People who dont read books

desertcircus

I'm probably inviting a heap of opprobrium onto myself, but here goes. Books are still by far the dominant medium for the expression of ideas in our society; if you don't read, you simply aren't going to be fully involved in the world around you. What's happening to Ireland now is entirely predictable to anyone who's read The Shock Doctrine and deeply worrying to anyone who's read The Spirit Level. People facing serious illness are better equipped to deal with frauds and delusionals if they've read Bad Science. People who routinely mouth off about chavs and povvers would change their tune if they read Chavs.

One of the reasons we're in the state we're in is because too many people showed too little interest in what was going on. We have a responsibility to know.

old hippy

paddyandy wrote: »

Tell me something worth reading in books .I read a lot as a teenager and by thirty my head was full of nonsense .That broaden-your-mind thing does'nt wash with me ....coquettish drivel from publishing houses .There are a dozen books in the world +- worth reading what do other posters think ??? People seem to use books as self adornment like objects d'art and haute couture .

A dozen books? In the entire history of literature? Wasn't it seven books the last time you posted this theory? Read a few books on the sly, since?

ViveLaVie

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.

It's not always what you say, but how you say it. Saying something old in a new way transforms it and gives it new meaning. Shakespeare often took well-known stories and changed them so they were relevant to an Elizabethan audience. He played around with language and the format of storytelling. He made them new and different. His plays are a lot more interesting to read/watch than some of the sources they originated from. Saying everything is the same is a giant blanket statement. You have given no evidence at all to back up your claims.

ScumLord wrote: »

I have read fiction from time to time and I am currently learning film making which has storytelling at it's core. 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.

I'm pretty sure writing also has storytelling at its core. I think you'll find that if the sole intention of writing a story is to make money or to make it popular that the story is written without integrity and/or within a Hollywood framework. There are writers who write in order to say something about the world or society and to pass on a message they see as important. There are writers who want to revolutionise storytelling. There are writers with intentions that have value beyond making a quick buck.

ScumLord wrote: »

Films have become so formulaic you can see the entire film in the trailer.

You're studying film-making, right? But you claim all films are formulaic? Delve deeper then, because you are looking in the wrong places. A lot of Hollywood films are formulaic because the sole intention behind them is to make money and formula sells. There are so many films out there that reject the Hollywood formula and are inventive in their production. There are so many directors that don't want to regurgitate the same formula over and over again and try to do something new and different with the medium of film.

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.

You'r entitled to your opinion, of course. However, it's a bit of a generalisation to say that people who read fiction can ONLY talk about fictional things. I'd be fairly certain that I haven't ever come across anyone who can ONLY discuss fictional things. Many people who do discuss fiction apply it to the real world e.g. someone who talks about the impact 1984 or Animal Farm had on them might discuss the books in relation to real life politics. Even someone who discusses Harry Potter might talk about how it encourages us to question authority, to appreciate the family as the cornerstone of society and to reject racism and bigotry.

ScumLord wrote: »

They are pretty much the same thing, fantasy is a child of fiction that thinks fiction is to serious. Another way of describing fantasy would be to call it non realistic fiction.

No. Fantasy is not a genre spawned out of the idea that fiction is too serious. Fantasy could actually be classed as one of the more serious forms of fiction, when done well, because fantasy seeks to reflect the real world and challenge it. All that magic and spirituality? It serves a purpose. You may not see that if you look at it on too superficial a level.

ScumLord wrote: »

The thing about factual books is they are often clear and concise with their words. They can't afford to play in fantasy.

Fantasy in this day and age means anything is possible and while that may seem liberating in many ways it more often than not means writers can become very lazy. They don't think things through and rely on magic and feelings overcoming logic and sense to sidestep putting any real effort into a story.

Many people that read/watch fiction and get sucked into this fantasy land where they'll produce works based on what they/others think is cool rather than building a well thought out world. They're not creating believable scenarios unless you want to completely separate the story from logic, reason and throw everything you've learned about life out the window. It's just pandering to what people want as light entertainment rather than creating something valid and inspiring. If anything it's dumbing down art for the masses and it's not really helping anybody.

I'm of the opinion art is more or less dead, we're just producing product at this stage. Maybe art will come back one day but for now it's dormant.

Non-fiction can certainly be concise but it can also be long, drawn-out and over-blown. It's a bit ridiculous to state that non-fiction writers are better writers than fiction writers. Most of the celebrated writers in history wrote fiction. These people were writers who were respected for their dexterity with the written word.

Bad writers can become lazy when writing fantasy for the reasons you stated. However, good fantasy writers won't do this. You used a Hollywood franchise as an example to ground your claims. Starship Troopers is sci-fi which is a sub-genre of fantasy and doesn't encompass fantasy as a whole. It is also made by a Hollywood production company with the intention of making a quick buck. Look elsewhere and see if you can be surprised. Good fantasy will make you think about the way our own real world is constructed and will challenge some of the ideologies that govern it.

Fantasy seeks to reflect the real world and criticise it. To say you must throw logic and reason out of the window when reading fantasy doesn't recognise this.

ScumLord wrote: »

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.

Again, having read or watched a lot of sci-fi doesn't equate to having read and watched ALL fictitious books and films. Sci-fi is a sub-genre of fantasy and not all fiction is fantasy.

Shryke

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Sci-fi is a sub-genre of fantasy and not all fiction is fantasy.

I don't like splitting hairs but I have to disagree there. Science fiction is not a sub-genre of fantasy. They are two separate genres entirely that always get lumped together in sections.

Sykk

Shryke wrote: »

Can you show me where that is said? Or can you show me where that is apparently suggested?

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 i said these are all (apparently) educated people

Educated doesn't = smart. However the shock value of the above statement would lead the conclusion to be that only uneducated and stupid people don't read. Hint: Very first post.

ViveLaVie

Shryke wrote: »

I don't like splitting hairs but I have to disagree there. Science fiction is not a sub-genre of fantasy. They are two separate genres entirely that always get lumped together in sections.

Apologies!

I think my point still stands though.

Duggy747

I enjoy reading, lots actually as I'll read literally anything I can get my mitts on from encyclopedias, history books, anything on the web, right down to the odd paragraphs written on the back of food / product packaging (no reason really, just to read what it says :pac:)

As for things like novels themselves, fiction or non-fiction, I rarely read them. Used to love reading Roald Dahl books when I was a kid, though.

willfromcork

Reading is gay.

Shryke

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Apologies!

I think my point still stands though.

Apologies for even bringing it up! One of those things that niggles me. No problem with any of your post at all.

Sykk wrote: »

Educated doesn't = smart. However the shock value of the above statement would lead the conclusion to be that only uneducated and stupid people don't read. Hint: Very first post.

There is no shock value in assuming that well educated people would be interested in reading and nowhere do I see the OP alluding to non-readers intelligence, OR the intelligence of their co-workers but rather to their surprise that reading isn't a common hobby for the more academic. There is no shock value full stop. You're not entirely making sense and I'm re-reading your post to try and see your angle.
Only uneducated/stupid people don't read? Where is this coming from?

So straight away you have to put in a qualifier before making an assumption on something that isn't actually alluded to?
I think I'm following you but I could use more of those helpful little hints.

miamee

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)

Until recently I found it hard to believe anyone would not read. Then I met a highly intelligent individual who happened to be dyslexic. He devours documentaries and science-based tv shows in the same way others enjoy books. In this day & age any thirst for knowledge - which I think is the thing about reading that gets most people interested - can be sated by more than just the medium of books now. If someone never reads books but enjoys watching documentaries or listening to podcasts or reading factual things on the internet or anything else that displays an interest in something more than the day to day, I would personally put that in the same category as someone who likes to read.

Sykk

Shryke wrote: »

Apologies for even bringing it up! One of those things that niggles me. No problem with any of your post at all.



There is no shock value in assuming that well educated people would be interested in reading and nowhere do I see the OP alluding to non-readers intelligence, OR the intelligence of their co-workers but rather to their surprise that reading isn't a common hobby for the more academic. There is no shock value full stop. You're not entirely making sense and I'm re-reading your post to try and see your angle.
Only uneducated/stupid people don't read? Where is this coming from?

So straight away you have to put in a qualifier before making an assumption on something that isn't actually alluded to?
I think I'm following you but I could use more of those helpful little hints.

I don't think any amount of hints could help you. Keep reading books and you'll get there eventually.

Shryke

Sykk wrote: »

I don't think any amount of hints could help you. Keep reading books and you'll get there eventually.

God forbid you might explain yourself clearly. I'm fully prepared to hear you out if you can stow the cheekiness and get over the apparent shock value that has stunned your senses.
Yours in anticipation.

Sykk

Shryke wrote: »

God forbid you might explain yourself clearly. I'm fully prepared to hear you out if you can stow the cheekiness and get over the apparent shock value that has stunned your senses.
Yours in anticipation.

I'm ecstatic that you're "fully prepared" to hear me out.

When using ALL CAPS, generally the person wants to emphasize the upper case section of their sentence. In this case "all with 3rd level qualifications who DO NOT READ Books".

So - here is the 'Shock value' I was referring to. I'm aware the above doesn't epitomize a "Shock" but I didn't think I'd have to explain what I meant in further detail to a stranger on the internet.

Secondly:

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


As i said these are all (apparently) educated people

Bolded suggest that it is embarrassing not to read and if you're an educated person you should be reading. This leaves what conclusion for people who don't read? Well he didn't exactly say, did he? But it's not hard to guess.

Now do you understand what I'm trying to say? Or will I keep the hints coming :pac:

Shryke

@Sykk The embarrassment was in reference to being proud of not reading as I see it. Not being embarrassed about not reading but a reaction to an attitude of prideful ignorance which is wholly just in my view. And that says nothing of people who don't read.
So you are in fact making assumptions of the worst possible kind based on a narrow minded reading of the OP. Reading you loud and clear, thanks.

ScumLord

ViveLaVie wrote: »

You're studying film-making, right? But you claim all films are formulaic?

Film making is quite formulaic, it has to be because you've tens to hundreds of people trying to work together to finish the film. If there wasn't a formulaic approach the film wouldn't get made. That extends right into the storytelling both the written and visual sides, their are methods that you have to use or people get confused because they're so used to seeing it done that way. They all work too.

No. Fantasy is not a genre spawned out of the idea that fiction is too serious.

Obviously there was no committee meeting to decide that fiction needed something new. As far as I'm concerned there's fiction and non fiction. If it's not based on fact, it's fiction. Sci-fi, fantasy, romance are all fiction. And yes for the most part romance is as much fiction as star wars.

I just don't have any time for flights of fancy any more.

Sykk

Shryke wrote: »

@Sykk The embarrassment was in reference to being proud of not reading as I see it. Not being embarrassed about not reading but a reaction to an attitude of prideful ignorance which is wholly just in my view. And that says nothing of people who don't read.
So you are in fact making assumptions of the worst possible kind based on a narrow minded reading of the OP. Reading you loud and clear, thanks.

So, you can't handle a discussion you started. Blame me of assuming wrongful meaning then do the exact same thing yourself to get out of the argument.

Ironing..

Monty Burnz

ScumLord wrote: »

I just don't have any time for flights of fancy any more.

Serious fiction isn't written as a flight of fancy though, is it? It's written to communicate some insight or philosophical point. Let's not put Primo Levi's If Not Now, When? into the same rubbish pile as the latest Mills and Boon bilge.

crazy cabbage

Monty Burnz wrote: »

some insight or philosophical point.

The same could be said about shamans (worlds olders religion) drug use :rolleyes:

Shryke

Sykk wrote: »

So, you can't handle a discussion you started. Blame me of assuming wrongful meaning then do the exact same thing yourself to get out of the argument.

Ironing..

We are having a discussion. Don't you want to address what I have said instead of trying to form some kind of silly narrative to make yourself an indignant party?
You didn't address my last post either and I had to ask you to explain yourself. I'm not the one with a problem discussing things.

It's not about blame. I criticized your interpretation of the OP. And I'm not saying that you're assuming wrongful meaning so much as malicious assumption. I'm not getting out of any kind of argument by explaining to you my own perspective of the OPs post, I'm contributing to discussion, which you seem to think means making knee jerk comments. It doesn't.

ViveLaVie

ScumLord wrote: »

Film making is quite formulaic, it has to be because you've tens to hundreds of people trying to work together to finish the film. If there wasn't a formulaic approach the film wouldn't get made. That extends right into the storytelling both the written and visual sides, their are methods that you have to use or people get confused because they're so used to seeing it done that way. They all work too.

Your initial comment said that film-making is formulaic because if you have seen the trailer you have seen the film. I read that in terms of plot. So, the plots of these films are unoriginal, clichéd and so formulaic you know the ending before you begin. Now you seem to be saying that the formula to film-making is its method of production i.e. several people must edit the frames according to a formula, the lighting must be like such and such etc. So which is it? Or is it both?

Large productions can still be original in terms of camera work, plot, lighting, the use of props etc. There are also smaller productions. A small number of people can also make a film and it doesn't have to be formulaic either. I still get the impression you're talking in terms of Hollywood films, in which case you need to look elsewhere.

Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you here but you seem to be saying that large scale productions can't be anything but formulaic in their production or the film won't get made. I disagree with this and I'm pretty sure a lot of film critics and directors would too. You seem to be saying that film production crew can only do things one way or they get confused. This doesn't lend very much credibility to the intelligence level of those people, in your opinion.

What methods must be followed in terms of story-telling?

ScumLord wrote: »

Obviously there was no committee meeting to decide that fiction needed something new. As far as I'm concerned there's fiction and non fiction. If it's not based on fact, it's fiction. Sci-fi, fantasy, romance are all fiction. And yes for the most part romance is as much fiction as star wars.

I just don't have any time for flights of fancy any more.

Your original statement was that fantasy was a non-serious response to 'too serious' fiction. I never said that fantasy wasn't fiction. I said that fantasy is serious fiction too because it seeks to reflect and criticise the real world. I also never mentioned romance

You seemed to ignore my other points...

Monty Burnz

crazy cabbage wrote: »

The same could be said about shamans (worlds olders religion) drug use :rolleyes:

So what? What's your point?

crazy cabbage

Monty Burnz wrote: »

So what? What's your point?

My point is that he doesn't like reading fiction. He sees them as 'flights of fantasy'. You replied that there is more than that and that they hold 'some insight or philosophical point', which is great for you but my comment tried to convey that there is other (arguably better) ways to get 'insights and philosophical points'.

ViveLaVie

crazy cabbage wrote: »

My point is that he doesn't like reading fiction. He sees them as 'flights of fantasy'. You replied that there is more than that and that they hold 'some insight or philosophical point', which is great for you but my comment tried to convey that there is other (arguably better) ways to get 'insights and philosophical points'.

You might be able to access philosophy from other mediums too but that doesn't negate reading as one of the methods for doing so.

Monty Burnz

crazy cabbage wrote: »

My point is that he doesn't like reading fiction. He sees them as 'flights of fantasy'. You replied that there is more than that and that they hold 'some insight or philosophical point', which is great for you but my comment tried to convey that there is other (arguably better) ways to get 'insights and philosophical points'.

Ok, that's much clearer, thanks.

I'm not sure if personally visiting thousands of shamans (seeing as you can't be reading their insights in books) and asking them how they got on with their drug trips is the best way to learn about the world and gain insights from other people. You might notice a correlation between the invention of the printing press and the explosion in wisdom and knowledge in all fields. Shamanism didn't really do much with the thousands of years of head start that it had.

crazy cabbage

ViveLaVie wrote: »

You might be able to access philosophy from other mediums too but that doesn't negate reading as one of the methods for doing so.

I agree completly. Some will read, or meditate or pray or take drugs or try and utilise sleep paralysis or lucid dreaming etc etc to experience philosophical insights. I am not saying that any one is better but they are all different. And everyone is different and should be free to choise which way they want to experience these philosophical insights.

I dout if many people read to experience philosophical insights though but i could be wrong and if i am more power to ye. I am proberly wrong there so ignore that point. It is just that i wouldn't read to experience 'philosophical instights'.

Ok, that's much clearer, thanks.

I'm not sure if personally visiting thousands of shamans (seeing as you can't be reading their insights in books) and asking them how they got on with their drug trips is the best way to learn about the world and gain insights from other people. You might notice a correlation between the invention of the printing press and the explosion in wisdom and knowledge in all fields. Shamanism didn't really do much with the thousands of years of head start that it had. Today 18:06

hahah i wasn't talking about visiting shamans. I was talking about how shamans dont read books for these 'insights'. They take drugs. ok. they do an alot more that take drugs.
There is people that take drugs for 'insights' and that was my point.

I only used that shaumans as an example. I listed more above and there is many more.

And yes. The printing press was a fantastic invention and was responsible for the explosion in knowledge. I agree.

ScumLord

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Serious fiction isn't written as a flight of fancy though, is it? It's written to communicate some insight or philosophical point. Let's not put Primo Levi's If Not Now, When? into the same rubbish pile as the latest Mills and Boon bilge.

I would have agreed up to a point if you made that statement 20 years ago but most sci-fi is stuck in a rut, they refuse to go beyond the ship at sea approach to sci-fi

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Your initial comment said that film-making is formulaic because if you have seen the trailer you have seen the film. I read that in terms of plot. So, the plots of these films are unoriginal, clichéd and so formulaic you know the ending before you begin. Now you seem to be saying that the formula to film-making is its method of production i.e. several people must edit the frames according to a formula, the lighting must be like such and such etc. So which is it? Or is it both?

It's both, every aspect of film making is formulaic. From constructing the story to carrying it out.

Large productions can still be original in terms of camera work, plot, lighting, the use of props etc.

Examples please. There's very little that's original these days bar the advancements in technology. Most techniques have been around for decades now.

There are also smaller productions. A small number of people can also make a film and it doesn't have to be formulaic either. I still get the impression you're talking in terms of Hollywood films, in which case you need to look elsewhere.

The problem is everyone is copying hollywood as hollywood is successful and inspiring the most film makers.

You seem to be saying that film production crew can only do things one way or they get confused.

No, not crew. The audience gets confused. If a scene with two people isn't shot a particular way the audience gets confused and don't follow the plot as well. There's plenty of room for maneuver but the same basic principles are underpinning every conversation shot on film.

ViveLaVie

crazy cabbage wrote: »

I agree completly. Some will read, or meditate or pray or take drugs or try and utilise sleep paralysis or lucid dreaming etc etc to experience philosophical insights. I am not saying that any one is better but they are all different. And everyone is different and should be free to choise which way they want to experience these philosophical insights.

I dout if many people read to experience philosophical insights though but i could be wrong and if i am more power to ye. I am proberly wrong there so ignore that point. It is just that i wouldn't read to experience 'philosophical instights'.

I agree, I don't think people who don't read are necessarily missing out, but I do think reading has a lot to offer. If someone doesn't like reading or chooses to do something else they find of value with their time then that is their prerogative.

I mainly read for enjoyment but there are times I will read to challenge myself. I have a list of 'classics' I want to read in the next few years. All of the books on my list are supposed to criticise the world and society or offer philosophical wisdom of some kind. I'm probably in the minority though!

Equally I think film, music and art can do the same thing.

ViveLaVie

crazy cabbage wrote: »

I agree completly. Some will read, or meditate or pray or take drugs or try and utilise sleep paralysis or lucid dreaming etc etc to experience philosophical insights. I am not saying that any one is better but they are all different. And everyone is different and should be free to choise which way they want to experience these philosophical insights.

I dout if many people read to experience philosophical insights though but i could be wrong and if i am more power to ye. I am proberly wrong there so ignore that point. It is just that i wouldn't read to experience 'philosophical instights'.

I agree, I don't think people who don't read are necessarily missing out, but I do think reading has a lot to offer. If someone doesn't like reading or chooses to do something else they find of value with their time then that is their prerogative.

I mainly read for enjoyment but there are times I will read to challenge myself. I have a list of 'classics' I want to read in the next few years. All of the books on my list are supposed to criticise the world and society or offer philosophical wisdom of some kind. I'm probably in the minority though!

Equally I think film, music and art can do the same thing.

RED PASSION

op there is 22 pages in this thread too lazy to read more than 1 of them, that is why i don't read books, i see it as a chore not something to be enjoyed.

give me 10 book titles that would be great for a person like me who wants to begin reading as a pastime but is like your mates at work.

crazy cabbage

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I mainly read for enjoyment but there are times I will read to challenge myself. I have a list of 'classics' I want to read in the next few years. All of the books on my list are supposed to criticise the world and society or offer philosophical wisdom of some kind. I'm probably in the minority though!

I see where you are coming from. I would read to challenge myself too. May i suggest a book that i think you will like. It is called No Logo by Naomi Klein. If you want something that will challenge parts of society that should do it.

crazy cabbage

RED PASSION wrote: »

op there is 22 pages in this thread too lazy to read more than 1 of them, that is why i don't read books, i see it as a chore not something to be enjoyed.

give me 10 book titles that would be great for a person like me who wants to begin reading as a pastime but is like your mates at work.

Depends what you are into. I could suggest a brillent book about a chemical produced by the pineal gland of the human brain and its effects, which i found to be awe inspiring but you might find total tripe.

Would you prefer factual books or fiction. If fiction what type of fiction?


was going to suggest where's wally but better not damn i used to love those books

Casillas

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Depends what you are into. I could suggest a brillent book about a chemical produced by the pineal gland of the human brain and its effects, which i found to be awe inspiring but you might find total tripe.

DMT: the spirit molecule?

RandomName2

A mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone.

crazy cabbage

Casillas wrote: »

DMT: the spirit molecule?

Yeap :eek: didn't think that anyone whould have heard of it/ been able to guess it. It isn't exatly your typical reading material.

Have you read it?

ViveLaVie

ScumLord wrote: »

I would have agreed up to a point if you made that statement 20 years ago but most sci-fi is stuck in a rut, they refuse to go beyond the ship at sea approach to sci-fi

You wrote this is response to a comment on fiction but you're reducing it to sci-fi again. Sci-fi does not comprise all of fiction. Ever heard of Ulysses? Pretty ground-breaking stuff there and it's fiction. It inspired a whole movement.

ScumLord wrote: »

It's both, every aspect of film making is formulaic. From constructing the story to carrying it out.

I don't agree. I asked you to explain how the story-telling has to follow a formula and you didn't answer.

ScumLord wrote: »

Examples please. There's very little that's original these days bar the advancements in technology. Most techniques have been around for decades now.

Lars von Trier would be an example of a big director that deliberately turns his back on Hollywood 'techniques' and formulae. Watch his film 'The Idiots'. Incredibly different to Hollywood film in terms of lighting, prop use and even plot.

Even in terms of Hollywood though, there is room for a bit of manoeuvre. Baz Luhrmann, in Romeo + Juliet, juxtaposes a relatively faithful Shakespearean script with a post-modern filmic format. He uses an excess of religious imagery and props to convey over-saturation of popular culture in modern times to the point that logos and symbolism have been stripped of their meaning. He juxtaposes a current modern soundtrack with Shakespearean speech. Shakespearean phrases are used as advertising and marketing. And all of this is a reinterpretation of an 'original'. Maybe he hasn't created a new movement in film but he's done some pretty interesting things for a big budget film. A big budget Hollywood film.

ScumLord wrote: »

The problem is everyone is copying hollywood as hollywood is successful and inspiring the most film makers.

Not everyone. Ever hear of Dogme 95?

Foreign films are usually different to Hollywood clichés.

What about Independent films and Arthouse Cinema?

ScumLord wrote: »

No, not crew. The audience gets confused. If a scene with two people isn't shot a particular way the audience gets confused and don't follow the plot as well. There's plenty of room for maneuver but the same basic principles are underpinning every conversation shot on film.

La Haine's script is written in verlan, a highly developed slang language that is constantly changing. I know native French speakers that needed to watch the film in subtitles because they couldn't understand it. You'd think it'd be pretty important for the audience to be able to understand the language. That didn't confuse the audience though. La Haine did pretty well in terms of French film.

Hollywood uses formulae because it sells. But not every film does. I'm not an expert on film, I'd be much more comfortable discussing books, but I do know that there are good original films out there despite Hollywood's gargantuan influence on the industry.

You've ignored the rest of my statements again by the way. And you have given no evidence for the claims you've made either - just blanket statements.

ViveLaVie

crazy cabbage wrote: »

I see where you are coming from. I would read to challenge myself too. May i suggest a book that i think you will like. It is called No Logo by Naomi Klein. If you want something that will challenge parts of society that should do it.

Cheers, I will add that to my list!

Casillas

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Yeap :eek: didn't think that anyone whould have heard of it/ been able to guess it. It isn't exatly your typical reading material.

Have you read it?

I have, great book. I tend to veer wildly in my reading tastes

Brinimartini

ebixa82 wrote: »

That is complete bollix.

Less informed? Duller conversationally?
Again this has got to do with reading newspapers, not books.

I could sit down and spend a week reading The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and Ulysees, but if neither come up in conversation (about said books) then I will be no more or less dull.

I work a 50 hour week and go to the gym most evenings, if I had time to read a book I would, but I don't. I would however spend at least an hour per day reading Irish Times, BBC news etc.

Sit me down with someone who's a John Grisham addict and I bet I'll be more informed and less dull conversationally.

See what I mean.You don't have the breadth of imagination to understand that I'm not talking about knowledge of current affairs but ideas, concepts, philosophy-light, human affairs, the humanities in general.REAL EDUCATION.
Book reading is a must for this.Try it and see.

crazy cabbage

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Cheers, I will add that to my list!

No bother You could try the book casillas was on about too. DMT - The spirt Molecule by doctor richerd strassman too if you really wanted. That will deffently shake up your some of your views.

Casillas wrote: »

I have, great book. I tend to veer wildly in my reading tastes

Yea i am the same. None of the mainstream stuff for me But yea. That is one hell of a book. really really enjoyed it.
Might try 'food of the gods' by terence mckenna if i could be bothered walk to the libary in town. Ever heard of that?

yea i have some weird reading tasts that generally resolve around interests and hobbies. Learn loads of stuff that i will use/want to learn about.

Brinimartini

Misticles wrote: »

I have a masters and I don't read books. I love listening to music.
Only recently I finished the second book that I have ever picked up by choice.

I just have no interest in reading books as I feel music plays a much larger role in my life and it's more appealing to me.

Different people have different interests.... Go figure :rolleyes:

Reading certainly does'nt indicate a smarter person but I'll guarantee it does indicate a more rounded, curious and perceptive person.

Brinimartini

paddyandy wrote: »

Tell me something worth reading in books .I read a lot as a teenager and by thirty my head was full of nonsense .That broaden-your-mind thing does'nt wash with me ....coquettish drivel from publishing houses .There are a dozen books in the world +- worth reading what do other posters think ??? People seem to use books as self adornment like objects d'art and haute couture .

Well, if a donkey reads a book it probably won't turn into racehorse alright but otherwise I disagree.
P G Wodehouse said the only book worth reading was Vanity Fair but he did'nt mean it literally.There are millions of books worth reading, mindblowing in fact.If you don't believe me try reading Vernon God Little by DBC Pierre and come back and tell me it's not just one example of sheer genius.

ViveLaVie

crazy cabbage wrote: »

No bother You could try the book casillas was on about too. DMT - The spirt Molecule by doctor richerd strassman too if you really wanted. That will deffently shake up your some of your views

It sounds quite intense! :eek:

RED PASSION

crazy cabbage wrote: »

Depends what you are into. I could suggest a brillent book about a chemical produced by the pineal gland of the human brain and its effects, which i found to be awe inspiring but you might find total tripe.

Would you prefer factual books or fiction. If fiction what type of fiction?


was going to suggest where's wally but better not damn i used to love those books

Hehe an audio book.

Funny you mention where's wally, i usually tell people my fav books are picture books. TinTin also.

sure we will start with factual, not things like history of the titanic, or WW2 or about footballers, politicians lives etc. something else.

OR

Fiction something with an unexpected twist type of book but still not heavy reading. Give me a book you would have no problem reading 2/3 times in a year, i may like it, may not but i have to start somewhere.

AudreyHepburn

I absolutly love reading....I'd be lost without my kindle and I never go anywhere without it in my bag. There is nothing I enjoy more than losing myself in a good book.

While I would never judge anyone for not reading if they have made a genuine concerted effort to read and just can't do it, I do take issue with those who refuse to try because it's boring, or all books are crap or they don't have time. And don't get me started on those who say they have better things to do....that's snobbery of the highest order imo.

I refuse to believe there isn't at least one book out there that would appeal to you and of course you would have to time read if you made an effort to find it. On the bus home from work, at night instead of watching television, when in bed etc. Time won't magically appear, you have to make it.

I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't read, not out of snobbery, but because I love it so much and have gained so much from it and I feel they are denying themselves or missing out on so much enjoyment.

But that's just me.

crazy cabbage

RED PASSION wrote: »

Hehe an audio book.

Funny you mention where's wally, i usually tell people my fav books are picture books. TinTin also.

sure we will start with factual, not things like history of the titanic, or WW2 or about footballers, politicians lives etc. something else.

OR

Fiction something with an unexpected twist type of book but still not heavy reading. Give me a book you would have no problem reading 2/3 times in a year, i may like it, may not but i have to start somewhere.

Factual books that i have read and would recomend are:
DMT - The spirt molecule by richerd strassman (i always find myself recomending this book for some reason)
No Logo - By Naomi Klein
Born to Run by cristopher mcdougal
The assalt on reason (haven't finished it.)
Mein Kamp by hitler. Actuly only got 100 pages into it. is pure and utter sh1t but it is something that i had to try and wrap my head around.
That is all i can think of on the spot . Have a few lined up to read in the coming months though

Again if you have no interest in a topic there isn't any point in reading a book about it becouse you will loose interest.

Fiction. i dont generaly read fiction anymore but The bartimaeus trilogy is one series of books that i genuienly found funny and completly different is one of the only series of book that i would have read more than once. I think others would be able to give better recomendations though on fiction

RED PASSION

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I absolutly love reading....I'd be lost without my kindle and I never go anywhere without it in my bag. There is nothing I enjoy more than losing myself in a good book.

While I would never judge anyone for not reading if they have made a genuine concerted effort to read and just can't do it, I do take issue with those who refuse to try because it's boring, or all books are crap or they don't have time. And don't get me started on those who say they have better things to do....that's snobbery of the highest order imo.

I refuse to believe there isn't at least one book out there that would appeal to you and of course you would have to time read if you made an effort to find it. On the bus home from work, at night instead of watching television, when in bed etc. Time won't magically appear, you have to make it.

I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't read, not out of snobbery, but because I love it so much and have gained so much from it and I feel they are denying themselves or missing out on so much enjoyment.

But that's just me.

what is your favourite book and why is it so good. does it make you think of yourself in a new light, is it an escape from the real world for an hour or two??? what makes this book great, i love people like you who are so passionate about what they like, i am the complete opposite with regards book reading but will have time on my hands to read in future.

i was never a bookworm:D

villabren

A work colleague recently described me as "quite intelligent" because i read on my breaks and go through about a book a week. Most of em are about serial killers or the mafia but it still seemed to evoke automatic intelligence. Which is strange cos I've failed college twice and couldn't hold a discussion on politics or the economy or any of that.
Also while working in a bar a few years a colleague on her break sat reading a book. She was coming to the end of a chemistry degree and had brains to burn but a customer aid to her in a surprised tone: "Oh I'm reading that book. I didn't think that's the kind of book a waitress would read"

AudreyHepburn

RED PASSION wrote: »

what is your favourite book and why is it so good. does it make you think of yourself in a new light, is it an escape from the real world for an hour or two??? what makes this book great, i love people like you who are so passionate about what they like, i am the complete opposite with regards book reading but will have time on my hands to read in future.

i was never a bookworm:D

For me, I just love to escape to different times and places. I love stories that make you think and question. I love a book that I can really sink my teeth into.

I couldn't really pick a favourite book (there are too many!) but my two favourite genres are crime/mystery and history....both in keeping with my point above!

girlonfire

A world without books is inconceivable to me. What's worse is the guy I've recently started seeing just told me that "reading isn't cool" - dead in the water before it's even begun:rolleyes:

Latchy

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

For me, I just love to escape to different times and places. I love stories that make you think and question. I love a book that I can really sink my teeth into.

I couldn't really pick a favourite book (there are too many!) but my two favourite genres are crime/mystery and history....both in keeping with my point above!

^ In a nutshell ...my take on it to .

Also add autobiography's to that list .I've read a few hundred ,from one extreme to the other ie, ' Dwight D Eisenhower ' to the one I'm reading now ' Dream A Little Dream Of me , The Life of Mama Cass Elliot ' and as Audrey said you are taking back to different times ,places ,events and with our imagination puts you right back there .