Change Your Mind (On the Reading of Junk)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

...

(Except perhaps, for "Dune"....that sucker dragged out until eternity.)

[Penforhire]

Well, since "comics" (cave drawings) predate the written word I doubt there are any real risks involved here.

[Ben Thornton]

Surely neither books nor films are "better", just different. Some things come across better visually while others - especially where there is a focus on what people are thinking and feeling - are often best done with words.

I agree with your sentiment that people shouldn't be snotty about "good" reading, but I don't think that people were being so on this thread - we were discussing the reference to someone who perhaps was (although I only read the excerpt, so may not be doing him justice).

On the comics front, they're not something that I look at often, but I was given an interesting one for Christmas called "Logicomix" which is about Bertrand Russell's quest to find an unassailable foundation for logic. It would have been difficult to capture the flavour of that book in text, I think.

I've also got the BBC comics for Othello and King Lear - I'd recommend any of that series if you encounter them second hand. They are the full text, but the illustrations make it a closer experience to seeing them played, compared to reading them "dry" on the page.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Surely neither books nor films are "better", just different. Some things come across better visually while others - especially where there is a focus on what people are thinking and feeling - are often best done with words.

Agreed...mostly. It's really a personal preference to what you think is better.

What someone is thinking probably goes more to books.

Emotions I would give to film personally. Seeing a great actor portraying emotions has a lot more impact on me than reading about what a character is feeling personally.

[kad032000]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

I guess my true fear is......will the artwork evolve and get more intricate, will people need to 'read' less to understand the story?

Thats scary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decompression_%28comics%29

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I just find it superior personally as I'm more in the camp that a story teller needs to get the story to you exactly the way the want you to experience it. Books leave too much to the imagination--but I know that's what you and others love about them.

With film you have the words (dialogue) but also the images, the voices, the emotions etc. portraying things as the director intends and most everyone watching it should have a similar emotional reaction on a scene by scene basis etc.

But that's just me. I'm a very visual person, and not very imaginative/creative so I get more out of a great movie than I do a great book--though I enjoy both.

Similarly, I hate abstract art. I want to see an artist get his message across to nearly everyone who sees it, not make something that gives different experiences to different people.

So that's kind of where I'm coming from on my appreciation of art, movies, books etc.

Valid points.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sorry, KC.......

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Well, since "comics" (cave drawings) predate the written word I doubt there are any real risks involved here.

Uh.......maybe because there wasn't literacy at the time?

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Surely neither books nor films are "better", just different. Some things come across better visually while others - especially where there is a focus on what people are thinking and feeling - are often best done with words.

I agree with your sentiment that people shouldn't be snotty about "good" reading, but I don't think that people were being so on this thread - we were discussing the reference to someone who perhaps was (although I only read the excerpt, so may not be doing him justice).

On the comics front, they're not something that I look at often, but I was given an interesting one for Christmas called "Logicomix" which is about Bertrand Russell's quest to find an unassailable foundation for logic. It would have been difficult to capture the flavour of that book in text, I think.

I've also got the BBC comics for Othello and King Lear - I'd recommend any of that series if you encounter them second hand. They are the full text, but the illustrations make it a closer experience to seeing them played, compared to reading them "dry" on the page.

Really? I am so out of it. (cue in witch scene from Wizard of Oz, the original.........."OH, what a world, what a world......."

Well, I can see we're way off topic. Apologies for hijacking your thread.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

...

If you want to be an intellectual, get into science, research, and other intellectual topics and leave the literature for entertainment IMO. I basically view fiction reading the same I do movies, TV, video games etc. Entertainment/art, not something I do to expand my intellect....

I'd argue that "intellectual" refers more often to someone with a broad range of ccross-disciplinary knowledge, rather than to someone with a narrow, specialized focus.

The latter would be generally referred to as "professional," or a "scientist," and often may not necessarily be a welcome addition to a broad-scope erudite discourse.

There are a number of studies, showing that increased leisure reading among children corresponds to increased performance on standardized tests (although this may be attributable to genetics, or to socioeconomic circumstances, or to all of the above).

This article may (or may not:-) support the correlation between the decline of leisure reading, among other things, and the decline in SAT-verbal scores.

[dmaul1114]

I guess. My point is more that I don't really consider appreciating literature and art to be part of being intellectualism.

But that's just another bias. I'm a social scientist and academia so I'm pretty snooty about what knowledge/intellectualism is--just like many hear are snooty about what literature/art are.

For me books, music, movies etc. are just entertainment really. I don't get into it from an "art" or intellectual standpoint. I stick to science, history and other non-fiction stuff for broadening my intellect. I pick up a novel or put on a movie when I want to turn my intellect off.

But if others want to take fiction books etc. more seriously, there's nothing wrong with that and I wouldn't knock them or insult them for it. I just don't approach literature and art from an intellectual standpoint personally.

[SpiderMatt]

Threads grow so fast in this place before I ever have time to respond! Haha.

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

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?

I think it's really great that you're willing to give Maus a try, whether you come out loving it or not. I love trying to get people into comics by showing them content that they might have not considered would be covered in such a medium. Most people still think of comics as all capes and tights. But I'm a comic geek and I love to get out the word. I also have respect for anyone willing to give something new a try. I remember trying to get my step-mom to watch Grave of the Fireflies, an anime movie about Japan during WWII. She's very much into WWII history but apparently has a deep-seated bias against animated movies that aren't of the Disney ilk (humorous kids movies). She doesn't see it as an appropriate medium for serious story-telling and refused to watch it at the time. I think her bias has been broken down a bit since then but I was a little sad that I couldn't get her to take a chance on it at the time. Haha. But she'll read about WWII history like nobody's business!

At any rate, I'm glad this thread introduced you to Maus and hope you can read it with an open mind. You may be pleasantly surprised. Did your daughter go to ASU? I just got out of the navy a few months ago and started up school there this semester. When buying my books I noticed that there are actually a couple classes that require Maus. I thought that was kind of cool.

Concerning the terms graphic novel vs comic book (yes, I know I'm getting off topic on my own thread!), the meanings most of us comic geeks have adopted concerns length. While your typical monthly 22-page (or so) magazine is called a comic book, the longer works like Maus are referred to as graphic novels. Comic books, in this instance, would be more appropriately referred to as graphic novellas or graphic short stories. Sometimes a complete, cohesive work made up of several comic books will come to be known as a graphic novel. Alan Moore's Watchmen, for example, is often referred to and sold as a single graphic novel even though it was originally published as 12 separate comic books. Time Magazine even included Watchmen in its list of the 100 greatest novels of all time. Such a placement on that list is very debatable (I'd probably debate it myself even though I LOVE Watchmen), but the very fact that it was included in such a list made for novels is pretty amazing.

I guess that brings up the question again: are graphic novels literature? Time would probably say yes. As I mentioned before, Alan Moore does tend to be more "literary" in his style. He tends to be more verbose in his comics, though I would argue that it adds so much to the experience. If we just want to argue semantics here, then literature does imply some written word so I don't know if a comic with no words can be appropriately referred to as literature. Doesn't make it less of an art form, just not literature by definition.

To respond to some of dmaul1114's complaints, I'll start off by saying it wasn't my intention to insult anyone. I did say there's room for criticism if someone ONLY reads a specific genre and I stick to that. I think there is inherent value in dynamic reading, probably value you can't see until you experience it. I'm NOT saying you're stupid if you don't read a lot but you miss out on a lot. Depending on the kind of job you want to get into, reading a lot of varied literature may give an advantage. I'm a journalism major so there are two very important things I gain from reading pertaining to (what will hopefully be) my future career: style and substance. If what the article in the main post argues is correct (and in my experience, it most certainly is), then I will imitate what I read in my writing style, at least to some extent. I also don't think it's true to say you can gain the same amount of knowledge through other media. Maybe with an immense amount of time put in. Otherwise, you're going to gain so much more knowledge in one fair-sized book (let's say 300+ pages) about any subject than a documentary on that same subject. Other media are also more known for exaggeration (not all the time, but frequently) because they have more money to recoup and grabbing the attention of viewers from early on is very important. Even in fiction, I believe literature is more immersive than other media simply because of all the extra information that can be provided (the main criticism of film adaptations is due to things that have to be modified or left out because there simply isn't time to fit it all in). That last one does have a lot to do with personal preference, though.

I most certainly do think fiction can shape one's opinion, though. Even if you don't realize it, themes and values are communicated through fiction and the audience must reject or accept those themes at least on an unconscious level. That fictional story (whether it be film, book, or otherwise) then educates the audience about those themes or values. The view of the author or director becomes part of how you think about such values, even if you vehemently disagree with the portrayal. So I most certainly think the kids of fiction a person enjoys is important and this may be part of how people discern "junk" from "quality."

I would like to reiterate, though, that I am most certainly not slighting anyone's intelligence here. I'm not saying, "I read The Economist, so I'm smarter and better than you." I would never say that out loud! No, I'm kidding. I'm not so pompous as to believe intelligence hinges on your reading material but I do think that knowledge does (these two are not one in the same). I have seen this in my own life. I read more than most of my peers at Arizona State (perhaps not a big surprise) and am frequently stunned at the amount of misinformation and misuse of words that I come across. There can certainly be other factors at play here but I think reading has a big part to do with it. Likewise, many of my friends read more than I do and they are chock-fully of knowledge about stuff I've never heard of. It's kind of humbling, actually, and really inspires a guy to read more! Perhaps you think there's not much value in bulk knowledge but I would argue otherwise, especially as the workforce becomes more competitive (more people today have bachelor's and master's degrees than ever before and the numbers are not going to decrease). Knowledge can give a person a competitive edge and can really help someone be more creative and innovative in ways people would never consider just by looking at the topic of the material they're learning. This is why elective credits exist in college. They want you to learn things that are outside your concentration. It's important. And I would argue that reading IS knowledge and knowledge is power. Or maybe you take the more pessimistic Dilbert view:



Oh, Dilbert...

And while different generations may, in large, have different views on reading, it's not just an age thing. I'm 23. I love reading. I love all sorts of tech gadgets, even my e-ink reader (I have now owned 3--the PRS-500, Kindle 1, and Kindle 2). I would never trade my Kindle 2 in for something like an (ugh!) iPad. But going back to biases, I have a big one against Apple. So I think a love and appreciation for reading has much more to do with how a person is raised than age itself. My generation did not solely influence my habits. Again, not claiming superiority here. This is not about being "better" or "worse" or "smarter" or "dumber." I'm just making the same argument that so many before me have made: there is inherent value in reading and what you choose to read is important.

[dmaul1114]

I guess I should clarify a bit.

I agree people's beliefs, thinking system, values etc. CAN be changed by reading fiction, watching movies etc.

I just think people should strive to be more intellectual and not let fictional work/entertainment inform their beliefs, the way they think about the world etc.

That should be shaped by factual information. Non-fiction books, history books, documentaries, news sources (not op eds or Limbaugh/Olbermann!) etc.

As you say, knowledge is power. Much better than the knowledge come from factual sources and not fictional ones!

Fiction has value, any reading can improve verbal IQ etc. But the main benefit of that should be used in building one's intellect from putting those skills to use in acquiring and processing factual information, thinking critically about it etc. IMO.

[SpiderMatt]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I guess I should clarify a bit.

I agree people's beliefs, thinking system, values etc. CAN be changed by reading fiction, watching movies etc.

I just think people should strive to be more intellectual and not let fictional work/entertainment inform their beliefs, the way they think about the world etc.

That should be shaped by factual information. Non-fiction books, history books, documentaries, news sources (not op eds or Limbaugh/Olbermann!) etc.

As you say, knowledge is power. Much better than the knowledge come from factual sources and not fictional ones!

Fiction has value, any reading can improve verbal IQ etc. But the main benefit of that should be used in building one's intellect from putting those skills to use in acquiring and processing factual information, thinking critically about it etc. IMO.

I agree! And I think Henry Hazlitt would, too. I think the more knowledge a person gains, the more inevitable it becomes that he will use it. If you don't use knowledge gained, can you really say you've gained anything at all?

[dmaul1114]

To go a bit futher, what I mean is I don't much care whether someone only fictional reading is fantasy, romance etc., or whether they're mixing in classics and "serious" literature.

I care that they're making effort to build their knowledge and intellect in someway and just not living a life devoted to working a mindless job and filling their head with entertainment (whether highbrow or low brow) in their spare time.

I don't think fiction plays a large role in building intellect or knowledge. It may build vocabulary and verbal IQ, but that's only worth something if you use it to build your knowledge and intellect in other areas with factual information, science, theory etc. etc. etc.

As such I just think it silly for people like Hazlitt to be snooty about what fictional reading a person does. I care MUCH more about how their building their factual knowledge and developing their intellect.

[TallMomof2]

Graphic novels are a wonderful addition to reading. I have a teenage son with a specific learning disability where he is extremely weak in abstract reasoning. He is literally a literalist. For him graphic novels are a way for him to enjoy reading and understand more of what he reads. In his Language Arts classes the teacher uses graphic novels and movies to make classic literature accessible to the students. I believe that what you read is far less important than actually reading.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Fiction has value, any reading can improve verbal IQ etc. But the main benefit of that should be used in building one's intellect from putting those skills to use in acquiring and processing factual information, thinking critically about it etc. IMO.

And it's precisely that approach which turns many people off reading. Being preached to about a medium they want to approach from an escapist point of view is the best way to discourage them from participating. It's far more important to get people into the habit of reading.

It's also ignoring the fact that SciFi in particular is an excellent way of exploring questions which society would balk at addressing in a "modern" setting.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by 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 PG Wodehouse.

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

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

I read books that are heavy-duty. Often I will plow through a book I don’t understand simply for the experience of stretching my mind. I read to learn and grow intellectually. Much of what I read is hard work.

If all my reading fell under the category of hard work, I would grow weary and probably give it up. That’s why I spice up my reading by alternating the heavy-lifting with things that are just pure fun. Yes, I read René Descartes, but I also read Woody Allen. I read Francis Bacon (hindered greatly by my lack of knowledge of Latin, which he’s always falling into), but I follow it with a book of jokes by Steve Allen. I read Sagan, Primrose, and Hawking, and then season them well with a hefty helping of Douglas Adams. I also try to get variety into my reading. I feel it helps me to be well-rounded.

Thomas Jefferson, as Humanities Scholar and Jefferson impersonator Clay Jenkinson frequently tells us, believed that a person’s diet should contain just enough meat to season their vegetables. For me personally, I think a literary diet should contain just enough fluff to make the heavier fare palatable.

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

… Question. Is a graphic novel literature?

It can certainly be art that is in no way inferior to literature, but whether telling stories with graphics is literature proper may be more of a technical question that is beyond my expertise to answer. Movies tell stories, but because the medium is different, movies are not considered literature any more than a book is considered a paper-movie.

Originally Posted by Jellby

The only problem with "comic book" as a term, is the possible ambiguity of the word "comic", some comic books are not comic at all.

Who the h-e-double-hockey-sticks ever thought it was a good idea to join the word “comic” with “book”? Even as a child, I hated that term.

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

… I most certainly do think fiction can shape one's opinion, though. Even if you don't realize it, themes and values are communicated through fiction and the audience must reject or accept those themes at least on an unconscious level. That fictional story (whether it be film, book, or otherwise) then educates the audience about those themes or values. The view of the author or director becomes part of how you think about such values, even if you vehemently disagree with the portrayal.

...

Again, not claiming superiority here. This is not about being "better" or "worse" or "smarter" or "dumber." I'm just making the same argument that so many before me have made: there is inherent value in reading and what you choose to read is important.

Well said.

Sherlock Holmes said something similar in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s A Study in Scarlet, although I think he miscalculated the brain’s abilities to process and store new information. (It turns out that the attic’s walls are much more elastic that realized even a few short years ago.)

"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."