When did reading become a thing to hate?

[NickyT]

I think it was shunned about the time we evolved into idiots.

But I personally like reading if it's a good book. If not... time for some good old button mashing.

 

[Melaisis]

Well usually, nowadays, its either full of old men who only come to see the equally old, 'headline' band perform on the last night, or a load of cheap-ass university students which would rather attend a three-day orgy of sex, drugs and pseudo-rock and roll in a mud-filled cesspit than actually spend the money on improving their equally declining standard of living.

Oh, you meant the verb...

 

[CodeChrono]

My hobby is reading. It breaks my heart to see so many people distaste literature. It kills me to see the youth put ALL of there lives into video games or other stuff. There should always be a time to put down the controller and read. :O

 

[cleverlymadeup]

they want you to understand the book not the words. symbolism is not trivial.

take for example 'to kill a mockingbird' (a book i had to read in school)

they want you to understand the racism, the decency of some members of humanity even though all around them is quite turgid, the fact that somethings are not worth boasting about.

don't discount what you were forced to do in school / college

yeah i could easily gather it was about racism, hmm lynching a black man, yeah not too hard to figure out the issue there

i discount it because it's over done and well resembles a dead horse with most english classes.

there's a quote that goes "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" and various meanings of it but it does apply to analyzing things, and sometimes things are just what they are with no hidden meaning

 

[Logan Westbrook]

Well usually, nowadays, its either full of old men who only come to see the equally old, 'headline' band perform on the last night, or a load of cheap-ass university students which would rather attend a three-day orgy of sex, drugs and pseudo-rock and roll in a mud-filled cesspit than actually spend the money on improving their equally declining standard of living.

Oh, you meant the verb...

*chuckles and applauds*

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

All gamers should be required to read 'Blood Meridian' so they can get a realistic picture of what a violent trigger happy sociopath is actually like. After reading that book I couldn't ever take an FPS seriously again. They're just so blatantly ignoring the reality of killing that much.

As soon as I finish my stupid exams I'm getting back to some glorious, GLORIOUS, pleasure reading starting with 'The Road' and then spiraling into some history books.

 

[Easykill]

I see no advantages of poetry over prose.

Let me give you one: you can make a sharp, direct statement that you can't in prose (which is the exact opposite of the way you're categorizing all poetry).

I'm a big Marge Piercy fan. I loved _Small Changes_ and that's a damn thick book with everything spelled out. However, in a book like that you can't make a memorable, short statement like you can in poetry. In one of her poems ("What's That Smell in the Kitchen") she writes: "Burning dinner is not incompetence but war." No way that line would stand out the way it does if it were in a book.

In a book you can't, but a short story can do it a hell of a lot better than a poem. I realize most people won't agree with me, and I wasn't trying to insult anyone. I just don't see it.

No, I still think you can't, let alone do it better. See, a short story is still like a book in that it requires a plot. That's the main advantage you have in a poem as opposed to a book or a short story--you don't need a plot. I mean sure you can write a book like a poem, but then you get Joyce. And basically only Joyce could write like Joyce.

Writing a poem frees one of the need to present events in such a way the reader can locate them on a timeline. In a poem one can present them according to *any* kind of logic, not just chronological logic. Books and short stories are a kind of history, a history of a fictional world, but history nonetheless because they describe change over time. When you write poetry you don't have to describe any change over time (which is really what a plot is). Different events can be connected by something other than causation: they can be connected by emotion or reason or anything one would like.

I think this is because in even the shortest of stories each paragraph, each sentence, each clause even has to make some sort of sense standing as an individual unit. Sure the real meaning of those words can be revealed later on, but only to a certain degree. In a poem you can delay the meaning of any part of it for as long as you want. A poem gives the advantage of being able to write something that must be taken as a whole for any of it to make sense.

That's why a short statement stands out more than in either a book or a short story. It's not about length: _Paradise Lost_ is a poem, remember, and that's book length, let alone short story length. It's about how books and short stories have plots, which means those statements become tied to a certain part of the plot. In a poem they can be tied to something other than plot.

In short: in a poem the 'music' of the words can do the same job plot does in a short story or novel. That opens up all kinds of different ways to express one's self.

Well said, but the facts remain that I still don't like poetry, criticize the reasons for that all you wish, but it ain't changing. I feel prose is more accessible, and I like things to have a definite meaning. What I was talking about in my original post is very closely connected with a lack of structure.
Now that I think about it, your chronological comment makes sense to an extent; but the poems I've seen that have utilized this have mostly been poems about nothing, just observations really.
I just don't find most poems entertaining, and I'm not really motivated to jump into the pile of sewage to find one stinking penny. Agree to disagree.

Edit: Here I sit, broken hearted,
Tried to shit, but only farted.
Then one day I took a chance,
Tried to fart and shit my pants.

 

[Geoffrey42]

@Easykill: I think maybe you would get less friction from Cheeze_Pavilion if you just stated it as "I don't like poetry", rather than implying that your preference is indicative of a greater failing in the medium. I don't think we're trying to convince you to like it, but just because you don't like, there's no need to diss it.
P.S. While I fully cherish the proper usage of the term "ain't", due to a greater love of contractions, I ain't in favor of individuals tarnishing its usage by throwing it around inappropriately.

@The topic as a whole: Some retard on a videogame chat says something disparaging, and we all take this is widespread evidence that reading is looked down upon? Teenagers are dumb. Certain sections of American society are racist and ignorant. And? Surprise?

Forgive me, but this whole thread sounds a bit like a rounded shape-like short-rapid movement of "Oh, woe is me, I like reading, but society doesn't appreciate me for it." "Oh, ME TOO!" Wow, and look right there, we've got a room full of people that don't ostracize reading.

On the tangents related to the way that English Literature is taught, I have to agree that the "bull" and the "shit" are massively present. I think we should start with allowing people to enjoy reading, and once they've got that, then we can try and instill a more analytical approach. As a similar anecdotal experience, I once took a pure elective called "The Absurd: From Prometheus to Godot". We read Moliere, and Alice in Wonderland, etc, and then tried to "analyze" it. Most painful class I've ever taken. We were discussing the caucus race in Alice one day, and out of sheer boredom, I made the sarcastic remark: "In the timeframe that this was being written, would socialism/communism have been relevant? The way that Alice is forced to provide a prize to everyone, and in the end, is left with nothing for herself, could be seen as a communist critique." Professor: "Interesting. Could you expand on that?" Potentially, my sphinctered-waste-management-orifice extracted comment might have had real validity if I were trying harder, but seriously? Maybe he was on drugs. Let's analyze Poe's opiate dreams while we're at it.

 

[Yan-Yan]

Ohh, poetry. I find that poetry are like novels. They all have a different story to tell, they're all for different levels of involvement, and not any of them are for everyone.

While I can enjoy some poetry, most I admit I will roll my eyes over and wonder how it would look if one didn't limit themselves to certain restraints while creating it. The restraints are what make some poems truly epic, while at the same time, those restraints have a chance of changing the true meaning of what the author was trying to get across. After all, when you limit yourself to rhymes, you're (generic 'you', meaning people in general) more willing to substitute a rhyming word that is close in meaning for a word that is both more accurate but won't rhyme as well (if at all).

For that reason, I find stories (short to novels) to be more 'accurate'. The fact that they read easier to me is practically a side note at this point, but they do. I can read a book of short stories much easier then I can a book of poetry.

 

[Sib]

@The topic as a whole: Some retard on a videogame chat says something disparaging, and we all take this is widespread evidence that reading is looked down upon? Teenagers are dumb. Certain sections of American society are racist and ignorant. And? Surprise?

It's not just one retard though, because most of these people could back up their statements with umpteen other examples of peoples distate for reading. I know that guy wasn't the first.

 

[GoddamnitReddas]

I've grown up with a book in my hand. I learned how to read when I was three, after a good dose of my mother and father reading to me before I went to bed every night. When I'm done work in school, I read. When I'm eating, I read. When I'm tired, I read, and when I'm about to go to bed, I read.
I read on the bus, in the car, on the plane, while waiting for the doctor. Whenever I can, I read. I also bring a book with me where ever I go; if I don't, I feel odd. Books have become my security blanket.
I have also never been made fun of for reading. If anything, I've been treating with bemusement by my classmates, only getting a 'Jesus that's like your third book and it's only Wednesday' at the most.
That might have been because I beat up the first person to harass me about it and take my book.

However, I don't read because it makes me seem smarter or because I like to tear a book up and down with 'what does this mean?' shit. I do it because it's fun, no other reason. The general populace hasn't really figured that out yet.

 

[Easykill]

@Easykill: I think maybe you would get less friction from Cheeze_Pavilion if you just stated it as "I don't like poetry", rather than implying that your preference is indicative of a greater failing in the medium. I don't think we're trying to convince you to like it, but just because you don't like, there's no need to diss it.
P.S. While I fully cherish the proper usage of the term "ain't", due to a greater love of contractions, I ain't in favor of individuals tarnishing its usage by throwing it around inappropriately.

That was more or less what I was trying to say, but I figured I should specify why I don't like it instead of just saying poetry sucks. I wasn't really trying to put down the medium at all. Just giving reasons for why I don't like it.
I will admit, I was getting a little tired of this by my last post and may sound a little overly-negative and/or stupid. As for ain't, I only use it once every leap year, what'd I do wrong?

Edit: Oh, I see. I used it as an Isn't when it's supposed to be used as an Am Not, but it's commonly used my way too, so I excuse myself.

 

[Easykill]

@Easykill: I think maybe you would get less friction from Cheeze_Pavilion if you just stated it as "I don't like poetry", rather than implying that your preference is indicative of a greater failing in the medium. I don't think we're trying to convince you to like it, but just because you don't like, there's no need to diss it.

That was more or less what I was trying to say, but I figured I should specify why I don't like it instead of just saying poetry sucks. I wasn't really trying to put down the medium at all. Just giving reasons for why I don't like it.

Ahh, okay. When you give reasons for why you do or do not like something as opposed to making an objective comment about something, it's best to steer away from stating things that sound like facts. For example, when you say "I like things to have a definite meaning" as a reason for not liking poetry, you're not just giving us your subjective opinions as a reason, you're also giving us an objective conclusion that poetry isn't capable of having as definite a meaning as prose (which is objectively untrue)

Like you said, you don't like poetry and that isn't going to change. However, before giving a reason for it, think on whether that reason is based on objective facts. When you base a reason on objective facts you have to be willing to change your opinion if those facts turn out to be different, or admit it wasn't the real reason in the first place.

You don't have to say something sucks to give your subjective opinion. Just say you don't enjoy it--that's much clearer than giving reasons that are not actually reasons at all. Unless of course you're interested in exactly why you don't like something and have some ideas about it, and want to see if those are the real reasons or it's actually something else by having a discussion about it.

Acknowledged. You made some pretty(oops, before the edit this was petty) good points, but I still don't really feel any differently about it. Except I respect you a bit more I guess.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

The only English class I've ever liked was my first English 101 class. He was required to choose one novel for us to read and dissect. He chose....The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller. Pure awesomeness.

 

[Yan-Yan]

the restraint in poetry (which doesn't have to be rhyme; it can be the meter of blank verse or just the lyric quality of free verse) replaces the restraint most prose operates under of having to change "the true meaning of what the author was trying to get across" in order to conform to the plot.

Okay, if I'm reading that correctly, you're saying that an author's restraint in a poem (compromising meaning for the sake of the restraint) is comparable (indeed identical) to an author's restraint in a novel (a compromise for the sake of the plot). Right? I have to disagree, because that doesn't seem right. It may be a tool, but it's still a limitation. An author doesn't have to adjust words to work around the plot, as the plot isn't dependent on what the exact words are, the words build the plot. In a poem, the words have to conform to the restraint (no matter what the restraint is, I used rhyming as an example because it's something we can all relate to poetry).


I also feel that a poet is using the minds natural desire to connect rhyming words to get their point across, that still lends to the idea that while the rhyming words create a link between them in the reader's mind, it may not have been the author's first (or truest) choice. I understand the concepts of poetry, I just feel that sometimes it isn't the best way to get things across.

I prefer the substance of description. And while yes, it may take an extra sentence to do, it reads better (to me) when laid out without poetry. That's not to say poetry can't, but that it appears to have a greater chance of needing a sacrifice in order to follow it's particular rules.