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.
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.
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.
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?”
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.
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?”
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 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.
I was re-reading this thread, and I discovered that I wrote something completely incomprehensible:
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.:
See? It completely escaped me that those words were missing. Entirely clear and precise. Much better than say,
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.
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.
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.)
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!
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.
(I suppose he would’ve crapped kittens if I’d told him it took me way under an hour to do so.)