I mostly disagree with this article. Reading only what you like is not a challenge at all. The real challenge is reading works that you disagree with, with ideas that make you think and change your perception. In the age of predictive searchand targeted advertisements, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people to stay within their own bubble.
> The real challenge is reading works that you disagree
> with, with ideas that make you think and change your
> perception.
I think you're wrongly conflating enjoyment and agreement.
I subscribe to The Spectator, which is an exceptionally well-written, urbane and articulate equivalent to Fox News. I disagree with almost everything I read in it: it's Islamophobic, classist, popularist, chauvinistic, misogynist, and I occasionally throw it against the wall in disgust, but I _enjoy_ reading it, because it's well written and well argued. It's challenging, and it forces me much out of my comfort zone, and I enjoy having my thinking challenged, and I enjoy the silent arguments in my head with the authors.
Conversely (and ironically, given the source) I stopped reading The Guardian. I agree with most of the politics, but it's so _whiney_. It's often poorly written, poorly argued, and snipey.
The article suggests reading books you _enjoy_, not ones you agree with, and the difference is important.
As is typical when I started college (UK college; 16 year's old) I became more politically engaged and found my views tended toward the left. I read the Guardian but before long realised that sagely nodding along to their 'right-on' articles wasn't doing anything to expand or challenge my world view so switched to The Times. My views on some subjects changed and now I'm afraid I too find the whiney, hand-wringing tone of the Guardian (especially Comment is Free... dear God.) a massive turn-off.
In ye olden days when I was not gainfully employed I subscribed to the New Statesman (to the left as spectator is to the right) as well as the Spectator. By reading these very clever, well written articles by diametrically opposing viewpoints I felt that I gained a lot in my understanding of the world as it is, and more about where I felt it should be.
Unrelated, but on magazines - special mention to Private Eye, who consistently disclose stories that ought to surprise but at this stage leave me resigned.
I think you're wrongly conflating enjoyment and agreement.
I hope I am, but I also think that the subset of people reading HN are more likely to pick up works with which they disagree. The article is aimed at a more general audience than usual, so my response has that crowd in mind.
I go through long swinging phases in and out of my comfort zone, if I didn't I would probably lose interest altogether.
For example I went through a phase of "harrowing" books, like Primo Levi's books, books about Stalingrad and drug addiction. Then I needed a break and went back to comfortable, fun sci-fi authors I knew.
At the moment I'm doing a historical fiction binge. The current book I'm reading is very easy reading, almost a bit too pulpy. When it's done I'm considering tackling the Koran.
I totally agree. I read various authors in one particular things. I try not to judge whether this book is “good” or “bad” but I try to observe the authors idea instead. Maybe I have lots of time to read and so reading books worth my time. In any books I’ve read, I learned something. Open minded reading changed my life, changed how I think, changed how I perceive. It is also leads me to discover different fields like neuroscience or quantum physics or Python programming. I’m quite surprised because I had always hated math and science in my teenage. Metaphorically, reading helps me see the size of the world as big as the size of the sun. (also helps improve my English)
Comments
I mostly disagree with this article. Reading only what you like is not a challenge at all. The real challenge is reading works that you disagree with, with ideas that make you think and change your perception. In the age of predictive searchand targeted advertisements, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging people to stay within their own bubble.
I subscribe to The Spectator, which is an exceptionally well-written, urbane and articulate equivalent to Fox News. I disagree with almost everything I read in it: it's Islamophobic, classist, popularist, chauvinistic, misogynist, and I occasionally throw it against the wall in disgust, but I _enjoy_ reading it, because it's well written and well argued. It's challenging, and it forces me much out of my comfort zone, and I enjoy having my thinking challenged, and I enjoy the silent arguments in my head with the authors.
Conversely (and ironically, given the source) I stopped reading The Guardian. I agree with most of the politics, but it's so _whiney_. It's often poorly written, poorly argued, and snipey.
The article suggests reading books you _enjoy_, not ones you agree with, and the difference is important.
I can identify with this.
As is typical when I started college (UK college; 16 year's old) I became more politically engaged and found my views tended toward the left. I read the Guardian but before long realised that sagely nodding along to their 'right-on' articles wasn't doing anything to expand or challenge my world view so switched to The Times. My views on some subjects changed and now I'm afraid I too find the whiney, hand-wringing tone of the Guardian (especially Comment is Free... dear God.) a massive turn-off.
In ye olden days when I was not gainfully employed I subscribed to the New Statesman (to the left as spectator is to the right) as well as the Spectator. By reading these very clever, well written articles by diametrically opposing viewpoints I felt that I gained a lot in my understanding of the world as it is, and more about where I felt it should be.
Unrelated, but on magazines - special mention to Private Eye, who consistently disclose stories that ought to surprise but at this stage leave me resigned.
I hope I am, but I also think that the subset of people reading HN are more likely to pick up works with which they disagree. The article is aimed at a more general audience than usual, so my response has that crowd in mind.
+1 for The Spectator. Especially if you agree with it like I do :-)
I go through long swinging phases in and out of my comfort zone, if I didn't I would probably lose interest altogether.
For example I went through a phase of "harrowing" books, like Primo Levi's books, books about Stalingrad and drug addiction. Then I needed a break and went back to comfortable, fun sci-fi authors I knew.
At the moment I'm doing a historical fiction binge. The current book I'm reading is very easy reading, almost a bit too pulpy. When it's done I'm considering tackling the Koran.
We'll see! :)
I totally agree. I read various authors in one particular things. I try not to judge whether this book is “good” or “bad” but I try to observe the authors idea instead. Maybe I have lots of time to read and so reading books worth my time. In any books I’ve read, I learned something. Open minded reading changed my life, changed how I think, changed how I perceive. It is also leads me to discover different fields like neuroscience or quantum physics or Python programming. I’m quite surprised because I had always hated math and science in my teenage. Metaphorically, reading helps me see the size of the world as big as the size of the sun. (also helps improve my English)