Change Your Mind (On the Reading of Junk)

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Surely what matters is the enjoyment the reader gets from whatever they read.

I agree that enjoyment is an important aspect of the value of reading a book, but there are other aspects too - such as what you learn from it (more broadly, how it changes what you think). Some books will have more to give than others, but what the reader takes from the book depends also on the reader.

Originally Posted by kennyc

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.

Really? I think that defining this is problematic. Academia seems to have moved, in many areas at least, to a post-modernist position where the idea of a "correct" view of facts is suspect, never mind values (not that I agree with them, but that seems to be a consensus in many areas). Looking more broadly, is the social consensus what sells, what people read? So, is Dan Brown great literature, in terms of the social consensus? What collective opinion are you thinking of, that "certainly" exists? If it's the traditional view of what constitutes good literature, I'm not sure that this coincides with a social consensus.

Originally Posted by 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?

This is another interesting perspective. For me, I find that it's the content, rather than the form, that is more likely to cause this. A recent account of an "honour" killing caused me to skip breakfast and has stuck with me since, but it wasn't because it was great lit. Books that I remember having a big impact on me were those where I first encountered an idea, not necessarily where it was best expressed.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

...

Really? I think that defining this is problematic. Academia seems to have moved, in many areas at least, to a post-modernist position where the idea of a "correct" view of facts is suspect, never mind values (not that I agree with them, but that seems to be a consensus in many areas). Looking more broadly, is the social consensus what sells, what people read? So, is Dan Brown great literature, in terms of the social consensus? What collective opinion are you thinking of, that "certainly" exists? If it's the traditional view of what constitutes good literature, I'm not sure that this coincides with a social consensus.
.....

not problematic at all. I'm just stating the fact there is a social opinion in the popular world as well as the academic world which may or may not agree with any individual opinion.

[Lemurion]

I think it's important to divorce the quality of the work from the genre.

Every genre has both excellent and abysmal books. One can read good books in fantasy, SF, romance, mystery or any other genre; however, one can also read crappy books in every genre too. You can also learn from both good and bad books - even if it's only what not to do.

As for the question of whether graphic novels are literature; I think that's the wrong way to phrase the question. I think it would be better reformulated as "Can graphic novels be considered literature?" I believe some of them can. I'm not so much speaking of the trade paperback or hardcover collections of half a dozen issues of Spider-Man or Batman as I am of works like Watchmen, which was conceived as a single whole.

Watchmen has won awards and is widely considered a work of literature. It's a story that as written could only be told in the graphic form. It's not just the plot and character but also aspects like panel arrangement (which cannot be duplicated in other forms) that help cement it as a notable literary work.

Someone mentioned E.E. "Doc" Smith further up the thread as an example of space opera that they could simply pick up and read from any point. Even so, as a student of his work, I wouldn't really consider "Doc" a bad writer. While characterization was not his strong point, he was very technically skillful (often using hideously convoluted but grammatically correct English) and there are several levels to much of his later work.

Then there are people like Robert E. Howard. He wrote adventure stories for the pulps; which by some standards would be considered "bad." Is reading Howard "bad?" There are several dozen volumes of Howard scholarship that could dispute that. That's not counting the current reissues of his fiction both by Del Rey and the University of Nebraska Press. (Plus other less well known editions.)

I think it's as much about how much one is willing to put into the work as the work itself. If one reads actively and with their mind fully engaged in the work, then how can it be bad for one's mind?

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Sonist

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.

I didn't say a degree MADE a person intellectual. I just said I have a Ph D and work in an intellectual job (professor--research and teaching), so I'll offer a resounding "f*** you" to anyone who says I'm rotting my brain and not developing my intellect since my reading lately has been some fantasy series.


Again, it's just stupid to judge anyone in anyway based on what they are reading in their spare time as that's only part of the story.

If it's a lady with a high school degree who works scrubbing toilets and her only reading is trashy romance novels, then yeah, she's probably not very intellectual.

But if the lady has a Ph D and works in an intellectual job for 60+ hours a week like I do--doing work that IMO develops the intellect more than fiction reading ever can--then one looks pretty silly bashing her for rotting her intellect for reading trashy romance novels.

Though in either case people should just shut up and mind their own business. One can think whatever they want about how much garbage the book is--no need to bash others, insult others, try to pressure others into reading better quality literature etc.

Again, people should just read what they like and find people who share their general tastes/views on the hobby (that's what book clubs, are for) and not worry about those with different tastes.

Again, being a big movie fan, I don't go around telling people who only watch a few big Blockbusters like Avatar a year that they need to quit rotting their brains and start seeing more indie films, foreign films, classics and documentaries.

I let them enjoy and find people with similar interests to discuss film with.

Originally Posted by 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?

It's a resounding NO to both IMO.

1. No reading is harmful. It's all words. Even bad writing can improve your vocabulary, make you use your imagination etc.

Now some books are better than others for sure. Some books will give you more to think about, challenge your vocabulary more than others, etc.

But it's just that some books may be "better" for your intellect than others. The lesser books don't harm your intellect in any way, shape or form. They just do less to challenge it. And there's nothing wrong with that.

2. I think I've been clear on that one. People shouldn't be critical of other's hobbies. Period. As long as they aren't hurting anyone else, enjoy what you enjoy and let others do the same. No one likes judgmental people who are critical of others, especially for minor stuff like interests in certain hobbies like reading.

Originally Posted by 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?

Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that one should be critical of people who enjoy lighter fare, or that lighter fare is harmful etc.

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I think it's important to divorce the quality of the work from the genre.

Every genre has both excellent and abysmal books. One can read good books in fantasy, SF, romance, mystery or any other genre; however, one can also read crappy books in every genre too. You can also learn from both good and bad books - even if it's only what not to do.

Definitely true. There is quality writing in every genre. So just generalizing about whole genres is pretty ignorant.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

...
If it's a lady with a high school degree who works scrubbing toilets and her only reading is trashy romance novels, then yeah, she's probably not very intellectual.

But if the lady has a Ph D and works in an intellectual job for 60+ hours a week like I do--doing work that IMO develops the intellect more than fiction reading ever can--then one looks pretty silly bashing her for rotting her intellect for reading trashy romance novels. ...

I'd suggest, based on their apparent taste level, neither is an intellectual. They have different trades and one may score higher on standardized tests. But as far as being an intellectual, nope.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

......No reading is harmful. It's all words. Even bad writing can improve your vocabulary, make you use your imagination etc...." ...

You've never met a religious fanatic, then....

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

... Now some books are better than others for sure. Some books will give you more to think about, challenge your vocabulary more than others, etc....

...There is quality writing in every genre. So just generalizing about whole genres is pretty ignorant.

Seems like we are in agreement here.

However, "intellectuals" have generally reasonably developed and thus discriminating taste, thus are much less likely to read trash literature.

Just like an art curator doesn't usually go home and lapse into admiring velvet paintings....

[dmaul1114]

You have a much more pretentious definition of intellectual than me is all I can say to that.

One doesn't have to be working their intellect 24/7 to be an intellectual. Personally, I'd want nothing to do with some elitist prick that can't enjoy a blockbuster movie, only reads high brow literature, only eats caviar and other high brow food etc.

I work my intellect hard at work around 60 hours most weeks with teaching, research work etc. I enjoy good literature, artsy movies, and trips to the art gallery, I'm pretty snobby about good beer, love a good meal at a nice restaurant etc. But I also like to veg out with cheesy action movie, read some fantasy and other casual fiction, play video games, eat some crappy fried food etc. to unwind.

Variety is the spice of life. Someone that's snooty and serious all the time--even in their hobbies, really isn't a person worth knowing IMO. Such people tend to be full of themselves, and be judgmental pricks that look down on others they feel have inferior tastes--and you seem to be teetering into that category based on your posts in that thread.

And along that reasoning, I'll throw you on my ignore list as I'd have no patience for elitist folks who go around judging others tastes you are doing here, with acting like some authority in labeling who is or isn't an intellectual. And I'll throw this thread on ignore as well, as all's been said that needs to be said on this topic and it's just becoming an aggravation.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

... I work my intellect hard at work around 60 hours most weeks with teaching, research work etc.
...
Someone that's snooty and serious all the time--even in their hobbies, really isn't a person worth knowing IMO. Such people tend to be full of themselves, and be judgmental pricks that look down on others they feel have inferior tastes--and you seem to be teetering into that category based on your posts in that thread....

I'll throw you on my ignore list as I'd have no patience for elitist folks who go around judging others tastes you are doing here, with acting like some authority in labeling who is or isn't an intellectual. And I'll throw this thread on ignore as well, as all's been said that needs to be said on this topic and it's just becoming an aggravation.

Hm, a little hypocritical, for someone who just one post earlier insulted the fictional toilet-scrubbing woman.

And such superior attitude is based on what? Because, as you keep repeating, you have a PHD?!

Frankly, anyone with enough perseverance, enough free time and available government loans, and maybe an IQ above 70, can get a PHD from a third-rate school. And then make blanket statements about those who clean his toilets.

And of course, just as you claim that literature does not play a role in building one's intellect (this presumably includes all those non-intellectual lit profs), others assert that social sciences are there, just so that the lazier and the not-so-bright can get in a few better grades....

With such attitude toward discourse and variety of opinion, I pity your students. I can only assume that you place some of the brighter ones on your "ignore" list as well.

Cheers, hope it's a good 12-pack!

[anabelee]

Originally Posted by Tattncat

I was taught by my Grandmother (who used to teach in one of those old little red school houses on the prairie) that no matter what you read you can learn something from it. Even if it's how not bo behave.

She encouraged me to read any and everything and to this day, I do. I have never regretted it.

I think the question is, not what we read, as you say, we can learn something even from the cereal box. the question is about if we can pick out what we are reading, if we can understand and critic it. It's not bad reading Da Vinci's code, but it's a fiction, and we can not forget it. And the same happens to many books. As your grandmother said, reading is good. Bad is that people can't really understand the read, and this happens too with tv and other media.

Sorry, my english is not good to explain better.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Sonist

And of course, just as you claim that literature does not play a role in building one's intellect (this presumably includes all those non-intellectual lit profs), others assert that social sciences are there, just so that the lazier and the not-so-bright can get in a few better grades....

I don't think that this (i.e. that literature does not play a role) is what was being claimed. The claim that started the thread, which a number of people, including me, are contesting, was that reading "bad" books was harmful - in the way that eating "bad" food is harmful.

It seems to me that a varied intake across a wide range is likely to create a more well-rounded intellect than a rigid diet of only "good" books (whatever that means).

There is a counter claim that might be made, which is that reading is not required to develop a well-rounded intellect. I'm not so sure about that one - perhaps there might be rare counter-examples, but I'd suspect that reading is normally required.

[dmaul1114]

Alright, I'll apologize for blowing up last night. I'd had a migraine all day and had a long day at work so my patience was pretty much gone. So I apologize for being a ruder than usual!

Originally Posted by Sonist

Hm, a little hypocritical, for someone who just one post earlier insulted the fictional toilet-scrubbing woman.

That example was not meant to be an insult, nor looking down on a profession

You seem to be making some--IMO silly--assertion that ones education and even moreso, ones career, have nothing to do with being an intellectual. And that it comes down to what one reads, whether one appreciates art etc.

I was making the counter point that both things matter in developing one's intellect. Someone scrubbing toilets can be fairly strong intellectually if they're self learning in their own time, and reading a lot of challenging fiction and non-fiction in their spare time. But someone that has any type of completely non-intellectual job AND doesn't challenge their intellect on their own is probably not very high in intellectual prowess. That's all I was saying, not bashing, or making broad generalizations.

Vs. someone that has a lot of education and works in a very intellectual job. If you work at a research university you're going to spend hours every day challenging your intellect--doing a ton of reading, doing data analysis and solving problems, teaching and preparing to teach, writing up research and thinking critically about how your research moves a field forward. And there's not better exercise (or purpose) for an intellectual than the creation of new knowledge

If a person is a lawyer they're reading cases, putting things together, figuring out how to tell the story and win the case, solving problems in the case. And on down the line with any type of intellectual job you can think of.

Such people can certainly be intellectuals even if they're not big consumers of quality literature, indie films, fine art etc. ALL THE TIME in their spare time. So I thought you're comparison about an art curator not going home and admiring the drapes was silly.

Art is their profession, they're going to be snobby about it. Just like a successful professor isn't going to waste their time reading the worst journals that publish shoddy research etc. That's not a matter of intellect, is a matter of being picky about quality in their field of work.

That art curator probably reads some low quality fiction, watches more than just artsy indie films etc. Maybe they only read/watch low quality stuff as books/movies aren't their main hobby and they don't take them very seriously. That doesn't make them less of an intellectual. People need to relax, veg out and just sit back and be entertained. Not much of anyone wants to spend every waking minute challenging their intellect. And again I wouldn't want to be around such a person as they simply wouldn't be a fun person to hang out with!

So I find your definition of an intellectual far to narrow. Anyone that's intelligent and challenges their intellect on a regular basis is an intellectual--regardless of whether they're challenging their intellect through academic work, legal work, accounting work, science, or any other type of intellectual profession, or through literature, or through both. I don't see the need to be so judgmental and pretentious in giving out the label as you seem set on.

And such superior attitude is based on what? Because, as you keep repeating, you have a PHD?!

I don't have a superior attitude--you seem to have it more on that front with wanting to be the absolute source on who is or isn't an intellectual, what is or isn't worth reading etc.

And I've said this several times already--I've never said having a Ph D is an indication of anything. I've said that having one and working in academia--at least at a decent research university--requires being an intellectual. You'll get eaten alive otherwise as you won't be able to handle the students, nor able to generate new ideals and do high quality research and publish in top journals, land research grants etc. that are required to get tenure and promotion.

Frankly, anyone with enough perseverance, enough free time and available government loans, and maybe an IQ above 70, can get a PHD from a third-rate school. And then make blanket statements about those who clean his toilets.

For what it's worth, my Ph D is from the number 1 ranked doctoral department in my field. Another example of your snobbishness by assuming it's from some third rate school. Your posts here would go over much better if you weren't trying to label and judge everything and everyone--and then accusing others of being superior!

And again, I wasn't being demeaning to maids and I've never had anyone clean my toilets and never would even if I could afford the luxury--which isn't likely on an academic salary! One has to be pretty full of themselves to pay someone to do their cleaning.

And of course, just as you claim that literature does not play a role in building one's intellect (this presumably includes all those non-intellectual lit profs), others assert that social sciences are there, just so that the lazier and the not-so-bright can get in a few better grades....

I didn't claim that. I simply said I don't think it's a huge factor relative to non-fiction reading, reading philosophy, working in science or academia doing research (again the best use and challenge of an intellect is creating new knowledge), mathematics, etc.

I said earlier that I agree that reading can improve the vocabulary etc. I just disagree with your insistence that someone that doesn't read challenging fiction is automatically not an intellectual. They may well be challenging their intellect much more in their career than someone who has a non-intellectual job and reads a ton of challenging fiction. Or they may be reading a ton of non-fiction and philosophy which I think will do more for the intellect than fiction personally.

And I'm not one to frown on the social sciences, since I'm a social scientist myself! Lit professors--I wouldn't call them non-intellectuals by any means. I'd just say it's a bit of a waste of an intellect IMO to, for example, study and offer new interpretations on Hamlet or the Canterbury Tales etc. vs. doing research in an area that moves human knowledge forward in areas that can improve society, since lit studies are exercises in interpretation and opinion rather than doing research that tests theory, policy etc. and generates new knowledge.

Of course, my experience with lit profs is in research universities and not liberal arts colleges. I have a lot more admiration for lit profs who are authors themselves, publishing fiction, poetry etc., than those publishing interpretational articles in literary journals, which is the bulk of lit profs I've had contact with. Again, I just have more admiration for people generating new knowledge, new art etc. than people who are just critiquing existing work etc.

A sharp intellect is a gift, and I have more respect for those who put it to use in some way that benefits society, be it finding ways to prevent crime, fight poverty, cure diseases, improve energy technology, create inventions that make life easier or more enjoyable etc. Anyone can read literature and offer interpretations, lit professors don't offer much more there than any big consumer of literature can offer in a book club etc.

With such attitude toward discourse and variety of opinion, I pity your students. I can only assume that you place some of the brighter ones on your "ignore" list as well.

Not at all, I love discourse, love opposing opinions. I just don't have much patience for snobbish opinions, and people who are judgmental in labeling others etc., like you've been doing with trying to say who is or isn't an intellectual and trying to judge people on what they read etc.

Cheers, hope it's a good 12-pack!

Nah, hardly any good beer comes in 12 packs. Mostly 4 packs, 6 packs and 22oz or 750ML singles.

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

It seems to me that a varied intake across a wide range is likely to create a more well-rounded intellect than a rigid diet of only "good" books (whatever that means).

Agreed, and it should be more than just fiction.

There is a counter claim that might be made, which is that reading is not required to develop a well-rounded intellect. I'm not so sure about that one - perhaps there might be rare counter-examples, but I'd suspect that reading is normally required.

Reading is required. I don't believe that reading classic literature and current challenging literature is required to be an intellectual.

I think one who reads fiction will have a better vocabulary, higher verbal IQ etc. than one who only reads romance novels, low quality fantasy etc. But they may just not be into fiction and may spend a ton of time reading non-fiction, or reading research articles all day at work and doing research and writing research articles on their own, or reading legal cases and writing their own materials etc.

The best case is someone that reads quality fiction, lesser fiction, non-fiction, philosophy etc. AND has an intellectually challenging career. And of course vocabulary, verbal IQ etc. is only one part of the intellect.

I think it's very silly to be judgmental and say one's not an intellectual if they're not mainly reading challenging fiction. They're are other (and IMO better ways) to challenge and build one's intellect.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

So I find your definition of an intellectual far to narrow. Anyone that's intelligent and challenges their intellect on a regular basis is an intellectual--regardless of whether they're challenging their intellect through academic work, legal work, accounting work, science, or any other type of intellectual profession, or through literature, or through both.

People seem to have different ideas about what an intellectual is. It always sounds like a rather pretentious word to me - can one be a proper intellectual without a smoking jacket?

Looking it up on dictionary.com, their definitions include "a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings" and "a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher", but I think that we've been talking about "a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, esp. on an abstract and general level".

So, if an intellectual is someone who is interested in "the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, esp. on an abstract and general level", perhaps we can all agree that:

• Reading pulp fiction is unlikely to contribute to that a great deal
• Reading pulp fiction is unlikely to do you any harm either
• There are lots of different ways in which you could pursue an interest in such matters, including by working in a complex field as your day job

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

No one likes judgmental people...

Made me chuckle.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And also, if someone enjoys reading a book, surely that's reason enough for it to exist.

Well, not in all cases. That has to depend on what the cost of producing the book was and what harm it is causing society.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

People seem to have different ideas about what an intellectual is. It always sounds like a rather pretentious word to me - can one be a proper intellectual without a smoking jacket?

Agreed, it is a hard to define term, which is why it's silly for someone like Sonist to try to narrowly define who is or isn't an intellectual.

Looking it up on dictionary.com, their definitions include "a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings" and "a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher", but I think that we've been talking about "a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, esp. on an abstract and general level".

I'd agree with those general definitions. To me an intellectual is just someone that actual puts there mind to use. Who tries to improve their intelligence and critical thinking skills, who tries to have informed opinions on every topic if interest to them.

And I think the "mental labor" bit is worth being included, as in today's society most people's lives are dominated by their careers (at least those of working age) so it's hard to fully be an intellectual if you're not having to use your intellect for your career. Though one can still be pretty intellectual even if they have menial jobs--so it's not a must.

So, if an intellectual is someone who is interested in "the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, esp. on an abstract and general level", perhaps we can all agree that:

• Reading pulp fiction is unlikely to contribute to that a great deal
• Reading pulp fiction is unlikely to do you any harm either
• There are lots of different ways in which you could pursue an interest in such matters, including by working in a complex field as your day job

I'd agree with those. Though I'd add that I don't think any fiction is going to contribute to it to the same degree as non fiction reading, philosophical reading, doing intellectual work like research etc. Quality fiction will contribute more than pulp fiction for sure. But if one really wants to develop their intellect, they shouldn't be spending most of their time consuming fiction period IMO--unless they want to be an author, poet, movie director themselves and need to specifically develop an intellect fine tuned for storytelling, language, visual arts etc.

Which gets back to the point that what is or isn't an intellectual is pretty ambiguous and there's no reason for people to say someone isn't an intellectual because they don't read good fiction or some other silly arbitrary standard. As you note, there's a lot of ways one can develop their intellect. One doesn't have to be a genius in every area to be an intellectual.

[Sonist]

Alright, my apologies for the tone of my last post as well.

I actually do not think we are all that far apart on this.

My point was, that generally one would be an "intellectual," if one is somewhat well-rounded, as opposed to being a narrow specialist. Again, someone being a good attorney, or a good accountant, or a good banker, does not necessarily mean that the person is erudite. In fact, a large portion of such professionals are not.

Of course, breadth of reading/viewing habits is generally a great thing. Very narrow focus of reading, even if voluminous, results in often limited intellectual development. There are those who dedicate their lives to reading and studying "holy" books, and most outside their particular circle of faithful would not consider them "intellectuals," or very bright for that matter.

But, at the same time, reading varied junk is not the same as reading varied good stuff. Most people who have a developed taste, have started reading better literature usually when relatively young, and usually with guidance. It is unlikely, that at some point they will dedicate themselves to reading and rereading the full works of Clive Cussler.

My main point is, that one needs to be aware of "good" and "bad" writing, as it applies to literature, philosophy, history, scientific treatises, etc., so that one can differentiate between the worthy and the junk.

More often than not, the process of learning to differentiate begins early on in life, most often with literature.

That's all. Not trying to offend, or "bash" anyone.