Article on Readers Versus "Book People"

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by hildea

I agree. Different tastes, and all that.

I admit, I am a bit puzzled at those people who post in this thread that they aren't interested in talking about books and reading with others online -- on a forum dedicated to talk about books and reading, and in a thread where we talk about different perceptions and tastes around books and reading

Ah, but I'm interested in talking about e-readers and ebooks as a medium for reading. I'm not interested in talking about the actual content. For example, I very rarely visit the recommendations subforum.

[haertig]

I don't have much inclination to discuss books that I've read either. I do look in the recommendation threads to find new books to read. But I don't see much value in discussing what I've already read, other than saying I liked it or not, and maybe a brief sentence describing the genre and/or basic plot - to help others decide if it's a book they'd like to read themselves.

I've even gotten pretty good at filtering recommendations based on who's making them. Not to knock peoples choices, but I've learned that certain people seem to have certain tastes around here - some that match my tastes, some that are far from them. I've pretty much given up reading for knowledge, insight or personal growth. Been there, done that. And that's all slipping away into the abyss of senility now. So I read for fun!

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I've been a reader all my life, but I've never been a book person the way it's described here. Not because I think there's something wrong with that, but because I enjoy reading as a private and solitary activity. ...

That's basically my view. Reading is not a social activity for me. It's something I do on my own. That said, I do spend a LOT of time talking about the devices I read these books on. And I do sometimes quote passages from the books I read to my family members (usually to their annoyance).

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Ah, but I'm interested in talking about e-readers and ebooks as a medium for reading. I'm not interested in talking about the actual content. For example, I very rarely visit the recommendations subforum.

Yep. I've never gone on to recommendations sub-forum. I've got enough stuff to read already and I'm pretty much inundated. (I'm a slow reader.) I hardly ever download one of the free Kindle books they offer every month. But occasionally someone mentions a book that looks interesting and I'll look into that.

[Paperbackstash]

Thanks for all the weigh ins. All of you more or less seem to echo the same thoughts I have about the articles. I did find it interesting because I've seen something similar with BookTube last year - people were making apologetic videos because there were accusations floating around about if they was harm in so many Booktubers always having their background full of books and if this was promoting a buying culture too much to where it was unhealthy. I find it a little similar.

It spoke to me as well because I'm in both camps. I've always been an active reader, but got into Goodreads heavily at the beginning of my thirties for the fun of it - got wrapped into reading challenges, invited to Goodreads headquarters in San Francisco, modded a few groups, have a book blog started in my 20's (here and there active on it), but over the past few years have gotten into Bookstagram on Instagram and take part on Twitter for multiple monthly reading challenges. I love read-a-thons because I am now drawn to the social aspect of reading as well - I love sharing pictures of the morning coffee ritual and snacks chosen for the readathon with others and seeing theirs - we share the reading companion pet photos on Discord and Reddit, post our planned reading lists to fit the challenges, talk about completed books, pick out new reading spots with photos for instagram with the books.

There's nothing wrong with reading and having no interest in participating in social media about it, it's just something I enjoy that fits my personality. I think part of the draw is reading IS a solitary activity, and some people who are heavy readers feel isolated offline with their hobby and want to make connections about it online as their only form, for the fun of it. That's my case anyway.

I think the challenges, read-a-thons, photos, and events can become a secondary hobby in addition to reading. I don't make Booktube videos but I get that it also becomes a big hobby for those who do. Review writing can be a hobby in itself if you put a lot of time into it, have it planned, whether on GR, Amazon, or a blog. I find it a bit depressing the original article writer doesn't see that, but instead is assuming that those who talk about books a lot online and indulge in photos and routines with others may mainly be doing it just for show but not into reading. To me the draw is originally reading, and they want to discuss this hobby so it naturally grows from there.

And to assume a lot of readers who participate heavily in social media do not read classics, or "serious lit", is a wrong assumption. Every read-a-thon I see people reading classics, or searching out books from POC or diversity to expand their horizons and give all authors a voice.

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Ah, but I'm interested in talking about e-readers and ebooks as a medium for reading. I'm not interested in talking about the actual content. For example, I very rarely visit the recommendations subforum.

Same. I'm just here for the tech support.

I don't actively participate on GoodReads or social media but I do find the GoodReads book info (series, synopsis, etc) and reviews helpful.

[issybird]

[QUOTE=Paperbackstash;4091186]

And to assume a lot of readers who participate heavily in social media do not read classics, or "serious lit", is a wrong assumption. Every read-a-thon I see people reading classics, or searching out books from POC or diversity to expand their horizons and give all authors a voice.

I took another look at the article, and I don’t think this is quite the point. In your first point, you identified the switch in tone in the Jezebel article, which I think occurs with this:

And why does the “throw Gatsby in the garbage” stuff get louder every year? I suspect it’s because these arguments are not really about what high school students should read; they’re about how these adults feel about their current reading habits. And because some of these Fitzgerald-haters aren’t simply readers, they are Book People.

I have to say I also see a fair amount of Gatsby-bashing even here at MR, so I do think it’s a thing. The whole classics aren’t relevant, they’re hard to read, kids shouldn’t have to read them bit. Also the one where people don’t like books with unlikeable protagonists.

So I’ve got two points, and one is that it’s the internet. The irony of an article in an on-line magazine deploring what others discuss online is huge. Everyone’s got a platform, should they choose to use it. To me, the article doesn’t say that people who participate in social media don’t read classics; it’s more that those who don’t read classics participate in social media. Eh. Some do, some don’t in both camps and I’m not seeing any penetrating insight with this.

In essence I agree with her about the classics and those who don’t like them; the problem is the Book People appellation, which is where she loses the high ground. High-hatting people isn’t going to convince them to give The Scarlet Letter a try. She’d have been better off writing two articles; one about the canon and campaigns against it and a second, funny and not sneering, article about Book People, because some of what she cited could stand mockery. A hashtag #amreading? I cringed.

[Ripplinger]

Originally Posted by Quoth

One solution is to totally ignore Social Media and read a book instead.

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Exactly! Unfortunately, humans have this horrible tendancy to feel compelled to compare things and declare whatever THEY like to be superior to everything else.

Reading is a singular activity as far as I'm concerned and I read for MY pleasure. I couldn't care less what anyone else is reading or what they think about my reading material.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Read a book, pet a book. Use social media, or don't. I don't care.

Originally Posted by ilovejedd

Same. I'm just here for the tech support.

I don't actively participate on GoodReads or social media but I do find the GoodReads book info (series, synopsis, etc) and reviews helpful.

These all sum up my feelings about reading. I avoid social media altogether, I don't see the point of all that sharing whether it's books, lunch, private stuff. But if that's what floats your boat, go for it.

Those articles come across to me as people needing to write something to fill their quota, and lacking any topic really worthwhile, this was the best they could come up with.

[Freeshadow]

Literally every hobby/profession/nation/religion/sex. orientation/ or any other group that comes to mind has people in it who make so much fuss about being $_you_name_it that one actually wonders when they have the time for it.
And now someone come along with the big (sic)news that "bibliophiles (or 'bookworms' if it makes someone sleep better) have them TOOO!!!" - how not surprising.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Read a book, pet a book. Use social media, or don't. I don't care.

You forget one thing: as long as I can read the books I want in the way I want


I had a discussion with my nephew last week. He prefers paper books and after seeing my extended library (of paper books) he was jealous But I only read electronic books. Just because I read mostly in bed, laying on my side and reading a huge volume gets very old after 2 pages if you have to hold the book up the entire time He prefers to read sitting and then it doesn't really matter as much

[ilovejedd]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Just because I read mostly in bed, laying on my side and reading a huge volume gets very old after 2 pages if you have to hold the book up the entire time

Lol, I'm the same way. Bonus with tech, they're rigid so you can get away with resting the weight on the bed and just supporting and operating it with your fingertips.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Ah, but I'm interested in talking about e-readers and ebooks as a medium for reading. I'm not interested in talking about the actual content. For example, I very rarely visit the recommendations subforum.

I enjoy talking about e-readers and the technical aspects of reading/organizing eBooks and audiobooks. But I also enjoy talking about books that I liked and didn't like. Detailed analysis of specific books, not so much.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I enjoy talking about e-readers and the technical aspects of reading/organizing eBooks and audiobooks. But I also enjoy talking about books that I liked and didn't like. Detailed analysis of specific books, not so much.

Agreed. The device and organization is more tangible. (and does not trip Politics and Religion)

Taste varies widely and it is rare that you find someone who aligns with yours.
I never understood those folk who READ books BECAUSE they were ON the NYT list Look at , but I choose what I buy. (Take that Jones )

[kandwo]

Originally Posted by issybird

I took another look at the article, and I don’t think this is quite the point. In your first point, you identified the switch in tone in the Jezebel article, which I think occurs with this:



I have to say I also see a fair amount of Gatsby-bashing even here at MR, so I do think it’s a thing. The whole classics aren’t relevant, they’re hard to read, kids shouldn’t have to read them bit. Also the one where people don’t like books with unlikeable protagonists.

So I’ve got two points, and one is that it’s the internet. The irony of an article in an on-line magazine deploring what others discuss online is huge. Everyone’s got a platform, should they choose to use it. To me, the article doesn’t say that people who participate in social media don’t read classics; it’s more that those who don’t read classics participate in social media. Eh. Some do, some don’t in both camps and I’m not seeing any penetrating insight with this.

In essence I agree with her about the classics and those who don’t like them; the problem is the Book People appellation, which is where she loses the high ground. High-hatting people isn’t going to convince them to give The Scarlet Letter a try. She’d have been better off writing two articles; one about the canon and campaigns against it and a second, funny and not sneering, article about Book People, because some of what she cited could stand mockery. A hashtag #amreading? I cringed.

I like her point about people bashing the classics. I've grown up in an anti-elitist environment, where reading classics was frowned upon, genre literature was good, etc. I found that sort of sentiment highly detrimental and it was a breath of fresh air discovering the likes of Dostoevsky on my own.

I think it's good reading those kinds of books in school. They're supposed to make you think and confront your ideas about the world and the people who inhibit it. Then discuss those thoughts presented to you with others in class. Of course, this all falls apart if your classmates are not up for having a constructive discussion or are unprepared or the teacher doesn't know how to lead the class; but that's true for any subject. School is supposed to make you think, especially in ways that you wouldn't stumble upon on your own (otherwise what's the point?).

As for reading, I try to challenge myself. I read mostly classics or other lauded "high brow" literature. Whenever I read something like Harry Potter I tend to read them in foreign languages that I'm learning. I don't enjoy Harry Potter without the bonus of language learning thrown into the mix, but with it it's my favourite book series that I keep returning to whenever I need something cosy and familiar.

This is what works for me, and what I would recommend to people like me. What works for other people is their business, and I wouldn't want to get involved in that process.

I think reading in and of itself is much more important than what you read (for me it's a form of meditation - it relaxes me and calms my mind and increases my focus). It's just that I personally cannot sufficiently lose myself in reading unless I feel challenged by the material.

I'm also a bibliophile. I love paper books and shelves full of them. And that's about the only aspect of this social media "book people" world that I do enjoy. I'm not interested in the social stuff in a virtual environment. I love discussing books in real life, but dislike social media. I do, however, love creativity and books; so I won't complain if I happen upon beautiful images of book arrangements and/or spine poetry

[hildea]

Like many others here, I'm somewhere in between. I read reviews and book discussions, including on Twitter. I enjoy recommending books, and when someone asks for something specific on the Reading Recommendations subforum, I'm happy if I can think of something that fits whatever they ask for. On the other hand, I very seldom write in the "Hey!! Let's get some action going! What are we reading?" thread (which is equivalent to #amreading on Twitter, I suppose), and I've only written in a book club thread once or twice. I don't write much about reading on social media (apart from here, which may or may not be a social medium, depending on your definitions). I have an ambition to write more reviews (on Goodreads + Storygraph), mostly because that's a nice thing to do for authors I like. I read (some) classics for fun. I think schools should help kids learn to enjoy reading, in addition to giving them some taste of literary history, and that enjoying reading is more important than familiarity with classics.

The article "We Have to Save Books from the Book People" annoyed me, so much that I probably was unfairly snarky to other posters in #15 - sorry about that! The article tries to create an artificial conflict between two imagined categories of readers, and describes one of those categories as harmful and deserving mockery. That really, really rubs me the wrong way.