3 ms·

"We should read fewer books that I don't like, and more books that I do like." https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/nov/23/science-fiction-triggers-poorer-re

"We should read fewer books that I don't like, and more books that I do like." https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/nov/23/science-fiction-triggers-poorer-reading-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/nov/23/science-fictio...

constantcrying 1y ago
I have read maybe a thousand books of fantasy or science fiction, including 10k pages long fantasy series. Some of it was good, but most of it was pure slop. People read for a variety of reasons and I am not saying that people should not be reading their genre fiction slop. But to a culture of reading belongs the idea that reading challenging works is also important and that a deeper meaning is to be found in classical works. If we want a society which reads we need books which are more than movies without images. We need to tell adults that reading is a worthwhile endeavor, especially when reading complex material. Only then literacy can rise again, because only then will people believe that it is important to be able to read.
- WolfeReader 1y ago
  Who is it that distinguishes the "slop" (you love that word) from the complex? You seem to be focused on the idea of genre, which is orthagonal to the quality of the prose, the depth of the characters, the complexity of the themes, etc. You might as well focus on the size of the font.
  - constantcrying 1y ago
    >Who is it that distinguishes the "slop" (you love that word) from the complex? Why do you just completely ignore what I say? The answer is already part of my last response to you. Again, the distinction is the why if you read it for entertainment it is slop. Most of genre fiction is terrible slop which totally fails at "quality of the prose, the depth of the characters, the complexity of the themes, etc.". You should ask yourself why you are so upset by this distinction. Classics are books which stood the test of time, which have been read for hundreds if not thousands of years. Engaging with that or the 1 millionth Harry Potter clone, magical school romance, is incomparable.
    - WolfeReader 1y ago
      You're making three distinctions here and lumping them all into one. Let me check my understanding here. To you, for a book to be worthwhile, it must satisfy 3 criteria: 1. It must be "complex". 2. It must be over 100 years old. 3. The reader must seek it out for reasons other than entertainment. The first one sounds good on paper, but I ask again (and observe how you tried to dodge the question): WHO defines which books are considered "complex"? The second one is baffling. Certainly if a book is still sought out centuries after being read, it is probably good! But this also rejects the idea that anyone writing in the 21st century - or most of the 20th, for that matter - is at all worthy of consideration. I don't think we're going to create a culture of literacy by rejecting everything modern. And the third, the real bee in your bonnet, the idea that people would seek out a book for entertainment, read it, and be entertained. You claim to want a culture of literacy, but you've spent more words bashing the fiction of Sanderson and Scalzi and King (and the readers thereof) than on the increasing number of non-readers this topic is about. If Sanderson recommended that his fans read The Odyssey, or King recommended Poe, their readers would surely seek them out to be entertained, right? Does that eliminate Homer and Poe from your consideration? You want to create a "literate society" which treats reading as an exercise in self-flagellation. Like giving yourself homework. I don't think this will work. Say what you will about Rowling (and I will: she sucks!) but she got kids reading, and interested in mythology, for a good number of years. Notably before the rise of social media.
      - constantcrying 1y ago
        Let me be honest, I despise your post. All your arguments are just made up and are totally disconnected from anything I said. According to you I bashed certain authors, but I did not name any author at all. Nor did I even say that you should not read genres fiction, in fact I said it is a perfectly fine thing to do and that I was an avid reader of genre fiction myself. How you went from my words, to your claims about me is baffling. >The first one sounds good on paper, but I ask again (and observe how you tried to dodge the question): WHO defines which books are considered "complex"? What a meaningless question. It does not matter at all. What matters is that the reader is challenging himself. >The second one is baffling. Certainly if a book is still sought out centuries after being read, it is probably good! But this also rejects the idea that anyone writing in the 21st century - or most of the 20th, for that matter - is at all worthy of consideration. This is just false. A totally nonsensical arguments. Classics can exist and good authors can exist as well. There is no contradiction. >And the third, the real bee in your bonnet, the idea that people would seek out a book for entertainment, read it, and be entertained. What a convincing argument. Except I said the exact opposite. >If Sanderson recommended that his fans read The Odyssey, or King recommended Poe, their readers would surely seek them out to be entertained, right? Does that eliminate Homer and Poe from your consideration? No. How did you even get the idea? >You want to create a "literate society" which treats reading as an exercise in self-flagellation. Just another made up argument. >Say what you will about Rowling But I did not say anything about Rowling. Not a single word. Genuinely. I hate your post. You are responding to an argument which does not exist. I hate talking to you. If you are the average genre fiction reader than illiteracy is truly preferable.

constantcrying 1y ago

I have read maybe a thousand books of fantasy or science fiction, including 10k pages long fantasy series. Some of it was good, but most of it was pure slop. People read for a variety of reasons and I am not saying that people should not be reading their genre fiction slop. But to a culture of reading belongs the idea that reading challenging works is also important and that a deeper meaning is to be found in classical works. If we want a society which reads we need books which are more than movies without images. We need to tell adults that reading is a worthwhile endeavor, especially when reading complex material. Only then literacy can rise again, because only then will people believe that it is important to be able to read.

WolfeReader 1y ago
Who is it that distinguishes the "slop" (you love that word) from the complex? You seem to be focused on the idea of genre, which is orthagonal to the quality of the prose, the depth of the characters, the complexity of the themes, etc. You might as well focus on the size of the font.
- constantcrying 1y ago
  >Who is it that distinguishes the "slop" (you love that word) from the complex? Why do you just completely ignore what I say? The answer is already part of my last response to you. Again, the distinction is the why if you read it for entertainment it is slop. Most of genre fiction is terrible slop which totally fails at "quality of the prose, the depth of the characters, the complexity of the themes, etc.". You should ask yourself why you are so upset by this distinction. Classics are books which stood the test of time, which have been read for hundreds if not thousands of years. Engaging with that or the 1 millionth Harry Potter clone, magical school romance, is incomparable.
  - WolfeReader 1y ago
    You're making three distinctions here and lumping them all into one. Let me check my understanding here. To you, for a book to be worthwhile, it must satisfy 3 criteria: 1. It must be "complex". 2. It must be over 100 years old. 3. The reader must seek it out for reasons other than entertainment. The first one sounds good on paper, but I ask again (and observe how you tried to dodge the question): WHO defines which books are considered "complex"? The second one is baffling. Certainly if a book is still sought out centuries after being read, it is probably good! But this also rejects the idea that anyone writing in the 21st century - or most of the 20th, for that matter - is at all worthy of consideration. I don't think we're going to create a culture of literacy by rejecting everything modern. And the third, the real bee in your bonnet, the idea that people would seek out a book for entertainment, read it, and be entertained. You claim to want a culture of literacy, but you've spent more words bashing the fiction of Sanderson and Scalzi and King (and the readers thereof) than on the increasing number of non-readers this topic is about. If Sanderson recommended that his fans read The Odyssey, or King recommended Poe, their readers would surely seek them out to be entertained, right? Does that eliminate Homer and Poe from your consideration? You want to create a "literate society" which treats reading as an exercise in self-flagellation. Like giving yourself homework. I don't think this will work. Say what you will about Rowling (and I will: she sucks!) but she got kids reading, and interested in mythology, for a good number of years. Notably before the rise of social media.
    - constantcrying 1y ago
      Let me be honest, I despise your post. All your arguments are just made up and are totally disconnected from anything I said. According to you I bashed certain authors, but I did not name any author at all. Nor did I even say that you should not read genres fiction, in fact I said it is a perfectly fine thing to do and that I was an avid reader of genre fiction myself. How you went from my words, to your claims about me is baffling. >The first one sounds good on paper, but I ask again (and observe how you tried to dodge the question): WHO defines which books are considered "complex"? What a meaningless question. It does not matter at all. What matters is that the reader is challenging himself. >The second one is baffling. Certainly if a book is still sought out centuries after being read, it is probably good! But this also rejects the idea that anyone writing in the 21st century - or most of the 20th, for that matter - is at all worthy of consideration. This is just false. A totally nonsensical arguments. Classics can exist and good authors can exist as well. There is no contradiction. >And the third, the real bee in your bonnet, the idea that people would seek out a book for entertainment, read it, and be entertained. What a convincing argument. Except I said the exact opposite. >If Sanderson recommended that his fans read The Odyssey, or King recommended Poe, their readers would surely seek them out to be entertained, right? Does that eliminate Homer and Poe from your consideration? No. How did you even get the idea? >You want to create a "literate society" which treats reading as an exercise in self-flagellation. Just another made up argument. >Say what you will about Rowling But I did not say anything about Rowling. Not a single word. Genuinely. I hate your post. You are responding to an argument which does not exist. I hate talking to you. If you are the average genre fiction reader than illiteracy is truly preferable.