12 ms·

I think the desire to understand the meaning of everything immediately defeats a lot of readers. If you're willing to read it more like a poem - to just experi

I think the desire to understand the meaning of everything immediately defeats a lot of readers. If you're willing to read it more like a poem - to just experience it and only understand some portion of what's going on then it is quite an immersive book. Time has increased the obscurity of much of what is said and done. Also it was released at a time when the education of an educated person with respect to literature, the classics and language was at something if a peak in Europe.

optimalsolver 4y ago
So you've read it cover to cover?
- scandox 4y ago
  I don't want to misjudge you but the question kind of suggests that no answer will truly satisfy. I mean like you could ask did your eyeball rest upon each word? Did your brain decode the meaning of every word? I don't know. I read it when I was 17 and again at 21. Haven't read it since. I studied literature so I had to read it the second time. It's very far from being a favourite and lots of silly things are said about it but it is readable and evocative and interesting.
culturestate 4y ago
> I think the desire to understand the meaning of everything immediately defeats a lot of readers. If you're willing to…just experience it and only understand some portion of what's going on then it is quite an immersive book. I love this sentiment. So many people have been conditioned to look for the “truth” in everything, when the reality is that not everything has a fundamental truth that’s meant to be universally understood. There was a thread on one of the design subreddits not long ago about London’s book benches[1]. Some of the commenters were absolutely convinced that the benches are deliberately designed to be hostile to the homeless, because the seat is curved and can’t be easily used for sleeping - never mind that it’s meant to look like an open book. Sometimes a thing is just a thing; sometimes a book is just a poem. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/gallery/2014/sep/01/londons-book-benches-readers-photos https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/gallery/2014/sep...
- krisoft 4y ago
  > Some of the commenters were absolutely convinced that the benches are deliberately designed to be hostile to the homeless, because the seat is curved and can’t be easily used for sleeping Why can't it be both? Hostile design in public infrastructure is absolutely a thing. I can't prove that the design was "deliberately" hostile but it's clearly hostile for sleeping on. > never mind that it’s meant to look like an open book Cool. This bed is also meant to look like an open book: https://bookpatrol.net/ruth-beales-bookbed/book-bed-ruth-beale-1/ https://bookpatrol.net/ruth-beales-bookbed/book-bed-ruth-bea... Yet you can sleep on this one and not sleep on the other one. Obviously you can say that one is meant to be a bed and that one is meant to be a bench. But surely you can imagine a bench which is booth looking like an open book and can be slept on?
- InitialLastName 4y ago
  > Some of the commenters were absolutely convinced that the benches are deliberately designed to be hostile to the homeless, because the seat is curved and can’t be easily used for sleeping - never mind that it’s meant to look like an open book. This is off-topic, but both things can be true. I would expect any competent organization who wanted to do hostile architecture in an aesthetic way would be able to find a solution like that.

optimalsolver 4y ago

So you've read it cover to cover?

scandox 4y ago
I don't want to misjudge you but the question kind of suggests that no answer will truly satisfy. I mean like you could ask did your eyeball rest upon each word? Did your brain decode the meaning of every word? I don't know. I read it when I was 17 and again at 21. Haven't read it since. I studied literature so I had to read it the second time. It's very far from being a favourite and lots of silly things are said about it but it is readable and evocative and interesting.

culturestate 4y ago

> I think the desire to understand the meaning of everything immediately defeats a lot of readers. If you're willing to…just experience it and only understand some portion of what's going on then it is quite an immersive book. I love this sentiment. So many people have been conditioned to look for the “truth” in everything, when the reality is that not everything has a fundamental truth that’s meant to be universally understood. There was a thread on one of the design subreddits not long ago about London’s book benches[1]. Some of the commenters were absolutely convinced that the benches are deliberately designed to be hostile to the homeless, because the seat is curved and can’t be easily used for sleeping - never mind that it’s meant to look like an open book. Sometimes a thing is just a thing; sometimes a book is just a poem. 1. https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/gallery/2014/sep/01/londons-book-benches-readers-photos https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/gallery/2014/sep...

krisoft 4y ago
> Some of the commenters were absolutely convinced that the benches are deliberately designed to be hostile to the homeless, because the seat is curved and can’t be easily used for sleeping Why can't it be both? Hostile design in public infrastructure is absolutely a thing. I can't prove that the design was "deliberately" hostile but it's clearly hostile for sleeping on. > never mind that it’s meant to look like an open book Cool. This bed is also meant to look like an open book: https://bookpatrol.net/ruth-beales-bookbed/book-bed-ruth-beale-1/ https://bookpatrol.net/ruth-beales-bookbed/book-bed-ruth-bea... Yet you can sleep on this one and not sleep on the other one. Obviously you can say that one is meant to be a bed and that one is meant to be a bench. But surely you can imagine a bench which is booth looking like an open book and can be slept on?
InitialLastName 4y ago
> Some of the commenters were absolutely convinced that the benches are deliberately designed to be hostile to the homeless, because the seat is curved and can’t be easily used for sleeping - never mind that it’s meant to look like an open book. This is off-topic, but both things can be true. I would expect any competent organization who wanted to do hostile architecture in an aesthetic way would be able to find a solution like that.