Change Your Mind (On the Reading of Junk)

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Katti's Cat

Ah but where is the fun in that? I used to tell them I had something cooking so couldn't talk but now I involve them in a discussion. Scary really how much I know about religion and the bible.

Each to their own I say - happy to talk & discuss anyones religion without trying to shuff my opinion down anyone's throat.

I love to discuss the big questions, but not with people who have closed minds and ready-made answers. I feel I'm eminently qualified to discuss the nature of Ultimate Reality, for I believe I know as much about it as Pat Robertson, the Pope, all rabbis, gurus, shamans, preachers, imams and all other religious teachers combined.

... in other words, nothing.

[DawnFalcon]

Well, it gets the Mormons to go away, anyway

[hnoto]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

:
Who decides what is "good" and "bad"?

Reading can be, and is, an escape for many.

Personally, I think people should read what they enjoy........and the rest of us, including so called 'experts' should mind our own business.

But......thats just me.

I have nothing to add to this.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

....

Reading can be, and is, an escape for many.

...

So can be reality TV.... So can be binging on ice-cream late at night.

I can understand some enjoying trash novels. What I don't understand is the need to insist they have equal value to Gogol.

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

....If I read the book "The Da Vinci Code" and thoroughly enjoyed it because it gave me an alternate point of view to a long established religious opinion...."

Viewing The Da Vinci Code as an alternative point of view to a "long established religious opinion" is scary, even though I hold the validity of "religious opinion" on par with that of The Da Vinci Code....

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Sonist

So can be reality TV.... So can be binging on ice-cream late at night.
I can understand some enjoying trash novels. What I don't understand is the need to insist they have equal value to Gogol.


You compare watching TV and binging to reading?

Really?



Viewing The Da Vinci Code as an alternative point of view to a "long established religious opinion" is scary, even though I hold the validity of "religious opinion" on par with that of The Da Vinci Code....

That is your choice. My point? Everyone has a right to their own views and beliefs.

As long as they don't hurt anyone else.

[dmaul1114]

One can talk about certain literature being "better" without going around and demeaning people who choose to read lighter fare.

No one wants to be told what they're reading is garbage, or bashed that they need to broaden their horizons.

If one likes great literature, one should read it and enjoy it and discuss it with others that enjoy it. No need to be snobbish and bash people who just read romance, or fantasy etc.

Just like fantasy fans (or any other genre) seek out fellow fans to discuss the work with, literature buffs should seek fellow literature buffs out and to discuss their hobby wiht and leave people with different tests alone rather than coming off as snobby and superior for challenging themselves in their reading etc.

To each their own. Some want to challenge themselves in their leisure reading, others get plenty of intellectual challenge in their jobs and other areas and read to escape.

[GA Russell]

If I may wade in at this late date...

I agree with Henry Hazlitt. As one poster said umpteen pages ago: garbage in, garbage out.

I sense that many posters here defend poor quality writing by asserting that reading it is better for you than watching most television. Hazlitt's book was written in 1916, decades before television, so it is very possible that he would agree with that sentiment. But so what?

I see that others are defending their enjoyment of humorous literature. But Hazlitt didn't say that everything you read need be heavy. His argument was about the quality of the writing, not the weight of the subject matter.

Finally, I am surprised that so many are taking the view that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so no one can say whether a book is poor or good writing. I think that's silly. Of course there will always be differences of opinion regarding any particular book. Some will love titles that others will dislike.

But if you think that there is no such thing as poor writing, then I think that Hazlitt is talking to you.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Finally, I am surprised that so many are taking the view that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so no one can say whether a book is poor or good writing. I think that's silly. Of course there will always be differences of opinion regarding any particular book. Some will love titles that others will dislike.

But if you think that there is no such thing as poor writing, then I think that Hazlitt is talking to you.

I don't think many (if any) have said that. There certainly different quality of writing out there.

What people are saying is people shoudn't go around bashing people for their reading tastes.

Maybe it is garbage in, garbage out. But I have a Ph D, and work in academia so I'm challenging myself intellectually day in, day out with work. I don't often have the energy to read challenging literature with my leisure reading--which is usually just reading for 30 minutes or so before sleeping.

So when someone says whatever fantasy book I'm reading is garbage and I'm rotting my brain, you'll have to forgive me if my only response is a resounding "f*** you!" as I'm probably taxing and expanding my intellect more than the snobbish prick saying that 99% of the time given my profession.

Again, read what you like. Discuss the merits of a book. No need for people to bash others for their reading interests.

I also don't like all the negativity toward TV, movies etc. here. I realize this is a cite for avid readers/bookworms. But again, no need to be snobbish. A great movie or show can be just as rewarding as a great book. They key is story telling (be it fiction or non-fiction), and books, TV shows, movies, etc. all mediums for story tellers to spin their tales.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I agree with Henry Hazlitt. As one poster said umpteen pages ago: garbage in, garbage out.

I sense that many posters here defend poor quality writing by asserting that reading it is better for you than watching most television. Hazlitt's book was written in 1916, decades before television, so it is very possible that he would agree with that sentiment. But so what?

I see that others are defending their enjoyment of humorous literature. But Hazlitt didn't say that everything you read need be heavy. His argument was about the quality of the writing, not the weight of the subject matter.

Finally, I am surprised that so many are taking the view that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so no one can say whether a book is poor or good writing. I think that's silly. Of course there will always be differences of opinion regarding any particular book. Some will love titles that others will dislike.

But if you think that there is no such thing as poor writing, then I think that Hazlitt is talking to you.

Again......."garbage" in whose eyes?

"Poor writing" is not the issue.

Having the audacity to judge someone by the types of books they read is.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

...

I also don't like all the negativity toward TV, movies etc. here. ... A great movie or show can be just as rewarding as a great book....

We are in agreement here.

But, just like with books, all the other mediums have their standards and their trash.

I have to disagree again with defining all people holding advanced degrees as intellectuals. A well-rounded intellectual may be more likely to hold an advanced degree, but advanced degrees do not alone an intellectual make.

Degrees make professionals, but it is up to the individual to develop into an intellectual.

It is possible for one to be an accomplished attorney, or a fund manager, or a physics professor, yet be a socially inept, uninteresting, ignorant yokel, outside of their narrow field.

Nobody is bashing people who read pulp fiction. But one needs to be aware that pulp fiction and good fiction are not the same. Just like one needs to be aware that The Da Vinci Code has little to do with history of religion.

We spend our lives learning to discriminate between the worthy, the not-so worthy and the junk. This applies to all sorts of information, and for many people, it starts at a very young age, with books.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by hnoto

I have nothing to add to this.

I have nothing to add to this. thanks DGma !

[Ben Thornton]

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.

[GeoffC]

Nice commentary Ben, and yes I do agree.
The description of "bad" and "good" can only be subjective.

Even 'experts' will tend to vary on their own opinions.

Surely what matters is the enjoyment the reader gets from whatever they read. (in this, of course, I am referring solely to fiction/non-fiction being an entirely different 'animal'.)

[kennyc]

Well.....

There's really two aspects to anything one is an individual response to anything, and one is a social response, because we are all individuals as well as members of society. There are individual beliefs/opinions and social beliefs/opinions. Neither is right or wrong for one or the other, but neither does that negate them.

There is a social (collective) opinion of what is good literature/writing and what is bad. This may or may not match individual preferences. Neither is right or wrong, but certainly they exist.

[Sparrow]

Aren't there books that haunt you long after you've read them?
And aren't they worth distinguishing from the books that were great while you were reading them, but can be disposed off the moment you've finished?