What is the face you make when you're reading? Mine is most often contemplative or happy. What is your 'watching tv' face? Mine is that of a catatonic. The face you make most will be the one you grow old with. So, if not just to stimulate your mind, read to make yourself more attractive (and in the mean time, you might like what's happening mentally, too.)
Ah okay, I've heard others call it a "pot boiler" before (even the movie "Sylvia" did) so I'm not sure, I enjoyed. Alright I'm with you there, more often than not people (my mother mostly) will recommend I read all these classic books, which I'm not altogether opposed to, but when I get there I'll get there...currently more into the experimental avant garde works that can seem outlandish & obscure but are very much entertaining & thought provoking...or perhaps Hall Luther Nation provoking in some cases. & Knarfia, I am just that way too...I can't even watch tv because my mind is always creating scenarios, details, observations within the show that it just ends up all wrong...even with movies, it's hard for me to just settle my mind down to enjoy it really...it's probably because I read five to six hours a day & write for an hour or two, so literally...I never get a break. It's a rather great gift reading & that's why I cherish it, it all comes from the Aether. It can seem an addiction at times too...but my only friends are in the Long Hall...so.
That would, of coarse, depend on what is read. My TV face is that of smiles, contemplation, sadness, amazement, or whatever the excellent programming I choose to watch incites. Just like reading, garbage is garbage but the good stuff makes you feel. Something. Anything. You must be watching too much garbage. Perhaps you should be more discerning.
I read a lot as a child, my father used to drop me off at the library every Saturday morning and then walk into the town to do his banking while i read books. My borrowing limit was initially 6 every week but eventually the head librarian came to my house and told my parents that they were upping my limit to 12 per week which was great. I found the benefits of reading so much to be that my spelling skills were significantly superior to my classmates. I got 70/70 on a sponsored spelling test during year 7. I was able to spellcheck my classmates work if they asked me nicely enough and then i'd go through it with them, giving them tips on ways to adjust to the correct spelling from then on. I also coped far easier with reading classics. When reading Of mice and men, and Shakespeare's Othello and Macbeth, i found the language far easier to adjust to and internally understand. As a result, essays were far easier to write. I got A in GCSE English Literature. So personally those are the benefits I found from reading.
If you like to read, read. If you like to write, write. They're connected but not connected, that is just one method for improving your writing. Not the end all, be all. Whatever you do, enjoy it. That's what's most important, not looking smart. I always liked to read when I was a kid, but when I grew older I got away from it and forgot about that love. I've enjoyed just about every book that I've ever read and pulled something from each story. I don't think there is such a thing as a junk story, so long as the person wrote it with love. The only stories that I have not enjoyed were the drama/relationship stories and the stories that are really pushing hard for their agenda. When I became a writer, I started to feel like a bit of a hypocrite writing and not reading, expecting others to read my writing. That's just me though.
? The Bell Jar is about 150 pages, brilliantly written, and written in a way that is totally consumable (ie no really big words). It may be considered a classic, but most of my junk reading is more challenging than that book. My issue with the thread is the idea that one does not have to be an active participant in the community they are working, living, and participating in. As a writer, reading - if for no other reason - is important to show support to other writers.
I'm going to go in an opposite direction as most of you here. Obviously it is impossible to become a writer without ever reading, but at some point does it not become redundant? I feel once you reach adulthood your ways are mostly set and your literary style is more or less already developed. Of course everyone can polish their writing more, and lord know I have room to grow, but I find the best way to do this is to write. Often I feel like I'm being lazy when I read. It may be enjoyable, but am I really strengthening myself as a writer?
It's never a bad idea to read, nor is it being lazy. You are strengthening yourself as a writer, though not as much as you were when you were young. I've said several times on this forum that it's important to read, and most important to read when you're YOUNG. If you get hooked on reading as a preteen, and start reading adult books at that age, you're way ahead of the game, not just as a writer but as a student of life. It's much easier to learn when you're young, and what you learn then becomes ingrained in your bones - it's inextricable from your self. I always wonder a little about people on this forum who have questions about spelling, punctuation, and grammar, because it means they didn't read when they were kids - at least, they didn't read enough. Does reading eventually become redundant? If you're reading the best available stuff, no, it doesn't. If nothing else, it keeps you up with what's currently being written; what modern literature IS. On the other hand, if you keep reading mediocre rehashes of the same old crap, then yeah, it's redundant. At some point you graduate from grade school and go to high school, and at some point you move on to college, and then, if you have the desire and ability, you're on to graduate school and advanced degrees. Don't insist on staying in one place. Challenge yourself. It's the only way to keep learning.
But I think modern literature is mediocre rehashes of the same old crap for the most part. I do agree that we must be continually challenging our selves, but at times it feels that reading is not the most productive way to do so. To be really good at something they (Malcom Gladwell specifically) say that you have do something over 10,000 hours before you get great at it. I'd imagine most people here have read close to that much, but are still a long shot from writing that much. So, when given an hour of free time, writing seems the better choice. Not that reading should be cut out entirely, but if you want to be a writer, I think the act of actually writing is far more beneficial.
Malcolm Gladwell is full of bullcrap, at least in this instance. I'm kind of sick and tired of hearing this 10,000 hour figure quoted endlessly. In many cases it's meaningless. It's especially meaningless when people start thinking it's an absolute, and that we're all crap writers if we've only spent 9,999 hours writing, and we somehow suddenly become geniuses at the 10,000th hour. (Don't laugh - there are people out there who have that kind of thought in their minds.) We have to understand that what we're trying to do is create good literature. That involves more than simply sitting at desks and writing. Reading contributes immensely to our creativity. It's an essential element in helping us create. Reading good work forces us to think, to constantly re-evaluate our philosophies, to cast aside our older, smaller skins and molt (if you don't mind the image). Of course you have to write to be a writer. But I think you have to read to be a good writer - especially one who keeps getting better.
