I'd remark more on the overall condescension and mansplaininess of the exchange than that last question in particular. By "read" wouldn't he have meant read for pleasure, as opposed to being able to read?
Right, I interpreted it to mean "Do you read anything, whatsoever, in the way of articles or books?" Not a comment about literacy.
Reading is just another form of media consumption. It happens to be a very old one, and I think it gets undo props as a result.
I mean, sure, I read a fair amount, but I don't get why it has to be considered virtuous.
It wasn't really mansplainy or condescending because there's a pre-existing context where he knows I'm in academics. I think it's more that he probably didn't read after graduating college for many years, and recently started reading health and fitness garbage, and is asking if I've had a similar conversion around reading, or not yet.
I mean, sure, I read a fair amount, but I don't get why it has to be considered virtuous.
Because it's way, way faster than anything else as a means of delivering information? If you're not reading news or articles or books, absorbing information is going to go pretty slowly. Listen to a lot of TED talks?
5: The benchmark for most people isn't efficient absorption of information, it's entertainment.
It sounds like a great portion of this guy's circles doesn't read for pleasure, just as he used not to, so he's sort of getting used to the concept.
Did he go on to say "What you readin' for?"
Because it's way, way faster than anything else as a means of delivering information?
Depends on the kind of information. Watching a YouTube video is a much quicker - and effective - way to figure out how to do something than reading an instruction manual.
The virtue (I guess) is knowing how to acquire information. "Reading" is a virtue insofar as a lot of time you can acquire information well. Eliminating "reading" altogether as a thing you do is...I'm being trolled, aren't I.
5 Listen to a lot of TED talks?
I know a lot of people who do that, and podcasts in general, and listen to NPR, but don't actually read all that much. They aren't stupid or ill-informed.
(It would drive me nuts, but it's their choice, not mine.)
For "a way to spend time dedicated to media consumption", it used to pretty much be a choice between reading and television, and I could see how reading would be considered more virtuous there because television was pretty awful, back in the day. But there has been an explosion of niche video content that makes that not true anymore, and video games or other interactive activities have also developed as media options. This is aside from podcasts and radio, which have a lot of value in that you can consume them while also doing other things, such as driving.
All I'm saying is, reading needs to step up its game.
All I'm saying is, reading needs to step up its game.
To this point, I discourage my friends here from reading the new David Mitchell unless you were suuuuuuuuper into the supernatural parts of The Bone Clocks I found annoying. Also if anyone knows a blog for bitching about real-world words used stupidly and annoyingly in fantasy contexts, I would love that.
Isn't the Unfogged motto "If you seek a place to bitch, look around you"?
All I'm saying is, reading needs to step up its game.
Been there, done that.
* Not that one!
13:
Probably googling "One for the Morning Glory" and "hate hate hate" or "so annoying" would get you something.
All I'm saying is, reading needs to step up its game.
Back in the day, this was the main function of Playboy magazine. Especially after Penthouse (and then Hustler) came along.
bitching about real-world words used stupidly and annoyingly in fantasy contexts, I would love that.
I am intrigued by your thoughts and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
A confession: I've been surprised to discover, in my years as an academic, how many academics don't read, at least not for pleasure.
This may well be a factor of the sort of universities I have been employed at -- none of them R1s -- but only a few of my fellow professors read for fun; almost none of them read outside their field. Within the field, almost none read outside their area of specialization.
Of course, almost no students read, but that's always been true.
I wonder if academics aren't suffering from something analogous to overtraining: having for a time being forced to read too much, too fast, and then subjected to an ongoing grind of student papers and professional articles puts them off it and takes away the pleasure for good.
The horrible experience of having to read manuscripts within our field, particularly unpublished manuscripts, is enough to convince most of us that reading in general is an ordeal.