BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

No books matter

  
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
aus
16:03 / 28.08.02
As a person who has never read a book, I believe I can provide an objective and therefore accurate opinion on books as a whole.

The rest of you have each read at least one book, leaving you psychologically inclined to approve of and support book reading. Naturally, your opinion is: "I read a book. Therefore, because I want to believe I am OK, reading books must be OK."

Well, you are wrong. You are not OK and reading books is morally reprehensible. What is natural about putting words on paper, binding the paper together and having someone else read all those words? No other animal in the world does this.

I can't think of a less natural activity that people will commonly dare to perform in public. Do you know that these days it's not just allowed in government schools, but actually encouraged? It will all end in tears, I swear.

Have you ever noticed how people will avert their eyes when someone else is reading a book? Even though it is socially accepted and even encouraged by certain professional groups, there still exists intrinsic shame. We all know it is wrong but many people do it anyway.

Try sitting near someone who is reading a book and openly watching them for a few minutes. The book reader will soon show their embarrassment at being watched in this perverse and antisocial activity.

It's time to put an end to book reading. There are many preferable and more tasteful ways to experience the world, society and other individuals.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
16:45 / 28.08.02
Nice try, but could you come up with an argument that holds water?
I could equally say '... You have not read even one book, leaving you psychologically inclined to disapprove of and hate book reading. Naturally, your opinion is: "I don't read any books. Therefore, because I want to believe I am OK, reading books must be bad."' But I won't, because I'm the good cop. Or Spartacus. Or something.

Oh, and the argument progression 'I don't read any books' -> 'I want to believe I'm okay' -> 'reading books must be OK/bad' doesn't follow. Bad puppy. In your bed.
 
 
aus
16:57 / 28.08.02
You don't seem to have read beyond the first two paragraphs. Therefore, I conclude that you could possibly a person who pretends to read books because it is socially approved. If you can't get beyond two paragraphs, you don't have the attention span to completely read a book - unless it's of the Run Spot Run genre.
 
 
aus
17:01 / 28.08.02
...but thanks for the little "nice try" elephant stamp.
 
 
—| x |—
17:24 / 28.08.02
Are you merely having a little go game here, auszilla, or do you sincerely mean all this? I have to agree with the possessor of Misheard Lada that your "objective and...accurate opinion" is not much of an argument.

You say that "No other animal in the world does this" in regard to books. Well my friend, no animal builds weapons, office building, makes TV shows, makes movies, designs computer hardware and software, raises cattle, plants crops, etc., etc., etc. It appears to me that by your "reasoning" we'd have to conclude that everything a human does beyond eating, sleeping and relieving him or her self is not OK.

As far as "less natural activity that people will commonly dare to perform in public," what about--driving a car? Or riding a bike? Rollerblading? Or what about talking on a cell phone? Or using a laptop? Or etc. How are most things we do in public any more or less "natural" than reading a book?
 
 
I, Libertine
17:49 / 28.08.02

Topic Abstract:
Reading books is innately immoral, unnatural and unsociable. So stop it NOW! Have you no shame?

Define:
moral
natural
sociable
shame

...and what's so natural about typing words on a keyboard, posting those words to the 'Lith, and "having someone else read all those words?" You're no so Swift(ian) as you think, my man.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
17:49 / 28.08.02
I did read it all actually, but particulary wanted to take issue with the faulty argument you put forward in your first two paragraphs. Let me know when you've actually paid attention to what I wrote about them...
 
 
aus
17:50 / 28.08.02
That's much better!

Nowhere did I compare reading books to building weapons, office building, making TV shows, making movies, designing computer hardware and software, raising cattle, planting crops, etc., etc., etc. This is irrelevant. I haven't made the argument that these things are natural or acceptable behavior. You are welcome to begin discussing these things, but this forum is Books so I suggest you move this off-topic issue elsewhere.

As for your other suggestions of unnatural activities commonly performed in public, try the experiment I suggested. Sit near someone who is reading a book and openly watching them for a few minutes. Record their reaction. Repeat the procedure a few times with different people. Watch them in the same way you might watch someone driving a car or rollerblading. Maybe every now and then you might cheer for them as people do at the speedway or as spectators of rollerblading exhibitions. I'd be interested to know the results.
 
 
I, Libertine
17:54 / 28.08.02

I also do not believe you've never read a single book, auszilla.

How did you learn all of your words?

[p.s. I know you're having a little confrontational e-fun so I'll just be riding along on the Trolley O'Amusement, 'kay?]
 
 
aus
17:58 / 28.08.02
Libertine: firstly, I am not a dictionary or a lexicographer, so I refuse to define words for you.

Define:
define

My cat types words on a keyboard, posting those words to the 'Lith. She also sends faxes. It's a completely natural activity. If ants were big enough, they also would do this.

Flowers: I wasn't greating a logical argument. I was writing about the tendency of people to rationalize their behavior. People's feelings about themselves do not follow the arbitrary rules of classical logic.
 
 
Ganesh
18:02 / 28.08.02
What's so good about being "natural"? Artificiality's where it's at!
 
 
aus
18:10 / 28.08.02
Libertine: thank you for your personal interest. Indeed, in response to a dare I did once read a book, much to my shame. I will "out" myself:

I read The Little Boy Who Lost His Puppy and I thought that the underlying philosophical premise that the relationship between a boy and his dog has a sexual component was nonsense. Most little boys have no concept of sexuality or themselves as sexual creatures.

But I did enjoy the short words, an average of less than 4 letters per word. The author's restraint is to be commended for the minimal effort required from the reader. The story is allowed to tell itself, stark yet refreshing in its simplicity.

I will not reveal the ending here for the sake of those who have not yet read this astounding book, but the twisted, shocking brutality in the final scene provides a transformation into horror as the little boy's deepest fears become reality.

Overall I give it

All my words are innately known through genetic memory.

Ganesh: you may have a point, but there is a repugnance in books that we all share deep down. It is my desire to bring this shame and repugnance to the surface for examination.
 
 
aus
18:22 / 28.08.02
Libertine: Seriously, aside from genetic memory, there are plenty of ways to learn words besides using books.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
18:57 / 28.08.02
Hmmmm. Barring Aus' need for attention, and acclimation to environments where this sort of thing passes for wit, does this thread have a point? Or indeed a place in a topic area precisely for those who do read books?
 
 
bio k9
19:15 / 28.08.02
No. On all counts.
 
 
aus
19:23 / 28.08.02
Are you saying you lack any constructive ideas on this topic?
 
 
gridley
19:23 / 28.08.02
yeah, there is something a bit knodgey about it.
 
 
Persephone
19:30 / 28.08.02
Oh, dear... I am going to propose that this thread be moved to the Conversation. My reason for doing this is, as M. Schlegel said, "an instinct which may be wrong," but I don't feel that the intention behind this discussion is sincere, and that does matter to me. If auszilla wishes to discuss this with me, please PM.
 
 
aus
19:31 / 28.08.02
Is this an attack on me because I express an opinion that happens to contradict the mainstream, challenging your unmeditated cultural standards? Is it too difficult to defend your practice of book reading?

Bah!
 
 
aus
19:33 / 28.08.02
If I may paraphrase Ganesh (and, indirectly, Oscar Wilde, I assume): what's so good about being "sincere"? insincerity's where it's at!
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
19:44 / 28.08.02
No, it's an attack on you because you're an idiot, not very amusing and have mistaken this forum for where joke topics get put. However, I am of course the idiot for taking you seriously.
 
 
aus
19:47 / 28.08.02
Personal attacks do not help your argument, My Misheard Lada of the Flowers, if that is your real name.
 
 
Ganesh
19:50 / 28.08.02
Shite. As moderator, I read this and thought "weeell, is is inflammatory but it's probably legitimate enough for 'Books'" - and then I pressed 'Agree' out of habit. Does anyone mind if I move it back to 'Books'?
 
 
Spatula Clarke
19:54 / 28.08.02
Y'know, there's probably a legitimate thread to be had out of the subject, but this really isn't it.
 
 
aus
19:57 / 28.08.02
We're likely to get bogged down in a "meta-discussion" with process rather than task. I'm very task-oriented and would prefer to continue the initial topic. I really don't mind being in the Conversation as more book-readers are likely to respond here.
 
 
Ganesh
20:06 / 28.08.02
Okay, it's mildly trollsome, but we get pretty heated in the 'Music' and 'Comics' too, and the 'sincerity' of those threads is rarely called into question (if indeed sincerity is relevant at all). I'm also unsure that where else on the Internet someone has posted is overly relevent - and could we produce a Barbe-equivalent of Godwin's Law for people who bring up the Knodge in an unrelated discussion?

Anyway. Enough 'meta'.

I'll not propose a move, then. Discuss away.
 
 
aus
20:17 / 28.08.02
It's a pity about the personal attacks. I imagine that it would now be very daunting for someone who agrees with me to come forward. Perhaps this is a little of what happens in society generally. We all know there's something odd and unsociable about book-reading but nobody is willing to say anything for fear they will be shot down, so the status quo remains.

This sort of social behaviour is the conservative's best friend.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
20:30 / 28.08.02
Shouldn't we be banning and blocking trolls?

We shouldn't be putting up with this - haven't we banned this guy twice before?
 
 
—| x |—
20:46 / 28.08.02
Nowhere did I compare reading books to...etc., etc., etc. This is irrelevant.

It is only irrelevant in so far as your "reason" regarding "no other animal does this" is irrelevant to the point you are attempting to forth.

Also: I suggest you have a think about the following lines from a Love and Rockets song:

"You can not go against nature
because what you do
to go against nature
is a part of nature too."

I agree with E. Randy Dupre: there is likely a very interesting and stimulating discussion to be had about this, but it ain't happening here!
 
 
Spatula Clarke
22:09 / 28.08.02
It's not the wisest of ideas to go bandying the 'K' and 'T' words about willy-nilly, folks.
 
 
aus
22:29 / 28.08.02
Modzilla, as you wish to contend against the reality of book reading, I dare you to try my proposed experiment. Find out from experience how shamed and embarrassed people are when they realize they are being observed in this activity.

Sit near someone who is reading a book and openly watch them for a few minutes. Record their reactions. Repeat the procedure a few times with different people. Watch them in the same way you might watch someone driving a car or rollerblading. Maybe every now and then you might cheer for them as people do at the speedway or as spectators of rollerblading exhibitions. Record their reactions.

I read elsewhere that you are a student, so here's another appropriate experiment for you. Students use books as a primary source of information. Why not propose to your teachers and professors that you'd rather not listen to their lectures because all that information can be gleaned from books? Record their reactions. Refuse to attend tutorials, refuse to discuss subjects with other students. Tell them you'll read books instead. Record their reactions.

You can ignore the "no other animal does this" line if you like, although it has been used as an argument against other human activities, often erroneously. In this case, it is correct to state that no other animal reads books, but is an unimportant point. However, you might care to ponder why humans find so many exclusively human activities necessary.
 
 
the Fool
23:12 / 28.08.02
Do comics fall into this unnatural reading obsession that has seemingly gripped the planet?

If so does that mean art is part of this immoral perversion of nature?

That must mean music as well! Evil heathens! Listening to unnatural arranged sounds, how can they??? Oh the humanity!!!

All socialable natural people should therefore take the obvious step and wear blindfolds and earmuffs at all times to protect themselves from this degenerate filth. Or better yet, bury themselves in the back garden. Its the only way to prevent cultural infection!!!
 
 
the Fool
23:33 / 28.08.02
it is correct to state that no other animal reads books

Actually I believe Pandas are notorious for their reading of philosophy. Hippos like comedy/farce and monkeys consume a lot of porn...

Why I was speaking to whale the other day and she told me that she couldn't get enough of Vonnegut. We had a very funny discussion on the pros and cons of bokonomism and ways of waterproofing books for deepsea reading.
 
 
aus
00:23 / 29.08.02
You make a good point regarding music, Fool, but this thread is a refugee from the Books forum so the issue of book reading was more relevant.

What value is there in listening to music? Does it produce anything of value? Does it feed the starving millions on this planet or save a single species from extinction? No, of course not. Rather than buying a CD, donate to a charity. Rather than idly listen to music, create something of value.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
00:44 / 29.08.02
So feelings of pleasure aren't of value on your planet? How odd.
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply