Yep. I terrorize the forum (and Facebook too) at 4am. "Never too early to create mayhem." I have a T-shirt that says it.
Paperbacks. The spray is narrow enough that the book can easily be held out of range. Page-turning with one's thumb becomes a skill. Shampoo bottle and shower gel bottle can easily be opened one-handed and the goo dumped directly on oneself. And so on. I don't risk it with library books. I can also more reliably walk and avoid tripping hazards while reading, than my SO can walk and avoid tripping hazards without reading. I suspect that a part of my brain has been permanently assigned for scanning the scene ahead of the top of the book and remembering exactly where that tripping hazard was when I get to it three steps later.
I didn't say it was normal or average or preferable, just that you don't have to understand it for it to be true. As I said, I see great value in experiencing the writing of others. I won't debate you on that, because I agree with you. Still, it's okay to be strange. I also find great personal benefit in writing while listening to wild, bombastic, bebop at high volumes. That would ruin a writing sessions for a majority of writers, I think. You don't have to like it for it to work for me. First of all, and I have to assume you're talking about my post, because you used my painting example, I never said they were the same thing. I don't speak in ridiculous absolutes, so don't read it that way, please. The point was valid in context, and only meant to diffuse the argument a bit, not to come down on either side and make things worse. Next time, I won't bother. I've had my fill. No one's trying to hear anyone.
No, I was not referring to your post. The analogy to painting has come up more than once, and is a good general analogy to any sort of skill driven art form. So you have zero reason to take this as some sort of personal attack on yourself. It had NOTHING to do with you.
I don't understand why my comments are sparking a debate. I never boasted I don't like to read but am an aspiring author. I'm not. Writing satisfied something in me so I just do it for my own pleasure. I'm sure you all have hobbies that you have no desire to "win" at. Well, writing is mine. I never said reading wasn't important, just that I don't enjoy doing it anymore. Sometimes, as someone else said, you have to just respect other people's opinions even if it seems mad to you. I'm not hurting anyone. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything given my past experiences being lashed for saying I like to write but don't read. I just thought people on here would take it a bit better. But this debate is boring me now so I wont say anymore on the subject. . On another note: I forgot Charles Dickens from my list. And Moby Dick - that was another favourite of mine. And old Yeller - I remember reading the end and hugging my old dog until she couldn't breath. DON'T TELL MY MOTHER but I read Lolita at thirteen. Stole it from my grandfather's library. She'd have blown a bowel if she knew! And Stephen Crane. My grandfather had so many old books. I love the smell of old books.
Your posts are not what is driving this debate. No one thinks someone writing for their own enjoyment needs to read a lot.
I think that's a little bit of exaggeration. I credit at least you, @ChickenFreak, and @jannert as trying to hear what others have to say, and that's not a complete list. But I understand your frustration.
Fair enough, and thanks for saying that, but I think you were right, the argument's played itself out. Like most arguments, I think it stopped being about you a long time ago. That's not meant to devalue anything you said. I just means it spiraled off into a realm about which people are apparently passionate. Yikes! It was meant to be. I could have been more clear.
No one would want to start a riot with me trust me! I used to do cage fighting when I was younger... Those canaries aren't half vicious. Beat me every time.
It doesn't negatively impact anyone else, if that's what you mean by okay. But on writing forums and similar places, you can't begrudge people prescribing "read more" to aspiring writers imo. And it sounds like you might agree with me on that. Can people occasionally overemphasize reading more to reluctant readers? I can imagine so. But from my point of view—for developing/aspiring writers—it's better to error on the side of overemphasis than underemphasis.
I, for one, am enjoying the show. I don't have much to say that hasn't already been said, but it's a fun little drama to follow. As long as it doesn't get personal *cough* character's opinion thread *cough*, it's always interesting to see how other folks on the forum feel about things.
I do, but I had enough of that fight last night. It was resolved more or less to my satisfaction when XRD either conceded or reiterated, depending on which of us you ask, the point that reading isn't bad for writers, even if he believes it's a bad move for him personally. Now it's all being rehashed. I thought I'd attempt to diffuse it, but I probably should know better. Now I don't care. You can't imagine some of the down-the-nose nonsense that comes out of people's mouths when you say you don't read. What's been said here is paltry. It's worse than telling a college graduate you didn't go to college and don't plan to. It's especially confusing to anyone who knows you're intelligent. Their opinion can turn on a dime, as if literature (and places of "higher learning") have information you can't get from documentaries and the internet (or encyclopedias twenty years ago.) It's just a prejudice people have: smart people read books; reading books makes you smart. These are not absolutes. You and I and most here are in a different place regarding these notions, because we write, but yes, people can overemphasize (even overvalue) reading. Again, I know it's value. I'm not arguing against it. I'm a big proponent.
Saying you "don't read" when you are actually listening to audiobooks is a bit misleading, and no doubt caused people to think that you don't expose yourself to literature. You do.
So... I'm taking it to mean this sort of derail is a sign I should quit the genre stuff. It seems the very idea of my genre stuff puts people into a world where the value of literature itself is questioned. Seriously, aren't we in it for love of the form. I would choose reading over writing any day. And that's not because I'm a writer. I'm a person who connects with the written word. I love being amazed, which I often am while reading. I don't know any people in real life who don't read. I don't see how anyone can say there's value in literature but snub their nose up at reading it. There are always going to be better writers than us. I, for one, want to see what they're up to. I just think writing of all kinds is important and I want to read it. I put value in the written literature. And that appreciation doesn't have to be tied to one's own writing, but the writing will suffer without the appreciation. Now, if I set all this in space, would it work?
People who read books think they are better than us: the fellas reading the broadsheets, the scum. Now nobody is saying an occasional comic does not scratch the itch, but brothers I say to you, brothers, seize their reins of tyrannical control, their boring knowledge and interminable anecdote. We must seize the manacles of their ascendancy with their facking concentration on the page, and we must burn the books, burn the libraries and burn all the pink livered librarians, the pricks with spectacles, nerds and fannies, pile 'em on the bonfire. Who is with me!
Yes, that would be misleading. Come on. Obviously, that's not what I meant. I was talking about back when I didn't go through more than a few books a year, sometimes less. If you tell someone you don't read much, it can change their opinion of you, which was apropos to the quote right above the statement. No one would say, "I don't read," and leave it at that. Why would I talk about how much I love audiobooks on here, and trick people into thinking I'm ignorant of literature in person?
Yeah, this isn't about you anymore, @deadrats! We're on page 7. Don't bring your tired OP up in this joint.
I wasn't suggesting that you were being purposely misleading, and I thought you were the person who said they used audiobooks more and that's what you're referring to. Was that not you? How have I managed to touch you off this time?
I know what you meant. If I did that on accident, that would make me strange and stupid, but yes, that's me. I've spoken volumes in this thread about audiobooks. That just wasn't what that particular part of the conversation was about. Try reading it again without assuming an angry tone. Not everyone on the internet is pissed off all the time (I assume that's the same thing.) I just don't use an excess of emoticons, which I guess confuses some people as to my mood. I apologize if I sounded angry. I'm not. You've read me when I'm angry. There's a big difference.
