4 ms·

It’s not my problem, as I’ve enthusiastically agreed with you in multiple posts in this thread. I think treating reading as necessarily some kind of “elevated”

It’s not my problem, as I’ve enthusiastically agreed with you in multiple posts in this thread. I think treating reading as necessarily some kind of “elevated” activity is weird and incorrect. It’s not, necessarily. It’s often in fact not. And yet one can still read, and enjoy it, that being the case. Folks can, should, and do read whatever they please, for a whole bunch of purposes. And I don’t have a problem with that. It’d be strange if I did, being one of those same folks who reads for a whole bunch of purposes. I’m rebutting the notion that books have to be improving. They often really, really aren’t. And that’s fine, we don’t need to pretend the activity’s always morally superior to binging Stranger Things or something. It’s often not, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The “readers are special” faction is who I’ve got beef with, to the extent I have any.

pests 3y ago
I have read this thread again and we are in complete agreement. I initially thought you were arguing that useless reading was pointless and shouldn't be done. I too have beef with the "readers are special" faction but I think its a more general faction we should have concern about - people who make something their entire identity. Then self-esteem is tied to that activity and now that by default means its more prestigous or intellectual or important or what have you. For what it's worth, I think a book can still be improving even if its written in simplistic language and grammer because a book has the ability to tell a story from another humans perspective. We all lack that ability and I think we all could use a bit more empathy in our lives.
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  Yeah, re-reading it, that first post of mine could have been better. I don’t write that reading cotton-candy fiction is bad, but it could be read as implying it. It’s not bad, it’s just that it’s also not better than a bunch of other activities just because it’s reading. Most reading that happens (the optional reading, anyway) isn’t some lofty activity that’s a ton “better” than, say, watching TV. And that is ok. > Then self-esteem is tied to that activity and now that by default means its more prestigous or intellectual or important or what have you. I’m sure motivations vary, but I definitely get a sense of insecurity behind a lot of the “look at me, I’m a reader! You should be a reader too, reading makes you better!” stuff. Which, fine, whatever, but I’m sure there are a few folks out there who buy that messaging while not managing to get into reading for pleasure, and who feel bad about it, but they really shouldn’t. Can you truly expand your horizons and, maybe even, a little, become a better person through reading or whatever else it is that people suppose reading does that’s good for you? Yeah, I think so. I’d agree with that. I think I’ve gotten a lot of good out of many books I’ve read. Is that what most folks are up to most of the time they’re reading? LOL no. What’s got more viewers, the latest sublime, expertly crafted, dense, soul-scouring, literary-and-literate gem of a Cannes darling (“and this one’s really good, I swear, it’s not just award bait”), or the latest Marvel movie? How many who watch the latter will watch a single film this year that really demands their full attention and yields more and more good Zen food (if you will) the harder you interrogate it? Not many. Reading’s the same. Which is Ok! > For what it's worth, I think a book can still be improving even if its written in simplistic language and grammer because a book has the ability to tell a story from another humans perspective. We all lack that ability and I think we all could use a bit more empathy in our lives. One of my sins in this thread is that I’ve been sloppy with implying “hard-to-read language” means “good book”. To be clear, I definitely don’t think a book must be good if the language is complex or “elevated”, and I don’t think all good books have complex language. I do think some excellent books with complex or elevated language couldn’t be much simplified without doing them great violence—that they really needed the complexity, by which I don’t necessarily mean opaque Finnegan’s Wake stuff, but maybe just something a tad trickier than Goosebumps. What I do think is that really good books are usually harder to read, and harder to appreciate, in some sense, than the average airport novel, but that can be because a bunch of what they’re doing has to do with things many readers aren’t tuned-in to (theme, careful word choice that you’ll miss if you’re not reading closely, really subtle character work, that kind of thing), or because it assumes certain background reading has been done to get the full effect, or something of that sort—and maybe, but not necessarily, also because it includes sentences with multiple clauses, and more-than-rarely employs paragraphs longer than a quarter-page with little repetition or restatement of context, in which you’ll get lost if you’re used to skimming. Meanwhile, I genuinely love a few picture books that can’t have more than a few hundred words each, and think they’re truly great. Can they do as much as a stompin’ big novel? Can they do the same things? Nah, but I mean hell, how many stuffy literature teachers have assigned Le Petit Prince? More than zero, and with good reason. I’ll gladly read Madeline solo, slowly, drinking in the words and pictures, and kinda meditate on life—that thing’s a whole mood. Good shit. Not everything with simple language is bad, and nothing’s bad just because the language is simple. … and, just because this thread’s been a mess in part due to my sloppiness, the above is not intended as some exhaustive exploration of all the ways and for-whom a book might be either good or bad. I have not covered every corner of that topic, and I know it. :-)

pests 3y ago

I have read this thread again and we are in complete agreement. I initially thought you were arguing that useless reading was pointless and shouldn't be done. I too have beef with the "readers are special" faction but I think its a more general faction we should have concern about - people who make something their entire identity. Then self-esteem is tied to that activity and now that by default means its more prestigous or intellectual or important or what have you. For what it's worth, I think a book can still be improving even if its written in simplistic language and grammer because a book has the ability to tell a story from another humans perspective. We all lack that ability and I think we all could use a bit more empathy in our lives.

hotnfresh 3y ago
Yeah, re-reading it, that first post of mine could have been better. I don’t write that reading cotton-candy fiction is bad, but it could be read as implying it. It’s not bad, it’s just that it’s also not better than a bunch of other activities just because it’s reading. Most reading that happens (the optional reading, anyway) isn’t some lofty activity that’s a ton “better” than, say, watching TV. And that is ok. > Then self-esteem is tied to that activity and now that by default means its more prestigous or intellectual or important or what have you. I’m sure motivations vary, but I definitely get a sense of insecurity behind a lot of the “look at me, I’m a reader! You should be a reader too, reading makes you better!” stuff. Which, fine, whatever, but I’m sure there are a few folks out there who buy that messaging while not managing to get into reading for pleasure, and who feel bad about it, but they really shouldn’t. Can you truly expand your horizons and, maybe even, a little, become a better person through reading or whatever else it is that people suppose reading does that’s good for you? Yeah, I think so. I’d agree with that. I think I’ve gotten a lot of good out of many books I’ve read. Is that what most folks are up to most of the time they’re reading? LOL no. What’s got more viewers, the latest sublime, expertly crafted, dense, soul-scouring, literary-and-literate gem of a Cannes darling (“and this one’s really good, I swear, it’s not just award bait”), or the latest Marvel movie? How many who watch the latter will watch a single film this year that really demands their full attention and yields more and more good Zen food (if you will) the harder you interrogate it? Not many. Reading’s the same. Which is Ok! > For what it's worth, I think a book can still be improving even if its written in simplistic language and grammer because a book has the ability to tell a story from another humans perspective. We all lack that ability and I think we all could use a bit more empathy in our lives. One of my sins in this thread is that I’ve been sloppy with implying “hard-to-read language” means “good book”. To be clear, I definitely don’t think a book must be good if the language is complex or “elevated”, and I don’t think all good books have complex language. I do think some excellent books with complex or elevated language couldn’t be much simplified without doing them great violence—that they really needed the complexity, by which I don’t necessarily mean opaque Finnegan’s Wake stuff, but maybe just something a tad trickier than Goosebumps. What I do think is that really good books are usually harder to read, and harder to appreciate, in some sense, than the average airport novel, but that can be because a bunch of what they’re doing has to do with things many readers aren’t tuned-in to (theme, careful word choice that you’ll miss if you’re not reading closely, really subtle character work, that kind of thing), or because it assumes certain background reading has been done to get the full effect, or something of that sort—and maybe, but not necessarily, also because it includes sentences with multiple clauses, and more-than-rarely employs paragraphs longer than a quarter-page with little repetition or restatement of context, in which you’ll get lost if you’re used to skimming. Meanwhile, I genuinely love a few picture books that can’t have more than a few hundred words each, and think they’re truly great. Can they do as much as a stompin’ big novel? Can they do the same things? Nah, but I mean hell, how many stuffy literature teachers have assigned Le Petit Prince? More than zero, and with good reason. I’ll gladly read Madeline solo, slowly, drinking in the words and pictures, and kinda meditate on life—that thing’s a whole mood. Good shit. Not everything with simple language is bad, and nothing’s bad just because the language is simple. … and, just because this thread’s been a mess in part due to my sloppiness, the above is not intended as some exhaustive exploration of all the ways and for-whom a book might be either good or bad. I have not covered every corner of that topic, and I know it. :-)