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?
That's a separate discussion about what criteria are used to define where the borders between genres lie.
For example, someone might watch a super robot show, like Mazinger Z, and hate it. Then they will decide they hate super robot shows. That's fine. However, this person will then refuse to watch something like Gundam or Escaflowne based on the presence of robots, and their negative association with such. This shows their ignorance in that they are categorizing these works into genres based on their surface appearance. In reality most Gundam series are war stories, and Escaflowne is an adventure romance. Much like how I often say that Gradius and Ikaruga are completely different games, despite their incredibly similar surface appearance.
IMHO fantasy isn't a genre, but a particular type of setting. What defines genre in a novel is the kind of story that is being told. You can tell a mystery, a romance, an adventure, a thriller, a horror, etc. all in a fantasy setting. If you don't like mysteries, that's one thing. If you like romances, but refuse to read a fantasy romance because you dislike the aesthetic of the setting, is another thing entirely. It shows that you are extracting your enjoyment of the work from the surface level aspects. In other words, you are effectively judging the work by its cover.
Imagine if someone said they really liked Full Throttle, but didn't want to play Monkey Island because they didn't like pirates. Seriously? The games are almost exactly the same thing! Genres are defined by the guts, not by the clothing.
I think part of it is that a lot of kids (and I mean up through high school) think that reading isn't "cool." Maybe its just where I come from, but kids would always complain every time they had a reading assignment, even when they got to choose the books.
The Cool Kid: "Man, reading sucks." Everyone Else: "Yeah!" The Pretty Blonde Girl: "Reading is so hard, you don't even know!" Everyone Else: "Totally! Let's complain about reading forever!" Me: Hiding in corner reading a book.
I think part of it is that a lot of kids (and I mean up through high school) think that reading isn't "cool." Maybe its just where I come from, but kids would always complain every time they had a reading assignment, even when they got to choose the books.
The Cool Kid: "Man, reading sucks." Everyone Else: "Yeah!" The Pretty Blonde Girl: "Reading is so hard, you don't even know!" Everyone Else: "Totally! Let's complain about reading forever!" Me: Hiding in corner reading a book.
Ok I'm getting carried away, but yeah.
High-schoolers think everything is too boring and hard... thus, EMO. I never felt pressured not to read (I was pretty badly teased and harassed, but not for reading).
I think we have to distinguish between creating emotion and creating interest. While emotion is a prerequisite for creating interest, not everything that creates emotion in a person will create the interest in it as well.
I don't like to read, I've tried, but I can't seem to find something that hooks me in, I've only enjoyed one book in my life and it was about 250 pages. I get distracted easily.
I don't like to read, I've tried, but I can't seem to find something that hooks me in, I've only enjoyed one book in my life and it was about 250 pages. I get distracted easily.
I don't like to read, I've tried, but I can't seem to find something that hooks me in, I've only enjoyed one book in my life and it was about 250 pages. I get distracted easily.
Attention deficit?
Probably, I just don't like to play the ADD card, I went through high school like people with no ADD, no "special classes", didn't get "extra time" to finish my tests, in fact I was always the first one to finish, so no, even though I'm diagnosed, I think its more me being a lazy ass than having ADD.
Sometimes I get distracted when reading, especially if its a textbook or something that bores me. I'll start thinking about my day or something and read pages without actually processing the information. I realize it later and have to go back and re-read it all. I do that in lecture, too, except I can't go back and listen to it. Kinda sucks.
However, if someone claims to dislike a medium, it is very safe to assume the person is narrow minded, ignorant, and/or bigoted.
How is that safe to assume? Scott, is it not perfectly possible for a human being to not like just sitting still flipping pages? Is it not possible that they'd rather go outside and bike for 20 miles? I'd say it's safer to assume you Scott are just being an elitist prick, than to assume that someone is narrow minded, ignorant and/or bigoted just because they do not like to read books. Note, I'm/we're talking about like/dislike here, not about not reading AT ALL.
Why would one be narrow minded, or ignorant or a bigot if they don't read books? And what if they don't read fiction books?
From now on, there's a new rule of Scott. If you accuse the person you are arguing against of being elitist, you admit defeat. When you call someone elitist, you are openly admitting that you believe they are more elite than you are. If you admit the other person is more elite, then you should listen to what they say because they know better than you who are not elite. If you want to insult someone, you should at least be sure to say they are worse than you, not better. I won't argue with Stephen Hawking about physics, because I know he is my better in that subject. If you admit I am your better in this subject, you should acquiesce to what I have to say. To do otherwise would be to admit you agree with a less informed and less intelligent point of view. You're basically saying "You're smarter than me, therefore I'm right!" Don't do that.
It's also funny that you use the word elitist in this discussion of reading vs. not reading. You see for centuries the luxury of having the time or ability to read was something only available to the elite. Even a very wealthy person would be lucky if they had a few books. The average person was exceptionally lucky if they even knew how to read a little bit. Literacy was not taken for granted.
Everyone on this forum has access to the Internet. You are more privileged than the vast majority of human beings that have ever lived. Think about what amount of human work went into build this society that not only allows you to easily learn to read, but to have access to more written material than any human has ever had access to in the history of the known universe. Watch that Carl Sagan video Rym linked to as his thing of the day. With the Library of Alexandria built again in the form of the Internet, you would question why we despise those who scorn it?
Taking that perspective, it should not be a surprise that some people would look down on those who can read, but choose not to.
Again, think about how much you look down upon smelly fanboys who wear no deodorant. Not reading is worse than that.
Taking that perspective, it should not be a surprise that some people would look down on those who can read, but choose not to.
Well, I can, but I choose to draw, learn another language, or cook, rather than read a book. Am I such a bad person for choosing to do so?
A reading book is just entertainment, I really don't see a difference from reading a novel, reading a comic book, going to a museum, watch a movie, play a video game, play a sport.
Oh for FUCKS sake Scott, that's a pathetic cop out away from my point and questions. Since you require, let me clarify my intention of using the word 'elitist'. I mean it in the acting way, as in "You're acting like an elitist prick/You're being an elitist prick", not as in "You ARE an elitist prick[, now stop fucking around and get of your high and mighty bullshit ego].", for we all know you are far from a prick, or elitist for that matter.
Yes I know, not everyone could read, more known history blablabla, hmmmmm... Nothing of note concerning my points.
Again, you were raging because there are people who do not like reading books, as a medium, and claimed those people were narrow-minded and all that jazz. Again, this time I'll write it out without implying, I call bullshit. It is perfectly in the realm of possibilities that a person does not like reading books and is not narrow-minded, etc.
Again, why would someone be narrow-minded (, etc,) if they don't read books? There are many other ways of obtaining the same information, be it by internet on a monitor, or audiobooks, or speeches for that matter. Again, why would someone be narrow-minded (, etc,) if they don't read fiction books? What benefit does one gain from reading fiction compared to not reading it? Vocabulary? That you get from anything you read. Entertainment? You can get entertainment from TV, the internet, (computer) games, hiking, biking to name a few examples. Why do you claim that someone is basically a lesser human being for not reading books? Who are you to say that in the first place?
Though I read a lot I don't see there being a reason for people who don't to be that much more stupid.
There are quite a lot of people in my grade who, although they do not read at all, have better marks than me. Of course I also now that marks in school aren't a very accurate measure of intelligence.
But to get back on topic: people who rather listen to podcasts or watch documentaries don't have to be stupid. Although I find a life without books to be a sad life.
Taking that perspective, it should not be a surprise that some people would look down on those who can read, but choose not to.
Well, I can, but I choose to draw, learn another language, or cook, rather than read a book. Am I such a bad person for choosing to do so? A reading book is just entertainment, I really don't see a difference from reading a novel, reading a comic book, going to a museum, watch a movie, play a video game, play a sport.
All of the activities that you mention are worthwhile, and so is reading. My statement is simply saying that reading anything (Fiction or Non-fiction), is essential to be truly well-rounded and well educated. The great thing about reading is that it can enhance your enjoyment of other activities. If you like art and you are going to a museum, reading about the artist(s)/art on display or the time period/culture featured and you will enjoy the work on a deeper, more knowledgeable level. If you like movies, reading up on the director, actors, or even the book the movie was based on (which is not so uncommon these days) would likewise enhance your experience and lend you a greater appreciation for the movie you will see/have seen. You like playing video games? Well if you like war/strategy games read books on game theory, history, war strategies, etc. and have a deeper insight into the game. If you like RPG's you would probably enjoy a well written piece of fiction (specifically fantasy/sci-fi) or you can read about the ancient Greeks, Norse, etc. that the RPG you like was set in or its setting was based on. If you like to play sports, read about physical training, nutrition, the history of the sport, sport strategy, biographies of players and coaches, etc. The list goes on and on. I am not saying that any of these activities can't be enjoyed without reading, merely that you would be surprised at how much reading and deeper understanding/knowledge about these activities enhances the enjoyment. Moreover, it creates new inlets into other interests, and a greater web of knowledge that can create new connections of thought and understanding. It may seem elitist to some, but reading - in any capacity - is an essential part to living in a cultured, educated, and creative society.
All of the activities that you mention are worthwhile, and so is reading. My statement is simply saying that reading anything (Fiction or Non-fiction), is essential to be truly well-rounded and well educated. The great thing about reading is that it can enhance your enjoyment of other activities. If you like art and you are going to a museum, reading about the artist(s)/art on display or the time period/culture featured and you will enjoy the work on a deeper, more knowledgeable level. If you like movies, reading up on the director, actors, or even the book the movie was based on (which is not so uncommon these days) would likewise enhance your experience and lend you a greater appreciation for the movie you will see/have seen. You like playing video games? Well if you like war/strategy games read books on game theory, history, war strategies, etc. and have a deeper insight into the game. If you like RPG's you would probably enjoy a well written piece of fiction (specifically fantasy/sci-fi) or you can read about the ancient Greeks, Norse, etc. that the RPG you like was set in or its setting was based on. If you like to play sports, read about physical training, nutrition, the history of the sport, sport strategy, biographies of players and coaches, etc. The list goes on and on. I am not saying that any of these activities can't be enjoyed without reading, merely that you would be surprised at how much reading and deeper understanding/knowledge about these activities enhances the enjoyment. Moreover, it creates new inlets into other interests, and a greater web of knowledge that can create new connections of thought and understanding. It may seem elitist to some, but reading - in any capacity - is an essential part to living in a cultured, educated, and creative society.
Agreed. Honestly, as I've said before, it's not that I dislike actually reading (actually, I tend to enjoy non-fiction, because I learn stuff when I read it), it's just that I tend to dislike most fiction books I read. To that note, out of most of the kids I know who don't read fiction books on their free time, I'm sure that most of them read *something*. Be that a magazine, a how-to book, and shit like that.
When teenagers and 20 somethings aren't reading, it is usually by choice, not because they have too little time.
I wouldn't go that far. As I've said before, school and work tend to eat up a TON of a teenager's free time. Then after that, can you really blame a teenager for wanting to hang out with their friends over staying home and reading a book?
I think part of it is that a lot of kids (and I mean up through high school) think that reading isn't "cool."
That's true, very true. Then again, a lot of the stuff I do (DDR, RPGs, anime, manga, etc) isn't cool, yet I (and many other teenagers) enjoy those activities.
Why would one be narrow minded, or ignorant or a bigot if they don't read books? And what if they don't read fiction books?
Because they don't agree with Scott. And that's all Scott needs to know before he calls someone narrow minded, ignorant, or a bigot...at least from what I've observed when Scott rags on people.
Well, I can, but I choose to draw, learn another language, or cook, rather than read a book. Am I such a bad person for choosing to do so?
When teenagers and 20 somethings aren't reading, it is usually by choice, not because they have too little time.
I wouldn't go that far. As I've said before, school and work tend to eat up a TON of a teenager's free time. Then after that, can you really blame a teenager for wanting to hang out with their friends over staying home and reading a book?
Teenagers have tons of free time. A lot of them do not work, many have limited access to transportation to get out of the house, and they have less work to do then they will for the rest of their lives (summer break and winter break). More importantly, I can blame them for wanting to hangout with their friends rather than read a book. Most teenagers are twits and there are a lot of good books out there! ^_~
Like I think I said in the other thread. It takes longer for me to read because after I read a paragraph describing something I stop and try to visualize it or try to understand something. Sometimes I might re-read an awesome part of a story. Plus I read slowly so I wont miss anything. Is my reading habits a sign of being lower than normal? Am I one of the stupids?
Also, I will never berate someone if they don't read. Maybe because where I grew up it's common to not read and at one point I wasn't reading books at all, just manga. Why should I care if it's not their interest. It's like being rude to someone just because they aren't an otaku or a gamer. Normally a non reader is a mark of a ignorant person half the time but there are so many exceptions to that rule we can't say that anymore.
Like I think I said in the other thread. It takes longer for me to read because after I read a paragraph describing something I stop and try to visualize it or try to understand something. Sometimes I might re-read an awesome part of a story. Plus I read slowly so I wont miss anything. Is my reading habits a sign of being lower than normal? Am I one of the stupids?
Ignoring the grammatical error that Dkong pointed out, I would like to say that I often read more "slowly" than others for reasons very similar to the ones you've stated.
I technically have the ability to read very fast, and with a somewhat decent percentage of retention. For example, I read some of the Harry Potter books at such a speed (I finished Order of the Phoenix within a good, solid day of reading). However, for a book I care more about such as The Darkness That Comes Before, I don't want to have just "decent retention" after having read it. I want to take my time soaking in the characters - what they look like, how they move, how they sound, what it feels like to be in their presence - and the rich, varied locales of the world. Not to mention I also like stopping to appreciate particularly interesting flourishes in the writing, and going back to previous chapters to remind myself of information I might have either forgotten or glossed over earlier. And specifically in the case of TDTCB, that's not counting all the times I flip to the back to refer to the maps, as Scott says he did while reading it.
Given that I tend to only read books when I am almost certain that I'll really enjoy and care about them, I end up taking this "slower," more leisurely approach to reading more often than not. On the one hand, I really appreciate reading this way; I feel that I get more out of the books I read when I do this. On the other hand, however, I've had friends during many parts of my life who, like Rym, Scott and others on this board, always read very fast (and with great retention to boot). I remember them acting somewhat perplexed when I would tell them how long it was taking me to finish a particular book. "I finished that in a couple days. What's taking you so long?" they would either ask or imply. Remarks and implications such as these, though I know they had no bearing on my intelligence or my abilities, often really stung my ego (though I've rarely said anything about it). There would be this quiet, nagging voice in the back of my mind saying, "They can read fast AND appreciate what they're reading. Why can't you do both too, dumbass?"
I know that Rym and Scott's comments in the Dodgeball episode weren't directed at me or anyone else specifically, but I did feel a bit of that same sting I felt from my speed-reading friends in the past. I'm not calling them out for their comments, and I do not wish that they had gone unspoken. I'm just saying that not all of us who read slowly are doing it due to a lack of intelligence or lack of will. Some of us read slowly, just... because we read slowly. Is there some sort of problem with that?
I have always read slowly, but my retention and comprehension levels are high. I have improved my reading speed through speed reading courses, but this is more for reading for information (i.e. newspapers, textbooks, etc.) not for reading for enjoyment. I am just willing to make more time to read for pleasure. I enjoy it. I also listen to audio books at work and on long trips, which allows me more time to at least listen to books that I might not have the time to read. Reading speed has nothing to do with intelligence. It is simply a useful skill. Comprehension has a lot more to do with intelligence than speed, in my personal opinion.
I just recently re-read Watership Down by Richard Adams. I just happened to find a hardcover edition from 1972 at the local thrift store for $1. I think it is a third printing.
After reading it I NetFlixed the animated movie and cringed through 75% of it.
Loved the book since I was a kid! (Are you surprised?) The movie is...alright. Not great. It has some good stuff about it, but I feel a lot of the cool things about the original (such as the legends Dandelion tells) are mostly gone. And it's really weird because the movie is actually gorier than the book. Also the rabbits have weird, skinny necks.
In the movie they also had some female rabbits escape from the home burrow. The lack of female bunnies is what drove them towards raiding the land of the general.
It was the first time I really got into a novel recently. I finished it in around 2 weeks. At 400 pages, that's probably a slow pace for some, but it's a good pace for me, especially since I didn't read it every day.
If you prefer reading shorter stories (so called "short stories") I'd recommend you "Blue Bamboo" by Osamu Dazai. Though this may not be the best compliment: he is able to write a horribly tragic ending without anyone dying or suffering, you just get a very deep, thoughtful and sad feeling.
Top Books in the Sioux Falls, SD network. (from facebook) 1 Harry Potter 2 The Bible 3 Don't Read 4 Lord Of The Rings 5 The Notebook
Does this scare anyone else? I was expecting magazines to be up there too.
I was member of the Pizza Hut book club and the accelerated reader. I love reading; and I can't understand why other people hate it. Then again.. I can't understand why other people hate math. I guess it's one of things where you get or you don't.
Short stories are awesome. Welcome to the Monkey House by Kurt Vonnegut and anything by H.P Lovecraft are good stories.
Comments
For example, someone might watch a super robot show, like Mazinger Z, and hate it. Then they will decide they hate super robot shows. That's fine. However, this person will then refuse to watch something like Gundam or Escaflowne based on the presence of robots, and their negative association with such. This shows their ignorance in that they are categorizing these works into genres based on their surface appearance. In reality most Gundam series are war stories, and Escaflowne is an adventure romance. Much like how I often say that Gradius and Ikaruga are completely different games, despite their incredibly similar surface appearance.
IMHO fantasy isn't a genre, but a particular type of setting. What defines genre in a novel is the kind of story that is being told. You can tell a mystery, a romance, an adventure, a thriller, a horror, etc. all in a fantasy setting. If you don't like mysteries, that's one thing. If you like romances, but refuse to read a fantasy romance because you dislike the aesthetic of the setting, is another thing entirely. It shows that you are extracting your enjoyment of the work from the surface level aspects. In other words, you are effectively judging the work by its cover.
Imagine if someone said they really liked Full Throttle, but didn't want to play Monkey Island because they didn't like pirates. Seriously? The games are almost exactly the same thing! Genres are defined by the guts, not by the clothing.
The Cool Kid: "Man, reading sucks."
Everyone Else: "Yeah!"
The Pretty Blonde Girl: "Reading is so hard, you don't even know!"
Everyone Else: "Totally! Let's complain about reading forever!"
Me: Hiding in corner reading a book.
Ok I'm getting carried away, but yeah.
Why would one be narrow minded, or ignorant or a bigot if they don't read books? And what if they don't read fiction books?
It's also funny that you use the word elitist in this discussion of reading vs. not reading. You see for centuries the luxury of having the time or ability to read was something only available to the elite. Even a very wealthy person would be lucky if they had a few books. The average person was exceptionally lucky if they even knew how to read a little bit. Literacy was not taken for granted.
Everyone on this forum has access to the Internet. You are more privileged than the vast majority of human beings that have ever lived. Think about what amount of human work went into build this society that not only allows you to easily learn to read, but to have access to more written material than any human has ever had access to in the history of the known universe. Watch that Carl Sagan video Rym linked to as his thing of the day. With the Library of Alexandria built again in the form of the Internet, you would question why we despise those who scorn it?
Taking that perspective, it should not be a surprise that some people would look down on those who can read, but choose not to.
Again, think about how much you look down upon smelly fanboys who wear no deodorant. Not reading is worse than that.
A reading book is just entertainment, I really don't see a difference from reading a novel, reading a comic book, going to a museum, watch a movie, play a video game, play a sport.
Yes I know, not everyone could read, more known history blablabla, hmmmmm... Nothing of note concerning my points.
Again, you were raging because there are people who do not like reading books, as a medium, and claimed those people were narrow-minded and all that jazz. Again, this time I'll write it out without implying, I call bullshit. It is perfectly in the realm of possibilities that a person does not like reading books and is not narrow-minded, etc.
Again, why would someone be narrow-minded (, etc,) if they don't read books? There are many other ways of obtaining the same information, be it by internet on a monitor, or audiobooks, or speeches for that matter.
Again, why would someone be narrow-minded (, etc,) if they don't read fiction books? What benefit does one gain from reading fiction compared to not reading it? Vocabulary? That you get from anything you read. Entertainment? You can get entertainment from TV, the internet, (computer) games, hiking, biking to name a few examples.
Why do you claim that someone is basically a lesser human being for not reading books? Who are you to say that in the first place?
There are quite a lot of people in my grade who, although they do not read at all, have better marks than me. Of course I also now that marks in school aren't a very accurate measure of intelligence.
But to get back on topic: people who rather listen to podcasts or watch documentaries don't have to be stupid. Although I find a life without books to be a sad life.
To that note, out of most of the kids I know who don't read fiction books on their free time, I'm sure that most of them read *something*. Be that a magazine, a how-to book, and shit like that. I wouldn't go that far. As I've said before, school and work tend to eat up a TON of a teenager's free time. Then after that, can you really blame a teenager for wanting to hang out with their friends over staying home and reading a book? That's true, very true. Then again, a lot of the stuff I do (DDR, RPGs, anime, manga, etc) isn't cool, yet I (and many other teenagers) enjoy those activities. Because they don't agree with Scott. And that's all Scott needs to know before he calls someone narrow minded, ignorant, or a bigot...at least from what I've observed when Scott rags on people. No, no you're not.
Also, I will never berate someone if they don't read. Maybe because where I grew up it's common to not read and at one point I wasn't reading books at all, just manga. Why should I care if it's not their interest. It's like being rude to someone just because they aren't an otaku or a gamer. Normally a non reader is a mark of a ignorant person half the time but there are so many exceptions to that rule we can't say that anymore.
Unless that was just a joke, apparently your grammar skills are lower than normal.
I technically have the ability to read very fast, and with a somewhat decent percentage of retention. For example, I read some of the Harry Potter books at such a speed (I finished Order of the Phoenix within a good, solid day of reading). However, for a book I care more about such as The Darkness That Comes Before, I don't want to have just "decent retention" after having read it. I want to take my time soaking in the characters - what they look like, how they move, how they sound, what it feels like to be in their presence - and the rich, varied locales of the world. Not to mention I also like stopping to appreciate particularly interesting flourishes in the writing, and going back to previous chapters to remind myself of information I might have either forgotten or glossed over earlier. And specifically in the case of TDTCB, that's not counting all the times I flip to the back to refer to the maps, as Scott says he did while reading it.
Given that I tend to only read books when I am almost certain that I'll really enjoy and care about them, I end up taking this "slower," more leisurely approach to reading more often than not. On the one hand, I really appreciate reading this way; I feel that I get more out of the books I read when I do this. On the other hand, however, I've had friends during many parts of my life who, like Rym, Scott and others on this board, always read very fast (and with great retention to boot). I remember them acting somewhat perplexed when I would tell them how long it was taking me to finish a particular book. "I finished that in a couple days. What's taking you so long?" they would either ask or imply. Remarks and implications such as these, though I know they had no bearing on my intelligence or my abilities, often really stung my ego (though I've rarely said anything about it). There would be this quiet, nagging voice in the back of my mind saying, "They can read fast AND appreciate what they're reading. Why can't you do both too, dumbass?"
I know that Rym and Scott's comments in the Dodgeball episode weren't directed at me or anyone else specifically, but I did feel a bit of that same sting I felt from my speed-reading friends in the past. I'm not calling them out for their comments, and I do not wish that they had gone unspoken. I'm just saying that not all of us who read slowly are doing it due to a lack of intelligence or lack of will. Some of us read slowly, just... because we read slowly. Is there some sort of problem with that?
Reading speed has nothing to do with intelligence. It is simply a useful skill. Comprehension has a lot more to do with intelligence than speed, in my personal opinion.
After reading it I NetFlixed the animated movie and cringed through 75% of it.
The movie is...alright. Not great. It has some good stuff about it, but I feel a lot of the cool things about the original (such as the legends Dandelion tells) are mostly gone. And it's really weird because the movie is actually gorier than the book. Also the rabbits have weird, skinny necks.
Anyways, I just got done reading Jurassic Park.
It was the first time I really got into a novel recently. I finished it in around 2 weeks. At 400 pages, that's probably a slow pace for some, but it's a good pace for me, especially since I didn't read it every day.
But anyway, good for you!
1 Harry Potter
2 The Bible
3 Don't Read
4 Lord Of The Rings
5 The Notebook
Does this scare anyone else? I was expecting magazines to be up there too.
I was member of the Pizza Hut book club and the accelerated reader. I love reading; and I can't understand why other people hate it. Then again.. I can't understand why other people hate math. I guess it's one of things where you get or you don't.
Short stories are awesome. Welcome to the Monkey House by Kurt Vonnegut and anything by H.P Lovecraft are good stories.