March 05, 2009
High School is in Session
Ran across this today...
Most Britons have lied about the books they read
Say we actually believe the statement above... the question of the day becomes - why lie about what books you've read?
Because they want everyone to think they are "smart"? Because they never got over this High School feeling of being like everyone else? Because it's the "cool" thing to say?
Good Grief! Sheer idiocy!
What if you enter into a conversation with someone who loves the book... how do you hold up your end if you haven't read it? Or does one just smile, nod, and let the other person talk? What if you both start talking about the book and neither of you has read it? Now there's a thought for a very interesting staring contest...
Of that list:
The only one of these I have read is "1984". I had to read that in High School. I hated every page of it. It was so dismal and depressing and didn't even have the grace to end with an upbeat ending (of course an upbeat ending would have destroyed it's street cred entirely)
Please note the words "had to read" - the teacher had the Cliff's Notes and would make sure to ask stuff that did not appear in said notes. I wanted the grade - so I read the damned thing. (gag me) I have tried assiduously for years to forget the experience.
I could never figure out why all the books people insisted where "great literature" had to be so damned depressing. "Grapes of Wrath" anyone? Why not just kill me now and be done. I had to read that one in High School too... it's a toss up as to which was the more crushingly depressing of the 2 books. With GoW I always felt like I needed a shower to wash the grit off after every chapter.
Heaven forbid the "hero" win - that would never happen in real life. Certainly no one should ever be happy when the book is done. The best one can hope for is to continue dwindling into the years... gritty, grimy, and downtrodden. *sigh*
I am currently listening to the audio book of "A Brief History of Time". The good thing is it's short (only a 5 hour read). However, I'm a third of the way through and so far there hasn't been anything said that I haven't heard expressed elsewhere. While not a bad book, in so much as it's not a depressing novel, I'm waiting to see if the end brings new insight or new ideas. I'll be terribly disappointed if it doesn't progress from the current state.
I've seen people make fun of authors I read on a regular basis with great enjoyment. The funny thing is - those making fun of the books often haven't read them.
"That type of book isn't worth my time to even read." You can almost hear the disdainful sniff while they type the words.
Right.
But lying about what you read - that's okay because these are the cool books.
As far as I'm concerned people can read whatever they want. I don't care. If they love 1984 or War and Peace - excellent! Read with great enjoyment. Revel in the story. That's what books are for! But don't disparage others because they prefer to read something else.
I've tried several times to read Ulysses. I never get very far. Maybe one day, but I feel no pressing need to read it, so maybe not. Or I may see if it's out there as an audio book. Possibly I'll get further with that than "reading". With a book like Ulysses, I tend to get hung up on some of the pronunciations even though I'm reading to myself and it doesn't matter.
Oh, last of all, I've never heard of Richard Dawkins and The Selfish Gene. I suppose that could be considered proof I'm illiterate.
Heh.
*** Hey Reuters your bias is showing... Obama's book is the only one that got a link! Not even Orwell's did.
Most Britons have lied about the books they read
LONDON (Reuters) - Two out of three Britons have lied about reading books they have not, and George Orwell's "1984" tops the literary fib list, according to a survey published Thursday.
Say we actually believe the statement above... the question of the day becomes - why lie about what books you've read?
Because they want everyone to think they are "smart"? Because they never got over this High School feeling of being like everyone else? Because it's the "cool" thing to say?
Good Grief! Sheer idiocy!
What if you enter into a conversation with someone who loves the book... how do you hold up your end if you haven't read it? Or does one just smile, nod, and let the other person talk? What if you both start talking about the book and neither of you has read it? Now there's a thought for a very interesting staring contest...
Of that list:
1. 1984 - George Orwell (42 percent)
2. War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy (31)
3. Ulysses - James Joyce (25)
4. The Bible (24)
5. Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert (16)
6. A Brief History of Time - Stephen Hawking (15)
7. Midnight's Children - Salman Rushdie (14)
8. In Remembrance of Things Past - Marcel Proust (9)
9. Dreams from My Father - Barack Obama*** (6)
10. The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins (6)
The only one of these I have read is "1984". I had to read that in High School. I hated every page of it. It was so dismal and depressing and didn't even have the grace to end with an upbeat ending (of course an upbeat ending would have destroyed it's street cred entirely)
Please note the words "had to read" - the teacher had the Cliff's Notes and would make sure to ask stuff that did not appear in said notes. I wanted the grade - so I read the damned thing. (gag me) I have tried assiduously for years to forget the experience.
I could never figure out why all the books people insisted where "great literature" had to be so damned depressing. "Grapes of Wrath" anyone? Why not just kill me now and be done. I had to read that one in High School too... it's a toss up as to which was the more crushingly depressing of the 2 books. With GoW I always felt like I needed a shower to wash the grit off after every chapter.
Heaven forbid the "hero" win - that would never happen in real life. Certainly no one should ever be happy when the book is done. The best one can hope for is to continue dwindling into the years... gritty, grimy, and downtrodden. *sigh*
I am currently listening to the audio book of "A Brief History of Time". The good thing is it's short (only a 5 hour read). However, I'm a third of the way through and so far there hasn't been anything said that I haven't heard expressed elsewhere. While not a bad book, in so much as it's not a depressing novel, I'm waiting to see if the end brings new insight or new ideas. I'll be terribly disappointed if it doesn't progress from the current state.
I've seen people make fun of authors I read on a regular basis with great enjoyment. The funny thing is - those making fun of the books often haven't read them.
"That type of book isn't worth my time to even read." You can almost hear the disdainful sniff while they type the words.
Right.
But lying about what you read - that's okay because these are the cool books.
As far as I'm concerned people can read whatever they want. I don't care. If they love 1984 or War and Peace - excellent! Read with great enjoyment. Revel in the story. That's what books are for! But don't disparage others because they prefer to read something else.
I've tried several times to read Ulysses. I never get very far. Maybe one day, but I feel no pressing need to read it, so maybe not. Or I may see if it's out there as an audio book. Possibly I'll get further with that than "reading". With a book like Ulysses, I tend to get hung up on some of the pronunciations even though I'm reading to myself and it doesn't matter.
Oh, last of all, I've never heard of Richard Dawkins and The Selfish Gene. I suppose that could be considered proof I'm illiterate.
Heh.
*** Hey Reuters your bias is showing... Obama's book is the only one that got a link! Not even Orwell's did.
Posted by: Teresa in
Books
at
08:13 PM
| Comments (14)
| Add Comment
Post contains 793 words, total size 5 kb.
1
I also had to read "1984" in high school and I don't remember much of it, except, as you say, depressing. I remember "The Grapes of Wrath" as being required also and even more depressing.
I think I read science fiction because it's strangely comforting to me. I have no idea why, since a lot of the genre I prefer, cyberpunk, is set in a kind of bleak, 3rd world everywhere kind of future. I know my favorite books are the ones I go to in times of stress, like a paperback teddybear, and for a while I can forget BHO is giving away my future.
I think I read science fiction because it's strangely comforting to me. I have no idea why, since a lot of the genre I prefer, cyberpunk, is set in a kind of bleak, 3rd world everywhere kind of future. I know my favorite books are the ones I go to in times of stress, like a paperback teddybear, and for a while I can forget BHO is giving away my future.
Posted by: LeeAnn at March 05, 2009 08:44 PM (ayhdB)
2
Gotta tell you, the only one I've read on that list is the Bible. I probably *should* read those others, but life is short and meant to be enjoyed......
if that means folks think less of me, oh well. I never claimed to be a genius!
if that means folks think less of me, oh well. I never claimed to be a genius!
Posted by: Tammi at March 06, 2009 09:16 AM (5c0T5)
3
LeeAnn - so do you like Stephenson's Snow Crash? Or are you a fan of Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game? Or other stuff?
Tammi - you've read the Bible... I've never been able to get past the beginning. Of course I've gone to church where we've had portions read to us, but I've never been able to work through the entire thing. LOL.
Tammi - you've read the Bible... I've never been able to get past the beginning. Of course I've gone to church where we've had portions read to us, but I've never been able to work through the entire thing. LOL.
Posted by: Teresa at March 06, 2009 10:45 AM (ybEr8)
4
I love Snow Crash, and The Diamond Age, and I re-read Cyrptonomicon over and over and over. Stephenson is goooood.
However, he can't carry a candle to William Gibson, whose books I can't live without.
Ender's Game was pretty good too. And Iain M. Banks writes some very densely detailed futureworld stuff that sucks me in. Neil Gaiman is just hilarious and perfect. John Varley, Jim Butcher, Simon Greene...
shut me up before I run amok.
Literaturely.
However, he can't carry a candle to William Gibson, whose books I can't live without.
Ender's Game was pretty good too. And Iain M. Banks writes some very densely detailed futureworld stuff that sucks me in. Neil Gaiman is just hilarious and perfect. John Varley, Jim Butcher, Simon Greene...
shut me up before I run amok.
Literaturely.
Posted by: LeeAnn at March 06, 2009 01:08 PM (ayhdB)
5
LOL - damn I'm way behind on my reading. Neil Gaiman is one I really want to get to one day soon... just haven't had the time. Thanks for the reminder. 
Posted by: Teresa at March 06, 2009 01:11 PM (ybEr8)
6
Gibson rules. I think I've read Neuromancer about 12 times. Lately I've been on a big military sci-fi kick. Reading a lot of David Weber and John Ringo.
Posted by: Graumagus at March 06, 2009 01:26 PM (0pys1)
7
Grau - have you read Scalzi - starting with Old Man's War? Oh damn - just realized I have a Scalzi I recently picked up and haven't read yet!!! Geeze. I put it in the bookshelf... always a problem in that once it's away from in front of my face - I forget I've got it. LOL.
Posted by: Teresa at March 06, 2009 01:33 PM (ybEr8)
8
A book where the good guy wins: Gates Of Fire.
Posted by: Sarah at March 06, 2009 03:46 PM (TWet1)
9
I'm SO GLAD to see someone else who thinks the "great" works of literature are depressing. I felt bad saying that out loud to any English teachers, though, who sung the praises of the "greats".
This is not to say that ALL literature was horrid and depressing, just most of it.
I had to slog through Crime and Punishment in high school, and I thought I was going to perish from sheer boredom.
Nice to see another like mind.
This is not to say that ALL literature was horrid and depressing, just most of it.
I had to slog through Crime and Punishment in high school, and I thought I was going to perish from sheer boredom.Nice to see another like mind.
Posted by: deltasierra at March 06, 2009 09:33 PM (fPHZv)
10
LOL - oh I think there are lots of us. I don't worry about it any more - for that matter I didn't worry back then. I read what I had to for school and read what I wanted for fun.
Posted by: Teresa at March 06, 2009 11:09 PM (ybEr8)
11
Confession of a Brit:
At school, I enjoyed reading and soon got through the early learning 'books'. My teacher got fed up with finding me something to read that she gave me 'War and Peace' to read! I was around 7yrs at the time so needless to say I couldn't make head nor tale of it but I went through the motions and had 'read' it by the end of the week! Teacher was impressed!!!
I still love reading and at the moment I am reading Wilbur Smith's 'Monsson'. I am now 65 yrs. young.
At school, I enjoyed reading and soon got through the early learning 'books'. My teacher got fed up with finding me something to read that she gave me 'War and Peace' to read! I was around 7yrs at the time so needless to say I couldn't make head nor tale of it but I went through the motions and had 'read' it by the end of the week! Teacher was impressed!!!
I still love reading and at the moment I am reading Wilbur Smith's 'Monsson'. I am now 65 yrs. young.
Posted by: bx19 at March 07, 2009 03:52 AM (ZrJcx)
12
LOL bx19 - you're lucky she gave you a big book to read rather than make you help her with the other kids. I wonder if I would have been as persistent as you - finishing a book that didn't really grab me because I didn't understand it...
I might have done it because "teacher said to" but I don't know. Of course I didn't have any teachers who gave me anything to do that might have stretched my brain a bit. If I finished something early - they made me a teacher's helper (gawd I hated that)
Monsson... I shall look it up.
I might have done it because "teacher said to" but I don't know. Of course I didn't have any teachers who gave me anything to do that might have stretched my brain a bit. If I finished something early - they made me a teacher's helper (gawd I hated that)
Monsson... I shall look it up.
Posted by: Teresa at March 07, 2009 11:07 AM (ybEr8)
13
What is it with school and depressing books? The unit of curricula in which I read 1984 also required us to read Farenheit 451 - which was more interesting, easier to read and had a better ending - and The Chocolate War, which if anything was more depressing than 1984, possibly because it was about school and bullying, something I knew too much about at the time.
Why couldn't they have forced me to read Scalzi or S.M. Stirling?
Why couldn't they have forced me to read Scalzi or S.M. Stirling?
Posted by: hiraethin at March 19, 2009 05:25 AM (FE+oo)
14
Hiraethin... LOL. Back in the day I was wishing they'd have me read Heinlein or Asimov, but I so agree with you.
Posted by: Teresa at March 19, 2009 08:28 AM (ybEr8)
32kb generated in 0.2747 seconds; 71 queries returned 228 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
