Enter your username and password.
Oh, come on. Phillip Roth also says that if you don't read a novel in under two weeks, you haven't read it. He's a shambling anachronism, and quoting him as an expert witness on the contemporary world is unwise. #philiproth
Reply
@BadUncle: Well I don't agree with him either, about novel readers almost dying about in the next 25 years, but I kind of understand about reading novels in more than two weeks. In my own experience at least it's true, I usually read much more than one novel in two weeks and when it does take me a longer time to read one book (for instance when I don't have much time to read in busy periods), I really do find it much harder to get drawn in by the experience. Reading a few pages now and then just doesn't "work" for me, or Roth apparently; sure you READ books but it's very rarely that magical, wonderful experience that reading CAN be when you get totally drawn in... #philiproth
Reply
@BadUncle: Exactly. Fuck you for judging how I read and comprehend--so sorry I'm not an elitist douchebag. #philiproth
Reply
@h4nn4h: And that is about you (and, evidently, Phillip Roth - who's work I can't stand, anyway). To project outward on the whole of humanity - much less a population that often works 50 hour weeks is hubristic, and echoes and earlier time when reading novels was the privilege of the monied leisure class. #philiproth
Reply
@BadUncle: I'm not sure I like P.R. much either (although I did enjoy the two or three books of his that I've read so far).
But I do think it's an interesting idea, this thing about stretching books over longer time diminishing the quality of the reading experience. It's true for me and him, and like you pointed out of course I don't know whether it's true for the majority of people, but I can imagine that it is. Wouldn't you/many of those who have to work 50 hour weeks PREFER to have more reading time too, being able to read books faster? I'm glad I live in a country where that's not the norm, so at least sometimes I have time and energy to read as much as I like in one sitting. You say this echoes and earlier time when reading novels was the privilege of the monied leisure class, which interestingly seems to be the reality again, now: 50-hour-weeks would certainly interfere with reading as much/well as I'd like, anyway, and I'm sure that's true for very many people.
You all seem to read this Roth-quote as a reproach to you, the readers who don't have much time (as though you don't WANT to put in the effort and so can never "really" read a book), and it seems that Roth meant it like that, too, so I get and share your dislike of him/that quote, but it does have an interesting idea underneath all the idiotics, I think... Reply
But I do think it's an interesting idea, this thing about stretching books over longer time diminishing the quality of the reading experience. It's true for me and him, and like you pointed out of course I don't know whether it's true for the majority of people, but I can imagine that it is. Wouldn't you/many of those who have to work 50 hour weeks PREFER to have more reading time too, being able to read books faster? I'm glad I live in a country where that's not the norm, so at least sometimes I have time and energy to read as much as I like in one sitting. You say this echoes and earlier time when reading novels was the privilege of the monied leisure class, which interestingly seems to be the reality again, now: 50-hour-weeks would certainly interfere with reading as much/well as I'd like, anyway, and I'm sure that's true for very many people.
You all seem to read this Roth-quote as a reproach to you, the readers who don't have much time (as though you don't WANT to put in the effort and so can never "really" read a book), and it seems that Roth meant it like that, too, so I get and share your dislike of him/that quote, but it does have an interesting idea underneath all the idiotics, I think... Reply