 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / April 2009Reading for fun
This is from an article in Newsweek titled "Why is it a sin to read for fun". http://www.newsweek.com/id/193475 I am not able to understand these two sentences towards the end of the article and hope someone can clarify what they mean "Yet in subscribing to this notion that all reading is inherently good for you—and that reading "bad" books leads to reading less-bad books— Picoult is complicit in her own ghettoization. If we remove the assumption that reading is virtuous (a Picoult novel is better for you than a reality TV show), then the good/better hierarchy (Virginia Woolf is better for you than Jodi Picoult) collapses, and books are left to stand on their own merits, not their implied nutritional value." What is meant by that part of Picoult being implicit in her own ghettoization? To me, ghetto brings to mind, Jewish people being walled in, or otherwise boxing in people. What's all that stuff about the good/better hierarchy becoming irrelevant? Thanks > This is from an article in Newsweek titled "Why is it a sin to read > for fun".http://www.newsweek.com/id/193475 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ghettoization? To me, ghetto brings to mind, Jewish people being > walled in, or otherwise boxing in people. Yes, though in the present U.S. a literal ghetto is more likely to a bad neighborhood in which people are considered to be trapped by poverty and racism--usually referring to blacks. In this case, though, the suggestion is that the world of readers and writers is a ghetto, despised or ignored by the wider world (of music, TV, and movies). Thus when Picoult says that her books are better than reality TV (if she actually says that), she metaphorically adds to the wall around this ghetto. > What's all that stuff about the good/better hierarchy becoming > irrelevant? I was stumped. In fact, much of the end of the article didn't make sense to me. I figured out that the author was trying to raise questions about "good" and "bad" literature and about reading compared to other activities, but what questions? And was she suggesting answers? And what did one sentence have to do with the next? -- Jerry Friedman > This is from an article in Newsweek titled "Why is it a sin to read > for fun".http://www.newsweek.com/id/193475 > > What's all that stuff about the good/better hierarchy becoming > > irrelevant? > I was stumped. In fact, much of the end of the article didn't make > sense to me. I figured out that the author was trying to raise > questions about "good" and "bad" literature and about reading compared > to other activities, but what questions? And was she suggesting > answers? And what did one sentence have to do with the next? JF may have overlooked in the last para., " . . . writer Mikita Brottman challenges the accepted wisdom that reading is inherently uplifting, arguing that it turns us into antisocial misanthropes . . . " where Newsweek reporter Jodi Yabrott reminds us: 1. The received wisdom is that reading is uplifting. 2. M. Brottman has written contradicting this. 3. Prolific author Picoult lectures publicly, upholding #1. 4. J. Yabrott reports on Picoult, asking "has she become too successful to be taken seriously?" This degree of convolution demonstrates the muddle postmodern intellectuals frequently get into through self-reference, e.g. #4 -- the proposition that a high level of belief in XYZ by itself suggests XYZ is probably untrue. This is a post-Freudian pathology (that Freud himself understood, cf. his famous quip that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.) Reporter Yabrott obscures rather than clarifies by her choice of politically-freighted language (notably "ghettoization") for rather simple ideas (in context, that "Yet in subscribing to this notion that all reading is inherently good for you—and that reading "bad" books leads to reading less-bad books—Picoult is complicit in her own ghettoization. Reporter Yabrott's choice of lurid language obscures rather than clarifies cf. "ghettoization." All she really means is that people who take sides (in this debate about books) separate themselves from people on the other side: and people who take sides voluntarily are thus "complicit in her own ghettoization." This is a highly-coloured way of saying very little (and saying it about the debating process rather than about the data or logic of either side of the argument.) I do not reed Newsweek but used to know the magazine trade and am a bit surprised to see this sort of thing in its pages nowadays: but we live in a florid and pretentious age.  SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > > This is from an article in Newsweek titled "Why is it a sin to read > > for fun".http://www.newsweek.com/id/193475 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > challenges the accepted wisdom that reading is inherently uplifting, > arguing that it turns us into antisocial misanthropes . . . " Or he may have read it but failed to understand it. That's particularly likely as it's what he said. > where > Newsweek reporter Jodi Yabrott reminds us: Jennie Yabroff. > 1. The received wisdom is that reading is uplifting. I don't see where Yabroff says that. > 2. M. Brottman has written contradicting this. > 3. Prolific author Picoult lectures publicly, upholding #1. I don't see where Yabroff says that Picoult upholds that statement in her lectures. > 4. J. Yabrott reports on Picoult, asking "has she become > too successful to be taken seriously?" I figured out one of my problems with this article: "'Stephenie Meyer has gotten people hooked on books,' Picoult says, 'and that's good for all of us.' "Yet in subscribing to this notion that all reading is inherently good for you—and that reading 'bad' books leads to reading less-bad books— Picoult is complicit in her own ghettoization." I took Picoult to mean, "Getting people hooked on books is good for all of us who live off them." Yabroff took her to mean, "Reading is good for all of humanity." Possibly the rest of the article will make more sense now. If I go back to it. > This degree of convolution demonstrates the muddle postmodern > intellectuals frequently get into through self-reference, e.g. #4 -- [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > clarifies by her choice of politically-freighted language (notably > "ghettoization") And her inability to write coherently. > for rather simple ideas (in context, that > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > it about the debating process rather than about the data or > logic of either side of the argument.) No doubt about that. > I do not reed Newsweek but used to know the magazine > trade and am a bit surprised to see this sort of thing in its > pages nowadays: but we live in a florid and pretentious age. Or that. -- Jerry Friedman >This is from an article in Newsweek titled "Why is it a sin to read >for fun". [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >What's all that stuff about the good/better hierarchy becoming >irrelevant? My take: Being in a ghetto here probably means deserving of special consideration. That is, if reading is inherently virtuous, it is worthier than any other entertainment, and Picoult's books are worthwhile just because they are books. But if the assumption about reading being virtuous is dropped, as Mirita Brockman has suggested it should be, then it's not just a question of "good or better" when it comes to books - there can also be mediocre or bad books. The "nutritional value" comparison means that the assumption of only "good or better" equates reading to the comsumption of necessary fodder. SignatureJohn > This is from an article in Newsweek titled "Why is it a sin to read > for fun". [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > What's all that stuff about the good/better hierarchy becoming > irrelevant? Most of the article talks about the idea that we tend to make a scale of very good literature to very bad, and whether it's true that getting kids to read low on the scale is good because at least some of them may continue to read and work their way up that scale. But at the end of the article, the writer hurriedly brings in two different ideas. One is that reading too much causes personality problems (antisocial etc.) and the other is that if you drop the notion of there being a scale of good to bad literature, then every piece has to stand on its own merits instead of being ranked. I believe that last one relates to the ghetto comment. By buying into the idea that there is literature superiority, Picoult is (supposedly) promoting the idea that her own books are only so-so. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > > This is from an article in Newsweek titled "Why is it a sin to read > > for fun". [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > -- > Best -- Donna Richoux Thank you guys for your input- it is gratifying to know that I'm not the only one flummoxed by this article's conclusion. While I can accept that the quality of certain books is absolute (War And Peace is a great book in and of itself and not necessarily in comparison to, say, David Copperfield), it is difficult to believe that we can do away with comparisons. Hence, the Hardy Boys is not great literature but definitely a step up from reading The Bobbsey Twins, right? [...] > Thank you guys for your input- it is gratifying to know that I'm not > the only one flummoxed by this article's conclusion. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hence, the Hardy Boys is not great literature but definitely a step up > from reading The Bobbsey Twins, right? One can probably smack cultural relativists between the eyes by inviting them to accord equal ranking to different levels of football. SignatureMike. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.