For some reason today I thought back to a conversation I once had with one of my profs. She said a friend/fellow teacher was attempting to show more students that they were in fact readers. I believe this little project was precipitated by the fact that they'd had trouble getting people to sign up for literature courses because they were for "readers."
Her friend's idea was that almost everyone is a reader. If you read the newspapers or magazines you are a reader. Do you think this is true? I can't decide. It sounds nice and all, but I can't convince myself that someone who thumbs through a "Sports Illustrated" once a month is a reader. Who is a reader? Is it someone who reads fiction? Are people who read non-fiction only "readers?" What about someone who only reads a steady diet of Danielle Steele?
space opera
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Danielle Steele writes some heavy novels. I think her fans could be called readers.
I suppose by literal definition, anyone who is literate is a reader. Avid readers, though, would probably devour at least a book a week--and it doesn't matter if they're romance novels. (Although one would hope they'd upgrade eventually.)
-Katarain
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Someone who reads a magazine once a month is a reader? Not hardly! Yer prof is on drugs.
In my own mind, I'm a reader. I read somewhere around 50 to 200 books a year, sometimes more, but seldom less. I think that qualifies me. My husband is a reader, but he only manages to get through perhaps a tenth of my volume. (He has a job, I don't.) But where do you cut it off?
Considerations?
Quantity of books read in a given time period. But then you have to consider the length of the books, type of book, and density of book. I wouldn't qualify someone who gets through an organic chemistry textbook to be a reader, but someone who can get through War and Peace would qualify, as would someone who enjoys reading Madeline L'Engle and Dorothy Gilman.
Then there's quality. A fifty page bathroom book versus anything Solzhenitsyn (I can't believe I spelled his name correctly on first try! And I even looked it up and everything!). Reading coffee table books or bathroom books don't qualify someone as a reader in my mind.
Interesting question.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Sorry, but I think that's elitist snobbery. What gives you the right to decide that the latest bathroom book doesn't qualify as reading?
(I'm not really trying to attack you. )
-Katarain
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I've never understood bathroom reading. I know people do it, but somehow to me reading and going to the bathroom at the same time don't gell. Don't you people need to focus?
space opera
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It's hard to imagine anyone not being a reader. What would you do? I think there's something fundamentally different between me and non-readers. I just can't figure out how they think. Living inside their head for five minutes would drive me nuts. I think mostly it's going to bed. I can't without at least a few minutes reading a book. Not having a book handy drives me bonkers.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
I'm the same way, AFR. I HAVE to read before I go to bed, even if it's just a few minutes.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Re: Bathroom reading..
Yeah... if I'm in there long enough to read something, I'm in too much pain or something to READ! But...
I'm just gonna stop talking about this.
-Katarain
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Yeah, well, I AM an elitist snob and proud of it! What's it to ya? Huh? Huh? Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
*signs you up for a bathroom book of the month club*
HAHAHA!
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I think of a "reader" as being anyone who enjoys reading and does it for pleasure. I don't think it matters so much what you're reading, or how quickly you do it. I think as long as you like reading and do it specifically because you like it, you're a "reader".
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Bathroom reading. Ah, yes.
Some people just don't understand, or appreciate, the fine art of bathroom reading. It's a delicate task that takes years of practice and dedication to master.
But all that work is rewarded when you realize you can complete two tasks at once.
Now, shall we talk about laptop usage in the bathroom, and where I'm actually writing this post?
Or is that wayyyy too much information?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Eeew!! *Goes to get the lysol to sanitize the thread*
Nini ya'll.. -Katarain
[ October 19, 2004, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Katarain ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I read while I walk. I find that it makes long commute walks something I look forward to, and it gives me fun little memories of places that I've been. Most recently, I read a Joe Haldeman novel on several walks to and from school. Now, when I go down those sidewalks and crunch through the leaves I can't help thinking about Russian spies Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I agree with Varily. If you enjoy reading, you're a reader. If you don't, you're not. Volume isn't relevant to the question. Some standard of quality isn't relevant to the question. Whether it's fiction or non-fiction you read isn't relevant to the question.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I second (or third) that definition.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Here's something I've been wondering.... where do audiobooks fall on the "reading/not reading" continuum? My husband and I both read all the time when we were younger, but college sort of killed our desire to read for fun. Now that we're out of school and have the time and inclination to read again, we've found that we feel cut off from each other when we do... so we've been buying books from audible.com and listening to them together on the iPod as we fall asleep, or in the car on road trips. We're actually on our... I think 5th book in 2 months.
So, does listening to our audiobooks count as reading? Or is it something else if our eyes aren't scanning the page?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, I'd say that you love stories, but not reading.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I'd say that text is the key; if what you're doing doesn't involve scanning text, whether with your eyes or with your fingers, you aren't reading.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Interesting.... I wonder if any studies have been done on how the brain reacts to reading off a page vs. listening to an audiobook. We still have to imagine what's happening, after all, and since we usually listen to books in the dark, we're not any less focused on the book than we would be if we were staring at it...
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I get a rush from interpreting visual symbols of text. Stories on TV or radio (or audiobooks) aren't enough for the fix.
It is really, really pleasurable, and I get the shakes when I go too long between hits. As children, my brother and I tried to have contests to see who could go longer without reading. We both confessed to hitting the shampoo bottles and pantry items to tide us over.
Kinda scary.
Sweet, sweet alphabet. It's a textual orgy.
[ October 19, 2004, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I would class audio books as being read to, not reading. I think it’s a different type of mental engagement than, say, watching TV, but little kids who enjoy being read to aren’t yet readers. Similarly, adults listening to audio books aren’t reading.
[ October 19, 2004, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Zeugma, do you ever find it hard to concentrate on driving while listening to an audiobook? My wife and I have talked about doing that for long trips, but she's concerned with us being able to focus on driving while listening.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
zgat-
On my August trip to Chicago, my daughter read to me (which is kind of like an audio book) and it really helped make the long trip bearable for driving because I didn't get restless or tired while listening to the stories.
For that reason, I planned to use audiobooks on my most recent trip up to Chicago last week, since I would be alone. However, I never had a chance to check any out of the library. So I had to rely on the radio, and luckily found some good football games on the dial that kept my drive from being tiring or hypnotic.
I don't see an audiobook being any less distracting that listening to a news report, or talk radio, or anything else on the radio. At least for me. It really helps because without it, my brain focuses on how much my leg hurts (no cruise control) or how warm that sun is and how sleepy it is making me......zzzzz....
However, I will warn you -- I did listen to an audio CD of a sermon. And, uh, it did NOT keep me awake...
Farmgirl
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Christine and I read to each other on long road trips. We've listened to a few books on tape, but we generally prefer just having the other one read to us.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Audio books don't work for me at all. I can't stay focused even from one sentence to the next, so I miss everything necessary for anything to make sense. I'm just auditorially challenged, I guess.
Hmm. This is probably why I read so much.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Bet that sucked in college quidscribs.
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I'll second the notion of "you love stories, not reading". The oral tradition of storytelling has been a part of humanity for as long as there has been a humanity, but if the people receiving the story are not looking* at symbols on a page that represent the words, then they aren't reading. Could the Greeks who sat around Homer as he recited his stories be said to have "read" Homer's latest story? No; they listened to it.
I would not compare listening to an audiobook with reading a book. I would call it a modern technology-based offshoot of the old oral storytelling tradition. It's the equivalent of listening to a CD of music instead of attending a live performance of the music.
*Edited to add: Or feeling the symbols with your fingers. I'd say blind people who use Braille books are still reading because they are interacting in some way with symbols on a page that represent words. That's how I'd define "reading".
[ October 19, 2004, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Verily the Younger ]
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote: Bet that sucked in college quidscribs.
Yeah. And I just had it confirmed a few days ago that yes, in fact, I do have learning disorders. Or, um, at least one, anyway. Involving my hearing and my lousy memory. The things I learn when I'm, uh, getting older. Now if I could only remember what they are and see what I can do about figuring out better ways of adapting.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Listening to something being read (live or recorded) is not the same as listening to storytelling, though. I love storytelling, I’ve been a member of the National Association for the Preservation and Perpetuation of Storytelling (I’m still mourning the name change to “National Storytelling Association” – NAPPS is a much cooler acronym than NSA) and the National Organization of Biblical Storytellers (NOBS). I attend storytelling festivals and concerts. I also listen to audio books while driving, and enjoy being read to. I have nothing against reading aloud – but it isn’t the same as storytelling.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Audio books put me to sleep. I can't listen to them while I'm driving--it's too dangerous.
I'm very bad at remembering things that were spoken to me, but I have a pretty good visual memory. It makes me a good reader (although I tend to read slowly) and a bad conversationalist. I just don't remember things that are told to me, especially a long list of instructions. I'm horrible at movie quotes.
My daughter, on the other hand, seems to have an almost "phonographic" memory. She hears something spoken, and she'll spit it back out verbatim days later, even if she doesn't know what it means. She is also a very good artist. I think she's just dang smart. :proud father:
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Everyone can be a reader.
But, I think pointing that out to this forum is like preaching the choir.
I'd be more curious to see if people agreed also that, like everyone can be a reader, everyone can be an athlete....
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
When I was in college, one of my professors did a telling of one of the chapters of the Illiad. It was pretty cool, and definitely different than having that chapter read to us would have been.
All of the other story telling I've been involved in (and I love story telling) is fairly informal--my dad relating family stories from when he was a kid (ooh, ooh, tell the one where the hobo spent the night at your house in the storm, and shortly after he left you found out that he was an escapee from a hospital for the criminally insane! Or tell the one about the Phipps Cafe! Or the one about the square latrine cover from when you were in the army!), or stories my friends and I relate to each other from our own lives (and like the family stories, there are favorites, and they get requested--when we're hanging out, it isn't uncommon to hear "Hey, tell 'Git 'im, Grandpaw!'" or "Ever hear the one about the time Jake kicked a knife?").
What are the stories related by the "professionals" like Dana? I'm so curious!
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I think everyone can be a reader, but I don't think everyone is. I think a reader is someone who loves to read, though I do get a little leery of people who "are huge readers" and have never read any author other than Steven King.
To tell the truth, I find the theory that 'everyone is a reader' slightly insulting. I take a lot of crap for my reading habits, mostly from 'everyone.'
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Noemon, if you ever get the chance to go to the National Storytelling Festival I just can’t recommend it enough. It’s an amazing experience. I’ve been three times, missed the last four years, but we’re going again in 2005. (Woo Hoo!) Three days of wonderful storytelling -- fairy tales, family tales, Appalachian fables, African folk tales, Native American tellers, ghost stories, first-person historical tales . . . anything you can think of. Click through to the “featured tellers” link to get an idea of the diversity.
The difference between writing to be read and “writing” (or, at least, developing) something in an oral medium is something I’ve become very interested in. I do most of my writing now to be spoken and heard (sermons) and it’s very different than writing essays or articles. Both are fun, though. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
That looks really cool Dana, thanks for the link! Looks like I just missed the chance to go to this year's festival, but maybe I'll see you at next year's.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That does look fascinating, dk. *bookmarks*
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
I grew up a reader, but gradually changed to a watcher. I realized I retain memory better when I'm watching the story unfold on stage or screen as opposed to reading it in print. I know, that's horrible... especially since adaptations from book to screen are so often wanting. But coming from an acting background, there's so much more for me to appreciate watching a movie or play. I read 3 to 5 books a year, but watch 50 to 100 movies.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Adaptations from screen to book are often wanting too, though.
Posted by Lyraluthuen (Member # 6560) on :
As an artist I've gotten into the habit of listening to audio books as I paint. It keeps me from thinking too much about the process, and drastically affects the mood of the piece. However, when I'm finished, I mentally add that book to the list of things I've read.
By the definitions of 'reading' stated earlier in the thread, that would not be valid. Do you think that if one could recite the plot by memory, deeply connect with the characters, and be affected by the story as much as they would have had they been reading text, they could not consider themselves as having read the book? It's an interesting question...
Posted by Gryphonesse (Member # 6651) on :
excellent question - you've gotten quite few people thinking!
I am a RABID reader... more than avid. I can't eat without reading something, even if it's the cereal box. I have tons and tons of books in my house, and I've read them ALL. I was so starved for material that I actually started a V.C. Andrews book.. (I'm so ashamed) My husband, on the other hand, never learned to read for pleasure. He'll read National Geographic, Playboy and Maxim in the loo, but otherwise he's a TV kind of guy. I don't think he's ever done a book on tape. I did one duriung a road trip, and it was enjoyable. It was Kenneth Branagh reading Mary Shelley's Frankenstien. Scared the whiz out of me in the dark between Dallas and Oklahoma. I prefer to read the words myself - my imagination gets much more exercise that way. I will watch a movie if I enjoyed the book, but I'm usually quite disappointed. The people at half price books know me, and they remember back in 1985 when I was fussing at them for not having an OSC section in the Sci-Fi. They have one NOW!! Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Do you think that if one could recite the plot by memory, deeply connect with the characters, and be affected by the story as much as they would have had they been reading text, they could not consider themselves as having read the book?
Nope. You'd have a completely worthwhile experience, neither superior nor inferior to having read the book, but it would be an experience that didn't involve reading.
Reading isn't necessarily good or bad, and it definitely isn't better than other mediums by which stories are conveyed. If I read a play, but haven't actually watched it, I don't consider myself to have seen it, do you? Conversely, if I watch a play, I don't consider myself to have read it. If I sit in the theater with my eyes shut, and experience only the words, the same words that I could read by sitting down with the script, I still haven't read it. That holds true even if I listen to it so many times that I memorize it.
Posted by Lyraluthuen (Member # 6560) on :
That was a great analogy, Neoman.
I'm not sure I agree that reading isn't considered any better or worse than any other form of media, though. You have to admit that the majority of thinking, educated people tend to put preference on reading over other forms of media, just as the majority of readers put preference on reading classics instead of romance novels, for example.
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
If you love to read and you do it lots, then you're a reader. Doesn't really matter what, as long as you love to read, for pleasure/information/stimulation/fun/whatever, you are a reader.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Thanks Lyraluthien!
quote:I'm not sure I agree that reading isn't considered any better or worse than any other form of media, though. You have to admit that the majority of thinking, educated people tend to put preference on reading over other forms of media, just as the majority of readers put preference on reading classics instead of romance novels, for example.
Oh, I wouldn't disagree for a minute that many people view reading as a superior medium. It's a pretty common belief, and one that I'd guess is pretty common among people on this site. I just don't agree that it actually is a superior medium. It's my favorite medium for conveying stories, but all that means is that it's the medium that resonates most with me, not that it's inherently superior, with me simply being wise enough that my tastes coincide with what That Which Is Best.
Posted by Lyraluthuen (Member # 6560) on :
Fair enough, I can respect that. Oh, and this:
quote: with me simply being wise enough that my tastes coincide with what That Which Is Best.
made my night a whole lot better. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Neoman... I like the sound of that.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Neomom is still my favorite. I will forever be thankful to Chris Kidd for that particular typo.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Oh, and this:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- with me simply being wise enough that my tastes coincide with what That Which Is Best. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
made my night a whole lot better.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Noemen, yer evil Posted by Lyraluthuen (Member # 6560) on :
Am I allowed a certain amount of newbie allowance points for messing up people's names? Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
No, Lylarulian, absolutely not. You must always get names correct. No exceptions. No allowances. Any mistakes, and you're kicked out. Posted by Lyraluthuen (Member # 6560) on :
I'll try to keep that in mind, Quisdcribs. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
You do that, Lyratholienar, cuz you could be in big big trouble otherwise. Posted by Neomon (Member # 6953) on :
So...whose name did Lyraluthuen get wrong? I'm so confused!
Posted by Neoman (Member # 6954) on :
I just can't figure it out!
Posted by Neomom (Member # 6955) on :
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Leave the name alone. If you lose your Pokemon flair, you popularity might drop.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Neither can I, Nieman Marcus. Neither can I. Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
If you're neomom, who's neodad?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)