NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/arts/books/23594

Text File | 1992-12-31 | 3.3 KB | 57 lines

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Path: sparky!uunet!blaze.cs.jhu.edu!lost-boy!callahan
From: [e-mail] (Paul Callahan)
Subject: Re: Reading as an addiction (Was: 92 in rabreview)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet news system)
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 21:08:24 GMT
Lines: 45

[e-mail] (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:

>Seeing the astounding quantity of books some posters consumed in 1992
>makes me wonder if reading can be a type of (benign?) addiction.  This
>may be an especially apt description of those who (compulsively?) read a
>hundred genre novels a year, mysteries or science fiction for example.
>    Among those who are voracious readers, do you feel the
>equivalent of withdrawal symptoms when (for whatever reason) you cannot
>read for an extended period?

It could be that I'm merely justifying my own behavior (I doubt I read more
than 30 books a year), but I think there is such a thing as reading
too much.  When I read continuously, the ideas go by in a blur.  I don't have a
chance to assimilate them.  I tend to go through phases of heavy reading,
or not reading at all.  When I'm not reading, however, I'm still being affected
by what I've read.  If I go for a long walk, for example, I'm rarely exposed to
anything of intrinsic cultural value, but I may see mundane things in a new
light, based on what I've read most recently.  When people spend every moment
of their spare time reading, I wonder if they are not denying themselves part
of the pleasure of appreciating good literature.  On this note, I also tend to
slow down for dialogue, because if it's done well, you have to hear it to
appreciate it.

One of the things I try to do is to limit myself to books that offer something
new or challenging.  I stopped reading SF a few years ago, for the most part,
because I felt that most of the new books I read had little to add to the
genre.  Modern SF authors tend to make a better attempt at character development
than those of the "Golden Age," but if I'm looking for this sort of thing, I'd
rather go with authors who make it their primary purpose; I don't need the
sugar-coating.  I like general non-fiction as well, whether or not it's
especially well-written, because it acts as raw data for drawing analogies and
understanding things in new terms.

I rarely use reading as a form of escapism.  Not to knock escapism; reading
just seems like a dull way to go about it (I can understand if you happen to
be stuck in a hospital).  It wouldn't hurt me to read more, but I read about
as much as I can make time for, and I don't feel I'd be better off reading
hundreds of books a year.  (I would be better off reading more material related
to my research, but that's an entirely different issue.)

--
"I would rather be torn to pieces by the poison-clawed cat, than to suffer one
instant of acceptance by the resident intellectuals of rec.arts.books."
     [slightly modified; attribution left as an exercise to the reader]
              -- Paul Callahan, [e-mail] --