Change Your Mind (On the Reading of Junk)

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by dioib

I personally see no point in repetition.

Of course there is no point; however, that doesn't mean it can't still be fun.
There is also no point to love, but that hardly means that it can't be meaningful to the agent or recipient.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

There is more than enough research that links working consistently below your previously-received level of education with cognitive decline, yes. This is not to say that reading a single fluff novel will make you retarded, but I don't think that's what the quoted author was trying to say.

The quoted author said that "bad" reading was like "bad" food, and didn't say that working consistently below your education level would lead to cognitive decline, but rather suggested that what he thought of as "bad" reading was harmful - even as part of a calorie-controlled diet. He did indeed suggest that reading a single fluff novel was harmful - even if not saying it was fatally so.

I'm not convinced that there is more than enough research to support your point either. Academia often looks down its nose at forms of cognition that are alien to it. Take, for example, creole languages, which were often dismissed as being a simplified subset of the parent languages, but which more recent research shows to be equally rich grammatically.

Sure, if you don't exercise your brain at all it can suffer, but there are many ways to stay sharp, and sticking to "good" reading (whatever that means) is not required.

Anyway, arguments about 'integrative thinking' are very nice, but to notice trends they have to be there. And while there are definitely patterns in romance novels (girl meets prince, girl bats eyelashes, girl becomes pregnant and enjoys a 'fulfilling life' in tent of bedouin), they are not necessarily very interesting ones. GIGO applies. There is no reason to expect that "different material" will only reliably expand horizons when you vary both the subject and the quality; varying the former should be more than sufficient.

My point was not that people would see patterns within each different type of reading, but that they would see patterns across them - and the reason that I mentioned "integrative thinking" was that the author mentioned right-brainedness.

Why is there no reason to expect that reading different material will expand ones horizons? I have every reason, because whenever I've done it, it has.

If you keep reading the same kind of stuff, then I'd agree that you'll get less and less out of it. But reading a wide range (in various dimensions) will, I think, make you sharper rather than duller.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by dioib

I personally see no point in repetition.

Do you mean that you see no point in re-reading something?

I rarely find that it is repetition to read the same book again, especially if there are several years inbetween. Even if it's still me, the reader can be very different.

Do you ever listen to an album twice?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

Compare that to the modern bias against graphic novels. Things have certainly changed over the last several decades, allowing graphic novels like Maus (the only graphic novel to ever win a Pulitzer) and Persepolis to rise to prominence. However, there is still a common view that graphic novels or comic books are for kids and shouldn't be taken seriously. It may be decades still before people start to go back and realize that certain comics from today have cultural relevance that we're just too close to see.

I have a deep seated bias against graphic novels, whether serious or comic.

To me......(and this is just my opinion) reading is meant to immerse you into another world.

Your mind forms the characters, gives them faces, voices, personalities.....you become involved in that world, thru your own imagination.

With graphic novels, the work is done for you. The pictures tell you what you should see.......ie, the authors version, not your own.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

....
With graphic novels, the work is done for you. The pictures tell you what you should see.......ie, the authors version, not your own.

You could say the same about movies.... But you still visit the cinema once in while, right?

Graphic novels and comics are visual storytelling. I can't see how it is necessarily less than storytelling through words.

Besides, unless the author describes the 'world' richly, I don't really imagine a lot when I read. Only if it's necessary to follow the plot. Lately, I've found myself more and more appreciative of authors who can describe visually in detail - an example would be Tolkien describing a landscape. In her latest work, Byatt have been critisised for being overlt detailed in her descriptions. I absolutely loved that part of it.

[dmaul1114]

Yep. I agree. But then again I'm a more visual person. If I have 2 hours of precious free time, I'll choose a movie, TV, sports or a video game over reading pretty much every time.

I enjoy a good novel, but I pretty much just read them a chapter or two a night to unwind before sleeping, or when stuck on a plane etc. as I enjoy more visual forms of entertainment more.

That and spending a lot of time reading and writing at work leaves me less enthusiastic to do more reading in my spare time.

And I'm also the same way about imagination. If the author isn't very descriptive I'm not going to be doing much visualization in my head. I've never been a very creative or imaginative person.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Ea

You could say the same about movies.... But you still visit the cinema once in while, right?

Graphic novels and comics are visual storytelling. I can't see how it is necessarily less than storytelling through words.

Besides, unless the author describes the 'world' richly, I don't really imagine a lot when I read. Only if it's necessary to follow the plot. Lately, I've found myself more and more appreciative of authors who can describe visually in detail - an example would be Tolkien describing a landscape. In her latest work, Byatt have been critisised for being overlt detailed in her descriptions. I absolutely loved that part of it.

Every tried Aldous Huxley? I was stunned at his writing style. I remember thinking........."Now THIS is writing!"

"Visual storytelling" A nice phrase.........but is it reading?

I looked up the book "Maus".....the subject matter is serious, worthy of writing about. Perhaps the author feels he can reel in more readers, younger readers thru the artwork. I don't know.


Are graphic novels considered junk food or nutritious food in Henry Hazletts mind?

[khalleron]

I'm reminded of the time I was visiting my favorite newstand when I lived in Pasadena. The clerk was complaining he'd been having a series of nightmares where he was brutally murdering German philosophers.

I told him his problem was that he was too d**m serious, and prescribed a course of PG Wodehouse.

Philosophy and tragedy may make your mind 'deeper', but humor keeps it supple.

It's all about balance. As most things are.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by khalleron

... The clerk was complaining he'd been having a series of nightmares where he was brutally murdering German philosophers.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by khalleron

The clerk was complaining he'd been having a series of nightmares where he was brutally murdering German philosophers.

Philosophy and tragedy may make your mind 'deeper', but humor keeps it supple.

So it is your understanding that philosophy and humor are mutually exclusive domains, and that tragedies can only contain tragic elements?
Because if not, I don't really understand why the false dichotomy.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

So it is your understanding that philosophy and humor are mutually exclusive domains, and that tragedies can only contain tragic elements?
Because if not, I don't really understand why the false dichotomy.

No, not mutually exclusive, but not often found together in the wild.

[SpiderMatt]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Every tried Aldous Huxley? I was stunned at his writing style. I remember thinking........."Now THIS is writing!"

"Visual storytelling" A nice phrase.........but is it reading?

I looked up the book "Maus".....the subject matter is serious, worthy of writing about. Perhaps the author feels he can reel in more readers, younger readers thru the artwork. I don't know.


Are graphic novels considered junk food or nutritious food in Henry Hazletts mind?

Henry Hazlitt was born in 1894 and died in 1993. I don't know that he was the type of person to appreciate comics (he was probably closer in age to the generation calling for such funny books to be banned in the 50s, although most certainly not of such people's philosophical or political persuasion) but you must admit that the term "good book" can have a plethora of meanings. If the content is serious and educational then I see no reason why a graphic novel can't be good (and I enjoy plenty of fluff in graphic novels, as well). I think there have been some rather good literary talents in the graphic novel medium in the past. Alan Moore has a pretty brilliant mind and his literary allusions can often times be rather impressive. Neil Gaiman got his start in comics, his Sandman series shooting him into the national spotlight. I think Maus is presented in a simple manner but the story is moving and the impact is not lessened by the medium. I don't think there's any need for a bias against a certain medium. Someone already pointed out the example of of movies but the same goes for television, radio, and other types of media on the internet. It's not the medium that matters, it's the content.

I will say, though, that Steve Ditko has many fans in libertarian circles. So who knows what Hazlitt thought about him?

And if anyone's interested, I did find the book Hazlitt was quoted from on Google Books: Thinking as a Science. You can search for his quotes to see them in context and read more of what he was saying on the subject. I'd comment on it myself but I don't have the time to read it just yet. It is in the public domain, though, so you can download the EPUB and put it on your favorite reader. :-)

[brookietx]

Reading "bad" books is sometimes quite relaxing...you don't have to remember where you stopped, just pick it up and read. Example: space operas from E E "Doc" Smith. I do
sincerely doubt that anyone "intelligent" enough to have a reading habit/obsession is
going to let what they read totally rule their lives and learning. On second thought, does that really pertain at all to those who are of "mature" years and develop crushes on
young not-so-good singers (even if the person with the crush reads good books?)
Forgive the musing...no caffine yet!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by khalleron

No, not mutually exclusive, but not often found together in the wild.

Several of Plato's dialogues (I've posted his "complete works" here to MR) are extremely funny.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

Henry Hazlitt was born in 1894 and died in 1993. I don't know that he was the type of person to appreciate comics (he was probably closer in age to the generation calling for such funny books to be banned in the 50s, although most certainly not of such people's philosophical or political persuasion) but you must admit that the term "good book" can have a plethora of meanings. If the content is serious and educational then I see no reason why a graphic novel can't be good (and I enjoy plenty of fluff in graphic novels, as well). I think there have been some rather good literary talents in the graphic novel medium in the past. Alan Moore has a pretty brilliant mind and his literary allusions can often times be rather impressive. Neil Gaiman got his start in comics, his Sandman series shooting him into the national spotlight. I think Maus is presented in a simple manner but the story is moving and the impact is not lessened by the medium. I don't think there's any need for a bias against a certain medium. Someone already pointed out the example of of movies but the same goes for television, radio, and other types of media on the internet. It's not the medium that matters, it's the content.

I knew commenting on 'graphic novels' was skating toward the edge.

I've never thought of them as "Books", more like "Comic Books for Adults".....okay, put your sticks away.

Was discussing this with my daughter, 3rd grade teacher. Seems she has "Maus" and I'll be reading it as a soon as she finds it....something without this thread I would never even have thought of. She needed it for a class she took once.

Again.....my main concern/bias here is the possible lack of imagination (brainwork) needed to truly "read".

But see.......does that put me in the same class as the author of that article? Am I being a 'lit snob'?

Question. Is a graphic novel literature?