Change Your Mind (On the Reading of Junk)

[Katti's Cat]

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

That's why flashlights were invented!

Yeah - I had 2 flash lights. Just in case I got busted and they confiscated one

[Falbe Publishing]

Originally Posted by kjk

Damn. I'll read anything, even the back of a cereal box at breakfast.

Me too!

[dmaul1114]

Meh. I'll continue my shallow reading. I spend a lot of time already reading research articles and other stuff for work being a college professor.

So I like to read some disposable fiction (fantasy etc.) when I'm doing leisure reading--which is just reading before sleeping a few days a week. I mix in some classic literature, non-fiction etc. every now and then.

But usually after a long day of work I just want to read something that doesn't require too much thought/effort on my part to veg out and relax before sleeping.

I'll also admit that leisure reading has never been a huge hobby of mine. Many things like movies, TV, sports, video games, exercise, hiking, fishing etc. have always been things I'd rather do that sit down and read.

[fugazied]

Is Dan Brown really THAT bad??

I recently read a Dean R Koontz book and compared to that, Dan Brown is a lot more cerebral and would stimulate the right side of the brain FAR more. I don't think any reading has a negative effect though. Any kind of reading (including meyer) is better for the brain than watching TV.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by fugazied

Is Dan Brown really THAT bad??

Not if you realize he's just a fiction author, and don't try to read any more into his books than is given....

They're just stories, people!

[Katti's Cat]

Originally Posted by fugazied

Is Dan Brown really THAT bad??

Don't know if he is THAT bad but certainly not THAT good either. However, the 'da Vinci Code' got me back into reading more historic books about the templars. Which then send me back to mediaval times and I ended up re-reading the books I had about the Fuggers , Medici & Hanseatic League. So it can't have been all bad.

[Penforhire]

I think the strongest complaints about D. Brown are his factual errors, not teaching us correct facts, and his sloppy English, which is no worse than we get from newspapers and many other sources (like my writing here, lol). Those complaints are indeed offset by his entertainment value, at least to those of us who can overlook (or do not notice) his flaws.

I understand both sides. Sometimes I refuse to read past some grievous error or butchering of language. If so, the book sort of stutters for me there as if the author's pants dropped and I'm tossed out of the story by backstage machinations. Other times I let it slide and the book continues to flow. Even critically praised authors are not immune. I had a few such moments in McCarthy's "The Road" because of non-standard language.

[SpiderMatt]

My issue with Dan Brown certainly has a lot more to do with his incredibly simplistic (almost insultingly so) style, same with Stephanie Meyer. I get no enjoyment from that kind of writing. A bad story can hold my attention with amazing writing and a good story can be completely destroyed for me by poor writing. I don't remember liking anything about The Da Vinci Code's story but, like I said, the writing completely ruined it for me.

I think the point of Hazlitt's statement was that people should seek out literature and books that challenge them. You're probably not going to know for sure whether a book holds any value for you unless you read it yourself but you should allow yourself to recognize poor writing vs good writing. I think that's an important skill and that's the point the article was making. If we're more likely to imitate what we write, we should want to read higher quality literature. This has nothing to do with the types of stories a person enjoys but rather the actual writing itself. You won't find me knocking leisure reading because, hell, who in this community doesn't love that? But there should be a line. And why can't more challenging fiction be enjoyable? Shouldn't we strive to teach ourselves to enjoy higher forms of writing? I hate this "just read what you enjoy" catchphrase. Not because you shouldn't enjoy what you read but because it seems to imply this sort of literature hedonism. I think literacy is only a value as long as you allow the skill to mature. There's a reason kids are forced to read certain books in school. It's hoped that they'll be able to recognize good writing and that they'll eventually have an appreciation for it (I think schools mostly do a terrible job at this but that's a different debate). If kids were never forced to eat their veggies when they were young, they would probably grow up with very poor eating habits. I'm sure there are some kids who just love classic lit or broccoli without being forced to do anything (personally, Edgar Allen Poe has been my favorite author since 5th grade and it wasn't anything I was forced to read).

When I say I'm a bit of a lit-snob (and not too much--I did enjoy Harry Potter, much to Harold Bloom's dismay, I'm sure) I only mean that I demand more of myself. It is my opinion that everyone should challenge themselves consistently (not constantly) but I also recognize that people find value in different things. I don't "look down my nose" at anyone for having different reading habits than I. That's just immature. And frankly, I doubt Hazlitt did either. Libertarians are, after all, known for their hands-off, do-what-you-want philosophy (with the caveat being don't infringe on another's right to life, liberty, or property). I don't think there's any need for righteous indignation at comments like these. I have multiple friends who love the Twilight series. They tell me straight up that they know Stephanie Meyer is a bad writer but they like her stories all the same. This totally rubs me the wrong way but I respect that. I didn't say, "Piss off, we can't be friends anymore."

The point being made here is not that there is only one right way to read or that you should only read what the author says is good. He didn't say what is good (at least, nothing mentioned in the article). But if a reader just completely refuses to improve his reading skills or increase his wealth of knowledge through a wide array of literature (like someone who ONLY reads romance novels or ONLY reads fantasy), then there may be room for some appropriate criticism.

[kindlekitten]

yeah, and there are people who think james joyce is good literature. him and DesCartes are a sure fire ticket to depression city

[SpiderMatt]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

yeah, and there are people who think james joyce is good literature. him and DesCartes are a sure fire ticket to depression city

But do you not think a person can enjoy the prose itself, outside the story?

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

I think literacy is only a value as long as you allow the skill to mature.
But if a reader just completely refuses to improve his reading skills or increase his wealth of knowledge through a wide array of literature (like someone who ONLY reads romance novels or ONLY reads fantasy), then there may be room for some appropriate criticism.

I repectfully disagree. I have never read for pleasure anything other than best sellers and the like. I am a graduate of a highly respected law school, and have a very demanding job. You are going to critiize me because I read romance novels? Frankly, I find people with a broad range of interests more interesting than those without. I have "train friends" who exchange romance novels - I started reading romance novels again as a way to relate to them. Who is more deserving of criticism in your mind - someone sitting on the train reading a romance novel, or someone drinking a beer and fighting with his girlfriend on the phone?

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I repectfully disagree. I have never read for pleasure anything other than best sellers and the like. I am a graduate of a highly respected law school, and have a very demanding job. You are going to critiize me because I read romance novels? Frankly, I find people with a broad range of interests more interesting than those without. I have "train friends" who exchange romance novels - I started reading romance novels again as a way to relate to them. ....

Dont' you miss 'better' writing? Don't you miss being challended just a little bit intellectually? Perhaps you get all that on your job, though, and simply need some mindless relaxation. We certainly all do.

I've read - do read - a little romance - but I also consider it 'light fluff' and candy for the mind for the reason that the language is typically 'easy' and the skill of the authors mediocre to poor in this respect - as well as too many clichés.

I had a period of a couple of years where I read mostly fan fiction (it's about the level of romance IMHO). Then I read a couple of books with great writing that reminded me of what I was missing out on. The best thing I can say about it is probably that I now value the craft of good writing even more.

One can't be serious all the time - but one can't be silly all the time either - that's equally boring.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

...
I think the point of Hazlitt's statement was that people should seek out literature and books that challenge them. You're probably not going to know for sure whether a book holds any value for you unless you read it yourself but you should allow yourself to recognize poor writing vs good writing. I think that's an important skill and that's the point the article was making. If we're more likely to imitate what we write, we should want to read higher quality literature. This has nothing to do with the types of stories a person enjoys but rather the actual writing itself. You won't find me knocking leisure reading because, hell, who in this community doesn't love that? But there should be a line. And why can't more challenging fiction be enjoyable? Shouldn't we strive to teach ourselves to enjoy higher forms of writing? I hate this "just read what you enjoy" catchphrase. Not because you shouldn't enjoy what you read but because it seems to imply this sort of literature hedonism. I think literacy is only a value as long as you allow the skill to mature. There's a reason kids are forced to read certain books in school. It's hoped that they'll be able to recognize good writing and that they'll eventually have an appreciation for it (I think schools mostly do a terrible job at this but that's a different debate). If kids were never forced to eat their veggies when they were young, they would probably grow up with very poor eating habits. I'm sure there are some kids who just love classic lit or broccoli without being forced to do anything (personally, Edgar Allen Poe has been my favorite author since 5th grade and it wasn't anything I was forced to read).

I think I can only agree with you (also on the point about the schools ) I've never forced myself (much) to read anything I didn't like, but as I have discovered, over time, is, that the more I expose myself to something, the more I learn about quality - and ultimately I get more discerning. I think that's a quite normal process. What my point was; uh... I forgot Anyway, perhaps it's an overall media consumption thing; do we involve our minds, think, and learn from our media consumption or not? It does, I think, affect our ability to think and learn.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Ea

Dont' you miss 'better' writing? Don't you miss being challended just a little bit intellectually? Perhaps you get all that on your job, though, and simply need some mindless relaxation. We certainly all do.

That's it for me. Being a professor I have an intellectually challenging job, both on the teaching and research fronts.

So reading for me is just mindless relaxation before sleeping as I said before. I'll mix in the occasional classic, read some Shakespeare etc., read a few non-fiction/history/biography books a year. But most of the time I'm just reading some fantasy series, or Chuck Palahniuk's latest book etc. to veg out.

But I'll also reiterate what I said before, with the disclaimer that readings isn't my top hobby, with movies, tv, sports and video games all things I enjoy more.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

But do you not think a person can enjoy the prose itself, outside the story?

personally I cannot enjoy Joyce's prose at all. his writing style is offensive, and now that I think about it, Meyer could be compared to his style. juvenile, incorrect, most laws of grammar tossed out the window....