Opinions on Reading

[guywithashovel]

This is something I see relatively often, and admittedly, it's a bit of a petty annoyance, but I think it's still rant-worthy.

Many people seem to have this idea that reading is only beneficial if you read BOOKS. For example, one day a while back, I was browsing around the web and found this blog entry where this guy had listed several questions that he planned on asking any woman he was thinking about marrying. One of his questions was "What is your favorite book?" He then went on to say that he only felt compatible with a woman who was at least a fairly regular reader, and that if her favorite "book" was a magazine, then he would probably know that he was making a mistake with her.

This brings me to my question. How is reading books all that much different from reading magazines, newspapers, web sites, or anything else? Many of these types of people will say, "Well, gee, if all you read is newspapers, then how can anyone take you seriously?"

I have never understood this. I mean, I daresay that if you selected a few substantial newspapers (e.g. New York Times, Washington Post, or virtually any major metropolitan newspaper) and read them on a regular basis, you could probably sharpen your mind pretty well and educate yourself pretty well about the world. Sames goes if you just allowed yourself a little bit of time each day to peruse news articles online.

Same goes with magazines. Granted, if someone only reads the supermarket tabloids, the celebrity gossip mags, or stuff like Redbook and Cosmo, then that's not very substantial. But if you made it a point to read stuff like Scientific American, Discover Magazine, or even something like Newsweek or Time on a regular basis, you could probably build up a pretty decent body of knowledge.

[Boozy]

Reading is reading, but one commonly finds better writing (and certainly better literature) in book form than in magazines or newpapers. Periodical publications have to produce a large amount of content in a short period of time, so it's necessary for them to have lower standards.

[BroomJockey]

Further, ideas are generally explored more fully in a book, and require a greater commitment of time and intellectual energy. And by "intellectual energy" I just mean memory and stamina.

Newspapers take 20 minutes to cruise, maybe an hour if you're thorough. Magazines similar. Also, it's not just about "building a knowledge base." You can read indiscriminately, and you'd probably learn a lot, yes, but since newspapers and magazines have such a short production cycle compared to books, they're more prone to errors of fact.

Lastly, with the length of time you're required to be engaged in a book, you're more likely to pick up on inconsistencies in the text meant to manipulate the reader, and after enough time you'll learn to pick up such manipulations in shorter works, making you a discerning reader.

So, while reading something, anything, is good, professionally published (and therefore professionally polished) books are best.

[jackfaire]

Kind of in line with this is the late comers to reading. Since I was 8, now 29, I have read heavily. I read my way through more books than I can possibly remember. These days I don't read quite so heavily. This doesn't mean I have suddenly become an idiot.

People seem to judge me on the bus if I am caught watching a movie especially if it is considered low brow entertainment. Judged by people who until they left high school thought books were dull.

[Cats]

Ugh, my senior year teacher was like that, and never gave up a chance in class to blast me for it. By then my childhood love for reading was mostly gone, since I was sick of all the teachers who told us what "great" books that we HAD to like or otherwise we were stupid (and yes, I had them tell me that to my face. I'm sorry, me saying I did not like "Lord of the Flies" or whatever doesn't mean I think it's a bad book. It means I didn't personally like it). What is the point of reading for pleasure and learning from it if you aren't allowed to have an opinion on it?

Instead, I read a lot of other things. Scientific magazine articles, fan written short stories (I'm sorry, you don't need to be famous to write a good story, also something many of my teachers failed to understand), the friggen encyclopedia, etc. But, since I didn't read a lot of well known books/authors in High School, some of the English teachers took that to mean I was uneducated, despite my grades and my particpation in class saying plenty otherwise.

I hated that one teacher anyway (partly because she was a lying cheating customer too). When the assignment is to read and write a journal about something you've read every week, that means something you've read. Not "something you've read from approved sources I must know about and if I've never heard of that book it doesn't count only for you because I don't like you". Of course, this is the teacher who didn't know until halfway into the year (2001-2002 year) that "Ground Zero" was a phrase before 9/11 (she thought it was made up to describe the wreck site only). Or who didn't know half about Shakespeare's MacBeth that I did from one read despite having teaching it for like 15+ years.


Now, reading is a good thing. Reading books is even more awsome. But just because you don't read a book a week or whatever, it does not make you an idiot. Common sense and general knowledge isn't something one can only take from books. Reading in and of itself isn't what makes someone an intelligent being.

[AdminAssistant]

My thing with books is....I read a lot for school. As in, a monograph (single-subject book, about 250 pages), 2 or 3 plays, multiple book chapters....per week. I'd guesstimate I average 500-750 pages of reading a week.

I don't read for fun. I rarely read novels or short stories. I'm not 'up to date' on what's going on with fiction/literature. It's just not fun to me. In what little off time I have, I like to let my brain rest by watching cheesy movies and TV shows or flipping through "Every Day with Rachael Ray".

[Boozy]

I never read for fun when I was in school, either. My eyeballs always hurt from doing the required readings. I usually watched really, really stupid TV shows for fun.

Rediscovering reading for pleasure after I graduated was wonderful.

[IDrinkaRum]

I read just about anything I can get my hands on. I don't care if it's a cereal box or whatever.

I read books, I read magazines (those about celebrities, geared towards women, comic books, fantasy, etc., etc).

The only time I've been looked upon as being "off" is by my mother who doesn't read at all. *shrugs* Oh well.

[protege]

I tend to read whatever I can get my hands on--sports car magazines, books, train magazines, those little "info" boxes at the museum, etc. In fact, one entire wall of my home office is a massive bookshelf. Most of the shelves contain books, but quite a few contain various bound magazines. As if that wasn't enough, there's still a huge pile of crap I still haven't read. All of that stuff is research material for my hobby projects.

For example, one project I'm doing now, is a Merkur XR4Ti. Anyone remember that car? Anyway, the closest kit I could find, is one of the European Ford Sierra. Similar, but different engines. Rather than spend hours on message boards, it's much easier to flip through the various auto brochures I've collected over the past few years, or flip through old issues of Classic & Sportscar.

Along those lines, as I've been building my model railroad, I've found that my collection of old magazines is again useful. I figure, I'm probably going to run into the same problems as other modelers. So, why not use their ideas to solve my problems? Much easier than therapy

[Stormraven]

There's a webcomic out in which the main character drives an XR4Ti, I believe, and the artist is looking for one. http://www.misfile.com/

That's all I know about them, though.

On topic, I've been reading for pleasure for over forty years. Not likely to stop, and I haven't ever given much thought to whether people considered it 'appropriate' - though I have had people say I should read what they liked.

[jackfaire]

Things I read now,

Magazine whose topic is my city

Fan fiction

web comics

I rarely read books anymore I read all the ones I wanted to growing up and now usually I don't find a lot of novels that I like. I love TV shows and movies and such. This doesn't mean I am stupid or uneducated or god forbid an escapist.

I hate that term because I enjoy fantasy somehow that is bad? I am apparently supposed to unwind at the end of a long day with a cold beer and a football game rather than something I enjoy?

[fireheart17]

I read everything too.

My parents actually encouraged me to read from a young age and it's something that my cousin is also trying to instill in her son as well (I think...I tossed in a couple of board books for the baby shower).

I really hate how some people tend to think that reading will get you nowhere. Really, it can get you somewhere.

[Boozy]

There is no better single indication of what a child's ultimate intelligence and ability will be than how much she or he read or was read to as a young child.

[BlaqueKatt]

currently I'm trying to read "the classics" that weren't assigned during my school years. 1984, the jungle, slaughterhouse 5, etc-because while I did enjoy some of what I was required to read in school(catcher in the rye, shakespeare), I hated some of the others(beowulf, also lord of the flies, to kill a mockingbird). So I'm trying to see what the differences are between stuff if that makes any sense. I am also reading plenty of what would be considered "fluff" books-harry potter, Glenn Beck, Bill Maher, Al franken......

The person who refuses to read something they may not agree with, is no better than the person who is unable to read.

[Flyndaran]

There is no better single indication of what a child's ultimate intelligence and ability will be than how much she or he read or was read to as a young child.

I read to myself from age 3 on. I don't see how having books read to me would have been better.