Oeck wrote:Veblenia wrote:I disagree; I don't think it's up to us to judge the value of other people's reading experiences.
First of all, I'll arbitrarily decide to assign your posts an increased impact factor of 7.7 for your use of a semicolon.
That said, now it is my turn to disagree, because I do think that we can very well judge the value of other people's reading experiences.
I am definitely not saying "One simply cannot enjoy book X", or "People have to enjoy book Y", but I am saying that it is perfectly legitimate to say "If you do/ do not enjoy book Z, I feel you have poor taste / a great sense of humor / an astounding intellect."
For example, if somebody keeps reading books by [insert author who I think is terribly unfunny] for humorous entertainment while giving books by, say, Douglas Adams, a wide berth, I feel it justified to pass a judgment on that reader's sense of humor. Similarly if they always prefer books of a philosophical/political tint I disagree with, or keep reading books with screamingly inaccurate popular pseudo-science rather than books with actual facts and scientific discourse in them, I certainly do think that this enables me to make a call on their philosophical and/or intellectual disposition, which in turn I think is fair game to judgment.I can certainly recommend reading Book X over Book Y, but to say "don't read Book Y; I'll think less of you because of it", particularly after the book has been read, denies both the autonomy of other people's intellects and the value of reading books we don't like/agree with.
Assuming that the (potential) reader has some sort of prior information about the part/aspect of the book I don't like (because they've talked about it to someone, or have read similar stuff by the same author, or whatever), then their reading that book is an indicator for their interest in that aspect, or at least an indicator for their tolerating that aspect in favor of [other aspect(s) of the book], and again I feel it justified to judge a person's interests. Say, for example, that someone knows I have an active interest in reading John Carey, then they'll be able to deduce (and judge) the fact that I'm highly interested in theories denouncing intellectual and artistic elitism.
However, as with any other sort of judgment, book-related or not, I can very well separate single issues from the entire person, and especially separate single issues of differences in political, philosophical, artistic etc. tastes from liking or not liking the person as a person.
This holds, as far as books go, especially true for the so-called "value" or supposed literary merit of any book. I've read many a highbrow book with rather unexciting content that I didn't like for exactly the latte reason, and I've enjoyed many a "pleb" book with gripping characters and/or plot that I enjoyed. I'm enough of a literature major to appreciate it when someone gets a kick out of a "good" / well-written work, and I'm still human enough (despite my degree!) to value it when someone appreciates a good story for itself.
However, if someone enjoys book wherein the most part are descriptions of utter gore and brutality, and characters mainly reveling in the pure joy of inflicting as much harm of both physical and psychological nature on each other as possible, then yes that may serve as the basis for a negative judgment on my part of that person's estimation of what makes good reading (without saying they are a bad person, or making the ridiculously simplistic assumption they secretly want to inflict similar harm upon anybody). Would you say I'm wrong to pass that judgment?
These are legitimate judgements, but I think we need to draw a distinction between the act of reading and how readers evaluate books. Certainly, people's opinions can be a useful guide to their taste and/or character. But I don't think we necessarily have to enjoy or agree with a book to gain something from having read it; every act of reading broadens our perspective or challenges our thinking on some level. To judge someone merely for having read a book, regardless of what they thought of it, is wrong.
) was that, "You have to know your enemy to beat your enemy."
Yes, I've read some ST stories and seen some of the episodes and movies. I mock the stupid science -- I'm a biochemist, and they handle biology with the same exquisite care they do physics -- and the poor writing and acting. But some of them aren't bad entertainment anyway.
I read it to see if it was as laughably bad as everyone said it was (Yes.)