3 ms·

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

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.

WolfeReader 1y ago
Person A: "We need to tell adults that reading is a worthwhile endeavor, especially when reading complex material." Person B: "But how do you define complex?" Person A: "What a meaningless question. It does not matter at all." Person A: "The distinction is the why; if you read it for entertainment it is slop." Person B: "If we read Poe or Homer for entertainment, is it slop?" Person A: "How did you even get the idea?" I will admit that I misunderstood your "classics" argument. I thought you were saying a book has to be a classic AND complex (a term which, at this point in the thread, is literally meaningless) AND not read for entertainment, but really you're saying it can be ANY of those, right? Like, Doyle's Holmes stories are not always challenging literature, but they are classics, and thus worthy of attention. Whereas if we were speaking in 1925, they'd be "genre slop". I think I now CORRECTLY understand your arbitrary criteria. So complexity is determined by the reader's intention, to either challenge themselves or to be entertained? I found Dan Brown difficult to read, due to my dislike of his prose style and incessant brand name usage; would reading Dan Brown be a worthy self-challenge by your standards? Also, a note for your future discourses: the phrase "say what you will" does not imply that you already said a thing. It basically means "bash this person if you want, they're up for it, but I'm about to say something semi-favorable about them". Is this the first time you've seen that phrase?
- WolfeReader 1y ago
  You know what, I'm not even gonna wait for your reply. I'll come out and say it: You want a culture of literary snobbishness. You want to look down at people who don't read "complex" literature, where "complex" is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is you. You think books that are recent, easy to comprehend, and entertaining are "slop" - a word used to describe pig food; you can't stop yourself from using it. A lot of people don't actually want to look down on others in the way you're doing! If being a serious reader means looking down on others and calling their books "slop", you're going to drive people away. Books should be for everybody. The full-time worker who wants to kick back at the end of the day and read some romance or fantasy (or romantasy :) ) is doing more for their literacy and empathy than any social media use would accomplish. By discouraging this - and you are, every time you call it "slop" - you are contributing to illiteracy.
  - constantcrying 1y ago
    What I wanted to say was that people should read books which challenge themselves. That the judge of complexity should be they and that it is not up to me to decide what people read. That reading for the sake of reading is actually always worthwhile and that nobody should be judged for what they are reading. That all reading is a joy. That slop was just a way to categorize, but that each person themselves had to categorize themselves. That there is nothing wrong with treasuring what other see as banal or slop. All this is what I was trying to express to you. I tried to emphasize, because I am a reader of genre fiction and I do love books. Just like you. But actually you made me rethink this. Reading slop is worthless. The only reason to do is because it is marginally better than watching tiktok. I will look at someone reading Kings slop novels just like I look at someone watching TikTok slop. Reading for the sake of reading is worthless. Someone being illiterate or only reading slop makes no difference at all. Yes I do look down at you. Reading romance novels does make you a worse person. Sci-fi is for people who are semi tech literate losers who do not shower enough. Fantasy is for people running around in plastic armor as if they were 5. I guess a thank you is in order for making me come to this realization.
    - 1y ago

WolfeReader 1y ago

Person A: "We need to tell adults that reading is a worthwhile endeavor, especially when reading complex material." Person B: "But how do you define complex?" Person A: "What a meaningless question. It does not matter at all." Person A: "The distinction is the why; if you read it for entertainment it is slop." Person B: "If we read Poe or Homer for entertainment, is it slop?" Person A: "How did you even get the idea?" I will admit that I misunderstood your "classics" argument. I thought you were saying a book has to be a classic AND complex (a term which, at this point in the thread, is literally meaningless) AND not read for entertainment, but really you're saying it can be ANY of those, right? Like, Doyle's Holmes stories are not always challenging literature, but they are classics, and thus worthy of attention. Whereas if we were speaking in 1925, they'd be "genre slop". I think I now CORRECTLY understand your arbitrary criteria. So complexity is determined by the reader's intention, to either challenge themselves or to be entertained? I found Dan Brown difficult to read, due to my dislike of his prose style and incessant brand name usage; would reading Dan Brown be a worthy self-challenge by your standards? Also, a note for your future discourses: the phrase "say what you will" does not imply that you already said a thing. It basically means "bash this person if you want, they're up for it, but I'm about to say something semi-favorable about them". Is this the first time you've seen that phrase?

WolfeReader 1y ago
You know what, I'm not even gonna wait for your reply. I'll come out and say it: You want a culture of literary snobbishness. You want to look down at people who don't read "complex" literature, where "complex" is in the eye of the beholder, and the beholder is you. You think books that are recent, easy to comprehend, and entertaining are "slop" - a word used to describe pig food; you can't stop yourself from using it. A lot of people don't actually want to look down on others in the way you're doing! If being a serious reader means looking down on others and calling their books "slop", you're going to drive people away. Books should be for everybody. The full-time worker who wants to kick back at the end of the day and read some romance or fantasy (or romantasy :) ) is doing more for their literacy and empathy than any social media use would accomplish. By discouraging this - and you are, every time you call it "slop" - you are contributing to illiteracy.
- constantcrying 1y ago
  What I wanted to say was that people should read books which challenge themselves. That the judge of complexity should be they and that it is not up to me to decide what people read. That reading for the sake of reading is actually always worthwhile and that nobody should be judged for what they are reading. That all reading is a joy. That slop was just a way to categorize, but that each person themselves had to categorize themselves. That there is nothing wrong with treasuring what other see as banal or slop. All this is what I was trying to express to you. I tried to emphasize, because I am a reader of genre fiction and I do love books. Just like you. But actually you made me rethink this. Reading slop is worthless. The only reason to do is because it is marginally better than watching tiktok. I will look at someone reading Kings slop novels just like I look at someone watching TikTok slop. Reading for the sake of reading is worthless. Someone being illiterate or only reading slop makes no difference at all. Yes I do look down at you. Reading romance novels does make you a worse person. Sci-fi is for people who are semi tech literate losers who do not shower enough. Fantasy is for people running around in plastic armor as if they were 5. I guess a thank you is in order for making me come to this realization.
  - 1y ago