Don't give in to an antiquity fallacy, here. Plato and Socrates have their merits, but I think there is equal value in many recent books. Give John Irving a spin, or John Cheever, Kafka, EM Forster, Chinua Achebe, Anton Chekov, Tim O'Brien, John Updike....
Older does not a better book make. In fact, language and cultural barriers might make older books worse.
Don't give in to an antiquity fallacy, here. Plato and Socrates have their merits, but I think there is equal value in many recent books. Give John Irving a spin, or John Cheever, Kafka, EM Forster, Chinua Achebe, Anton Chekov, Tim O'Brien, John Updike....
Older does not a better book make. In fact, language and cultural barriers might make older books worse.
I'm not saying newer books are bad. I love Osamu Dazais work for example. But only reading newer books is like not seeing the whole picture to me. I'm not saying go read Socrates or Homer, because the translations of them are often aweful and translating them from Greek is really just kind of stupid, hard and not worth the hassle. But at least read some classics from like 1750 to 1900.
EDIT:
I already posted this quote (in a different version) from Faust I, written by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe during 1750 to 1800, in the Book Recommendation thread. You don't find this kind of writing anymore in "modern" literature:
"All that philosophy can teach, The lore of jurist and of leech, I've mastered, ah! and sweated through Theology's dead deserts, too, Yete here, poor fool! for all my lore, I stand no wiser than before."
I like reading, but generally I like reading on my own terms. When forced to read "classics" and other books that generally bore me, I don't like to do it. For example, hand me a good book and I'll probably have it done within the hour; hand me Catcher in the Rye and I might die within the hour.
That's kind of how I am. The books I was required to read this year (junior year) were the Scarlet Letter and Huck Finn (yep, that's it, actually...). Honestly, I TRIED to read both books. I got about 20-30 pages into Scarlet Letter before saying "fuck it, I'd rather drill holes through my legs than read this". Thus, I just went to sparknotes for the rest. Huck Finn, actually, wasn't so bad. I got about 100 pages in, then other schoolwork started piling on, but I still had to meet deadlines for my English class, so I again had to resort to Sparknotes. In gradeschool I had to read more, but our school's library was pretty limited, and most of it was pretty dull.
@Mrs. Macross- As I said in the other thread, comparing Harry Potter to the Bernstein Bears is just fucking retarded. I could list the reasons, but I figure that most people will be able to figure it out without my help.
You're in school? Also, this is 4 / 5?
Yep, I'm going to be a senior next year. And my school's scale is kinda weird. It's more or less 4.0, but in honors classes you can get up to a 5.0. Also, + or - letter grades are equal to + or - .3333 on the gpa scale, so techincally it's out of 4.3333 and 5.3333. Anyways, I was in 2 honors classes (math and italian), but my other 4 classes were regular (english, physics, religion, and programming). Therefore, my maximum gpa was something like....4.63, give or take on the decimals.
Hm, it's always interesting to see how different high schools work. I think comparative education would be a cool major.
(In my high school, GPA was out of 4.0, though AP classes were out of 5.0. Thus, many people had between a 4.3 and 4.7. In fact, you need a 4.1 to even qualify for UC Berkeley, the uni near us.)
Reading has always been a passion of mine, and I credit much of my vocabulary and knowledge to it. I'm currently reading The Prince of Nothing, and I'm halfway through Gravity's Rainbow. I recently bought about 20 books for the summer, since I graduated yesterday. I concur with Scott: I've found that people who don't enjoy reading (as opposed to people who don't have time for it, are slow readers, etc.) are generally uneducated and unimaginative.
Geeks have more hobbies now, and more places they can pursue them. The miracle of the internet allows your geeks of today to actually have and make friends easily, which I would suppose limits the sort of thing I did when I was a punk kid geek, reading books alone off in a corner somewhere. More anime and video games than any one person could watch or play are always available online either free or easily pirated. Didn't used to be like that. Portable DVD players, portable video game consoles, iPods full of free geek podcasts, have all pushed out the ratty paperback shoved in your back pocket as the geek entertainment of choice on the go. It's not surprising at all if people aren't as keen on reading nowadays.
And also, the sort of reading that one is forced to do for a grade is horrible and unpleasant, and probably always has been. If this wasn't the case for Scrym & Co., they should consider themselves lucky.
I got to read Catch 22 for English, though I remember I had some choice in the matter. For the most part, the books we got were pretty decent, though some were indeed horrible and unpleasant.
It's not surprising at all if people aren't as keen on reading nowadays.
Also, (this is mainly directed to Rym and Scott) if you think I'M bad, you'd shit your pants if you saw the myspaces/facebooks of the people (especially the non geeks) from my school. In the "books" section, there's usually: - a video - nothing - something along the lines of "lol, what?"
It's not surprising at all if people aren't as keen on reading nowadays.
Also, (this is mainly directed to Rym and Scott) if you think I'M bad, you'd shit your pants if you saw the myspaces/facebooks of the people (especially the non geeks) from my school. In the "books" section, there's usually: - a video - nothing - something along the lines of "lol, what?"
The school district I attended (that my brother also attends currently) has a program called Accelerated Reader. Students are given a quota of around 60-100 points per semester (based on their reading level) they have to reach, or they fail English. It makes up about 20% of their grade! So, you have to read many books rapidly and go outside of class to the computer lab to take a test. Since I can read effectively in this manner, I had no problem. My brother cannot. He was able to get by, but as a result, he hates reading books. I think this is the sole reason. If he could have read more slowly, and been able to comprehend and appreciate the books he read, I have no doubt he would have liked reading.
We had to do the Accelerated Reading program in Elementary School. I had a lot of books at home that we also had in the school library, so I read all the freaking time and got loads of points. They always awarded the nerds with the most points.
Yep, I had to do accelerated reading as well. I didn't really like it. When our quota was simply 3 books per quarter, I could deal with it. But when it got bumped up in my later years, I got overwhelmed. I skated by, but as I progressed through the school's library, I eventually read everything halfway decent (which wasn't even that much to begin with).
It also taught me that the Hobbit is one of the dullest piece of shit books ever. Seriously...did any of you guys like it, just wondering?
No, I actually agree with Dkong. I thought The Hobbit was incredibly dull when I tried to read it as a kid, and I still think that it - and everything else Tolkien has ever written - is just as dull. Different tastes in books, I guess?
I've yet to read the Hobbit, but I rather enjoyed the Silmarillion.
I don't read that much currently, because I actually have internet access at home now. I'm constantly listening to podcasts and the occasional audiobook.
I mainly only read non-fiction books. I just haven't really been in the mood to read anything else. I've got a couple books planned for the summer. First up isWhy People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Timeby Michael Shermer...
Oh, please post what you think of the book. It sounds interesting, I may want to read it.
I loved the Hobbit, but I was a little kid when I read it. It's a really awesome children's book, but not anything more.
I disagree. Part of the enjoyment of reading the Hobbit is recognizing the references to other, rich but less well known works and earlier cultures' oral traditions.
No, I actually agree with Dkong. I thought The Hobbit was incredibly dull when I tried to read it as a kid, and I still think that it - and everything else Tolkien has ever written - is just as dull. Different tastes in books, I guess?
I agree with you 100%. Sadly I've meet little other people who do. ^^
Some people I know are just too busy to sit and enjoy a book. My Dad is a good example of this. He is too busy making his shore house perfect, fishing, riding his motorcycle, creating bikes out of spare parts, keeping his rental properties in good repair, helping me with my home improvement, working 30-40 hours in his normal job, doing side work, being a political agent, visiting my grandfather at the nursing home, chatting with all of his friends on the cell phone. When my dad is actually idle I can't really blame him for wanting to watch cheap campy sci-fiction on the sci-fi channel instead of picking up a book.
I can see how in your Dad's case it isn't really a possibility to set aside a day an read a book or two (or even an hour here and there to chip away at a book) - but he is the exception, not the rule. When teenagers and 20 somethings aren't reading, it is usually by choice, not because they have too little time. Moreover, with the advent of cheap/free audio books, they can at least LISTEN to some great books while they complete other activities. It really isn't the same, but it is a start to get people interested in new genres and reading in general.
The thing is that all of us here on this forum have Internet connections. We live in a society where we have effectively infinite entertainment available to us at little to no cost. Some people have more free time for entertainment than others. Shallow entertainment also has its place. However, for someone to completely ignore an entire medium of artistic expression, when they have the insane luxury of libraries and Amazon available to them, it just sick.
Check out the latest Point of Inquiry podcast for more on this very topic: link "In this conversation with D.J. Grothe, Susan Jacoby explores recent trends that she argues have led to the "age of American unreason," including religious fundamentalism, mass media consumption and "video culture," and multiculturalism. She addresses how fundamentalism feeds anti-intellectualism in America, and how not only fundamentalism can be blamed for it. She details both the upside and the downside of the internet, the perils of too much TV viewing, and the effect of such over-consumtion on the cultural literacy of average Americans. She addresses criticism that she is merely "elitist" or a "luddite," and ends with specifics on how people can work to challenge the Age of American Unreason."
Scott, I can see your point, but people ignore artistic mediums all the time because they have no interest in them. Or let me ask: When have you been the last time to an art exhibition? Or the theatre? Or to the ballet? Or the Opera? When was the last time you have been to a Concert outside of an anime convention? Those are certainly all available in New York.
Books are certainly more of a mass medium than the ones mentioned above, but I wouldn't fault anyone for not liking it after having it at least tried.
Or let me ask: When have you been the last time to an art exhibition? Or the theatre? Or to the ballet? Or the Opera? When was the last time you have been to a Concert outside of an anime convention? Those are certainly all available in New York.
Funny, but I have done all of those in the past six months. Now, go read a book.
Or let me ask: When have you been the last time to an art exhibition? Or the theatre? Or to the ballet? Or the Opera? When was the last time you have been to a Concert outside of an anime convention? Those are certainly all available in New York.
I went to an art exhibition a few weeks ago. As for the rest, I have been to them, and would like to go more. The only reason I don't go more often is that they are far less convenient than books. There are time constraints and financial constraints that make it difficult. I did watch some opera on video yesterday, though, does that count?
Scott, I can see your point, but people ignore artistic mediums all the time because they have no interest in them. Or let me ask: When have you been the last time to an art exhibition? Or the theatre? Or to the ballet? Or the Opera? When was the last time you have been to a Concert outside of an anime convention? Those are certainly all available in New York.
Books are certainly more of a mass medium than the ones mentioned above, but I wouldn't fault anyone for not liking it after having it at least tried.
Your analogies are false. You list a visual art and several performance arts. If someone read only sci-fi, and people were trying to get them to read dramatic literature or non-fiction, then your analogies would ring true. However, this is an argument for reading any books with some sort of frequency (even if it is only a book a month, for instance). If I am not mistaken, Scott is advocating the consumption of any type of language art (fiction and non-fiction alike). You speak of going to see an art museum (which I know he did recently) or seeing plays or concerts, all of which are cost prohibitive to many people to see in person, and thus cannot be done as easily as picking up a book or downloading one).
I completely agree with that, Mrs.Macross. Those are just the ones that came from the top of my head. But you are also ignoring the core of my statement:
Not all artistic mediums attract all people equally.
I think it's great if you are a "renaissance geek" that enjoys all sorts of things, but that doesn't go for everybody. The only reason to condemn somebody for not reading or for not linking books in my opinion is if that lifestyle is solely based on prejudice. If someone honestly tried it and decided that he doesn't like to read, I can see no reason to put him on the pillory.
Not all artistic mediums attract all people equally.
There's a difference between disliking a medium and disliking a genre. If someone says they don't like romance novels, or superhero comics, that's understandable. Those are genres within mediums that all have common characteristics. If you try a few works in a particular genre, and don't like them, that is usually enough to justify avoiding that genre in the future. It would be very rare to find a person who didn't like Neuromancer that will like Blade Runner or Snow Crash.
However, if someone claims to dislike a medium, it is very safe to assume the person is narrow minded, ignorant, and/or bigoted. There is such an incredible amount of variation within any artistic medium, that it is almost impossible to find a person who truly will not like any works within it. Imagine if someone said they didn't like music, or that they didn't like paintings. Unless that person has listened to a shitton of music, or seen a shitton of paintings, there is no reasonable conclusion other than the person has some sort of problem. I guess they might have a neurological problem in the fusiform gyruss that results in lack of emotion from certain senses, but I suspect that is very rare. The overwhelming majority of these people who read at a 6th grade level, and do not read books period, are non-intellectuals.
Unless you are a broken human being with no feelings, no wants, no desires, and no loves, there are works in almost every artistic medium that will speak to you. If you haven't found them, or if you've written a medium off, then you are just intellectually lazy. Laziness of that sort will never receive respect, assuming it manages to receive tolerance.
There's a difference between disliking a medium and disliking a genre. If someone says they don't like romance novels, or superhero comics, that's understandable. Those are genres within mediums that all have common characteristics. If you try a few works in a particular genre, and don't like them, that is usually enough to justify avoiding that genre in the future. It would be very rare to find a person who didn't like Neuromancer that will like Blade Runner or Snow Crash.
Ok then, how come you gave me all that shit about not liking fantasy novels. You said they were just stories with essentially a different paint job. What gave you this change in opinion?
Comments
Older does not a better book make. In fact, language and cultural barriers might make older books worse.
EDIT:
I already posted this quote (in a different version) from Faust I, written by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe during 1750 to 1800, in the Book Recommendation thread. You don't find this kind of writing anymore in "modern" literature:
In gradeschool I had to read more, but our school's library was pretty limited, and most of it was pretty dull.
@Mrs. Macross- As I said in the other thread, comparing Harry Potter to the Bernstein Bears is just fucking retarded. I could list the reasons, but I figure that most people will be able to figure it out without my help. Yep, I'm going to be a senior next year. And my school's scale is kinda weird. It's more or less 4.0, but in honors classes you can get up to a 5.0. Also, + or - letter grades are equal to + or - .3333 on the gpa scale, so techincally it's out of 4.3333 and 5.3333. Anyways, I was in 2 honors classes (math and italian), but my other 4 classes were regular (english, physics, religion, and programming).
Therefore, my maximum gpa was something like....4.63, give or take on the decimals.
(In my high school, GPA was out of 4.0, though AP classes were out of 5.0. Thus, many people had between a 4.3 and 4.7. In fact, you need a 4.1 to even qualify for UC Berkeley, the uni near us.)
Reading has always been a passion of mine, and I credit much of my vocabulary and knowledge to it. I'm currently reading The Prince of Nothing, and I'm halfway through Gravity's Rainbow. I recently bought about 20 books for the summer, since I graduated yesterday. I concur with Scott: I've found that people who don't enjoy reading (as opposed to people who don't have time for it, are slow readers, etc.) are generally uneducated and unimaginative.
And also, the sort of reading that one is forced to do for a grade is horrible and unpleasant, and probably always has been. If this wasn't the case for Scrym & Co., they should consider themselves lucky.
For the most part, the books we got were pretty decent, though some were indeed horrible and unpleasant.
- a video
- nothing
- something along the lines of "lol, what?"
Just throwin' that out there...
I didn't really like it. When our quota was simply 3 books per quarter, I could deal with it. But when it got bumped up in my later years, I got overwhelmed. I skated by, but as I progressed through the school's library, I eventually read everything halfway decent (which wasn't even that much to begin with).
It also taught me that the Hobbit is one of the dullest piece of shit books ever. Seriously...did any of you guys like it, just wondering?
I don't read that much currently, because I actually have internet access at home now. I'm constantly listening to podcasts and the occasional audiobook.
"In this conversation with D.J. Grothe, Susan Jacoby explores recent trends that she argues have led to the "age of American unreason," including religious fundamentalism, mass media consumption and "video culture," and multiculturalism. She addresses how fundamentalism feeds anti-intellectualism in America, and how not only fundamentalism can be blamed for it. She details both the upside and the downside of the internet, the perils of too much TV viewing, and the effect of such over-consumtion on the cultural literacy of average Americans. She addresses criticism that she is merely "elitist" or a "luddite," and ends with specifics on how people can work to challenge the Age of American Unreason."
Or let me ask: When have you been the last time to an art exhibition? Or the theatre? Or to the ballet? Or the Opera? When was the last time you have been to a Concert outside of an anime convention? Those are certainly all available in New York.
Books are certainly more of a mass medium than the ones mentioned above, but I wouldn't fault anyone for not liking it after having it at least tried.
Not all artistic mediums attract all people equally.
I think it's great if you are a "renaissance geek" that enjoys all sorts of things, but that doesn't go for everybody. The only reason to condemn somebody for not reading or for not linking books in my opinion is if that lifestyle is solely based on prejudice. If someone honestly tried it and decided that he doesn't like to read, I can see no reason to put him on the pillory.
However, if someone claims to dislike a medium, it is very safe to assume the person is narrow minded, ignorant, and/or bigoted. There is such an incredible amount of variation within any artistic medium, that it is almost impossible to find a person who truly will not like any works within it. Imagine if someone said they didn't like music, or that they didn't like paintings. Unless that person has listened to a shitton of music, or seen a shitton of paintings, there is no reasonable conclusion other than the person has some sort of problem. I guess they might have a neurological problem in the fusiform gyruss that results in lack of emotion from certain senses, but I suspect that is very rare. The overwhelming majority of these people who read at a 6th grade level, and do not read books period, are non-intellectuals.
Unless you are a broken human being with no feelings, no wants, no desires, and no loves, there are works in almost every artistic medium that will speak to you. If you haven't found them, or if you've written a medium off, then you are just intellectually lazy. Laziness of that sort will never receive respect, assuming it manages to receive tolerance.