3 ms·

No discussion of what books and why. It's just taken as granted that it's good to read lots of books, to be a reader. I'm not necessarily disagreeing. But I al

No discussion of what books and why. It's just taken as granted that it's good to read lots of books, to be a reader. I'm not necessarily disagreeing. But I also want to think critically about why I read books. I don't want to read books just so I can tell people I read lots of books. I've concluded that I read for entertainment, to understand other people, and for community - to have something in common with other readers of that book. Three recent books: The most recent book I read was Thief of Time by Terry Pratchett. Very much in the entertainment category, but also for community: it's nice to have something in common, shared reference points, something to talk about with all the nice people loving these books, including family. Then a book Norwegian book called "Men who hate local history", which I bought because I was traveling alone with limited other entertainment, and had heard about it and wanted to know what it was about (understanding people). But its entertainment value was questionable, and by god, it has more "serious Norwegian literature" clichés than "genre books" (what these authors absolutely do not want to get associated with) have "genre clichés". It IS a genre, just not a very entertaining one. Put it down, unsure if I will finish this one. I tried to read Stefan Zweig, "The world of yesterday". That was strictly "understanding people". "Famous Jewish playwrights of the final days Austro-Hungarian empire" are not people I would think I have much in common with, and I don't, and it at times makes it downright alienating reading. Like, I can see he was absolutely starstruck by the art and culture of his time and place, and I can see that this time and place was hugely influential and had profound impacts on our world today (I've seen it claimed you could theoretically meet Hitler, Stalin, Tito, Trotsky etc. on the street in Vienna in these years, as well as Freud and all the art world celebrities Zweig obsessed over). But I just can't say I feel that sense of wonder myself and man, is it bleak reading. I put it down indefinitely.

guilhermesfc 3mo ago
- I had the exact same thought as you: “No discussion of what books and why.” But while reading your comment, I realized that I am actually fine with that. I really do not want to think critically about why I read books. Over the years, I have come to feel that many of the things I find worthwhile are somewhat self-evidently worthwhile (appreciating art comes to mind). Do you really want to think critically about why you enjoy spending time with people you like? Also, part of the joy of reading, for me, is precisely that it helps me get outside my own head and avoid that kind of critical thinking. - Regarding "The World of Yesterday", I should say that it was one of the most impressive books I have ever read. I still often remember particular passages and the emotions they evoked. There is also a certain irony in your saying that you cannot relate to it, because part of what makes the book so fascinating is that it describes a time that is chronologically quite close to our own, yet also profoundly different, beautiful, and completely gone. My two cents: please give it another try!
- vintermann 3mo ago
  I do want to think critically about why I read specific books. It doesn't take away from my enjoyment if the answer is just "I really enjoy the writing". And when the answer is about other people, then I think it's good to be aware of it - so you can say, for instance, "I'm glad I have all these books as a shared experience with all my fellow Terry Pratchett fans" --- or maybe, "Why do I care about what these people think?". About "The World of Yesterday", I can only say that e.g. Zweig speaking about how he was moved to tears by some piece of art feels a bit alienating, when the art has no such effect on me. What you say > it describes a time that is chronologically quite close to our own, yet also profoundly different, beautiful, and completely gone. IS why I find the book interesting, there's just an asterisk by "beautiful" for me, since clearly Zweig thought it a lot more beautiful than I do. I can't feel what he's feeling just from him describing it, since recent as it may be, his background was completely different from my own in most ways I can think of. I do think it's likely I'll pick it up again, but I can't relate well to it on a personal level.

guilhermesfc 3mo ago

- I had the exact same thought as you: “No discussion of what books and why.” But while reading your comment, I realized that I am actually fine with that. I really do not want to think critically about why I read books. Over the years, I have come to feel that many of the things I find worthwhile are somewhat self-evidently worthwhile (appreciating art comes to mind). Do you really want to think critically about why you enjoy spending time with people you like? Also, part of the joy of reading, for me, is precisely that it helps me get outside my own head and avoid that kind of critical thinking. - Regarding "The World of Yesterday", I should say that it was one of the most impressive books I have ever read. I still often remember particular passages and the emotions they evoked. There is also a certain irony in your saying that you cannot relate to it, because part of what makes the book so fascinating is that it describes a time that is chronologically quite close to our own, yet also profoundly different, beautiful, and completely gone. My two cents: please give it another try!

vintermann 3mo ago
I do want to think critically about why I read specific books. It doesn't take away from my enjoyment if the answer is just "I really enjoy the writing". And when the answer is about other people, then I think it's good to be aware of it - so you can say, for instance, "I'm glad I have all these books as a shared experience with all my fellow Terry Pratchett fans" --- or maybe, "Why do I care about what these people think?". About "The World of Yesterday", I can only say that e.g. Zweig speaking about how he was moved to tears by some piece of art feels a bit alienating, when the art has no such effect on me. What you say > it describes a time that is chronologically quite close to our own, yet also profoundly different, beautiful, and completely gone. IS why I find the book interesting, there's just an asterisk by "beautiful" for me, since clearly Zweig thought it a lot more beautiful than I do. I can't feel what he's feeling just from him describing it, since recent as it may be, his background was completely different from my own in most ways I can think of. I do think it's likely I'll pick it up again, but I can't relate well to it on a personal level.