People who dont read books

Burky126

AnonoBoy wrote: »

"What you reading for?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuG3il7Bgo8

Appropriate

--Kaiser--

The King of Moo wrote: »

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

Another quote from the same author "A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone, if it's to keep it's edge"

Bipolar Joe

Shryke wrote: »

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

It is as a hobby, same as every other hobby. I could look down my nose at people who think Marley and Me was the height of cinema, mostly because it's a terrible movie with no redeeming features, but you get on with things. A film can be just as engaging as a book. I couldn't look away when watching Stoic.

What I think we're dealing with here is people wanting to be special little snowflakes. It's like the people who comment on Duran Duran videos saying "I'm only a zygote and I think this music is better than music now, everyone my age who is different is just weird!" So you read. I watch movies. If I want information, I have Google pointing me towards it. Know what I do when I find it? I read that shit. You have a hobby. I know a guy who collects toy trains.

bhamsteve

I think someone who has never read fiction is missing out on one of the great art forms. I'd be a bit puzzled. Same if they had never sat down and listened to an album.
Someone who has never read a book of any description will find it difficult to become knowledgeable, although I'd say they'll start to read at some point.

Bipolar Joe

Sure, because books are the only place in the entire Universe where information is gathered.

bhamsteve

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Sure, because books are the only place in the entire Universe where information is gathered.

They are one of the best methods of passing knowledge between people though. Why would someone not take advantage of them?

Bipolar Joe

Because there are different levels of intelligence. Some people do not have the aptitude to take in pages upon pages of text. Some people forget what's just been said or shown to them. My Father was an engineer for the majority of his life, and an expert at what he did. He could program the equipment, use heavy-duty software to design what he needed and knew exactly what called for what. He can't remember anything he reads about an hour later. He watched training films that came with the equipment he used, and expanded on them on his own. Books are not the "Best" for passing knowledge between people, not by a long shot, simply because the "Best" would apply to everyone, or at least an overwhelming majority, which isn't the case.

If you're a fan of reading: http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Reframed-Multiple-Intelligences-Century/dp/0465026109

Snowie

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)

Ya see the Irish schooling system kicked, imagination and creativity out of them an taught them to be god fear numb skulls


I read a bit at the moment I'm reading about Steve jobs... A book about light and how it works and various other books to do with my personal interests...

Pottler

I have a mate, he lives in the UK and owns a chain of up-market coffee shops and restaurants. We are friends since primary school -he's never read a book in his life, ever. I'm not entirely sure he can even read beyond comics. Doesn't appear to have held him back too much to be fair. Very nice Ferrari he drives as well. Maybe reading books is over-rated. Me personally, I read a lot, did english lit to UK A level, got an A. Apart from making for very pursuasive case studies for work, not too sure what other benefit there was. Shakespeare was a hack tosser anyway IMO and I know pretty much everything he wrote off by rote. Same goes for most of the well known poets. There is no end to reading, probably best not to overdo it. Moderation and all that. I had a place at Newcastle to study classics for my degree, decided to pass and have a go at the real world instead. Glad now. I'd have made a crap teacher anyway.

VEN

MagicMarker wrote: »

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

ah fook off ya ballax lave me alone

opinion guy

I spend way more time than I would like reading work type stuff.

I'll be f**ked if I spend my free time reading as well

VEN

does anyone read Westerns?

pennypocket

Pottler wrote: »

I have a mate, he lives in the UK and owns a chain of up-market coffee shops and restaurants. We are friends since primary school -he's never read a book in his life, ever. I'm not entirely sure he can even read beyond comics. Doesn't appear to have held him back too much to be fair. Very nice Ferrari he drives as well. Maybe reading books is over-rated. Me personally, I read a lot, did english lit to UK A level, got an A. Apart from making for very pursuasive case studies for work, not too sure what other benefit there was. Shakespeare was a hack tosser anyway IMO and I know pretty much everything he wrote off by rote. Same goes for most of the well known poets. There is no end to reading, probably best not to overdo it. Moderation and all that. I had a place at Newcastle to study classics for my degree, decided to pass and have a go at the real world instead. Glad now. I'd have made a crap teacher anyway.

Great that you're not a classics teacher. You clearly don't have the aptitude for it. Books are much much much better than ferraris.

ViveLaVie

I don't agree with a few posters here who are saying that the main reason to read is for knowledge and that non-readers are missing out on this knowledge.

Non-readers, if they need information, can access that information in other formats.

Reading, and reading fiction in particular, has value beyond providing information.

The exercise of reading keeps the mind sharp. Reading particularly well crafted writing has been shown to improve intelligence. For example, reading Shakespeare is infinitely more beneficial for the brain than reading Twilight.

Good fiction can criticise and challenge deeply ingrained ideas, attitudes, ideologies, prejudices and concepts. It can criticise society and how it's structured and make suggestions for improvement. It seeks to reveal the human condition. It can alter the way we see the world and how we think.

Good writers play with the structure of language and manipulate it. Shakespeare often messed around with language and had a huge influence on how we speak today.

Good fiction is not limited to works like Ulysses and Hard Times. There is a lot of popular fiction that is very good. Stephen King is a great current writer. A good book should make you think.

That said, all of these things can be done through film and other art forms too.

I derive a lot of enjoyment from reading but some of my close friends and family don't read at all. Reading is not the most important past-time in the world. Good writers can do great things, but so can good singers, good artists, good film-makers and good sportsmen. I don't value reading above watching films or listening to music or playing sports and for many other people the latter activities take preference.

languagenerd

The King of Moo wrote: »

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 remember your thread too. Weirdly, I think that thread went the opposite way to this one (i.e. had more readers than non-readers defending themselves).

Re the OP, I think that people who boast about not reading are just as bad as those who boast about reading. In school, I spent a fair amount of time reading (particularly in primary school) and people looked down on me for that. It was/is considered cool not to read. Some people equate reading with studying and it wasn't always "cool" to care about schoolwork (much less do more reading voluntarily!).

I don't mind if someone doesn't read, but I do take issue if someone is constantly boasting about not reading and criticizes others for doing so. Respect and snobbery work both ways...

I read a lot less these days than when I was a kid, but it had such an influence on my life - I always had a very high standard of English and I'm nearly sure that that's why I'm so interested in learning foreign languages (my current degree, and hopefully future career!).

You shouldn't totally dismiss something just because you don't like it. General statements like "All fiction is sh*t and all readers are boring" are just that - generalisations! And that's how stereotypes are created and perpetuated.

*I hope I haven't come across as pretentious here, I'm really not!

bhamsteve

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Because there are different levels of intelligence. Some people do not have the aptitude to take in pages upon pages of text. Some people forget what's just been said or shown to them. My Father was an engineer for the majority of his life, and an expert at what he did. He could program the equipment, use heavy-duty software to design what he needed and knew exactly what called for what. He can't remember anything he reads about an hour later. He watched training films that came with the equipment he used, and expanded on them on his own. Books are not the "Best" for passing knowledge between people, not by a long shot, simply because the "Best" would apply to everyone, or at least an overwhelming majority, which isn't the case.

If you're a fan of reading: http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Reframed-Multiple-Intelligences-Century/dp/0465026109

I don't think that someone with low verbal aptitude is any less intelligent especially when they display their intelligence in other ways. In the case of your father I'd say that working it out himself was his strength.
As far as I know intelligence is the ability to learn, which he obviously had if he excelled in his profession, and does not specify the method of learning that should be used.
I have a poor attention span and memory myself so find reading anything complicated quite challenging, I usually just read about fishing or an easy to read novel.

I'd still say though that books are one of the best ways of transferring knowledge, albeit not the only one.

ViveLaVie

Pottler wrote: »

Shakespeare was a hack tosser anyway IMO and I know pretty much everything he wrote off by rote. Same goes for most of the well known poets.

You know everything Shakespeare ever wrote off by heart? Really? And most of the well-known poets too?

Holocene

The book is rather an arbitrary medium, and the typical book length does not suit everyone.

I personally like to get information from articles, particularly the longish feature articles you find in New Scientist, the New Yorker or the London Review of Books. I'll read a random chapter of a book here and there, and often I'll scroll through the index of a book while standing up in a bookshop, reading pages or lines here and there. Kind of like the internet in a way.

I prefer history and philosophy over fiction. Prefer to chew over an idea for a while rather than read about a sequence of invented occurrences. The best fiction helps people to get to grips with science or human nature. A good novel is a machine for thinking.

Bipolar Joe

bhamsteve wrote: »

I don't think that someone with low verbal aptitude is any less intelligent especially when they display their intelligence in other ways. In the case of your father I'd say that working it out himself was his strength.
As far as I know intelligence is the ability to learn, which he obviously had if he excelled in his profession, and does not specify the method of learning that should be used.
I have a poor attention span and memory myself so find reading anything complicated quite challenging, I usually just read about fishing or an easy to read novel.

I'd still say though that books are one of the best ways of transferring knowledge, albeit not the only one.

Surely having someone there explaining it to you face to face would be best, that way you have a more direct interaction, can ask questions and clarify things. You can't ask a book to back up and explain in better detail what they mean by something, because if it's not in the book it can't tell you.

pennypocket

Pottler wrote: »

I have a mate, he lives in the UK and owns a chain of up-market coffee shops and restaurants. We are friends since primary school -he's never read a book in his life, ever. I'm not entirely sure he can even read beyond comics. Doesn't appear to have held him back too much to be fair. Very nice Ferrari he drives as well. Maybe reading books is over-rated. Me personally, I read a lot, did english lit to UK A level, got an A. Apart from making for very pursuasive case studies for work, not too sure what other benefit there was. Shakespeare was a hack tosser anyway IMO and I know pretty much everything he wrote off by rote. Same goes for most of the well known poets. There is no end to reading, probably best not to overdo it. Moderation and all that. I had a place at Newcastle to study classics for my degree, decided to pass and have a go at the real world instead. Glad now. I'd have made a crap teacher anyway.

All 154 sonnets and 37 plays??!! Well done!

Tigerbaby

I am probably much older than most here. I read, and have done so since I was about 8. I devoured books from the library. My mind swelled and opened. My imagination took root and hasnt stopped since. I'm not saying this is always good or easy ok? There have been many times over the last 50 plus years that I wished my mind wasnt so wild and free.

But I never, EVER, regret the colours and beauty that reading has given me.

I am a better person, more compassionate and appreciative, because I read and contemplate and assimilate.

I really, really pity those who cant lose themselves in a good book; whether it be SF, Fantasy, History, Philosophy, sex.. whatever!! Reading invites you into the core, the soul of the greatest people who ever lived.

Its a gift. Mind blowing like no drug I know. I'm lucky I'm an addict.

cheers

bhamsteve

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Surely having someone there explaining it to you face to face would be best, that way you have a more direct interaction, can ask questions and clarify things. You can't ask a book to back up and explain in better detail what they mean by something, because if it's not in the book it can't tell you.

True, but it's not always practical to learn things from somebody face to face.

Bipolar Joe

It makes me sad that you put your being a decent person down to something that wasn't yours in the beginning.

Bipolar Joe

bhamsteve wrote: »

True, but it's not always practical to learn things from somebody face to face.

Neither is reading. What if you're like my Pop? Or you're dyslexic? Or blind and there's no Braille copy? There's no standard because different people require different things.

Shryke

I think The King of Moo said everything that needs saying, at least in my book. I remember his old thread too and I thought for a moment that this thread was a resurrection of it.
It's only a pity that there is a poor attitude toward reading with some. Of course not everyone needs to read or should read, but the aggression with which some people need to voice this says more than their own words. The written word enriches life.
Really lovely post Moo. Anyway, to quote a genius.

"Dostoevsky gives me more than any scientist, more than Gauss." - Albert Einstein

Bad Panda

As for the condescending posts re imagination, allow me to be equally so in my response:

Reading isn't the only way to a great imagination. Some of us are just born with an imagination, others have to read to develop theirs.

Bipolar Joe

Shryke wrote: »

I think The King of Moo said everything that needs saying, at least in my book. I remember his old thread too and I thought for a moment that this thread was a resurrection of it.
It's only a pity that there is a poor attitude toward reading with some. Of course not everyone needs to read or should read, but the aggression with which some people need to voice this says more than their own words. The written word enriches life.
Really lovely post Moo. Anyway, to quote a genius.

"Dostoevsky gives me more than any scientist, more than Gauss." - Albert Einstein

I don't think it's a poor attitude at all. It's a preference. I think it's kind of off that some people won't watch a film just because it's in black and white. I think that the attitude displayed some people in this thread is stupid. For such clever reading types, they sure don't seem to get the simple fact that people be different and shit.

Latchy

I can't remember a time when I didn't have a book to hand and while I might go a month or two without reading ,there will always be a few that are on my ' to buy ' list .For those who don't read ,that's fine and each to their own but great books are like great movies ,you look forward to something similar again .

bhamsteve

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Neither is reading. What if you're like my Pop? Or you're dyslexic? Or blind and there's no Braille copy? There's no standard because different people require different things.

Which is why i stated it is one of the best methods of gaining knowledge. It is by no means the only method though, and doesn't suit everyone.

paddyandy

People have a lot to say here but succinct brevity is lacking .

pennypocket

paddyandy wrote: »

People have a lot to say here but succinct brevity is lacking .

Brevity is succinct. Succinct is brevity. That is all.

Miss Lockhart

paddyandy wrote: »

People have a lot to say here but succinct brevity is lacking .

You have a strange liking of redundant words for one who values brevity.

ShaneU

I have a degree in English and I don't read books. Read so many during the course that I've sort of burned myself out of them.

mikom

paddyandy wrote: »

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

Hah, spoon boy himself........... "Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth".

Toby Take a Bow

ScumLord wrote: »

Once you start researching storytelling you'll find it's become quite formulaic because the sole intention of writing the story is to make money or at the very least have it become somewhat popular.

You can't say that definitively. Plenty of authors out there are publishing with no expectation that it will make money or will become popular. Unless, of course, you include negligible amounts of money and popularity.

ScumLord wrote: »

Popular culture as a whole just becomes redundant as they're only trying to sell the same old crap to young people that haven't seen it yet.

This has always been the case, ever since 'popular culture' as a term was coined. Culture (in the form of ideas, books, music) has been eating itself for centuries now. There was even a really bad band in the 90s with a similar sort of name. They were being ironic, or post-ironic or ironic-ironic.

Personally, I'll always have a book to read, maybe a couple, and I try to read whatever interests me and not stick to one particular genre. I do like when new people I meet - or new potential girlfriends I meet - like reading some of the things I find interesting. It's not a snobby thing but liking people with similar interests thing. Generally, though, I don't think reading or not-reading is a sign of intelligence. For the most part intelligence is working at something: putting in the hours studying/learning/understanding.

pennypocket

ShaneU wrote: »

I have a degree in English and I don't read books. Read so many during the course that I've sort of burned myself out of them.

What kind of of degree? (sincerely, it matters). I have a English and History degree (1.1). Met so many like you on my course, can't understand the mentality at all.

Latchy

Book reading ' for pleasure ' was around long before internet /tv and quite simply many people are comfortable on their own reading a book but like anything ,if the subject matter isn't grabbing your attention then it's not worth the time .

Namlub

paddyandy wrote: »

People have a lot to say here but succinct brevity is lacking .

Well tautologies certainly aren't lacking thanks to you...

JupiterKid

I love reading and a good book to me is worth its weight in gold.

My ex rarely read anything more than one page in length and reading is not necessarily a sign of intelligence by any means but I do think that people who don't read are missing out on an excellent source of food for the mind.

I'm not a convert to this kindle thing - prefer an old fashioned paper book that I can pick up and put down.:)

ScumLord

pennypocket wrote: »

In any case, you cannot blanket criticise a medium like this, nor any other medium such as cinema, theatre, TV, etc.

Yes you can and I did. I assume you meant you shouldn't blanket criticise rather than implying it's physically impossible to blanket criticise the entire medium.

The King of Moo wrote: »

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

TLDR.. :pac:

Hank_Jones

Attacks on people who read books, I honestly can't believe it.

Is it not essentially an attack on people trying to educate themselves as a whole?

I always viewed books as a way to learn.

I'd wonder what people who can't read and write (but would love to) would think of such statements.

pennypocket

ScumLord wrote: »

Yes you can and I did. I assume you meant you shouldn't blanket criticise rather than implying it's physically impossible to blanket criticise the entire medium.

TLDR.. :pac:

Well then, I rephrase [Really loving the tedious nit-picking semantic argument] :You "shouldn't" blanket denigrate any medium. Especially one that you confess you have little familiarity with.

Agricola

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.

The reason I said reading fiction might give someone the benefit of an improved vocabulary was to separate that from the benefits you would get from reading factual works, ie actual knowledge. I wasnt saying reading fiction makes you an interesting dinner party guest. I avoid fiction and discussions about Harry Potter books would not too much for me either.

Having said that I do like having theological discussions with readers of the greatest work of fiction in human history, but we wont go down that road...

Bipolar Joe

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Attacks on people who read books, I honestly can't believe it.

Is it not essentially an attack on people trying to educate themselves as a whole?

I always viewed books as a way to learn.

I'd wonder what people who can't read and write (but would love to) would think of such statements.

No body is attacking any one for reading, it's almost the exact opposite, people getting pissy that some prefer to do other things.

ScumLord

pennypocket wrote: »

Well then, I rephrase [Really loving the tedious nit-picking semantic argument] :You "shouldn't" blanket denigrate any medium. Especially one that you confess you have little familiarity with.

I never said I had little familiarity with fiction. I grew up on fiction, I was a big sci-fi fan but after a while you've pretty much seen it all and they're just retelling the same stories over and over again. There is really only a handful of fiction worth reading/watching and the rest is just a rehash of those stories. I'm not going to to sit through it over and over again just for something to do. If I'm not learning something new I don't see the point.

confusticated

I find it strange all the people who say they learn from books or see them as a learning method first and foremost...I just see them as pure enjoyment.

Don't care if people don't like reading themselves - plenty of my friends don't - but my god, saying that people who read are boring? There's a generalisation and a half!

I also think it's funny the way threads on reading go - I remember King of Moo's thread too - no other pastime seems to create as much division, which I find really strange. I've never seen a thread where, for example, people who don't listen to music as a hobby are all boring.

In_My_Tree

LOOKS LIKE WE GOT OURSELVES A READAH

Agricola

confusticated wrote: »

I also think it's funny the way threads on reading go - I remember King of Moo's thread too - no other pastime seems to create as much division, which I find really strange. I've never seen a thread where, for example, people who don't listen to music as a hobby are all boring.

The thing is rightly or wrongly, books and reading are associated with intelligence. So when you get a group of people who are without doubt intelligent and who choose not to read a whole lot, you are going to get up their nose when you insinuate that they are a bit thick!

DEFTLEFTHAND

Philistines.

mk1600

Personally I think reading is a very one on one interaction between the reader and the writer. The person who reads the book generates there opinion based on the book and not what someone else has indicated they should/could've/maybe or possibly thought about it. Obviously dependent on said book.