Do "Books Make You a Boring Person?"

[Sampiro]

The question probably isn't exactly what you think; it's related to this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/27/books/review/27NEHRING.html?ex=1403668800&en=8ec9910930f7cd73&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND). (May require free registration to New York Times.) It's more of a "does too much reading dull rather than sharpen your wits" query.

I have to admit that I enjoyed this article in part because "book snobs" grate on my last nerve. I would dare say I'm better read than most, but I also after 37 years can say "I LOVE TELEVISION AND MOVIES" as well. I've seldom known anybody who had the condescending "I don't even HAVE a TV set- I'm a reader" attitude to be able to converse on any more subjects, if as many, as most people who both read and receive electronic info-tainment.

Anyway, your thoughts on the article please.

[Podkayne]

I will admit that I look down on people who do not read. It's an unfair prejudice, I know, but when someone announces that they do no like to read, I file them sadly into the Nonreader category, and I never expect to have a really good conversation with them. I have known a couple of very smart people who say that they do not enjoy reading becasue they have dyslexia and one older gentleman who didn't get much formal schooling but is sharp as a tack, but, barring a few special exceptions, sorry to say, "doesn't like to read" equates to "doesn't particularly like to think" in my mind.

Even worse, though, is to meet someone you think is another Reader, to feel that joy of coming across a kindred spirit--but then to discover that they only read self-help books, or romance novels, or spy novels, or political books that they know they will agree with before they even crack the spine. I don't think these people are actual Readers. Actual Readers may love a book just for being a book--but that means that they love a variety and a challenge. Reading and rereading the same sort of thing over and over doesn't make you a real Reader.

I don't think I know anyone in the category the article discusses, the people who read constantly to avoid thinking for themselves. I think all that Readers I know are the sort who enjoy criticising, comparing and contrasting, who love to find someone else who's read the same book and having a good hash-out of its good points and its bad points. But--full disclosure--I'm the sort of person who almost always has a book in my hand. I don't think that means that I never stop to think, but perhaps a snobbier class of Reader might look down upon me, as well.

[Dung Beetle]

Uh oh, my cover has been blown!
I've always been a big reader. One interesting thing I've noticed is that I have a very short attention span when it comes to watching a movie. A lot of movies will start out with just music, while you watch a guy packing a suitcase, or look at some scenery, etc. I can only take a very small amount of that before I lose interest, and I've wondered if it's because, as a reader, I have the ability to skip over description or boring parts. Furthermore, books have less ambiguity. They can't just show you something and leave you to pick out what's important in the way that a movie can...something has to be said.
So while for the most part, I don't think books make you boring, I won't say that stance has no merit whatsoever.

[hapaXL]

I this it's interesting to compare a hardcore bookworm to a television or internet addict. You can be reading romance novels or watching sitcoms, reading history or watching documentaries - the experience really can span the spectrum. I think the idea of balance is important. I believe reading books should be a vital part of life experience, but there are other ways to learn about the world.

I love books, but I never let it become an addiction (except when I come across an exceptional book), even if society has a kinder view of that particular affliction. People think I'm a bookworm and look at my bookshelves with awe but I always try to make it clear that the majority of my reading takes place on my lunch hour! I don't have my head buried in books for hours on end. You really can read a good amount of books with an hour of reading per day.

Are their jack-assey book snobs out there? Yeah. Big whoop.

[Trigonal Planar]

I'm an avid reader; I read a lot - but I do not read a lot of fiction. I do agree to some degree with the article. I know several people who are hardcore sci-fi readers. I get very frustrated talking to them at times, as it seems they can't discuss anything outside of their sci-fi fantasy world. Often times I want to yell loudly, "hey, you like reading? Why not try reading an ACTUAL science book for once!!"

[Stonebow]

This just in: too much of anything can be bad for you.

I am a reader. always have been. I go through cycles- some months I will only read pulp, other times, i only read ancient epics, or history. Single mindedness is not a healthy trait, whatever you are into.

I also love movies, though I don't do TV very much. But I'll admit, I'd rather surf the web and read and engage interesting ideas than watch pretty much anything. I can't understand how some folks can be non-readers, barring some physical, mental, or circumstance-dictated condition. For me, reading is a transforming experience, and that one would willingly deprive themselves of it is scary to me.

So yes, I am a book snob. Add that to the list of other types of snob I am, depending on who you ask...

[dangermom]

Sure, there are book snobs. It's pretty pathetic to go around feeling infinitely superior to other people based on the fact that you've analyzed Hemingway and they haven't, but I'm a booklover and happy about it. As with all other things, don't go overboard.

I recently started a thread on reading plans (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=263472), so yes, I try to read 'good' stuff as well as my favorite mysteries. But I didn't mention in the thread what I put on the cover of my notebook:

"She is too fond of books, and it has turned her brain."
-Louisa May Alcott, 1873

People should have a sense of humor about themselves, is all I'm saying. Reading is great, heck, I'm a librarian, I'm all about reading. But there's no sense getting all snooty about it.


(Confession: I also love to watch Stargate.)

[CanvasShoes]

I will admit that I look down on people who do not read. It's an unfair prejudice, I know, but when someone announces that they do no like to read, I file them sadly into the Nonreader category, and I never expect to have a really good conversation with them. I have known a couple of very smart people who say that they do not enjoy reading becasue they have dyslexia and one older gentleman who didn't get much formal schooling but is sharp as a tack, but, barring a few special exceptions, sorry to say, "doesn't like to read" equates to "doesn't particularly like to think" in my mind.

Even worse, though, is to meet someone you think is another Reader, to feel that joy of coming across a kindred spirit--but then to discover that they only read self-help books, or romance novels, or spy novels, or political books that they know they will agree with before they even crack the spine. I don't think these people are actual Readers. Actual Readers may love a book just for being a book--but that means that they love a variety and a challenge. Reading and rereading the same sort of thing over and over doesn't make you a real Reader.

I don't think I know anyone in the category the article discusses, the people who read constantly to avoid thinking for themselves. I think all that Readers I know are the sort who enjoy criticising, comparing and contrasting, who love to find someone else who's read the same book and having a good hash-out of its good points and its bad points. But--full disclosure--I'm the sort of person who almost always has a book in my hand. I don't think that means that I never stop to think, but perhaps a snobbier class of Reader might look down upon me, as well.
You just put this So well!!!

I agree with most of what is said above. But to me, first off "boring" is in the eye of the beholder. Secondly, IMHO, there is a point at which readers become unbearable snobs. In fact, there is a whole group of people that I consider "entertainment" snobs that I find really irritating, they're just so arrogant and "cooler/more well read, more cinematically connected" than thou. :rolleyes:

Otherwise, really really what Podkayne said in the first two paragraphs. It's not that I write them off, it's just that I don't connect on as deep and frankly as fun a level as I do with fellow readers.

I especially agree with what Podkayne said about people you mght THINK are readers but then turn out to just read romance novels or something.

[Ponder Stibbons]

I'm an avid reader and I'm not boring.






Hey! I heard that!

Damn ...

[pravnik]

An article urging me that it's more important to read critically than to read voraciously. Hey, if I don't already read critically, reading the article isn't going to be of much help, right? Anyway, it's not in book form, and everybody knows that information must be in the form of a book to be useful. But then again, this isn't in a book either, so why should you listen to me?

So, if I get the guy correctly, some books are good, but some have dangerous ideas and should be set on fire. He did say that at some point, right? I have to admit, I just kind of skimmed it.

[Cyn]

When searching for a lifemate, the reading habits of my current candidate was a pertinent factor. Did he understand the lure? (Good) Did he get captivated and was unable to kick himself free from his tome? (Not always good) Would he call in sick to finish a story? (Bad) Would he whine at me for buying books and reading for 2 hours solid on a sunday afternoon? (Very bad)
Anyone who only does one thing can be boring. I'd rather talk to someone who only reads than someone who never reads because I don't understand not wanting to read something. Histories, biographies, romances, cryptology, pshychology, physiology, New York Times Bestsellers....a little of each?
Come sit next to me.

[JThunder]

I've read all of Cecil's books. So there.

[yosemite]

I love books but my reading habits vary. I can go for a very long time without reading fiction. It'll be educational books and "how to" books. (My Photoshop book collection is a thing of legend.) But I love books.

My sister is a big reader. When she lost a lot of her eyesight many years ago, she fell into a deep depression (this would be expected). She said that a lot of the cause for her depression was not being able to read. For two years, she was really depressed. She listened to books on tape, but it wasn't the same. Then she was able to get this machine that would magnify the text of any book, and she said that her depression immediately lifted. She feels like she got her life back when she was able to read again.

She also says that reading anything—anything—is better than not reading. She has read a lot of Harlequin Romances in her time (used to have a subscription with Harlequin and got new books each month). She was never ashamed of this (made jokes, but never was ashamed), because it was reading, and reading is good. I agree with her on this.

Both of us have good reading comprehension, a good vocabulary, and good English skills (well, better than average) because we read. I read a lot of Harlequin Romances when I was a teenager and I occasionally read them today (right now I'm mainlining Harlequins in Spanish, to help me learn the language). I don't feel ashamed of this. I know it has helped me. Spelling and vocabulary tests in school were always a breeze for me, in part because I liked to read. Doesn't matter what I read—I read. So, in my opinion, I'm respectful of anyone who reads anything (just about). Because I think there is great benefit in reading for pleasure.

I also believe that sometimes (not always) those who read for pleasure read faster and more efficiently. Okay, maybe not always faster (though almost every 'reader' I know reads faster than average), but it's not a chore. It's not torture. And that's a benefit too.

But, with all that said, I feel a certain snobbishness towards those who are passive consumers of any form of entertainment—whether it be reading, TV, movies, music, anything. The article linked in the OP mentions something of this—that reading is passive. You aren't writing anything, you aren't creating anything, you are just absorbing stuff. I don't necessarily admire someone who just absorbs and consumes all the time. Come on! Do something! Sew a shirt! Surf! Do something! I know a few people who absorb and consume, consume, consume, and sometimes, it's kind of true—they aren't always that interesting. (It depends. Can they have articulate and insightful discussions about the stuff they consume? Then they are not boring.) Some of the most exciting conversations can be had with people who are passionate about creating something or working on a new project. They may or may not be big readers, but if they are all fired up about working on something, then usually they are not boring. So I guess I'm trying to say that even though I respect and admire reading, I realize that on its own, it's not always enough.

[msmith537]

I'm more of a movie guy, but I do like to take in a good (or even a crappy) book from time to time. You can definitely get more engrossed in the world of a book vs a film. An epic book somehow feels more epic than a movie. A movie can last at the most three hours but the fact that it takes a lot longer to read a book somehow makes it feel more like the story is happening in real time.

[TVeblen]

Spinning off a point Yosemite made, I think some avid readers can be boring if they just passively consume but don't really learn or reflect on anything they've read. One of the most mind-numbingly people I ever met was a middle aged professional student who read voraciously. He could quote some of the most arcane stuff imaginable but was totally incapable of making sense any of it. His erudtion wasn't that far removed from memorization. He could be very aggressive about defending his accurate citations but couldn't for the life of him apply any ideas. Ask him to spin them into a discussion and he was lost, not to mention baffled. I guess extending the idea of reader/consumer, he consumed voraciously but didn't digest a thing.
I'll readily admit I go in phases with reading (the librarian's curse), following interests as they crop up. And I'm much less educated in fllm and movies. I'm not proud of it but with limited free time, reading comes out first priority. This is probably due to my (self) limited exposure, but I just plain got out of the habit of watching movies and TV because they interested me less and less over time. I read somewhere (natch) that most movies are geared toward young males because that's the most reliable demographic: lots of special effects, action, fantasy, SF or cartoon bases, etc. I'm sure there are still movies out there that would interest me but I don't bother to seek them out much any more. I used to see a movie every few weeks and some of 'em were real stinkers--that I loved anyway. I've just limited myself from those happy discoveries.
Oh well.

Veb

[AbbySthrnAccent]

Do "Books Make You a Boring Person?"
I sure hope not! Although I concede like Stonebow too much of anything isn't a good thing. (This confessed knowing full well I rarely am without a book within arms length.)

I've met a book snob or two. It's an uncomfortable feeling to have someone look down their nose and declare, "I don't read fiction." at you because this week you're reading a novel. I guess to me it's like being a snob about whether you prefer to play basketball, take walks or swim laps. Each has it's own merits.

I agree with Podkayne's remarks.

Like Dung Beetle sometimes I really have to force myself to sit through a television show or movie. My husband and son have both commented or teased at different times of my carrying a book into the t.v. area when they say "Come on Mom, the movie is about to start" and I bring a book, "just in case". At the same time, even though I haven't seen as many I enjoy talking about and sharing movies in much the same way I enjoy talking about and sharing a book.

Now and then I come across something in a book and decide to try it out because of something I've read. Reading doesn't have to be all about critical analysis, although sometimes that's great; nor does it have to be all passive, although sometimes that's great too, somewhere in between is a good place for me.

[Atticus Finch]

There's nothing wrong with idolising and fetishing a good book. I love the smell of my ancient copy of Lord of the Rings and when I've just bought a book by a favourite author, I'll cradle it in its brown paper bag all the way home, like a surprise present for myself. I also occasionally stand in front of my bookshelves and gawk happily for a while.

But that's for good books. My textbooks are haphazardly piled on a low shelf and The Da Vinci Code is handily propping up stuff on my desk, and my computer used to rest on a pile of paperbacks that I didn't appreciate.

Sure, I'm fetishising some books, but it doesn't follow that I've lost my critical faculties, as the article suggests. For instance, I thought the article was a heap of awkwardly-written rubbish.

[Lissa]

I'm respectful of anyone who reads anything (just about). Because I think there is great benefit in reading for pleasure.

I have a very similar view.

Back in highschool, a friend of mine was never a "reader" and she could never quite fathom why I loved books so much. Once, she became exasperated with me because I was raptly reading the back of a pizza box, whereupon was printed the history of the pizza shop. "Why do you have to read everything?!"

So, I went to the store, and bought her a few books: Valley of the Dolls a book of Stephen King's short stories, a novelization of an episode of her favorite TV show, Forever Amber, and a few romance novels. Skeptical at first, she agreed to read them "a little bit."

In less than a week, she was marvelling at how much she liked reading, and quoting little factoids she had picked up from the books. She's still not a major reader, but at least she's reading something.

It's my personal belief that every book, no matter how asinine or badly written has at least some value. I have never read a book in which I learned nothing. Buried in every book is a little tidbit of knowledge. As much as I personally dislike certain authors and genres, I don't look down on people for reading them. There's nothing wrong with a bit of "brain candy."

That said, I will admit to being a book snob: I become deeply suspicious if I enter someone's home and see no evidence of books of any kind. I'm equally leery of those who have the lovely leather-bound classics which are in mint condition. (You hear that virgin-book crackle when you open the front cover.) No books signal a dull evening ahead, books solely for decorative purposes signal pretention-- and a boring evening ahead.

[astorian]

I'm sure the author of that Times piece thought she had a point, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is.

Maybe somewhere in this world, there's SOMEBODY who reads a lot of allegedly classic books for the sole purpose of mindlessly regurgitating what's in them, but I have yet to encounter such a person.

Maybe somewhere, someone is reading Cicero just because he thinks he's supposed to, in order to be a Serious Intellectual, but I haven't encountered anyone like that, either.

I'll concede that it's quite possible to read all the Great Books of the Western canon and STILL be a ignorant, undeducated philistine. Heck, I went to Columbia, where everybody had to read all the classics- but I know lots of extremely intelligent, very successful Columbia alumni who couldn't tell you the first thing about Plato or Augustine. But that's a reflection of the uselessness of forcing culture on people who aren't interested in it, not on the value of the culture itself.

[pravnik]

He could quote some of the most arcane stuff imaginable but was totally incapable of making sense of any of it.

Do you mind if I use this quote as my epitaph? :D

[Maeglin]

I'm sure the author of that Times piece thought she had a point, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is.

Maybe somewhere in this world, there's SOMEBODY who reads a lot of allegedly classic books for the sole purpose of mindlessly regurgitating what's in them, but I have yet to encounter such a person.

Maybe somewhere, someone is reading Cicero just because he thinks he's supposed to, in order to be a Serious Intellectual, but I haven't encountered anyone like that, either.

I'll concede that it's quite possible to read all the Great Books of the Western canon and STILL be a ignorant, undeducated philistine. Heck, I went to Columbia, where everybody had to read all the classics- but I know lots of extremely intelligent, very successful Columbia alumni who couldn't tell you the first thing about Plato or Augustine. But that's a reflection of the uselessness of forcing culture on people who aren't interested in it, not on the value of the culture itself.

As another Columbia alumnus, I don't quite agree with the final conclusion you draw. Most people forget what they studied soon after college. This doesn't mean that they didn't analyze the ideas at the time and somehow synthesize them in ways useful to them. A few Platonic dialogues are enough to demonstrate the value of an examined life, but unless you have a strong interest in Plato himself, remembering whether you read the Ion or the Meno or, hell, what century Plato lived in is not all that important. What is important is understanding the value of Socratic inquiry and using it in your day-to-day life.

I obviously don't want to turn this into a debate over the merits of the Columbia core. Hell, my degree is in Classics. Unless you have a special interest in remembering Augustine's views on the Aeneid or on Plato's triune division of the soul, you just don't need to remember that stuff. I just want to emphasize that forgetting the details doesn't mean that the real meat of the culture hasn't made a serious impact.

BTW, I'm CC 2000. Yourself?

[Shalmanese]

The article sounds like it describes the guy in the bar from Good Will Hunting to a tee. Fortunately, I have never met anyone as stereotyped as that person. I'm sure maybe some of these people exist in thier own little micro-cosm but I sure haven't encountered any.

[Cervaise]

I will admit that I look down on people who do not read.I as well. Few things freak me out more than visiting somebody's house and slowly coming to the realization that there are no books about. No dedicated bookshelf in the front room or the side room or the bedroom or anywhere, no books on the end tables or the coffee table or the nightstand... It's quite disturbing.Even worse, though, is to meet someone you think is another Reader, to feel that joy of coming across a kindred spirit--but then to discover that they only read self-help books, or romance novels, or spy novels, or political books that they know they will agree with before they even crack the spine. I don't think these people are actual Readers. Actual Readers may love a book just for being a book--but that means that they love a variety and a challenge. Reading and rereading the same sort of thing over and over doesn't make you a real Reader.As someone who is both a hardcore reader (five or six at a time) and a hardcore movie buff, that paragraph applies equally well to both forms. I meet people all the time who call themselves film buffs because they saw Shrek 2 opening weekend, but who have no idea who Wong Kar-Wai is.

The article has an okay point, that one should apply oneself to one's pursuits rather than simply sponge up literature like it's junk food (which also goes for movies, and television, and music, etc.). Most people, however, don't care to do that, and that's fine also. My mother thinks Adam Sandler's Happy Gilmore is one of the funniest movies ever made. Is she wrong? No, she's not wrong, not for her. She gets through life, and she seems content, and so who am I to judge if she's never heard of Jacques Tati?

Seems to me the article is about creating a higher echelon of snobbery. "Oh, so you read, do you? Well, do you really read?"

[tomndebb]

Well, I am an avid reader and seem to be pretty boring, so I guess that I provide some support for the essayist in question.

[astorian]

I'm not sure exactly what Cristina Nehring was trying to say, but PERHAPS it's something like this.

A book, ANY book, seems to command a degree of respect, automatically. From the time we're little kids, we often hear "Turn off that television- read a book and improve your mind." That is, our authority figures (parents, teachers, et al.) seem to assume that reading a book is inherently worthwhile, while other media (television, movies, et al.) are at least a bit suspect. Now, is reading a "choose your own adventure" or "Mary-Kate and Ashley Go to the Mall" book really "improving your mind" more than watching "Nova" would have? Not really.

Think about it- people will often dismiss even the most serious and ambitious of films with "It's only a movie." Ever heard anyone say "Come on, it's only a book"?

Now, is every book worthy of such automatic respect? Of course not. Many books (including a host of best sellers) are mindless crap, with no redeeming value. Hey, I don't begrudge anyone the right to enjoy a trashy romance or a pulp mystery novel! But there are people out there who imagine that reading the latest book from Danielle Steel or John Grisham is inherently a more admirable pastime than watching "Law & Order" or "The West Wing." Needless to say, that's FAR from obvious!

I love good books, and even an occasional bad one! But I don't assume that reading a book, any book, is inherently better than enjoying another less respected medium.

Oh, and for the record, I was Columbia College Class of 1983.

[Ellis Dee]

As someone who is both a hardcore reader (five or six at a time) and a hardcore movie buff, that paragraph applies equally well to both forms. I meet people all the time who call themselves film buffs because they saw Shrek 2 opening weekend, but who have no idea who Wong Kar-Wai is.

The article has an okay point, that one should apply oneself to one's pursuits rather than simply sponge up literature like it's junk food (which also goes for movies, and television, and music, etc.). Most people, however, don't care to do that, and that's fine also. My mother thinks Adam Sandler's Happy Gilmore is one of the funniest movies ever made. Is she wrong? No, she's not wrong, not for her. She gets through life, and she seems content, and so who am I to judge if she's never heard of Jacques Tati?

Seems to me the article is about creating a higher echelon of snobbery. "Oh, so you read, do you? Well, do you really read?"Seems to me you have some conflicted snobbery going on.

I do consider myself a film buff. I also have no idea who Wong Kar-Wai is. This appears to be a reason to look down on somebody, if I'm reading your post correctly.

Then again, the second paragraph I quoted seems to dismiss this snobbery as unfounded.

"Oh, so you're a film buff, are you? Well, are you really a film buff?"

[yosemite]

Now, is every book worthy of such automatic respect? Of course not. Many books (including a host of best sellers) are mindless crap, with no redeeming value. Hey, I don't begrudge anyone the right to enjoy a trashy romance or a pulp mystery novel! But there are people out there who imagine that reading the latest book from Danielle Steel or John Grisham is inherently a more admirable pastime than watching "Law & Order" or "The West Wing." Needless to say, that's FAR from obvious!

This is not exactly true. Reading has many levels of value. There's the content of the book, what it's about. Obviously all books have different levels of quality and value (depending on who you ask). I doubt you'd get much argument about which has more value—a Harlequin Romance or something by Steinbeck. Most would agree that Steinbeck has more value, content-wise.

However, the point I brought up earlier, about reading as a way to become more comfortable with, well, the activity of reading is very beneficial. Continual reading often brings better comprehension and reading speed (not always, but often, I've found). Therefore, there can be value derived from reading anything semi-coherent and with fairly decent grammar (most Harlequin romances would qualify). My sisters and I devoured many a Harlequin Romance and pulpy novel in our youth, and we all did well in English and vocabulary. My sister and I both remember how painfully easy it was to rip through the new vocabulary and spelling words in class. We already knew these words, because we read so many damned pulpy novels. We had a much easier time of it than our non-reading-for-pleasure classmates, who had to look up many of these words and struggle through their reading assignments.

We also are simply more atuned to reading for enjoyment or pleasure. When faced with some reading assignments for a class, it's not a chore, because we like to read (even if it's just a Louis L'Amour or Johanna Lindsey). I saw the difference every day in classes. Those of us who read—read anything—had an advantage.

So that's why I respect reading. Any reading. That's why I don't "look down" on someone who only reads Harlequin Romances, or any other "pulpy" kind of books. (And that's why I've collected quite a few Harlequins in Spanish. It's helping me tremendously with the Spanish vocabulary. I chose Harlequins because they are plentiful and cheap.) I am aware of how many people don't read at all, and I am mindful of what a disadvantage it can be to them. (My vocabulary, while decidedly "average" for this crowd, is often considered quite impressive amongst many people I know. The reason? Once again, reading. Even Harlequins and L'Amours. It all helps.)


I do consider myself a film buff. I also have no idea who Wong Kar-Wai is. This appears to be a reason to look down on somebody, if I'm reading your post correctly.
I am sure we are all guilty of some snobbery, but honestly, I think everyone should step back and be aware that an enthusiasm for the arts—film, literature, music—should be applauded. I find a person who is passionately in love with, say, Western novels or John Wayne films to be someone who I can admire. Perhaps they don't have the most high falutin' of tastes, but dammit, they love these works. They really appreciate them. I have to admire that.

Some people don't give a damn and just consume, consume consume thoughtlessly or without much appreciation (kind of lukewarm to it all). Those people are usually very boring. I'd rather talk to a person who is enthusiastically passionate about John Wayne films and Harlequin Romances than some somewhat snobby, slightly apathetic fan who watches all the "right" films and reads all the "right" books, but doesn't really feel a whole lot about them.

[yosemite]

I was re-reading this thread, and I discovered that I wrote something completely incomprehensible:However, the point I brought up earlier, about reading as a way to become more comfortable with, well, the activity of reading is very beneficial. Uh, what? :eek:

What I meant to say is that the act of reading on a regular basis is bound to be a good thing, regardless of the type of reading material. Unless the person is reading woefully inadequate prose (way below their reading level, fraught with grammatical errors, etc.), then it'll be of some benefit to them.

I remember in High School, reading some book for an assignment. I read 50 pages in one evening, 'cause it was no big deal, really. A fellow student, apparently one who only read when he was forced to, called me a "speed reader" because I read a whopping fifty pages in an evening! Oooh! ;) (I suppose he would've crapped kittens if I'd told him it took me way under an hour to do so.)

I knew so many people (and still know so many people) who just flat-out don't read. A lot of these people have trouble understanding some of my vocabulary, and assume that I'm "smarter" than they are. But obviously I am not. I just have read more pulpy novels than they have! Just my simple habit of reading has given me an "edge" in so many of these areas. So that's why I think any reading is good, and I sure as hell am not going to look down my nose at anyone who picks up a book on a regular basis.

I try to encourage everyone to read and tell people who compliment me on my so-called "impressive" vocabulary that all they need to increase their vocabulary is read more!

[Dung Beetle]

I as well. Few things freak me out more than visiting somebody's house and slowly coming to the realization that there are no books about. No dedicated bookshelf in the front room or the side room or the bedroom or anywhere, no books on the end tables or the coffee table or the nightstand... It's quite disturbing.
Downright terrifying is what it is....especially when I realize I'm at my mother's house!

[Agrippina]

I had a friend who claimed that the only book she owned was the Missouri Driver's Guide. Even though this is horrifying enough, what was even more horrifying is that she seemed proud of it.

[The Great Zamboni]

Books don't make you a boring person. Sticking to one medium and devoting yourself to it wholly does. I can't stand being around an avid TV watcher. Someone who is into books and only books is just as bad. You can't have your eyes stuck to a book all the time. Go do something!

Now something that is special and unique is writing. A novel, novella, short story, letter to the editor, or an essay all give me a feeling of excitement and transcendence (sp?) when I am forming them. I have not yet written a novel or novella yet though. I'm looking forward to my first one.

Now I'm inspired. I think I'll submit something to Teemings.

[kunilou]

I'm going to try to be very careful in how I phrase this.

I think if you sacrifice human contact for reading, you're setting yourself up for an ability to interact with people. You'll have more trouble recognizing body language, vocal nuance, etc. You'll have more trouble in conversation, because most people don't converse in a linear fashion. You'll have trouble dealing with someone's emotions, because they aren't intellectualizing their feelings and feeding them to you through that filter.

I don't believe the fault lies in books. If you spend too much time on your butterfly collection, your passion for fishing, your job, etc., you're setting yourself up for trouble interacting with others on anything more than an exchange of information.

As Stonebow said, too much of anything can be bad for you.

That said, as a rule I prefer someone who reads to someone who doesn't.

[js_africanus]

However, the point I brought up earlier, about reading as a way to become more comfortable with, well, the activity of reading, is that even fluff reading is very beneficial.
Made perfect sense. I didn't even notice the missing text. Though it is always good to throw in a "qua" if you can, e.g.:
However, the point I brought up earlier, about reading as a way to become more comfortable with, well, ...reading qua reading, is that reading is inherently very beneficial.
See? It completely escaped me that those words were missing. Entirely clear and precise. Much better than say,
However, the point I brought up earlier, about reading as a way to become more comfortable with, Billy fell into the well after shooting the President, the activity of reading is very beneficial.
Now, I definately noticed that those words were missing. That's why it made so much sense.

Regardless, I couldn't agree more. I definately think that it takes practice before one will generally be able to read more difficult stuff. I noticed this in grad school. Because I had read so many articles from academic psychology journals, I was familiar with the medium, even though the content had changed. The other students had a much more difficult time than I did reading from the econ journals simply because, IMO, I had more practice reading academic journals.


Personally, I didn't find the article insightful or interesting. No offense meant. Obviously one who admires books as 3-D works of art without consuming the content, then one isn't really getting the benefits of reading. Similarly if one sticks exclusively to fluff, glosses over difficult texts, or uses books for an unhealthy mask of one's problems. I have never heard these sorts of things praised as the article's author seems to imply. Maybe if she read more, then it would have been a better essay.

[BiblioCat]

Reading has many levels of value.

However, the point I brought up earlier, about reading as a way to become more comfortable with, well, the activity of reading is very beneficial. Continual reading often brings better comprehension and reading speed (not always, but often, I've found). Therefore, there can be value derived from reading anything semi-coherent and with fairly decent grammar (most Harlequin romances would qualify). My sisters and I devoured many a Harlequin Romance and pulpy novel in our youth, and we all did well in English and vocabulary. My sister and I both remember how painfully easy it was to rip through the new vocabulary and spelling words in class. We already knew these words, because we read so many damned pulpy novels. We had a much easier time of it than our non-reading-for-pleasure classmates, who had to look up many of these words and struggle through their reading assignments.

So that's why I respect reading. Any reading. That's why I don't "look down" on someone who only reads Harlequin Romances, or any other "pulpy" kind of books. (And that's why I've collected quite a few Harlequins in Spanish. It's helping me tremendously with the Spanish vocabulary. I chose Harlequins because they are plentiful and cheap.) I am aware of how many people don't read at all, and I am mindful of what a disadvantage it can be to them. (My vocabulary, while decidedly "average" for this crowd, is often considered quite impressive amongst many people I know. The reason? Once again, reading. Even Harlequins and L'Amours. It all helps.)
This may be a bit off-topic, but I'd agree with these statements. I was an early reader, and still love reading. (I like TV as much as the next person, but I still love a good book.) I'm trying to instill a love of reading in my kids, too. And that last bit, about vocabulary? Yeah, baby!
I also like crossword puzzles. Vocabulary helps there, too.
My point? Oh, yeah. My SIL never reads. She wouldn't read a book if her life depended on it. She thinks books are "boring."
We were at the pool one day, and had taken my in-laws as guests, and I was doing the crossword puzzle from my newspaper (my local paper runs two each day; the NY Times puzzle and a regular puzzle). I had already done the Jumble puzzle (in ink, in about 2 minutes - dumb, I know, but I get a goofy little thrill from doing it) and was working on the NY Times crossword. SIL leaned over and commented that crossword puzzles were "dumb" because "no one" knows the clues. She pointed to one and said, "Who knows this - 4 Down 'Kit and blank' ? What is that? It's stupid!"
I said, "I already got that one, it's 'kit and kaboodle'." (to me, that's a 'gimme' clue; a really easy one)
She looked at me blankly and said, "What's 'kit and kaboodle'?"
:rolleyes:
We argued back and forth for a few minutes as I tried to explain what 'kit and kaboodle' meant, while she kept insisting that no one knew what it was, therefore the crossword puzzle is "stupid."
Then she saw I had done the Jumble puzzle and insisted I had done it wrong, because I was supposed to have put the vowels in the circles - therefore, it's "stupid" and no one can ever do it. When I pointed out that nowhere does it say to put the vowels in the circles, just to unscramble the words and use the circled letters to solve the main puzzle, she insisted that I was wrong. She also said the solved puzzle was "dumb" and didn't make sense. It was a pun, of course, and I think the fact that she's not a reader figured into the fact that she didn't (or couldn't) understand it.

[Dung Beetle]

Oh, your poor brother!

[BiblioCat]

Actually, it's my husband's sister.

[Dung Beetle]

Yikes! My condolences.

[yosemite]

Yikes, talk about being in denial of their own ignorance.

Speaking of that . . . I was once told by several young coworkers (probably 19-22 years old) that I "talked funny" because I had a semi-decent vocabulary. Now, bear in mind, my vocabulary is what you read here. Nothing too high falutin'. But, rather than contemplate the possibility that perhaps there was something lacking in their vocabulary (God Forbid!), they assumed that there must be something wrong with mine.

I have had a few instances where it was hinted that I should simplify my vocabulary, or I've been questioned for using "funny" words. I've never said this to anyone yet, but I am sorely tempted to reply to such people: "There is nothing wrong with the way that I speak. I speak ENGLISH. Sorry if that is a problem for you." (Obviously I would never say this to a person who had English as their second language.)

Oh, and js_africanus: However, the point I brought up earlier, about reading as a way to become more comfortable with, Billy fell into the well after shooting the President, the activity of reading is very beneficial.You're scaring me, man. ;)

[Rdshooze]

I've been an avid reader since I was a small child and my son has followed in my footsteps. Whenever I walk in someone's house for the first time, I immediately notice the presence or lack of bookshelves. I've actually been in homes where there were no books of any kind, not even children's books. I realize that not everyone enjoys reading, but it seems like such a huge gap in a person's life experience. It's always such a great feeling to find out that someone you've met loves some of the same authors you do, or to look in someone's bookcase and see some of the same titles you have at home. Remember the classic Twilight Zone episode with Burgess Meredith in that library with nothing but time on his hands . . . and his shattered glasses? That could very well be one of my worst nightmares!

[pepperlandgirl]

I'm not sure exactly what Cristina Nehring was trying to say, but PERHAPS it's something like this.

A book, ANY book, seems to command a degree of respect, automatically. From the time we're little kids, we often hear "Turn off that television- read a book and improve your mind." That is, our authority figures (parents, teachers, et al.) seem to assume that reading a book is inherently worthwhile, while other media (television, movies, et al.) are at least a bit suspect. Now, is reading a "choose your own adventure" or "Mary-Kate and Ashley Go to the Mall" book really "improving your mind" more than watching "Nova" would have? Not really.

Think about it- people will often dismiss even the most serious and ambitious of films with "It's only a movie." Ever heard anyone say "Come on, it's only a book"?
.


I disagree.

When I'm tutoring a student who seems to be a lost cause, I always ask him/her if she/he reads. "Do you read?" I say. Their eyes widen, they get the proverbial deer-in-the-headlights look and stutter, "Um... a little bit."

"How much is a little bit?"

"I don't really have the time to read."

I explain that if they read just one hour a day, their spelling, grammar, and vocabulary will improve. All they have to do is read! And it doesn't matter what! Surely, they can find an hour a night. That might mean reading Grisham instead of watching the West Wing but they need the practice. They don't have a relationship with the written word, and their work suffers as a result. A lot. I wouldn't expect somebody who never listens to music to start playing in a band. I wouldn't expect somebody who never goes to museums to paint a portrait. Why would I expect somebody who never reads to know how to write?

They always promise to read, but I know they won't give it a second thought. They don't see the connection between more reading and better writing. They just shrug and walk away like I'm talking out of my ass.

But after four years of tutoring if just one or two people will take my word for it and do what I ask, it'll be worth it.

[carlotta]

I feel so busted.

I'm a lifelong, avid, addicted, at-least-five-books-going-at-a-time reader. I don't remember learning to read. Being "a reader" has always been a huge piece of my identity.

I always got so much respect from teachers and other adults and even a sort of grudging, I-hate-you admiration from my peers for all that reading. I felt like I had a deep dark secret....I wasn't improving myself, I was just having fun. I was reading for escape, entertainment and fantasy.

Do books make you boring? Well being self-righteous about anything certainly makes you boring. Being a bookworm probably makes you boring to people with other interests.

I certainly don't look down on people who "don't read" although I think I did as a teenager. It was only reading this thread that I realized I'm married to someone who "doesn't read". I think my husband was a big reader as a kid and he certainly has the language skills of your average avid reader, but he just developed other interestas as he grew older, more attracting ways to spend ever diminishing free time. He's still an interesting, stimulating person to be with (to me at least!)

I guess I take the author's point that reading shouldn't get the sort of automatic respect it seems to (although for kids it still should, for the school-smarts benefits it confers). I would hope that all people would have respect for differing interests and passions and no one would ever seek to look down on another for having different gifts, talents and passions.

[yosemite]

I guess I take the author's point that reading shouldn't get the sort of automatic respect it seems to (although for kids it still should, for the school-smarts benefits it confers). Well, actually, people should read throughout their lives, to continue to benefit from the "smarts" that reading bestows upon them. The brain gets rusty after a while—apt to forget words not used often, apt to forget proper grammar, etc. Reading is like a jump start. Keeps the juices flowing.
I would hope that all people would have respect for differing interests and passions and no one would ever seek to look down on another for having different gifts, talents and passions.I have a great respect for people with differing interests and passions. In fact, if I had to choose between a dusty, dry bookworm who read all the "right" books but felt little passion, and the person who rarely read but was full of energy and passion for all their interests and talents, I'd rather spend time with the non-reader who was energetic.

However, it's hard to fathom that someone who is so passionate about something would not read about it. And most pastimes, passions and talents have accompanying books that most afficionados will want to possess and read.

My mom is a crackpot (I say that with love) and she's quite "into" alternative medicine, crackpot theories about health, and so forth. (So am I to some extent, but no one beats her in crackpotedness.) Anyway, she's got TONS of books. Because that's where all the information about the new crackpot theories come from—books.

My dad was passionate about England (our family "roots"), trains and streetcars, photography, geology, biology, and Classical music. So he had books. Walls of them.

I'm passionate about art, digital art, pottery, National Parks and scenery, and currently I'm fervently learning a new language. So I've got my own wall of books on these subjects.

And so forth and so on.

A while ago I was with my mom as she was filling out some questionaire that she got, and she was supposed to fill in the blanks for all her pastimes and interests. She was checking off her interests, and when she came to reading, she said, "We aren't really readers, are we?" I looked at her as if she had grown an extra set of arms and waved impatiently all around her. Books. Freakin' books, everywhere. My dad's books, her books. Books books books books! Some books aren't always the kind that you sit down and read from front to back, like a novel, but you open them, you read them, and you absorb the good stuff in them. That still counts as reading.

I know that there are people who are passionate about, say, music, or art, or film, instead of reading, but it's really hard to imagine that someone who is so passionate about such a thing would not have books about the subject. I mean, there are so many great books about art, complete with analysis and color plates—how could an art lover not want to have such a book? Same goes for music or film. So many books full of wonderful stuff, covering these topics. So for someone to not ever have any books—if they are truly passionate about these kinds of things—well, it's possible, and it doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with them, but it seems to me like it would be very unusual.