• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Books as a thing people do

bigfield said:
steve_bank said:
Other than chess I vace not palyed a video game since around 1984. Aracde games.

I once heard it said the best entertainment is learning something new.

Video games are boring and mind numbing. Little thought and imagination are required.
Click to expand...
You have no experience of 99.99% of video games, and your only experience with video games is with an extremely primitive format from which you cannot possibly say anything meaningful about the decades of video games, across various platforms, many genres and several decades of technological and artistic growth, that have been made since 1984.

Therefore, who are you to say tbat video games are mind numbing and boring? You are talking like the fox who claims the grapes are sour because he cannot reach them.
Click to expand...
I don't want to derail Rousseau's thread.
 
A grandmother as far as I know had no formal higher education. As a kid I remember her having a collection of classic literature. She knew Greek mythology. In her generation I don't think that was uncommon. Average people read books. You can argue there was little else to do.

I watched a show on a famous 19th century Shakespearean actor. He was popular among working class people.

There were popular math puzzle books, crossword puzzles. n the 50s crossword puzzle paperbacks were comon in books stores and on magazine racks in stores. Average people did math for fun.

It has largely been replaced by canned entertainment and distractions. Trebek made Jeopardy a national daily ritual.

I have neither cable nor a streaming service. There is 24/7 video distractions. Why read a book?

Why read a history book when you can watch a 1 hour simplified documentary?

You don't need books when you can look up most anything on the net. People don't read books and form an argument, they link to videos that make an argument for them.
 
Back on topic:

Does anyone else do book clubs? I've participated in quite a few over the years, from church youth group things when I was a kid to academically oriented ones in adulthood. Right now, a group of the faculty in my division have a monthly reading club going, and I've really been enjoying it. It started some years back as a one-time statewide event to read classic works on race in society (my subgroup tackled "The Fire Next Time") and incorporate them into a model curriculum. But seven or eight of us in my division found that we enjoyed the discussion part so much that we just kept right on meeting once a month, now without the air of officialness attached to the whole thing. It's a very informal, sometimes wine-soaked affair, and voting on the next book tends to take up a fifth of our meeting time. But it's a lot of fun. One thing that has been great about it is that we faculty don't really socialize much outside of official contexts usually, especially outside of our department, so it's a rare opportunity to talk about big issues with other "very smart people" from other disciplines. It's usually nonfiction, but we've covered quite a range of topics by now from history to society to self-help.
 
steve_bank said:
Why read a history book when you can watch a 1 hour simplified documentary?
Click to expand...
Documentaries are usually stuffed full of nonsense, is why. I'm still steaming over the top doco on Netflix right now, Ancient Apocalypse, which I watched over the holidays. The thin veneer of actual facts is so mingled with pseudoscience and outright lies, I just know that us anthro professors are going to be fielding questions on this stuff for freaking years, just like with the similarly named Ancient Aliens series. Books can lie too, of course, but at least you have to work harder to get to those lies, you cannot put a book on in the background... Indeed, AA is really just a film version of the book "Fingerprints of the Gods" (the author thereof being the narrator of the film), with the more overt race-nationalist stuff carefully cut out and some deceptively edited interviews with real scholars edited in. But how many people are going to read the book, as compared to the number of people who will vaguely remember that there was a television program about an ice age civilization or something that "wasn't afraid to ask the hard questions"?
 
I think the question is about the population in general is doing, not those of us seekng to widen our horizons.

American pulp fiction was created in the 19th century. Mass printing of cheap paperbacks with embellished tales of western figures. There was a huge market.

Sherlock Holmes was very popular. A lot of people protested when Doyle killed off Holme, and then he brought him back.

Growing up I read Sherlock Holmes and Poe.


Books have always been mostly about entertainment. Escapism.

Lord Of The Rings.

Do books fde in favor of video? I have to say yes over time. I have not seen any of it. Net streaming services have created an array of series and movies. Peoole eat it up.
 
southernhybrid said:
Can't we discuss books without making stupid stereotypes about different generations?
Click to expand...
Well there's no law against it.

Apart from the Book Discussion, Exclusion of Generational Stereotypes (Prohibitions) Act, 1994 (Qld.), and similar legislation in other jurisdictions.
 
Politesse said:
Back on topic:

Does anyone else do book clubs? I've participated in quite a few over the years, from church youth group things when I was a kid to academically oriented ones in adulthood. Right now, a group of the faculty in my division have a monthly reading club going, and I've really been enjoying it. It started some years back as a one-time statewide event to read classic works on race in society (my subgroup tackled "The Fire Next Time") and incorporate them into a model curriculum. But seven or eight of us in my division found that we enjoyed the discussion part so much that we just kept right on meeting once a month, now without the air of officialness attached to the whole thing. It's a very informal, sometimes wine-soaked affair, and voting on the next book tends to take up a fifth of our meeting time. But it's a lot of fun. One thing that has been great about it is that we faculty don't really socialize much outside of official contexts usually, especially outside of our department, so it's a rare opportunity to talk about big issues with other "very smart people" from other disciplines. It's usually nonfiction, but we've covered quite a range of topics by now from history to society to self-help.
Click to expand...
I've never joined one because I've always been afraid that I wouldn't finish the books by the time the club met, and the options here are limited. The Peachtree City Humanists have a book club via zoom, but I'd prefer to meet in person. I think they started the zoom meetings during the early part of the pandemic. They do sound like fun, despite not joining one.
 
Politesse said:
steve_bank said:
Why read a history book when you can watch a 1 hour simplified documentary?
Click to expand...
Documentaries are usually stuffed full of nonsense, is why. I'm still steaming over the top doco on Netflix right now, Ancient Apocalypse, which I watched over the holidays. The thin veneer of actual facts is so mingled with pseudoscience and outright lies, I just know that us anthro professors are going to be fielding questions on this stuff for freaking years, just like with the similarly named Ancient Aliens series. Books can lie too, of course, but at least you have to work harder to get to those lies, you cannot put a book on in the background... Indeed, AA is really just a film version of the book "Fingerprints of the Gods" (the author thereof being the narrator of the film), with the more overt race-nationalist stuff carefully cut out and some deceptively edited interviews with real scholars edited in. But how many people are going to read the book, as compared to the number of people who will vaguely remember that there was a television program about an ice age civilization or something that "wasn't afraid to ask the hard questions"?
Click to expand...
It depends on the documentary. I've been watching a great one about Motown over the weekend. Of course, one probably must be a fan of soul music and/or grew up during the Motown era to fully appreciate it. The documentary contains many artists from that era explaining how they came up with some of their music. I'm going to watch it again since I was multitasking while it was on, and was mostly just enjoying the music.

How about art or gardening books? I used to be a serious gardener, of the decorative kind before my knees started to fail me. I haven't given up my huge collection of gardening books yet, despite rarely looking at any of them. I learned a lot about gardening, soil composition, design, gardening zones etc. from the beautiful gardening books in my collection. I also have saved a lot of old gardening magazines. I've thought about giving them to a local nursing home for the residents to enjoy, as the photos are beautiful.

Sadly, my gardening is now limited to a small collection of containers on my front steps. This winter's violas are gorgeous. But, I digress. I'm just suggesting that designing even a small garden, and learning how to do it from books is a enjoyable hobby.
 
I sold about half my dead tree books a few years ago, as part of a general downsizing as I transitioned from “middle aged” to “elderly.”

I’ve purchased over a dozen Kindle books, but I don’t have a Kindle reader other than my desktop computer, and with my cataracts, it’s just too hard to read them, so I continue with my paper books.

Some time in the next 6 to 8 months I plan to fix both problems – get my cataracts taken care of and get a Kindle reader. I expect that will change my perspective (no pun intended).

I do possess some books which are physically beautiful in their own right, and/or are somewhat rare, and I intend to keep those for the foreseeable future. The centerpiece is a collection of about 20 high-quality reproductions of the works of the visionary poet, artist and engraver William Blake, meticulously copied from the originals and hand painted using extraordinarily detailed techniques. The originals are of course priceless. I intend to donate these to the Special Collections department of the college library where I did my Masters degree.

trianon.png
 
steve_bank said:
I think the question is about the population in general is doing, not those of us seekng to widen our horizons.

American pulp fiction was created in the 19th century. Mass printing of cheap paperbacks with embellished tales of western figures. There was a huge market.

Sherlock Holmes was very popular. A lot of people protested when Doyle killed off Holme, and then he brought him back.

Growing up I read Sherlock Holmes and Poe.


Books have always been mostly about entertainment. Escapism.

Lord Of The Rings.

Do books fde in favor of video? I have to say yes over time. I have not seen any of it. Net streaming services have created an array of series and movies. Peoole eat it up.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that the reading people do is usually pleasure reading, which rarely involves learning new things. So is there any benefit to reading books versus watching TV or video, when both are fiction? You'd probably learn a little more from reading, but marginally so.

When you break it down having both curiosity and the ability to pursue that curiosity is a privilege, most people just don't have the time, energy or interest. Or maybe even literacy skills. Which is why you see the wealthy doing the most reading.
 
IMO TV and movies leave nothing to the imagination.

I think kids who grow up watching TV more than reading even simple kids books are probably going to be at a disadvantage.

The constnt visual motion and audio stimulation keeps us engorged in video. Reading requires a self developed attention span.
 
steve_bank said:
IMO TV and movies leave nothing to the imagination.

I think kids who grow up watching TV more than reading even simple kids books are probably going to be at a disadvantage.

The constnt visual motion and audio stimulation keeps us engorged in video. Reading requires a self developed attention span.
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical. If someone is choosing TV over books is it even a conscious choice, or do they have a personality that prefers TV? And would that personality also prefer different types of activity, needing a different set of skills?

I'm seeing it play out with my boys. My eldest mirrors my personality - absolutely loves books. My youngest mirrors my wife - he doesn't quite find them as stimulating and has a lower attention span for them. Is he at a disadvantage, or does he have different interests and desires? When he grows up he'll likely pursue a career that's more physically stimulating, rather than mental.

To me this idea that books are like a pill that's good for you is the exact thing that keeps people from reading. Everybody picks up the idea that we should read, not that books are a fantastic source of entertainment.

I've seen way too many who don't read not of out choice, but because it's just not in their personality. Most of these people are living normal, fulfilling lives, working in a profession that suits them.
 
Tharmas said:
I sold about half my dead tree books a few years ago, as part of a general downsizing as I transitioned from “middle aged” to “elderly.”

I’ve purchased over a dozen Kindle books, but I don’t have a Kindle reader other than my desktop computer, and with my cataracts, it’s just too hard to read them, so I continue with my paper books.
Click to expand...
You can make the font bigger. I've accidentally made it very big, far bigger than any adult book uses.
 
steve_bank said:
IMO TV and movies leave nothing to the imagination.

I think kids who grow up watching TV more than reading even simple kids books are probably going to be at a disadvantage.

The constnt visual motion and audio stimulation keeps us engorged in video. Reading requires a self developed attention span.
Click to expand...
I disagree. When I was a kid TV programs like "The Twilight Zone" really stimulated our imaginations, and led me personally to read Rod Serling's short stories and to write my own fan fiction. I think many TV shows have plots that take attention to follow and actively engage the frontal cortex. My wife, an avid reader of fiction, biography and history, is also an avid streamer of movies and series, which she watches while eating lunch or after dinner, to relax.
 
Everybody nowadays considers writing a good thing, but here, Plato imagined someone who considers writing a bad thing.
The Internet Classics Archive | Phaedrus by Plato
At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters. Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners' souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom