Are we escapists?

[zelda_pinwheel]

this is a fascinating discussion. i think reading is definitely a form of escapism, however i would argue along with several others here that that is a very positive thing and in fact necessary to some degree, and what distinguishes us (as humans) from other animals ; our ability to think abstractly. this is what has allowed us to create great works of art (in all its forms) and technology ; it's what allows us to speculate on the origins of the universe, explore the structure of the atom, create entire new worlds in novels and in our imaginations.

several other posters have touched on this notion of abstract thought and creation and it has reminded me of a book called "Less than words can say" by Richard Mitchell, which is available here thanks to Madam Broshkina in lrf and mobi format.

it doesn't necessarily speak to the original question (is reading a form of escapism) however it does talk a lot about the power of language in making abstract thought possible at all (and escapism relies on abstract thought, as do all forms of creation ; i would argue in fact that escapism itself is an act of creation, since you are "creating" an alternate reality in your imagination ; however much this is guided by the ideas of the author, it nonetheless requires a significant participation by the reader to come to life). he says at one point "If, for instance, there should exist something that a language has no way of expressing, then that thing does not "exist'' for the culture that speaks the language."

Given that reading is arguably the best way of becoming exposed to new language and that by its nature it encourages abstract thinking (another point made by Mitchell, in fact he postulates that without writing structured thought is more or less impossible), immersing oneself in a book not only allows us to escape into the creations of others but also gives us the tools to imagine new things ourselves, in the form of words and "pure" (that is, non-materialised) ideas. without reading (and before that, storytelling, and before that, the invention of language) we would not be where we are today, as a species. all revolutionary thinking (the world is not flat ; the earth is not the center of the universe ; every material object including living things is made up of billions of microscopic particles ; etc.) relied not only on our ability to observe phenomena, but more particularly to extrapolate from our observations, and this extrapolation is not possible without language.

[Alphapheemail]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

So, you can't escape the feeling that you are a human being?? What makes you think anybody is handling life??
.... no one gets out alive. Of COURSE we need to escape from that from time to time. The only question is whether your particular form of escape controls and destroys you, or you use it to make more of your life.

So, you don't have a handle on life. Join the crowd. Neither did Van Gogh, Mozart, Galileo, and a few zillion other incredibly gifted people I can name. I personally gave up worrying about that a loooooooong time ago. It's not worth it for you to get caught up in that heap of dung just because your friend said something borderline stupid.

I am not denying that no one has a full grip on life. But the realization of this fact is unnerving at first; and then one comes to term with it as I have within this thread.

[Alphapheemail]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

this is a fascinating discussion. i think reading is definitely a form of escapism, however i would argue along with several others here that that is a very positive thing and in fact necessary to some degree, and what distinguishes us (as humans) from other animals ; our ability to think abstractly. this is what has allowed us to create great works of art (in all its forms) and technology ; it's what allows us to speculate on the origins of the universe, explore the structure of the atom, create entire new worlds in novels and in our imaginations.

several other posters have touched on this notion of abstract thought and creation and it has reminded me of a book called "Less than words can say" by Richard Mitchell, which is available here thanks to Madam Broshkina in lrf and mobi format.

it doesn't necessarily speak to the original question (is reading a form of escapism) however it does talk a lot about the power of language in making abstract thought possible at all (and escapism relies on abstract thought, as do all forms of creation ; i would argue in fact that escapism itself is an act of creation, since you are "creating" an alternate reality in your imagination ; however much this is guided by the ideas of the author, it nonetheless requires a significant participation by the reader to come to life). he says at one point "If, for instance, there should exist something that a language has no way of expressing, then that thing does not "exist'' for the culture that speaks the language."

Given that reading is arguably the best way of becoming exposed to new language and that by its nature it encourages abstract thinking (another point made by Mitchell, in fact he postulates that without writing structured thought is more or less impossible), immersing oneself in a book not only allows us to escape into the creations of others but also gives us the tools to imagine new things ourselves, in the form of words and "pure" (that is, non-materialised) ideas. without reading (and before that, storytelling, and before that, the invention of language) we would not be where we are today, as a species. all revolutionary thinking (the world is not flat ; the earth is not the center of the universe ; every material object including living things is made up of billions of microscopic particles ; etc.) relied not only on our ability to observe phenomena, but more particularly to extrapolate from our observations, and this extrapolation is not possible without language.

Oh wow! So escapisim is really realisim. Woah I think i have to sit down and rearrange my thoughts...

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Alphapheemail

I am not denying that no one has a full grip on life. But the realization of this fact is unnerving at first; and then one comes to term with it as I have within this thread.

We disagree there. I've never found a living person who has really come to terms with the fact that, their next thirty minutes could be their last.

The only reason we function is not because people have come to terms with mortality, it's because they've learned to escape reality when it's too much to deal with.

The only people who have truly come to terms with life .... well, they're staring in their own personal version of the Dead Parrot Sketch.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

We disagree there. I've never found a living person who has really come to terms with the fact that, their next thirty minutes could be their last.

The only reason we function is not because people have come to terms with mortality, it's because they've learned to escape reality when it's too much to deal with.

The only people who have truly come to terms with life .... well, they're staring in their own personal version of the Dead Parrot Sketch.

Actually, I think there are in fact people who have come to terms with their mortality... I would guess that any man who saw extensive combat during war would need to come to terms with that reality simply to survive the experience.

--
Bill

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Actually, I think there are in fact people who have come to terms with their mortality... I would guess that any man who saw extensive combat during war would need to come to terms with that reality simply to survive the experience.

--
Bill

I worked enough years in hospitals and saw adults and children die every damn day. I don't need someone else to tell me about death. And, no .... I doubt that men in combat "come to terms" with it, or so many of them wouldn't be using drugs and alcohol to escape from it.

Learning to numb yourself to what is going on around you so you can survive, is not coming to terms.

[phenomshel]

My ex in-laws used to gripe all the time because I took a book everywhere. I wasn't reading to escape them (at least not at that point), I was reading because that's what I enjoyed doing. Unfortunately, they took it as that I enjoyed doing that more than talking and interacting with them...which was partially true.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

this is a fascinating discussion. i think reading is definitely a form of escapism, however i would argue along with several others here that that is a very positive thing and in fact necessary to some degree, and what distinguishes us (as humans) from other animals ; our ability to think abstractly. this is what has allowed us to create great works of art (in all its forms) and technology ; it's what allows us to speculate on the origins of the universe, explore the structure of the atom, create entire new worlds in novels and in our imaginations.

several other posters have touched on this notion of abstract thought and creation and it has reminded me of a book called "Less than words can say" by Richard Mitchell, which is available here thanks to Madam Broshkina in lrf and mobi format.

it doesn't necessarily speak to the original question (is reading a form of escapism) however it does talk a lot about the power of language in making abstract thought possible at all (and escapism relies on abstract thought, as do all forms of creation ; i would argue in fact that escapism itself is an act of creation, since you are "creating" an alternate reality in your imagination ; however much this is guided by the ideas of the author, it nonetheless requires a significant participation by the reader to come to life). he says at one point "If, for instance, there should exist something that a language has no way of expressing, then that thing does not "exist'' for the culture that speaks the language."

Given that reading is arguably the best way of becoming exposed to new language and that by its nature it encourages abstract thinking (another point made by Mitchell, in fact he postulates that without writing structured thought is more or less impossible), immersing oneself in a book not only allows us to escape into the creations of others but also gives us the tools to imagine new things ourselves, in the form of words and "pure" (that is, non-materialised) ideas. without reading (and before that, storytelling, and before that, the invention of language) we would not be where we are today, as a species. all revolutionary thinking (the world is not flat ; the earth is not the center of the universe ; every material object including living things is made up of billions of microscopic particles ; etc.) relied not only on our ability to observe phenomena, but more particularly to extrapolate from our observations, and this extrapolation is not possible without language.

That's a slippery slope that NewSpeak was based upon in Orwell's 1984. The problem with that view is that if the referent (i.e. a thing, an act, ectera) exists in a culture, it will be named. Now if you want to get Spenglerian, (which I can do easily) then the result is not a matter of not having a word, but in the fact the the world-view of that culture doesn't accept the referent as having actuality. An example would be the Greco-Roman culture not accepting the concept of measurable, constant time. Because it was at odds with their cultural worldview of the body, the now.
If the culture accepts the idea, and there is a referent, a word will be created to fill the role, no matter how many time you try to stomp the resulting word(s) out.

[Greg Anos]

I can't resist the C. S. Lewis quote - "DO you know who is most opposed to escapism? Jailers..."

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

I worked enough years in hospitals and saw adults and children die every damn day. I don't need someone else to tell me about death. And, no .... I doubt that men in combat "come to terms" with it, or so many of them wouldn't be using drugs and alcohol to escape from it.

Learning to numb yourself to what is going on around you so you can survive, is not coming to terms.

Well, this is getting seriously off topic at this point.. but... perhaps I did misspeak when I generalized it to all men in combat. At the same point however, that some men used alcohol and drugs does not mean that all did or do.

In any case, nobody here is trying to tell you about death. All I said is that there are people who have come to terms with death and I further believe that some of those people are not people whose death's are in the immediate future. That fact that you have never seen it, or at least recognized it, does not mean it doesn't exist.

--
Bill

[Seabound]

Originally Posted by dadioflex

You've badly missed the point, and come across as an awful snob while doing it, in my opinion.

Categorising novels as either worthy or a "waste of time" is a proper slap in the face to a simple soul like me who does read trashy SF&F to escape reality. I can sympathise with Michelle's non-reading friend and his opinion (which I don't even consider to be a bad one) far more than I ever could with you. Particularly if I needed help with a flaking brick. At least he would have his DIY knowledge. I'm standing with a hammer drill and a set of chisels and you're quoting Austen at me? How's THAT going to help?

Yes, I know, I'm a terrible person.

Having established how much of an awful snob I am, may I ask what it is about Austen's quote, and Eliot's for that matter, that make quoting them "snobbish"? I think that what Austen and Eliot said are quite plain to undertand, straightforward, to-the-point, and very relevant to this discussion. I will never apologize for loving Jane Austen.

And whatever made you think that I was referring to SF&F as those which are a total waste of time? On my Sony 505 are a few Star Trek ebooks, the Foundation Trilogy, a few SF&F magazines, and sundry others. I've also read all Harry Potter books (they're fantasy, aren't they?), usually staying up all night to read them. Granted, SF&F is not my first choice as a genre---and much of that is due to the fact that I already deal with a lot of real science as my profession that reading more SF would be overloading my brain with the same topic---but I'm open-minded enough to read them.

And do you think all books are created equal---that they are all worth the time and effort to read? Yes, I do think that many books are a waste of time, but I am not imposing my definition of awful books on others. To each his/her own.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Well, this is getting seriously off topic at this point.. but... perhaps I did misspeak when I generalized it to all men in combat. At the same point however, that some men used alcohol and drugs does not mean that all did or do.

In any case, nobody here is trying to tell you about death. All I said is that there are people who have come to terms with death and I further believe that some of those people are not people whose death's are in the immediate future. That fact that you have never seen it, or at least recognized it, does not mean it doesn't exist.

--
Bill

Well, no .... that wasn't what you said. Maybe that's what you meant. It is not what you said. Go back and read your post.

Of course there are people who have come to terms with death. I suppose there are people who also never have any need to escape from any aspect of the real world, no matter how incredibly awful that real world may be.

So, death and destruction all around them, and they are just fine with that. They've come to terms with that, and they are doing fine, just fine.

Me, I'll take refuge in a book from time to time. I like a bit of escape now and then.

[Bob Russell]

Wrt the escapism thing... I do read to escape in a sense. My days are usually full of problem-solving and intensity. Even at home it's all about getting stuff done. I enjoy reading a book to relax my mind and escape the responsibility and challenges of the day. As a result, I look for something light on a fun and comfortable topic, with characters that I enjoy "hanging out with" rather than perfect plots. It's kind of like the reading version of watching TV.

For me, that often means something like Vince Flynn/Christopher Reich/Brad Thor. I love the "popular" type fictional spy books and spy shows on TV. Or, dare I admit it, for a silly break I enjoy the Stephanie Plum series. That one is definitely a guilty pleasure, but the character and dialog is so easy and fun which makes it addictive. I just wish they'd clean it up just a bit. It's not too bad, but enough to make you a little uncomfortable.

Other times, I like to learn and experience, so biographies and history are fun for me. On those days, reading Harvard Classics or about colonial America seems light.

And if I'm in the mood to "tackle" something for fun, I'll read a mystery or a technical or business book. For me, it's all about the mood.

Btw, this is also why I tend to be in the middle of several books at any one time - so whatever my mood and energy level, I'm in the midst of a book that is perfect for the moment!

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Bob Russell

Btw, this is also why I tend to be in the middle of several books at any one time - so whatever my mood and energy level, I'm in the midst of a book that is perfect for the moment!

I think you have more than one book going at a time so you can escape from one book into another.

BOb

[Renaldo]

Originally Posted by Bob Russell

Btw, this is also why I tend to be in the middle of several books at any one time - so whatever my mood and energy level, I'm in the midst of a book that is perfect for the moment!

I'm the same way. This bothers some people, but I don't see it as any different than watching several different TV shows during the week.