People who dont read books

Monty Burnz

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

Well the book I cited isn't sci-fi, but that's not really relevant to the point you are making. I'm not sure what sci-fi you have been looking at, but the space-operatic 'ship at sea' style of sci-fi (by which I presume you mean the Star Trek-esque stuff) is only a small pool in the sea of modern sci-fi. Of course, sci-fi tells you very little about the future but a lot about the time in which it is written - it is widely misinterpreted as some sort of predictive medium. If you are interested at all, I can recommend some stuff that comprises the 95% of modern sci-fi that falls outside the 'ship at sea' genre - drop me a PM if you like.

paddyandy

Is reading a book an escape into another little world ?The Characters become almost companions and you nod approval or scowl at them and you can do with them what reality won't give you with those you work and live with .An Alternative family... pure escape and they're yours and nobody around can say anything about them .There is no practical use at the end because real life is'nt neat and tidy it's quirky and people are inconsistent .You learn nothing really .

Monty Burnz

paddyandy wrote: »

You learn nothing really .

It depends on what type of books you are reading, doesn't it? Do you really think that the great thinkers and writers have nothing to tell you about life?

Shryke

paddyandy wrote: »

Is reading a book an escape into another little world ?The Characters become almost companions and you nod approval or scowl at them...

From the point of view of a little kid you might not be far off, but even then a child would take more from reading than what you seem to think. This and your other posts in here have me thinking you're trolling the thread.

AudreyHepburn

paddyandy wrote: »

Is reading a book an escape into another little world ?The Characters become almost companions and you nod approval or scowl at them and you can do with them what reality won't give you with those you work and live with .An Alternative family... pure escape and they're yours and nobody around can say anything about them .There is no practical use at the end because real life is'nt neat and tidy it's quirky and people are inconsistent .You learn nothing really .

Most stories aren't neat and tidy either to be fair nor are their characters consistant.....which is how it should be.

If you think a book can teach you nothing you clearly don't read much.

Latchy

paddyandy wrote: »

Is reading a book an escape into another little world ?

It is for many and can be for others ,depends on what the subject is and if it's somebody recounting an incident in their life which was dramatic and /or traumatic then you can feel their pain on an emotional level while also learning something about human suffering and endurance .People might say '' ah you can look at the news every evening and see that '' but from a historical context there's nothing like ' been back there ' re living through the eyes of the author his/her first hand experiences.Fiction takes you into another different realm altogether .

areyawell

Tried reading a number of books but found them all very boring and a waste of time and put them down after 5 mins. Dont know how anyone can stare at pages day in day out.

languagenerd

This thread seems to have morphed from a discussion about non-readers into a debate about intelligence and whether reading has a point...

There are a lot of generalisations being thrown around. The whole "avid readers are boring people" thing is ridiculous. First of all, it assumes that reading is the only thing that these people do. I love reading, but I also love listening to music, playing guitar, training for Taekwon-do, learning new languages and travelling to other countries. I'd wager that most readers have a similar number of other hobbies. Some of the most interesting people I know read in their spare time, but it's not the only thing they do!

And, obviously, reading and intelligence are not 100% linked. I'm sure there are geniuses who don't read and less intelligent people who do. But you cannot deny that reading brings knowledge! Even if it's just spelling and vocabulary - you're still learning something new from it. I've said it before that, as a child, I had a very high level of English and I'm sure it's because I read so much back then. And, in general, people who read (be it novels or non-fiction) tend to have better spelling and grammar.

Besides language, the right book can teach you a lot. A few posters in this thread have dismissed fiction as completely pointless, but I think I've learned more from novels than from some textbooks. History, philosophy, culture & cultural differences, lifestyles, even some science - if a novel is well-written and well-researched, it'll give you an understanding of whatever the topic is. To give a pretty nerdy example - philosophers in the 18th century started writing about philosophy, science and religion in fictitious novels rather than essays because they thought people would understand it better. (Gullivers Travels by Jonathan Swift, Micromegas & Candide by Voltaire, Lettres Persanes by Montesquieu... and later things like Huis Clos by Sartre & Niebla by Unamuno, just to give a few examples.)

Oh, and finally - reading can be just simple enjoyment too! I read a lot of mystery books just as a hobby or to pass the time, the same way as watching a film. If I learn something from it, all the better! But learning doesn't have to be the main reason for reading a novel, it can be for fun too!

Sorry about the wall of text...
TL;DR version: Readers are not all boring, non-readers are not all stupid, reading is not the sole indicator of intelligence, reading can (and does )convey knowledge and don't dismiss something entirely just because you don't like it!

Monty Burnz

areyawell wrote: »

Tried reading a number of books but found them all very boring and a waste of time and put them down after 5 mins. Dont know how anyone can stare at pages day in day out.

Well if you can get someone else's like experiences and insights condensed into a couple of days' reading, there's no better way to spend your time. Will you understand the world and life in general better after reading something by Phillip Roth or Isabel Allende, or after spending a few days playing Call of Duty or whatever else you do to pass the time?*

*disclaimer: I am partial to games myself - you can't spend all your free time reading...

areyawell

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well if you can get someone else's like experiences and insights condensed into a couple of days' reading, there's no better way to spend your time. Will you understand the world and life in general better after reading something by Phillip Roth or Isabel Allende, or after spending a few days playing Call of Duty or whatever else you do to pass the time?*

*disclaimer: I am partial to games myself - you can't spend all your free time reading...

ha, I work in programming and graduated from college in a programming course. I just find reading boring and repetitive. I dont understand how people could do Bachelor of Arts in college. Most boring course in the history of the world. I just find reading pointless. Just my opinion! To pass the time I usually go drinking, cinema, or just go for a drive somewhere with friends

Monty Burnz

areyawell wrote: »

I just find reading pointless. Just my opinion! To pass the time I usually go drinking, cinema, or just go for a drive somewhere with friends

Well good films are not a million miles away from good literature.

On the wider point, look at it this way: how far would you have got with programming if you started from first principles with no outside help? Could you even have built something that Charles Babbage would recognise? If you are a genius, perhaps. But by reading about and learning the breakthroughs made by hundreds or thousands of people before you, you don't have to reinvent the wheel and you can start at the level of OO programming and work up from there. While it's not quite as black and white, you can get similar benefits from reading great books by great thinkers - it can deepen and broaden your understanding of human nature, the human condition, and the world around you. You can't really put a price on that. (I'm not talking about the 'Twilight' novels are any of that bilge, mind you)

paddyandy

Latchy wrote: »

It is for many and can be for others ,depends on what the subject is and if it's somebody recounting an incident in their life which was dramatic and /or traumatic then you can feel their pain on an emotional level while also learning something about human suffering and endurance .People might say '' ah you can look at the news every evening and see that '' but from a historical context there's nothing like ' been back there ' re living through the eyes of the author his/her first hand experiences.Fiction takes you into another different realm altogether .

Historical novels never mention certain facts like ; Most people stank and had lice and were sick much of the time .They're well varnished and nothing like the reality and if the were they would be tedious as reality often is . Unreadable maybe ?
Novels contain samples tarted up for sale .Nicely packaged .I learned a lesson from anything about Ireland that was made into a film or book or play 'It was'nt the Ireland i've known' .Retailed Reality.

Monty Burnz

paddyandy wrote: »

Historical novels never mention certain facts like ; Most people stank and had lice and were sick much of the time .They're well varnished and nothing like the reality and if the were they would be tedious as reality often is . Unreadable maybe ?
Novels contain samples tarted up for sale .Nicely packaged .

Perhaps the Ladybird novels aimed at children, or the romantic Mills and Boon novels aimed at women looking for a bit of escapism.

Those aren't serious books. Read some books for grown-ups and get back to us.

languagenerd

paddyandy wrote: »

Historical novels never mention certain facts like ; Most people stank and had lice and were sick much of the time .They're well varnished and nothing like the reality and if the were they would be tedious as reality often is . Unreadable maybe ?

You're reading the wrong type of historical novels then! Plenty of the ones I've read involve plagues, illness, poverty, squalor... how is that "well varnished"?

ScumLord

ViveLaVie wrote: »

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.

Some of it is often dumbed down science but it is science fiction.

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

There's the likes of the 180 degree rule. Every shot is based on rules, even if the director is purposely breaking the rules to achieve a feeling of discomfort.

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.

Nothing new there, every generation has adapted R&J, I remember rap versions from the 90s. That particular one didn't do anything for me, it was simply a pimped out MTV version covered in bling to attract the current generations lust for celebrity style.

Foreign films are usually different to Hollywood clichés.

It's true, European films tend to have much more depth to them. Made for the art of it more so than the profit.

Hollywood uses formulae because it sells. But not every film does.

Every film uses formulae because humans are predictable animals that expect information to be presented to them in particular ways. You can break all the rules but it's more than likely going end up with something unpleasant. If there was no formulae or technique there would be no need to learn anything.

pennypocket

conor93a wrote: »

I read books all the time. I know people who have never read a book in their lives. Some of these people are far smarter and more successful than me.

More successful with what? Money? Like that means a whole pile of ****e at the end of the day. There's more to life than a little bit of money.

pennypocket

Border-Rat wrote: »

What I really do love is history-buffs who watch 4 hours of history channel on Sky a month but have never picked up a book. If you read enough history then watching stuff like that is like eating skittles for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Those kinds of people almost always have laughably cartoonish contemporary political outlooks. A well read person who studies history will eventually understand geo-politics in the present.

Agreed. History channel is ****e. That is all.

Corkfeen

paddyandy wrote: »

Historical novels never mention certain facts like ; Most people stank and had lice and were sick much of the time .They're well varnished and nothing like the reality and if the were they would be tedious as reality often is . Unreadable maybe ?
Novels contain samples tarted up for sale .Nicely packaged .I learned a lesson from anything about Ireland that was made into a film or book or play 'It was'nt the Ireland i've known' .Retailed Reality.

For a person who hates the ideas of novels, your posts seem to be based on fantasy. Dickens as a fairly obvious example tended to explore the worst elements of society, he didn't glamorise the world as you seem to believe writers do.

But there's not even a particular reason why the world should be realistic all the time. You can explore themes in far greater detail in the medium of word. You can hear every character's thoughts and see the world through their eyes, it can be absurd and fantastical but be thought provoking at the very same time. It can educate you and entertain. Slaughterhouse Five is both insightful and exceedingly absurd at the same - it's a soldier unstuck in time. :pac:

For example Tolstoy is the original reason for my interest in Russian history (which I currently study in university as a result). In Anna Karenina, you can live many lives in one book and at points you even witness very marxist attitudes among some characters and this was prior to a communist Russia.

Every medium has it's value from film to videogames to music to literature, they are all capable of providing knowledge and encouraging thought. This is of course not limited to simply fiction.

Pdfile

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)

i'd be embarressed for you, for years ive been made or preassured into reading books i wouldn't wipe my arse with; stick your pretentious nature up your arse. 3rd level degree... ive a mate with a leg missing who has one, another one who's bald... HOW ON EARTH DID THEY GET THEIRS ?!?!

man, threads like this piss me right off. Books can be enjoyable but a good book is hard to find, a great one even rarer and a book you read twice is once in a blue moon.


You read books OP... its not all its cracked upto be ( perhaps you could read up on that ? )

Cú Giobach

Pdfile wrote: »

i'd be embarressed for you, for years ive been made or preassured into reading books i wouldn't wipe my arse with; stick your pretentious nature up your arse. 3rd level degree... ive a mate with a leg missing who has one, another one who's bald... HOW ON EARTH DID THEY GET THEIRS ?!?!

Yea, our brains are in our limbs and our hair.

man, threads like this piss me right off. Books can be enjoyable but a good book is hard to find, a great one even rarer and a book you read twice is once in a blue moon.

Says you, but in a bookshop the biggest problem I and many people have is trying to decide which books to put back on the shelf, because a lot of us can't afford to buy more than one or two at a time, and most can only or want to, read one at a time.

You read books OP... its not all its cracked upto be ( perhaps you could read up on that ? )

Isn't it? How then do you explain the astronomical number of books in existence, the explosion of reading and number of books printed after the printing press was invented or the amount of trouble some narrow minded dictatorial regimes can go to in order to get people to read only the "right" books.
Not to mention if there were no books ever printed you wouldn't have typed the post above and would probably be out in a field using a scythe to harvest your crops in order to keep yourself alive, due to your basic "hand to mouth" existence in a world changed little since the 15th century. Yea, books are overrated.

Sykk

Pdfile wrote: »

man, threads like this piss me right off. Books can be enjoyable but a good book is hard to find, a great one even rarer and a book you read twice is once in a blue moon.


You read books OP... its not all its cracked upto be ( perhaps you could read up on that ? )

You're missing out. It's down to your specific taste. I've can name 10 books that I'd read again. This is nothing to do with me liking letters on a page, it's about content.

It's the same as movies. Most are bad, IMO but if you look properly you'll find something good.

Dr Strange

This may be of interest to avid readers (the top 10 most difficult books as chosen by Emily Colette Wilkinson and Garth Risk Hallberg - NOTE: these are their personal most difficult books - it may be for some, not for others):

http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/book-news/tip-sheet/article/53409-the-top-10-most-difficult-books.html

I love books. Would find it very hard to live without them.

nehemiah

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I'd very rarely read fiction and often read non fiction, the last book of fiction I read was " The fountainhead" about 3 years ago. I usually read autobiographies or scientific books.

I'm not surprised that you were put off fiction if your last fiction book was 'The Fountainhead'. It's a bit of a slog and then some.

For me, reading is the opportunity to increase my knowledge rather than my intelligence. My intelligence is set at this stage. I'm never going to be a nuclear scientist and I'm unlikely to ever fully comprehend string theory but I still like to learn a bit more about how the world and the universe operates.

Books are merely a form of doing this. Other forms are movies, TV, internet, wikipedia etc.

I think the advantage of books as a medium is that it provides focus on certain areas without the same limits of space and time that a Wikipedia page or a movie/TV show has. I'm sure many can name books adapted to movies where their favourite scene was left out or altered in some way. There are many books that are not really compatible with screen adaptations. For example Ulysses is a book that is prominently narrated from the mind of the protagonists. Such a viewpoint would be almost impossible to portray to the same extent on screen (the film version of Ulysses wasn't quite a classic in the same sense).

Wikipedia or reading online is a very good way to increase your knowledge of certain topics but usually the information is quite limited, and if you are trawling the internet looking for numerous sources such as Wikipedia on your subject of choice you may as well just read a book about it.

TV series can be a great means of information. Great documentary series such as 'World at War' portray scenes that are probably more harrowing and horrific than any portrayal in a book could do justice to. I haven't read 'The Song of Fire and Ice' books but the 'Game of Thrones' series seems to be doing a very god job of adapting it, from what I heard. Perhaps with a noticeable increase in TV budgets this format will become the preferred means of communication for writers (if it isn't already) as it allows them to not be confined by the limits of a 2 or 3 hour movie.

Reading books is one of my favourite pastimes but it is by no means the only source of knowledge available. I believe that it still has certain advantages over other sources but that is a belief personal to me and the other mediums are certainly catching up.

I just don't want to be a ****ing waffle waitress.

Mardy Bum

Pdfile wrote: »

i'd be embarressed for you, for years ive been made or preassured into reading books i wouldn't wipe my arse with; stick your pretentious nature up your arse. 3rd level degree... ive a mate with a leg missing who has one, another one who's bald... HOW ON EARTH DID THEY GET THEIRS ?!?!

man, threads like this piss me right off. Books can be enjoyable but a good book is hard to find, a great one even rarer and a book you read twice is once in a blue moon.


You read books OP... its not all its cracked upto be ( perhaps you could read up on that ? )

Can I ask how you increase your knowledge base if you can only find a few decent books to read?

ScumLord

Johnny 5 knows what readings all about. This is what I'm like in Easons.

[-0-]

I have a friend who has never read a book in his life. He's lazy and it's just the type of person he is. His apartment is always a state, his health is deteriorating because he drinks a lot and is putting on serious weight over the past few years. He still goes out 4 nights a week as if he's 21 years old. He will openly admit he's too lazy to read, couldn't be arsed.

I have no time for this type of ignorance, and a lot of people are starting to distance themselves from him. His lack of reading is his character though - he's just a lazy sod anyway, rarely shaves if at all, and I'm sure if he's not leaving his house he won't bother showering.

I understand if someone has a 'condition' preventing them from reading. My sister had a massive brain aneurysm nearly a year ago and her short term memory is fecked - she finds it hard to read as a result, which is awful because she was a book worm.

I wouldn't be surprised if the people who don't read and post in here, are the same people who post crap like "I'm bored, text me" on Facebook. How a person can be bored in a first class country in 2012 is beyond me. They were never challenged, and their minds were never given attention as kids. Unfortunately for their future offspring, they will procreate and repeat the cycle.

tin79

[-0-] wrote: »

I have a friend who has never read a book in his life. He's lazy and it's just the type of person he is. His apartment is always a state, his health is deteriorating because he drinks a lot and is putting on serious weight over the past few years. He still goes out 4 nights a week as if he's 21 years old. He will openly admit he's too lazy to read, couldn't be arsed.

I have no time for this type of ignorance, and a lot of people are starting to distance themselves from him. His lack of reading is his character though - he's just a lazy sod anyway, rarely shaves if at all, and I'm sure if he's not leaving his house he won't bother showering.

I understand if someone has a 'condition' preventing them from reading. My sister had a massive brain aneurysm nearly a year ago and her short term memory is fecked - she finds it hard to read as a result, which is awful because she was a book worm.

I wouldn't be surprised if the people who don't read and post in here, are the same people who post crap like "I'm bored, text me" on Facebook. How a person can be bored in a first class country in 2012 is beyond me. They were never challenged, and their minds were never given attention as kids. Unfortunately for their future offspring, they will procreate and repeat the cycle.

I think you mean first world. You must not have read enough.

kowloon

Border-Rat wrote: »

What I really do love is history-buffs who watch 4 hours of history channel on Sky a month but have never picked up a book. If you read enough history then watching stuff like that is like eating skittles for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Those kinds of people almost always have laughably cartoonish contemporary political outlooks. A well read person who studies history will eventually understand geo-politics in the present.

The History Channel is to history what MTV is to music. If it doesn't involve aliens or Hitler it probably isn't on the History channel

DublinWriter

girlonfire wrote: »

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:

Yes...but you can change him!

old hippy

I buy more books than I have room for. Where I live in London, there's loads of charity stores and I pay between 50p and £3 for a decent condition book. Now where can I buy some cheap shelves?

ScumLord

old hippy wrote: »

I buy more books than I have room for. Where I live in London, there's loads of charity stores and I pay between 50p and £3 for a decent condition book. Now where can I buy some cheap shelves?

Go to a building site and steal some bricks and planks of timber.

Cú Giobach

old hippy wrote: »

I buy more books than I have room for. Where I live in London, there's loads of charity stores and I pay between 50p and £3 for a decent condition book. Now where can I buy some cheap shelves?

Here's a book that might help.

El Siglo

To be honest I've got back into reading books more voraciously now because there's absolutely nothing on the tv, except of course Breaking Bad. I don't think there's any superiority thing about reading but it does no harm for the mind, much as the same exercise does no harm for the body. Agricola summed it up on the second page of the thread.

krudler

kowloon wrote: »

The History Channel is to history what MTV is to music. If it doesn't involve aliens or Hitler it probably isn't on the History channel

at one time the History Channel did actually show decent programmes, not the ancient aliens sh1te they do now. so did Discovery, shark week is the only good thing they show now, its all rubbish like American Chopper and other reality shows. Two once great channels dumbed down to quick edited braindead shows for stupid Americans.

krudler

El Siglo wrote: »

To be honest I've got back into reading books more voraciously now because there's absolutely nothing on the tv, except of course Breaking Bad. I don't think there's any superiority thing about reading but it does no harm for the mind, much as the same exercise does no harm for the body. Agricola summed it up on the second page of the thread.

3 episodes left then none until next year *cries*

El Siglo

krudler wrote: »

at one time the History Channel did actually show decent programmes, not the ancient aliens sh1te they do now. so did Discovery, shark week is the only good thing they show now, its all rubbish like American Chopper and other reality shows. Two once great channels dumbed down to quick edited braindead shows for stupid Americans.

National Geographic show some interesting documentaries every now and then, I don't think they've sold out as much as the Discovery and History channels.

--Kaiser--

krudler wrote: »

3 episodes left then none until next year *cries*

Say what? I thought there were 13 episodes? I'm like a heroin junkie waiting a week for an episode as it is

old hippy

ScumLord wrote: »

Go to a building site and steal some bricks and planks of timber.

Used to bring home stuff from skips and clean 'em up but there's no room left in the flat. Think I'll haul some of the library back to the charity shops...

AeoNGriM

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)

And?

No, really.....so what? People in liking different stuff shocker

ViveLaVie

ScumLord wrote: »

Some of it is often dumbed down science but it is science fiction.

I know that science fiction is fiction. I never said it wasn't. I pointed out that your assessment that all fiction is the same is based only on science fiction. You do not seem to acknowledge that there are other kinds of fiction available to readers beyond sci-fi. You can't say that all fiction is formulaic when that assessment is based on your experience with science fiction only. You can say that science fiction is formulaic, but not fiction as a whole.

ScumLord wrote: »

There's the likes of the 180 degree rule. Every shot is based on rules, even if the director is purposely breaking the rules to achieve a feeling of discomfort.

The 180 degree rule is a cinematography guideline and is not at all related to the writing of a story. I asked how the plot of a film has to be formulaic.

ScumLord wrote: »

Nothing new there, every generation has adapted R&J, I remember rap versions from the 90s. That particular one didn't do anything for me, it was simply a pimped out MTV version covered in bling to attract the current generations lust for celebrity style.

Yeah every generation has. Even Shakespeare adapted it from another source. That doesn't mean you can't do new and interesting things with it. As I said before, it's not always what you say but how you say it. Personally I thought a lot of the techniques used in the film were interesting and I disagree that Luhrman's sole intention was to attract the MTV generation; I personally think he was commenting on the relevance of Shakespeare to the modern world and used an excess of symbolism to make the point that everything is devoid of meaning for the MTV generation. You're entitled to think differently though.

ScumLord wrote: »

It's true, European films tend to have much more depth to them. Made for the art of it more so than the profit.

Ah but you said earlier that every film is made with the sole intention of making money. You change your mind?

ScumLord wrote: »

Every film uses formulae because humans are predictable animals that expect information to be presented to them in particular ways. You can break all the rules but it's more than likely going end up with something unpleasant. If there was no formulae or technique there would be no need to learn anything.

Not true. You can learn the 'rules' so that you know how to break them. Good filmmakers will do this. Sure, the majority of films follow the standard Hollywood formula but not all do. I have already given examples of films that don't follow the Hollywood formula. So what if it's unpleasant? I think the best films are the ones that make you slightly uncomfortable. I don't fully agree anyway that it even has to be unpleasant.

steddyeddy

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)

What third level qualifications did they have where they didnt have to read books??

puffishoes

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)

It's a bit like been shocked that someone doesn't play football, swim, play with train sets or game.

would you be embarrassed if you didn't do any other hobbies? or is it just reading?

It's just another hobby and just another hobby that many people do not like. no need for the outlandish shock.

puffishoes

steddyeddy wrote: »

What third level qualifications did they have where they didnt have to read books??

I think they meant they don't read for pleasure. reading for study isn't normally very pleasurable unless the subject matter gives you a stiffy

steddyeddy

puffishoes wrote: »

It's a bit like been shocked that someone doesn't play football, swim, play with train sets or game.

would you be embarrassed if you didn't do any other hobbies? or is it just reading?

It's just another hobby and just another hobby that many people do not like. no need for the outlandish shock.

I dont mind if someone doesnt like reading books in general but people who aspire to third level should want to read books. In particular books relating to the subject their going to study!

steddyeddy

puffishoes wrote: »

I think they meant they don't read for pleasure. reading for study isn't normally very pleasurable unless the subject matter gives you a stiffy

I read study material for pleasure and Ill go further than the op's point and say that those who dont read what they study for pleasure are studying the wrong thing.

I was reading my subject material before I started going to college and so should everybody. How else would you know your interested in it?

ScumLord

ViveLaVie wrote: »

I know that science fiction is fiction. I never said it wasn't. I pointed out that your assessment that all fiction is the same is based only on science fiction. You do not seem to acknowledge that there are other kinds of fiction available to readers beyond sci-fi. You can't say that all fiction is formulaic when that assessment is based on your experience with science fiction only. You can say that science fiction is formulaic, but not fiction as a whole.

I was using science fiction as an example, you know I was there's no need to get nitpicky.

The 180 degree rule is a cinematography guideline and is not at all related to the writing of a story. I asked how the plot of a film has to be formulaic.

Again, an example.

Ah but you said earlier that every film is made with the sole intention of making money. You change your mind?

No. Just about every film is made with the intention of making money back on investment. Making films is just way to expensive to do it simply for the love of it. The equipment is going to cost you thousands, the production suite you'll need in post costs thousands, everything is horribly expensive. Unless you want to throw all your money away your doing it to make some money back.

Not true. You can learn the 'rules' so that you know how to break them.

Finally some recognition of the fact there are rules, techniques skill sets. Nobody is born able to do art, it's learned and practised.

I have already given examples of films that don't follow the Hollywood formula.

When I get the chance I'll view those films.

ViveLaVie

ScumLord wrote: »

I was using science fiction as an example, you know I was there's no need to get nitpicky.

I understand that but you also said art is dead and there is nothing original out there anymore. Myself and a few other posters gave examples of some original books and you countered by saying that no, all fiction is just the same thing over and over again. This was based on your experience of science fiction. I was just trying to make the point that your example doesn't apply to fiction as a whole.

ScumLord wrote: »

Again, an example.

Yeah but that example doesn't answer what I asked.

ScumLord wrote: »

No. Just about every film is made with the intention of making money back on investment. Making films is just way to expensive to do it simply for the love of it. The equipment is going to cost you thousands, the production suite you'll need in post costs thousands, everything is horribly expensive. Unless you want to throw all your money away your doing it to make some money back.

Yes but you said the SOLE intention. I argued and said that some people make art for art's sake. I think we can agree at this point that there are exceptions to this?

ScumLord wrote: »

Finally some recognition of the fact there are rules, techniques skill sets. Nobody is born able to do art, it's learned and practised.

I am well aware that there are techniques and formulae. I never said there weren't. I consistently made references to them in my posts. I said not everybody follows them.

ScumLord wrote: »

When I get the chance I'll view those films.

Cool, although I should warn you that The Idiots WILL make you uncomfortable. DO NOT WATCH IN PUBLIC!

puffishoes

steddyeddy wrote: »

I read study material for pleasure and Ill go further than the op's point and say that those who dont read what they study for pleasure are studying the wrong thing.

I was reading my subject material before I started going to college and so should everybody. How else would you know your interested in it?

I'm not so sure. for example I'm in IT but there's very few books on a computer science course I would have much interest in reading as they're not interesting to me. But as a 7/8yr old I was pulling apart zx spectrum's and vic 20 that was the interesting bit, not reading about them.

so if you love asp.net or something similar and you do a CS course only a very small aspect of what you do on the course will be relevant or of interest to you. most of the interesting things in your field happen when you're not reading books. imo there's far too much book reading going on in third level and not enough hands on.

marienbad

I don't understand people that say ''reading is crap'' in the same way I don't understand people saying ''sport is crap''. They are such massive generalisations as to be meaningless.

I can not remember not reading and could'nt exist without it, but if you don't do it from a young age it can be impossible to aquire a taste for it.

As for people saying that it has all been said or all been written - be it in film or books - that is just unadulterated rubbish.

There are two kinds of originality- the academic history of all thinks kind - whereby when watching ''Hidden'' they can trace every shot back to Metropolis .

Then there is the second kind whereby we are on our own individual journey and we find a new book or film that is original to our store of knowledge.

Most of us are the second kind and don't give a ****e about the first kind and that is why generation after generation is stunned by the death of Bambi's mother or of Prince Andrei in War And Peace.

I read anything and everything- sports books,biographies, history, literature, poetry,thrillers etc.

There is a never ending stream of originality and interest out there-if not always in an objective sense- at least original to me , and in the last analysis that is all that counts.And it is not even that hard to find.

Jim S

Reading is fine, I would think there are very few here who do not read , it is fundamental in the learning process.
Problem is some folks who do read seem not to be able to apply what they read and cannot place it within the context of history ...... denial of genocide being one prety obvious example and the misplaced belief that AH was some form of gift to mankind or a genius are a few other examples.