always been a minority pass time, with the exception of the odd fad. Remember The Da Vinci Code, Harry Potter or most recently for ladies the Fifty Shades book. What you're seeing here doesn't really reflect a decline in reading (imo) but more the status quo.

I don't agree with slagging Twilight readers and Harry Potter readers and the like for only one reason and that is that these books get people to start reading in the first place. And some will take to reading. I do agree with slagging them for lots of other reasons, but I keep my mouth shut.

And as far as it goes my father has never read a book in his life and my mother wouldn't look passed magazines, but I read as much as I can.

I'd be interested in seeing some stats on reading as a pastime. From my own experience I would definitely not have said it was a minority pastime. I would be very surprised at that view tbh.

Wibbs

paddyandy wrote: »

You should learn only what you need to know .That's common sense ...the rest nonsense .

If that's your mindset, good zombie jesus playing the ukelele on a trampoline. Meh maybe some of us need to know more. I really couldn't imagine being that narrow of focus and frankly beige. Must be a riot at soirees.

--Kaiser--

I pity people who don't read books to be honest.
I like the quote 'Someone who doesn't read has no advantage over someone who can't'

Shryke

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

I'd be interested in seeing some stats on reading as a pastime. From my own experience I would definitely not have said it was a minority pastime. I would be very surprised at that view tbh.

Our experiences differ I suppose. Maybe another poster might be able to shed more light.

Bipolar Joe

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I pity people who don't read books to be honest.
I like the quote 'Someone who doesn't read has no advantage over someone who can't'

Are you talking about hard copies?

I pity people who pity people for trivial reasons. I can talk circles around people if I become that way inclined, mostly because it's fun to confuse and aggravate them. I learned from David Lynch.

ViveLaVie

brummytom wrote: »

ViveLaVie wrote: »

@brummytom

Can you explain why you applied to do English in college?

Not really. I found it very hard to decide what to do at uni. English was my strongest subject at college, so I chose that. Though, I'm considering switching to either Politics, History or Journalism, depending on what grades I get this week. Basically I was just far too hasty in making up my mind.

If this thread's been good for anything, it's making me realise that I was about to spend 3 years of my life in absolute misery!

Well I'd advise you to consider changing at the very least. You'll be expected to read around four books a week. Those four will be heavy reading and hard going even for people who love reading. Then you'll have to read books and articles written about those books. English is probably the most reading intensive course you can do.

That said, maybe you'll like it. Studying English at third level is very different to second level.

I love reading myself but I don't think there's anything lacking in people who don't read. My dad is very intelligent and has only read one book in his life!

Teyla Emmagan

brummytom wrote: »

Not really. I found it very hard to decide what to do at uni. English was my strongest subject at college, so I chose that. Though, I'm considering switching to either Politics, History or Journalism, depending on what grades I get this week. Basically I was just far too hasty in making up my mind.

If this thread's been good for anything, it's making me realise that I was about to spend 3 years of my life in absolute misery!

Good. Get your change of mind form thingy in asap then. I did English in college and everyone I studied with was wildly passionate about it. We spent our nerdy little lives discussing our favourite authors/periods/genres/poetry styles/whatever. Oh yeah, and reading. I don't think it would suit you TBH .

Bad Panda

Looks like we got ourselves a reader...

I never read books! My mind is always going 90 so when I read I prefer to read about different things so I learn something about any number of topics I've a keen interest in.

Edit: I pity people who see reading a novel (fiction especially) as a measure of intelligence. As I said, when I read, it's about facts I'll use to gain a better understanding on a topic.

Yes, I can see how Tom Clancy's latest makes you better than me. Quite the opposite actually.

The King of Moo

I remember starting a similar thread a long time ago (same title, different OP) because I found it hard to understand people who never read books, especially fiction. I didn't think they were less intelligent than readers, but that they were maybe lacking in imagination to an extent. I also found it hard to understand how someone would never read, as books have always been a fundamental part of my life, and to me, not reading was akin to not watching films/TV or not listening to music.

I was surprised by the number of replies I got from intelligent non-readers, and I came to realise that not all non-fiction readers were necessarily lacking in imagination; they simply had a very different way of thinking from me, one which I appreciate and respect, but will still never really be able to understand fully as my mind works so differently.

While different people have different reasons for not reading, there seemed to be a common thread among many replies, which was an inability to see a point in reading fiction. It seems to me that many who don't like reading fiction are simply more practical-minded people.

I do believe, however, that everyone should give reading a try, especially reading fiction. Now some people might not take to it, but I think every child should be given the opportunity. There are just so many benefits, particularly in the case of the greatest works of literature:

A good, entertaining story.

A keen understanding of how both people and society as a whole work. While this can be gained from great works of non-fiction, I always feel that the greatest fiction does a better job. The heightened or dramatic examples in literature have a far greater impact on the reader than factual accounts. Literature also benefits from the ease with which it can adopt a character's viewpoint, which I believe gives it an edge over other artforms in allowing the reader to see the world from another person's perspective, and thus understand people better.
I don't believe that any non-fiction works could have provided the sense of the strengths and weaknesses of the human spirit, and the struggle between the outward striving of the human mind and the restrictions of the structures which man creates I got from 1984.
Nor do I believe that any historical account of The French Revolution could have provided me with such a portrayal of the thin line between barbarism and nobility in the human heart as that found in A Tale of Two Cities.

Despite film and video games' technical advances enabling them to better portray the fantastical and imaginative, I still think that fiction has a greater ability to portray that which is not ordinarily found in everyday life. It also gains strength in this regard due to the fact that the reader uses their imagination to paint the pictures described by the writer. Even realistic fiction aids the imaginative abilities in this regard, as the reader must visualise the scenes described by the writer. While inspiring the imagination is obviously important for children, it's something I think we should always aim to do in life.

Reading of any kind greatly increases one's vocabulary, and I believe reading fiction in particular does so as one tends to find less common words in literature, especially literature of the highest calibre. Great works of fiction also tend to feature sentences and phrases more creatively and skilfully crafted, not only increasing one's vocabulary but also one's mastery of the English language, which can have benefits both practical and more ephemeral.

The sheer joy of language well used. Some great writers not only create great stories and themes, but also provide great pleasure simply in their use of language. Charles Dickens and Joseph Conrad (real name, Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski: writing in his third language!) are two such writers. Sometimes the words they put on the page are so perfectly-chosen they're simply a pleasure to read in themselves, let alone for their role in the overall novel.

I could go on.

Now while I do respect anyone who's given reading a go and found it not for them, and would never look down on them (unless they were snobby and revelled in their non-reading), and other forms of writing beyond fiction, and other art forms, can provide some of the satisfaction described above, I feel that someone who doesn't read fiction, at least now and then, is missing out on some of the advantages the reader enjoys.

"A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one." - Jojen Reed.

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't see how reading fiction is going to make you interesting. Scientists, astronauts and generally people who are experts at things and have real knowledge to pass on are interesting, people who read fiction can only talk about fictional things. Having a conversation about Harry Potter or the new Borne film isn't interesting at all.

It's all a matter of opinion in the end but talking about fictional books isn't going to be an interesting conversation in my opinion.

Reading fiction doesn't simply give one the advantage of being able to talk about fiction down the pub. See above.

Shryke

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Are you talking about hard copies?

I pity people who pity people for trivial reasons. I can talk circles around people if I become that way inclined, mostly because it's fun to confuse and aggravate them. I learned from David Lynch.

Reading isn't trivial, talking nonsense to confuse people isn't cool, you are not David Lynch.