When did reading become a thing to hate?

[RufusMcLaser]

It's been a social offense for a long time. In this country there is a very small list of socially acceptable activities.

1) Sports
2) Drinking and/or drugs
3) Sex, or at least the pursuit of it

Anything else is the purview of the various sub species of social reject. At least that's how it is here in the US. It develops in high school thanks to cliques and only continues into adulthood. It's really no wonder so many people in the world think us Americans are utter morons.

This is precisely the answer I would have given when I was in high school. (The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess.)
Naturally it's a little better in college or if your work requires a certain amount of brainpower, but if your only ambition is to be a farmhand or a truck driver you might spend the rest of your life thinking reading was for people who don't like beer.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

When I've finished the book, if it's good, then it stays on the 'good' shelf, otherwise it's down to the Charity Shop.

Seriously we have at least 2 full bookcases per room.

yeah i've got over 800 dvds and about 1450 cds and a bunch of books, i use it so i can see what i have and also a bit for insurance purposes too, in case something bad happens and you can make some neat web pages your friends can use to browse your stuff and maybe ask to borrow it

 

[Sib]

why wouldn't you want them to bring out the george washington bible?

well look up the history of that particular bible and you'll have a better understanding why i wouldn't want him to touch it

simply put he shouldn't touch it, it's very improper

aww, making me break out the old google now is it? bah humbug

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

When I've finished the book, if it's good, then it stays on the 'good' shelf, otherwise it's down to the Charity Shop.

Seriously we have at least 2 full bookcases per room.

yeah i've got over 800 dvds and about 1450 cds and a bunch of books, i use it so i can see what i have and also a bit for insurance purposes too, in case something bad happens and you can make some neat web pages your friends can use to browse your stuff and maybe ask to borrow it

If our house sets on fire, they'll probably find my charred corpse trying to defend all my lovely books.

 

[Marbas]

I don't think there's some sort of massive cultural bias against reading or intellectual pursuits; I think that the problem actually lies with the fact that human beings are naturally lazy. It's not a recent cultural phenomenon; people in the old days used to read for entertainment because it was one of the few things (aside from artistic, scientific, or culinary pursuits) that one could do in their spare time without going outside. With the advent of the TV and electronic music distribution, the province of the introverted was changed forever. Now people can find amusement and things to interest them that require almost no effort on their part at all. What this has done has created an apparent cultural bias against things that are considered intellectual. People think: "Well I could do thaaat...but that takes a few minutes to get interested in. I'll do watch TV instead." I've experienced this myself on a few occasions: "It would be more productive to be doing ____, but I can surf the web now, I'll get to _____ in a few minutes." And I keep thinking that, and suddenly two hours have passed and my mother is calling me a horrible person because I haven't watered the plants yet.

The world is not getting incredibly stupid, people are as lazy and horrible as they have always been. It's just a lot easier to see nowadays because we have access to so much passive entertainment and so much information. The combination of this makes sedentary lifestyles more prevalent AND EASIER TO SEE.

 

[RufusMcLaser]

The world is not getting incredibly stupid, people are as lazy and horrible as they have always been. It's just a lot easier to see nowadays because we have access to so much passive entertainment and so much information. The combination of this makes sedentary lifestyles more prevalent AND EASIER TO SEE.

I agree with the central thread that reading is overall a fundamentally healthier pursuit than TV or, for that matter, our beloved video games. I would be doing my history books a disservice, however, if I didn't point out that a few centuries ago most of us would be illiterate. And that's just it; now that the West has near-universal literacy, it's much more obvious when people are intellectually lazy about their entertainment. Presumably we're still obliged to take the good with the bad.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

aww, making me break out the old google now is it? bah humbug

hey i get you to read and teach you something about history at the same time

 

[monotreme_dream]

I hate to put a pin in the self-congratulatory intellectualist bubble you all have been inflating for yourselves, but reading is, in fact more popular then it has ever been in human history. Despite our increasingly televised and digital media driven culture, there are in fact more books being published and consumed today (at least in the States) then at any other time in human history.
It seems that your broken fingered, Call of Duty playing friend is in fact in the vast minority of Americans. Now this is not to imply some inherant superiority, it's far more likely that we're buying more books because we have the money to. Also, I'd like to point out that most of the books being published today are pretty bad. From chick-lit to books about video games, to John Grisham, reading may be more popular, but like comparing Battlestar Galactica or Rome to American Idol or Rock of Love, how you judge a particualr media should be in the content.
There isn't anything inherently more intelligent in reading, simply in thinking. I'd would support the consumption of any kind of media that actually makes you think about something. In the world of video games Bioshock versus, say, Halo 3 is a good example of this. It may not be a 305 seminar course in philosophy at the Unversity, but it certainly gets you thinking about how society works, doesn't it? Halo by contrast, well polished example of code craftsmanship that it is, doesn't get you thinking about anything really.
Books, movies, television, they're all largely the same. Forms of communication, one not better then the other, simply different.
Unfortunatly in this case, the assertion that reading isn't popular simply isn't backed up by the numbers. I mean the staggering popularity of Barnes and Noble, or Borders Books shop (sometimes accross the street from one another) seems to preclude the notion that reading si something only a smaller intellectual minority seem to enjoy.
Perhaps everyone ought to take a moment to reflect on the judgements they make about the world around them.

 

[wadark]

Welcome to America, the only country on earth where intelligence is frowned upon. I think it all has to do with our social obsession with "cool."
"1) Sports
2) Drinking and/or drugs
3) Sex, or at least the pursuit of it"
Its sad but its true...
Another thing I think adds to the problem is our constant need for speed...convenience, that sort of thing. I distinctly remember playing WoW one day when my mother walked by, paused for a second staring intently at the screen, then had to laugh and ask me what the hell "LFG SM Cath, Need DPS then gtg" meant. We speed up our society more and more all in the name of progress so that when you stop for a moment to do something as anti-progress as reading you are frowned upon. Its the world we live in, I don't like it, but I go on reading anyway, in stark defiance to the norm.

RISE UP READERS OF THE WORLD! RISE UP AND CHALLENGE THE STEROTYPE!!

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I hate to put a pin in the self-congratulatory intellectualist bubble you all have been inflating for yourselves,

See, I swear some people don't even read more than one page...

Despite our increasingly televised and digital media driven culture, there are in fact more books being published and consumed today (at least in the States) then at any other time in human history.

Dude, I work in a bookshop. Do you really want me to quote from some of the tat that's put out there today? The growing population might also have something to do with it.

Also, I'd like to point out that most of the books being published today are pretty bad.

Ah, so you have read some of the tat.

Unfortunatly in this case, the assertion that reading isn't popular simply isn't backed up by the numbers.

Why, oh why, do people talk about intellectualism and then misspell?...arrrgh!

I mean the staggering popularity of Barnes and Noble, or Borders Books shop (sometimes accross the street from one another) seems to preclude the notion that reading si something only a smaller intellectual minority seem to enjoy.

The staggering range of non-book items and the death of many independent books stores might also have something to do with that as well...

Perhaps everyone ought to take a moment to reflect on the judgements they make about the world around them.

Everyone does include the preacher as well...

 

[Papaya Melancholy]

every time I list something good about books he shouts "fuck you fag" or "you're a gayboy".

Maybe if he read more he'd learn to be less homophobic.
I hate reading. It's so dumb.
But I do it anyways.
It's not that bad.
But it's not the world. When I was younger I would read all the time, but it was mostly for escapism (aware of irony.) Only later did I learn to read deeply.
But I think reading is only about 10% as cool as talking. Isn't it better to talk about ideas instead of writing them down? Storytelling is a million times more engaging than a dumb book. Reading aint all it's cracked up to be by pedants and elitists, but it's worth something. I think if we all read a little, that's fine.

 

[Geoffrey42]

aww, making me break out the old google now is it? bah humbug

hey i get you to read and teach you something about history at the same time

I did go read some history on it. I'm now vaguely familiar with the history behind the book. I'm still not sure what the particular objection in reference to the honorable George Walker Bush would be? If this were some factoid, maybe it'd be an appropriate thing for you to send us all off to research, but since it appears to be an opinion, even a relatively widely held one, you'd be doing us all more of a service by stating, and then defending that opinion, than this nebulous crap about "simply put he shouldn't touch it, it's very improper".

 

[Geoffrey42]

Maybe if he read more he'd learn to be less homophobic.
I hate reading. It's so dumb.
But I do it anyways.
It's not that bad.
But it's not the world. When I was younger I would read all the time, but it was mostly for escapism (aware of irony.) Only later did I learn to read deeply.
But I think reading is only about 10% as cool as talking. Isn't it better to talk about ideas instead of writing them down? Storytelling is a million times more engaging than a dumb book. Reading aint all it's cracked up to be by pedants and elitists, but it's worth something. I think if we all read a little, that's fine.

Oh, look! Our first apparently authentic malcontent! We can now all feel so vindicated. The world really does hate us!

 

[monotreme_dream]

If spelling is the problem you have with my argument, then it must have been pretty good, huh? My point is simply that reading hasn't become unpopular. Almost everyone in the first world reads, and what they read is their own business. I may not work in a bookstore, but I know a thing or two about communication and media (it happens to be my field of study) and I guarantee (my bad spelling notwithstanding) that Mr. Broken Fingers is in the vast minority of people if he believes that reading is only for "fags".
Growing population is a factor, but the ratios don't lie. There are more printed materials per capita in America then at any other time in history. Ergo propter hoc reading is more popular, not less. Do I like that this has been at the expense of the independant bookstore? Of course not. Nor do I enjoy the way either of those chains (o rmany others) does their business. However they do lots of business, it's undeniable.
I also take exception to the assertion that reading is a superior form of media to the others available. It's a different form of media but as The_root_of_all_evil and I seem to agree, much of it is crap, just like everything else out there. For every breakthrough work of new fiction, there are about a thousand different variations on OK and Maxim magazines. For every work Kurt Vonnegut (again I freely admit I'm a bad speller) has published Dan Brown has crapped on medieval history about fifty times. It's embaressing really how much complete balderdash there is out there. In print.
Believe it or not, I'm proud to call myself an intellectual, but I don't use it as an excuse to set myself apart from everyone else and claim that I'm somehow the last bastion of literacy or good taste in the free world. I see a lot of people here asking the question: why can't more people feel the same way about stuff as I do? When the question should be: why does that person feel that way, and what do we have in common?
And yes, I do spent a lot of time analyzing my own judgements, which is why I can stand by them the way I do. I encourage you to try to change my mind. I like nothing more then to come away from a good argument with something new to think about!

 

[Sib]

Prepare for a long post. Well at least long by my standards, some of you write reams on everything

It seems that your broken fingered, Call of Duty playing friend is in fact in the vast minority of Americans.

Perhaps he is in the minority, assuming we take middle class people as the sample group, but is this minority not the most visible which may cause our slightly skewed view?

There isn't anything inherently more intelligent in reading, simply in thinking. I'd would support the consumption of any kind of media that actually makes you think about something. In the world of video games Bioshock versus, say, Halo 3 is a good example of this.

I suppose that's true, but for you to have to think about anything in Bioshock that would equate to the real world you would have to look behind the story (although only slightly) and read in between the lines, similar to how an English teacher would have you dissect a book word-by-word for a meaning (note this has been mentioned in previous pages).
Also the story in Halo is just as important in Halo, assuming you've bothered to look for it, and to be honest, if I found someone who was actually into the Halo story and whatever meanings they consider it has to the real world, I would be far more impressed than someone who prattles on about Bioshock being a dystopian vision of our world, yes congratulations you found the meaning on Google after a friend mentioned it to you. (I'm generalising on the Google point mind you) Anyway I seem to have been ranting, to my next point

Unfortunatly in this case, the assertion that reading isn't popular simply isn't backed up by the numbers. I mean the staggering popularity of Barnes and Noble, or Borders Books shop (sometimes accross the street from one another) seems to preclude the notion that reading si something only a smaller intellectual minority seem to enjoy.
Perhaps everyone ought to take a moment to reflect on the judgements they make about the world around them.

Yes perhaps we are exaggerating, but with an OP like mine, it sort of breeds this atmosphere of literary superiority. While reading may be very popular in certain circles (maybe they are very large circles) it seems to be a more reclusive pastime, I mean how often do you discuss nay even mention a book you finished reading? Also please bare in mind that I'm only sixteen and thus wouldn't be privy to book clubs and the like while I have my GCSE's in about 2 weeks.

Next argument :

Maybe if he read more he'd learn to be less homophobic.
I hate reading. It's so dumb.
But I do it anyways.
It's not that bad.

Why, why is reading dumb? That's what you are doing right now reading my rebuttle to your post. You are labelling an entire genre of entertainment, one that has been alive centuries longer than television or our cherished video games, surely if it can survive that long it's not "dumb". Also you contradict yourself "I hate it" , "It's not so bad", which is it now?

But I think reading is only about 10% as cool as talking. Isn't it better to talk about ideas instead of writing them down? Storytelling is a million times more engaging than a dumb book. Reading aint all it's cracked up to be by pedants and elitists, but it's worth something. I think if we all read a little, that's fine.

I'll admit, face to face storytelling is a great way to spin a yarn because you can accentuate your story with changes of pitch, rhythm and perhaps even little hand movements, all to bring the listener deeper into the place you're speaking about.
This doesn't render writing the words down as obsolete, unless the storyteller is say...dead? Lets all go and see Tolkein, or perhaps Saint Peter for a nice retelling of their works. I read almost exclusively while in bed before going to sleep because I find thats the best time to get into the realm of whatever book I'm reading and because it's relaxing, once again does that mean that I should let a storyteller sit next to me and recite the book I could be reading? heheh.
Once again you say "dumb book", provide some evidence as to why you think that literature is dumb then I'll respect your arguments more.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If spelling is the problem you have with my argument, then it must have been pretty good, huh?

No, your use of language makes me scream though.

but I know a thing or two about communication and media

Ergo propter hoc reading

Ow

undeniable.

Oww

vast minority

Owwww

Please, this is starting to hurt.

but I don't use it as an excuse to set myself apart from everyone else

This is a thread trying to promote reading...Not say that reading is TEH UBER INTELICT.

There are more printed materials per capita in America then at any other time in history.

- Citation needed (c) Wiki

 

[Geoffrey42]

Perhaps he is in the minority, assuming we take middle class people as the sample group, but is this minority not the most visible which may cause our slightly skewed view?

If they are simply a vocal/super-visible minority, it doesn't make their idiocy more relevant or widespread. It just undermines the woe-is-me piece of this thread.

Yes perhaps we are exaggerating, but with an OP like mine, it sort of breeds this atmosphere of literary superiority. While reading may be very popular in certain circles (maybe they are very large circles) it seems to be a more reclusive pastime, I mean how often do you discuss nay even mention a book you finished reading? Also please bare in mind that I'm only sixteen and thus wouldn't be privy to book clubs and the like while I have my GCSE's in about 2 weeks.

If I'm talking to someone that I know to also be a fellow reader (and by reader, I mean someone who I have identified as enjoying books similar to my tastes; my mother reads, but we don't read the same things), I will often bring up a book I'm reading, or just finished reading, or a book I read a long time ago, potentially even as the beginning of a conversation. In all other cases, when dealing with people who I don't know to be readers, or who don't read similar books, I bring up the book I'm reading, or just finished reading, or a book I read a long time ago, so long as what I'm saying is pertinent to the conversation that is already underway.[/quote]

 

[cleverlymadeup]

I did go read some history on it. I'm now vaguely familiar with the history behind the book. I'm still not sure what the particular objection in reference to the honorable George Walker Bush would be? If this were some factoid, maybe it'd be an appropriate thing for you to send us all off to research, but since it appears to be an opinion, even a relatively widely held one, you'd be doing us all more of a service by stating, and then defending that opinion, than this nebulous crap about "simply put he shouldn't touch it, it's very improper".

well the george washington inaugural bible is also the bible used in St John's Lodge No. 1 AYM,F&AM and was originally the bible that sat on the alter in the masonic temple. It was first used by Washington because they had no bible on hand and Washington was also a freemason, as were a lot of the signers of the declaration of independence

bush is NOT a mason and should not touch it for that simple reason, it's not proper. thankfully the weather was bad and the 2 men who guard it didn't allow it to be brought out. the last mason who sat in office was ford

 

[cleverlymadeup]

If spelling is the problem you have with my argument, then it must have been pretty good, huh?

No, your use of language makes me scream though.

i never pick on anyone's spelling unless it's rendered so bad you can't understand it and usually it's a grammar thing and i ask what they meant

while i see both sides, it's kinda petty to attack someone's typing/spelling skills cause after all that's why god invented spell check but even that isn't that great, i keep having to add colour and neighbour and such to the spell checker and centre