|
There are two different issues here:
1. Is reading "bad" books harmful, like eating "bad" food?
2. Should we be critical of others for their choice of reading?
People seem to be focussing on 2, where in my view the answer is "typically, no". If someone is missing out as a result of very limited reading habits, it might be good to encourage them to broaden their horizons, but more than that seems too much.
On 1, although I would admit, of course, that all writing is not the same, I think that it's very difficult to come up with a convincing definition of "good" writing. My favourite kind of writing is very easy to read - getting ideas across clearly and succinctly, without the form getting in the way of the content. Some books which are widely viewed as excellent in a literary sense - winning prizes etc - I find unreadable, feeling like I'm wading through the author's self-indulgence.
Even putting aside a clear definition of what "bad" writing might be, is there any kind of writing - such as that with a small vocabulary - that is harmful as claimed? I don't have any facts here, but my hunch is that reading a wide variety of material, on a wide variety of topics, from a wide range of perspectives, is likely to be better for the brain than a diet of a single type - no matter what its (perceived) quality.
I'm not saying that there's no such thing as poor writing, but I am not convinced that reading poor writing is harmful in any way analagous to bad food, nor that beneficial reading is likely to be found where self-styled intellectuals might imagine.
|