I think you make a good point here as I know a few people who read certain books just so they can appear to be clever by mentioning they have read them in conversation. I personally think reading is very important but you should read stories you enjoy reading not because some tells you it is more intellectual to read a certain book.
Not sure how beneficial reading is, but I do notice a stark contrast in my speech when I don't read. When I start to say, "like, like, like, you know?", I might want to pick up a book and stay away from the internet for a while.
How else would one acquire knowledge if not through reading? Sure, you could talk to professors or other authorities on the topics of your choice, but books will provide far greater detail from multiple perspectives and are always available. And, there's also the benefit of reading stories the way they were intended to be told if you've seen a lot of adaptations as I have. Personally, I enjoy reading novels prior to watching their adaptations so that I can compare and contrast -- or tear apart as is often the case -- but perhaps that's just me.
You don't learn how to build a car by driving, you learn by studying engineering and mechanics. Same with books. You get test drivers to give you feedback. Good drivers rarely build good cars. But then again, an engineer does need to know a little about driving.
I think that. Not even think. I believe that. It's taken me over 5 months to get through the first three chapters of The Bell Jar. I'm not a big reader at all, but I've had success and a bunch of awards under my belt. In contrast, I've met many people who read a lot and can't write whatsoever. Clearly they learn nothing. It's like learning how to paint by looking at paintings. Sure, it can help, but actually painting is far more educational in learning technique than looking at finished works. Some people seem to think that reading teaches you how to be creative. I'm not sure how a passive activity can do that. Reading helps, but reading a lot is NOT essential. The idea that you must read a lot to become a good writer is simply ignorant. It's all down to the individual; how they learn and create.
I guarantee you that if you asked any successful writer if reading was important, he/she would always say yes. In fact, I have never heard a writer say that reading was not important. You, my friend, are definitely in the minority.
That's fine by me. I'd be fine if I was the only one in the world. That's still enough to establish that there isn't just one way to learn how to write. My brother is a ravenous reader. He reads all the time, and everything. He can't write for ****.
Well, a writer has to practice writing in addition to reading. Therefore, not all avid readers are good writers. But all good writers are avid readers.
You're struggling to read a relatively dry classic. But do you really read nothing? No books, no newspapers, no magazines, no websites, no graphic novels, nothing?
I do read. That's not what I mean. But I am not an avid reader of books. I don't like novels that much; only a few core books that I really enjoy. I read about 1 a year - 2 in a fast year. And once I read 3 but that's because I was on a 980 km hike (two of them were garbage). I have lots of books but only get through a paragraph or two before I lose interest. I don't have the patience to read books. But I read the news a lot, and I love wikipedia, even thought I know it's credibility is suspicious.
Reading and writing are so obviously integrally connected. If you are not a good reader I don't see how you hope to be a good writer. Reading novels also hones and sharpens your sense of pacing, style, skill, characterization, description and symbolism, and shows you what best to do in all these respects. How can you not get this other than reading novels?
I'm not sure. I probably can't. Maybe I'm ignorant. My writing probably is garbage. But my compulsion is to write, whereas reading books bores me. I study bits of books, as I said, but I can't stand reading them for fun. This is simply the way it is. But then again, race car drivers don't build race cars. They know about the bits and how the bits work, but the building is left to the engineers and mechanics (who leave the driving to the drivers, even though they know how to drive)... a little connectivity is important because you need to know words. That helps. And if you know words clearly you can read. But for me, reading books for enjoyment is not essential to writing books for enjoyment.
I think a musician is a better example than a race car driver. If a musician knows everything there is to know about pitch and beat and whatever else but doesn't listen to any music, he's going to have a very unsuccessful and short-lived career.
I remember when I was asked to join a band just after leaving high school, and basically the first thing anyone would ask you was 'so who are your influences?' and this was always right after 'How long have you been playing/how much can you play'. All anyone ever wanted to know was how good you are and how much you know about music. If you said 'I don't actually listen to music, I just do it' you would be laughed at and told to get out in mere seconds.
But the fact that you're trying to read The Bell Jar worries me. Do you always try to read "classics"? Do you ever read just good fun junk? I read about seventy books a year (it used to be far more; spending time on the Internet isn't good for reading habits), but hardly any of them are classics.
I'm interested by that period of American literature, and I like the style, but it's just that I don't like reading much at a time. One book I really enjoyed reading was Three Men on a Raft by Ben Kozel; the true story of three normal guys who rafted the entire length of the Amazon River. Another favourite is 1988 by Andrew Mcgahan. I've tried to read 'good fun junk' and I get about a page or two in and I give up. I also flick to halfway and see what it's like later. To me it's simply not 'good fun'
Erm...he wasn't _born_ deaf. Are you arguing that Beethoven never listened to music? That he never studied music?
Just being a smartass. But he didn't listen to much music after 23 and still had a long and successful career because he understood the mechanics of the craft. It didn't just stop because he couldn't keep up to date with what others were doing. No writer doesn't read anything. My whole point is about volume and interest. Writers don't necessarily need to be reading 70 books a year to be good at writing, just as musicians don't need to go to concerts all the time to be good at playing their instrument.
I always wondered at this myself, being something of a stickler for back-story I always devoured information on my favourite fictional universes. I had my answer on Tuesday when a group of friends, knowing that I tend to read and write, began questioning me on Tolkien lore. I spent almost 45 minutes answering questions for them which I didn't even realise I had the answers to, the only reason I stopped was because my college teacher got slightly miffed that we were getting distracted. But I would say that the only reason I could discuss it for that length of time and conjure up interest in them using my own dramatic flair was because I have read books and understand at least something of dramatic reading and how to apply that to my everyday life. On the other hand of course you will meet people who do have that dynamic attitude and charisma come naturally them. Just realised that I could of just given a short answer so I'll do that instead of prattling on at this point. From my own personal experience and therefore in my own personal opinion I believe reading to be very beneficial to anyone who takes the time to enjoy a good book, though the positive effects may only be sub-conscious.
Reading is the expansion of...everything, not much more to say! "I sharpen my tongue everyday" -Dorothy Parker.
Hmmm, saw this. I find The Bell Jar to be a great book, now I know it's not up to par to say something like Dickens, Austen, Poe, Wilde, & so on, but to me it was a nice book...perhaps it's because at that particular period of time I was in that same state of mind & makes me pre-disposed to favor it, I don't know.
I'm liking the book so far, I just don't enjoy reading very much. I can only bare a few pages at a time, if it's good. The only two books I ever read in one go were The Machine Gunners and The Hobbit.
Well, it is a pretty major work, certainly one worthy of literary consideration and study. I was leaning against it because I assumed, apparently incorrectly, that the poster was reading it because he felt that he was "supposed" to read books of its caliber and reputation. I tend to oppose reading classic and literary works that you're "supposed" to read, and instead encourage reading whatever you find fun to read. If that happens to be classic and literary works, well, dandy.
