Esoteric Authors: Do they serve a purpose?

[HLGStrider]

Re: Enjoyment

If you think the purpose of studying literature is solely to enhance your love of reading, then there is certainly no point studying literature--all you really need is a library card and a comfortable armchair by the fire (pipe, dressing gown and glass of brandy are optional).

I didn't say the purpose of studying literature. I said the purpose of reading literature. You immediately took this to studying, which I suppose is a logical taking-it-to due to my mention of literary teachers. However, just as there is pure and applied science, there is pure and applied literature. Though in this case, the pure is used more applicably than the applied. . .hmmm. . .I'm not making sense now.

In high school science I learned there were two branches to science, pure and applied. Pure science is pursued just for knowledge. Applied is pursued to be utilized. Often they over lap because you learn to do things with pure science that you use in applied science and by using applied science you necessarily discover things which is part of pure science. Making sense so far?

Good, now I have to transition this into literature . . .I usually use better analogies than this, but science isn't my thing. Neither is academia.

Anyway, pure literature is the enjoyment of it. Literature for literature's sake.

Applied literature is literature for learning's sake, for knowledge's sake, for social commentary's sake. . .etc. You take the story and apply it to meaning or apply meaning to it.

Of course, just as before, there is cross over. By reading literature for "pure" purposes you still get some of the learning. By reading for learning, you can still enjoy.

But I'm not a learner. I don't like reading to learn. I'd rather just sit back and be enthralled. If I learn in the meantime, fine. . .but I don't want to study literature. I want to read!

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

To say that you don't like "reading to learn" suggests that this is true only for those pursuits that you do not ordinarily enjoy. Perhaps you don't like "reading to learn" about a subject like, say, accounting because you don't really enjoy accounting or have no great interest in it. On the other hand, you should certainly enjoy "reading to learn" about any subject in which you do have an interest. In that situation, "reading to learn" and "reading for enjoyment" become one and the same and cannot really be separated.

 

[HLGStrider]

Well, you're dealing with nonfiction. I'm not. I RARELY read nonfiction. Not counting college books I don't think I've read a nonfiction book (article, yes, book no) in over a year. I'm assuming you are dealing with non-fiction because of
A. You accounting example.
B. You seem to be talking about learning facts.

It is undeniable that one can read and enjoy a novel without learning anything, even if the novel has some very preachy sections or a very obvious point.

So, while I may be getting ideas via osmosis, they aren't coming in any obvious routes and I rarely take the time to analyze the ideas.

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Yes, I am speaking of non-fiction. But surely you have "interests"? Things that you enjoy and therefor would enjoy reading about? Do you enjoy reading about Tolkien because you appreciate his writing - or is the writing enough for you? I have found that knowing something of the author can often add insight to his/her works. But you must have interests outside of fictional works of literature, surely. Whatever those interests are, don't you enjoy reading books that are related to them?

I simply cannot imagine anyone who does not like to "read to learn" about something in which they are interested. You say that you don't, but I just can't imagine how anyone wouldn't want to learn more about a subject that is of interest to them if there is any information at all available. I guess it must be my age.

 

[Arthur_Vandelay]

I simply cannot imagine anyone who does not like to "read to learn" about something in which they are interested. You say that you don't, but I just can't imagine how anyone wouldn't want to learn more about a subject that is of interest to them if there is any information at all available. I guess it must be my age.

No . . . I'm with you on this one.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Well, you're dealing with nonfiction. I'm not. I RARELY read nonfiction....

Wait till you get deeply involved in your college classes! I daresay that over the course of the next four years (more if you get into grad school) you will undergo a major sea change vis a vis your reading habits (assuming you want to graduate with high grades and accomplishments) and your whole approach to "reading for learning."

Barley

"Instruction comes in society; inspiration comes in solitude." —Goethe 102

 

[Mrs. Maggott]

Frankly, I cannot even fathom the concept of "reading to learn" vs. "reading for some other purpose". Surely, one learns whenever one reads! It may only be an increase in reading proficiency or one's vocabulary, but I simply cannot imagine how one could read and not learn at least something!

For instance, if the book or article is filled with error, one may discover that one's own knowledge of the subject (whatever it is) alerts one to the errors contained within the offending source. If one is ignorant of the subject, sooner or later one will learn that the source of what knowledge one has that was gleaned from the book or article in question is erroneous. In other words, however one learns that the source was in error, one will learn that fact sooner or later!

Reading is a mind-enlarging experience providing one does not limit one's reading to purely "fun" sources.

 

[HLGStrider]

Truthfully, none of my interests follow facts. I am interested in abstract ideas. I think the last non-fiction book I read was Bastiat, on economics and liberty. . .no, that was at least two years ago. I am interested in fiction. I am interested in people and occasionally will enjoy a well-written-biography, but I am not interested enough in any particular person or group of persons that I have pursued that.

I know I can enjoy well-written-non-fiction. I deeply enjoyed Albert Marin's books when I read them for high school history (He wrote a biography on Hitler, one on Stalin, and a short history of the Viatnam war. He also wrote something on Mao that I haven't read), but I have no interests that drive me to pursue nonfiction in general. I haven't since I was six and used to check out any book with a cat on the cover.

Let's see, what does interest me. . .

Things that don't exist.
Words.
Ethical and political questions, but generally not as applies to real life situations. (Ie, I may be interested in the ideas of free speech, but I don't have any interest in how they are effected by the McCain Fiengold Bill though I have heard they are).

If you notice my postings on the political sections of this forum, I like to stay away from those that involve any specific event or person discussed in a factual way whereas I tend towards those that deal with the ethical or logical considerations.

I'm the same way in the Tolkien sections. Anything involving abstract character evaluations I like. I don't like searching the book for dry facts.

I don't like college either for that matter.

I did admit to learning by osmosis. One can't help it. What I'm objecting to is the idea of reading for the sole purpose of learning. I think I just used the type of soul that is a fish. ..it is getting late, but it looks funny so I'll let it stand.

Reading is a mind-enlarging experience providing one does not limit one's reading to purely "fun" sources.

"Fun sources" basically has no meaning, however. I thought it was fun to read Paradise Lost. I think very few others would agree with me.

However, if I had read Paradise Lost in a school setting, it wouldn't have been fun. I read Ivanhoe the first time in a school setting and started off totally hating it. To like it I had to distance my reading from the questions my mother had me answering and such and just read to read. It took me about five chapters and on subsequent re-reads I have enjoyed the entire book.

That's one of the reasons that I chose long ago not to go into journalism despite it being a more profitable form of the writing I love and while I am fond of the sort of arguementitive writing that involves political and ethical subjects, I don't plan to go into anything such as column writing because I know it involves more than abstracts, and I don't like researching facts as a general principle.

I only enjoy facts as a basis for stories.

 

[joxy]

I don't like college either for that matter.
I did admit to learning by osmosis.
However, if I had read Paradise Lost in a school setting, it wouldn't have been fun.

Elgee, I agree with you.

 

[HLGStrider]

Nice that someone does. . .

 

[Beleg]

I do too, for that matter, Elgee Cat. Agree.

 

[Arthur_Vandelay]

But I'm not a learner. I don't like reading to learn.

Here's a fine example of why reading to learn does have its benefits.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Here's a fine example of why reading to learn does have its benefits.

Wow! WHERE do you find this stuff???!! What's even more mind-boggling is the effort that some "interesting" person went to in constructing a site whose subject importance is arguably — questionable...? :::shaking head, dazed, stunned:::

Barley

"My grant'ther's rule was safer'n 'tis to crow:/Don't never prophesy onless ye know." —James Russel Lowell (1819-1891)

 

[Arthur_Vandelay]

Wow! WHERE do you find this stuff???!! What's even more mind-boggling is the effort that some "interesting" person went to in constructing a site whose subject importance is arguably — questionable...? :::shaking head, dazed, stunned:::

Well, the site's motto does read: "Blog for trivial things."

I heard about this site on the "On-The-Net" program on ABC Newsradio, and here's a link to that site.

Incidentally, and this is way off topic (but would certainly be on topic if this thread were in the movie fora and concerned with problems with PJ's adaptation), I also found this.

 

[joxy]

Here's a fine example of why reading to learn does have its benefits.

Thank you for that A_V......er......I think......
But for the Nitpickers' Guide, that's been offered so often before that we know it by heart.

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

Thank you for that A_V......er......I think......
But for the Nitpickers' Guide, that's been offered so often before that we know it by heart.

Jox, what's the NG? Sounds like my kinda book!

Barley

EDIT: Good God!!! I just googlesearched my way to The Nitpicker's Guide to the Lord of the Rings. What a stupendous yet misled effort! What an output of herculean yet wasted energy! I ran away screaming!

Barley

 

[HLGStrider]

I think it is a webpage, not a book. Check out the link in AV's word HERE.

 

[joxy]

You thought it was your kind of thing BB, and so did I! I'm surprised you, and A_V, hadn't come across it until now.
I haven't tried the links at the end, to two other sites they say are similar; have you?

 

[Barliman Butterbur]

You thought it was your kind of thing BB, and so did I! I'm surprised you, and A_V, hadn't come across it until now.
I haven't tried the links at the end, to two other sites they say are similar; have you?

I looked at it long enough to get the general lay of the land, and then let out a shriek that would have terrified a Wringwraith! It's Pure Purists' Paradise!

Barley