--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Patrick King
<abrasax93@...> wrote:
>
> I don't get your point, Jacques. In your own
example,
> obviously, both Ellington fans are correct.
Ellington
> is a composer who can be appreciated by both types
of
> listeners. It's seems to me you're claiming that
the
> person who considers what s/he reads is less
valid
> than a person who reads without consideration, just
to
> kill time. I'm sure that's not what you mean. What
are
> you driving at?
>
They're both killing time. That is what one does when
reading. Any generalization about what happens inside a
reader's head is gratuitous. You and I may both enjoy Jim
Thompson, but neither can draw conclusions about what's going
on while the other reads. For that matter, I don't know
what's going on inside _my_ head while I'm reading. I can't
read and simultaneously contemplate myself reading...
So your distinction between the "escapist" (or let's say
"hedonist") reader and the "serious"
(or dedicated, or considered, or whatever positive adjective
you want to use) is not functional: you cannot even know
whether you yourself are being one or the other, or something
else, while you read a book.
Books are like girls, you can read the ones that are best for
you and not like them or even understand them, and the
opposite is also true (in fact, getting involved with the
wrong kind of girl is a classic noir theme, the femme
fatale).
Best,
MrT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 11 Dec 2006 EST