Chicks On Lit discussion
Other Hot Book Discussions
>
You know what I don't get...
Why do you think people who don't read graphic novels or Janet Evanovich are book snobs? We just prefer other kinds of books.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Since this is following closely on the heels of my saying I wouldn't pick up Beautiful Girl because of its appearing to have an ungrammatical title, I feel like saying something about whence I come..."omg, Elizabeth, were your mother and my father separated at birth?!?
Mandy wrote: "omg, Elizabeth, were your mother and my father separated at birth?!?"LOL Can't tell you how glad I am there was at least one other in this world.
I finally had to tell her that at age 35 I thought I'd earned the right not to have my grammar corrected. On the other hand, you'd think I'd have spoken the king's English growing up in that house.
Why do you think people who don't read graphic novels or Janet Evanovich are book snobs? We just prefer other kinds of books.Sorry, you're right. I didn't mean to be off-putting. In my mind's eye, I was envisioning a couple of people I know personally who looked down on those who read these types of books. I shouldn't have generalized.
I just wanted to make a point that, at times, people won't step out of their comfort zones and read a certain genre of book but at the same time will look down on people who read that kind of book.
Michelle wrote: "I just wanted to make a point that, at times, people won't step out of their comfort zones and read a certain genre of book but at the same time will look down on people who read that kind of book."I'm sorry, but do you feel those are "lesser" types of novels? Is that why you feel someone is looking down at you for reading them? Otherwise, I can't imagine why what someone else's opinion is would affect you.
People should read what they want to read free of snide remarks. I read alot of different books. If you want to read Twilight, read Twilight. If you want to read the bible in public, do it. Just don't take away the enjoyment of others just because they are reading a book you don't approve of.
No, I don't think those are lesser books, but at the same time, I admit to feeling guilty when I'm caught reading Sookie Stackhouse or Twilight. Again, it probably has to do with some of the people I hang out with. Hence, the reason why I'm here at Chicks on Books, lol.
Michelle wrote: "Again, it probably has to do with some of the people I hang out with. Hence, the reason why I'm here at Chicks on Books, lol."OK, but this isn't a group for lovers of Chick Lit. It's a group of chicks who like to read - all types.
You shouldn't have to feel guilty if you want to read a Sookie Stackhouse novel. Friends shouldn't make you feel guilty because you want to read a certain type of book either. You have a right to what you want to read.
Jayme(the ghost reader) wrote: "You shouldn't have to feel guilty if you want to read a Sookie Stackhouse novel. Friends shouldn't make you feel guilty because you want to read a certain type of book either. You have a right to w..."Absolutely, Jayme! And, by the way, the same is true of whatever you're reading, whether it be Sookie Stackhouse or Socrates.
OK, but this isn't a group for lovers of Chick Lit. It's a group of chicks who like to read - all types.Exactly! Which is why I joined :)
I'm reading The Help and I'm embarrassed to read it in public. Not because I don't think it's a good book, but because I'm probably the last person in the country who hasn't read it yet. lol.
Mary wrote: "I'm reading The Help and I'm embarrassed to read it in public. Not because I don't think it's a good book, but because I'm probably the last person in the country who hasn't read it yet. lol."You're never going to be the last person in the country. I'm never going to read it. I tried the first 10 pages. It's southern lit that just won't go down for me. (And see the other thread where I like Faulkner. I know, it doesn't compute.)
I know two people who haven't read it yet. I thought "The Help" was a great book. It did take a couple chapters to get into but I really did like it. I usually give a book 50-100 pages before I decide to put it down or not.
I was just being a smart aleck. Obviously, I don't really believe I'm the last person in America to read it. lol.I think "Southern Lit" is a bit of a misnomer though - I mean how could you lump: The Help, To Kill A Mockingbird, Faulkner, and Queen Bee of Mimosa Branch into one group? That just doesn't make any sense.
Mary wrote: "I was just being a smart aleck. Obviously, I don't really believe I'm the last person in America to read it. lol.I think "Southern Lit" is a bit of a misnomer though - I mean how could you lu..."
You? a smart aleck?
Never heard of Queen Bee. Went to the book page, and I'm 99% certain I'll never even pick it up to look inside. ;-)
I had never heard the term "southern lit" before joining this group, but I'm pretty sure I've led a sheltered life. OK, maybe not *exactly* a sheltered life, but in terms of the world of literature probably.
I'm reading The Help and I'm embarrassed to read it in public. Not because I don't think it's a good book, but because I'm probably the last person in the country who hasn't read it yet.I felt that way when I read Water for Elephants this spring, lol.
I think "Southern Lit" is a bit of a misnomer though - I mean how could you lump: The Help, To Kill A Mockingbird, Faulkner, and Queen Bee of Mimosa Branch into one group? That just doesn't make any sense.
I was just having this discussion with someone because I thought 'southern lit' just meant that the author lived south of the Mason/Dixon line (or, maybe that the story takes place there)! When I think of southern literature, I think of Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe and Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood
This is why I think they are all the genre, but Mary, there must be divisions within it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern...
Mod
I do read Janet Evanovich but I also love Anna Karenina, I've even been known to read a graphic novel. There are times when I am ashamed of some of the book I've read because I am sure they were was little literary worth to them but for whatever reason I finished them and maybe even read another. Maybe ashamed is too strong of a word but I'm not going to be busting into national book review and try to support the merits of a particular book because i know they just don't exist.
I like boy bands, cookie dough and glitter too. I'm full of guilty pleasures that I'm sure have not done much to enrich my life in uplifting ways.
All that said I think I'm guilty of being a book snob too and I think it started when I was very young. I remember having such judgments against the girls who checked out Sweet Valley High rather than Anne of Green Gables. Maybe it's natural that we think the things that we like everyone else should and if they don't there must be something wrong with them because there certainly couldn't be anything wrong with us!
I still have my book judgements. It's my taste to like some things and not others. The only difference I think from me now and me in my sweet valley high judgement days is that now I try to judge the book and not the reader. I have no problem saying a book is trash imo, but I wont say a person is trash for liking that book. I've been too surprised too often by people that I respect when I find out their favorite books.
I have a pretty tough skin though. Anyone of you could comment on my read or tbr books and say how you hate everyone of my books and think they are total rubish. eh. if you want to take the time to do that knock yourself out. It isn't going to change my reading habits. But in the years I've been on GR and doing COL I'm not sure that tough skin is as universal as I used to. I think a lot of people take it personally and that's a shame because I don't often think it's meant that way and even if it is I don't think you should let it get to you. But like the issue that was bugging me with my son was taking the judgement of the book and applying it to the reader.
I'm a book snob but I really hope I'm not a people snob.
BTW I was at my library a few weeks ago and on the Just Arrived Shelf was Sweet Valley Confidential: Ten Years Later
Yeah I rolled my eyes and had a moment of silence for the poor tree that had to die for that book to be printed.
I take exception to your glitter comment. It has really enriched my life. lol. Other than that, I really like what you wrote, Tera. (I would marry glitter if I could. I always have glitter on me because I craft with it so much. A couple weeks ago, my 3 year old came up and whispered, "I know you're magic, Mom." And I asked her how she knew and she said, "Because you have sparkles!")
Mary wrote: ""I know you're magic, Mom." And I asked her how she knew and she said, "Because you have sparkles!""And may she always think you're magic, even if you should give up on glitter.
Glitter rocks ;)I'm not into boy bands, but I do have Lady Gaga on my ipod.
Re: book snobberyOK, yes, I think some books are worth more than others. But that's my opinion. I'm not ever going to read a book that has Sookie in the title, or is a character, or the name of the author. Same with Lemony Snicket. But do I "know" that the book I'm reading is better than that one? (Which is Tera's "you know what I don't get" part; more than the arguing about what book is better, right?) Well, yes, it's better for me, and please note the preceding "for" because that's really what this is about. The books I read are better for me . And I don't know what boy bands are, nor Lady Gaga, and I don't do glitter. But so what?
Brenda (Lansdowne) wrote: "but I do think when I hear someone read Anna Karenina and finished it and has an opinion that hey they finished a classic."And that isn't judging the person? Why does finishing a classic make you say that about that person?
Mod
Okay I might be adding fuel to the fire but this last bit made me think of a another question.
What does the phrase "well read" mean to you?
Would you consider yourself "well read"?
I think some books that won the Pulitzer to be inferior to books that did not. Some people in the literary world disagree with me. Does that make them right and the Pulitzer winner of better quality? No, it doesn't. I don't wish to read Sookie, but neither do I know anything about it. Neither, by the way, do I know anything about Twilight except that younger people seem to like it, which means to me that I probably wouldn't. I also am not going to read Harry Potter, although I predict that series will become a children's classic.What I'm saying about books is that they are good for the person when the person is ready for it. Literature professors tend to be snobs and they know what previous literature professors who were snobs told them. I'm not sure more than a couple dozen are able to think for themselves, but perhaps that's the snob in me.
I read an abridged version of Anna Karenina. I probably won't bother with the full version. On the other hand, I loved Oblomov, and some other recent Russian classic short stories, which leads me to think I might read some more. So what!?! I'm not going to read Nora Roberts because I'll be lucky to have 30 years left to me (more likely something less than 25) to fit in all the books I do want to read, but that doesn't mean Nora Roberts isn't worth something to someone else.
@Brenda -- Your comments on book quality makes me think of the discussion I started awhile back:http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/557304-how-do-you-define-good-writing?
Yes, I do think that people rate books and think of them as high or low quality. BUT people have very different criteria of what they think of as high quality.
And I maintain that your thinking it noteworthy that someone who has read is classic is judging the person.
Brenda (Lansdowne) wrote: "And, when you wrote that you only read an abridged version of AK, I thought why did she even bother. "Because I was young and didn't know to look to see if it was abridged. I feel so worthy now.
In fact, young enough that I probably read it before you'd even heard of it.
Tera, I believe I am well-read. I can discuss the design of temporary structures, timber design, concrete design, OSHA requirements, and still talk about John Steinbeck and Mark Twain. lol.(I'm just showing off now. haha.)
I usually think of someone as well read if he or she has read a lot of non-fiction. I think of someone who is knowledgeable about collective thought of today, and knows about a broad range of topics such as economics, poli sci, science, technology, architecture, etc. Sure, throw some fiction in the mix, but really I won't consider someone well read if he or she doesn't devote a majority of reading to non-fiction.I don't consider myself well-read; I don't read enough non-fiction.
Being well read doesn't make you a better person simply because you're well read, regardless of the definition of well read. At least not to my way of thinking. There's just a lot more goes into being a better person than what you read.
Mod
Which allows me to go to the topic within the topic that I asked.
I'm going to say I'm not well read. I think I'm likely more well versed on the subject of literature than the average Tonight Show audience member but I don't think I'm well read.
I haven't of yet been able to get into to Sci-fi. I don't think I've read a real Western. I'm not a lover of Mysteries. I know little to nothing about Mythology. There are a number of regions I haven't read about. There are a number of religions I haven't read about. I know I haven't read enough of the Classic American Lit.
When I say I'm well versed I mean I know a little bit or maybe the top books or authors in those genres but I haven't really read them.
I think of well read as being well rounded in what you read and I tend to go through phases of reading only a certain type and then getting bored and moving on to something else.
I'd say that wide-read means that a person has read a wide variety of books across many genres, and not just stuck to a single category. That is, they read everything from non-fiction to classics to sci fi, historical fiction, memoirs, horror, etc.I like to read all kinds of fiction, but I'm not into non-fiction as much. (Although remains one of my favorite books."The Orchid Thief: A True Story of Beauty and Obsession
Tera wrote: "Tell me we aren't arguing about people arguing about book judgements? For the moment I'm going to assume/pretend that it's well intentioned banter and nothing more.Which allows me to go to the..."
I think it really does not matter if you are well -read or not but just that you read for pleasure and a little out of interest, or for information, that's all. All such judgments are bound to be subjective.
Brenda (Lansdowne) wrote: "Mary wrote: "Tera, I believe I am well-read. I can discuss the design of temporary structures, timber design, concrete design, OSHA requirements, and still talk about John Steinbeck and Mark Twain..."When I was in engineering school, I had to take one more humanities course and I loved literature. American literature mostly (still do). The only class that was similar to that and fit into my schedule was a graduate level course in American Poetry. I was the only engineering student in the class. I don't remember much about it because poetry isn't really my thing, but I did well and it was fun to learn about symbolism and other such things that I don't have a natural affinity for necessarily.
This is actually something that always kind of burned me up - the "well read" and "well rounded education" arguments.To graduate from engineering school, I had to take 12 hours of humanities so I would be "well rounded." How come art majors don't have to take 12 hours of physics, statics, calculus, etc. to be similarly well-rounded?
I always felt a little condescended to when they would tell us those things about being "well-rounded." As if knowing how to balance loads to prevent a structural collapse was somehow less significant than knowing who Sylvia Plath was. Ugh.
Mod
To graduate from engineering school, I had to take 12 hours of humanities so..."
I was an English Lit major and I remember wondering why in the blazes I had to take Math or Science. I have never in my life outside of school had to use algebraic equations and disecting animals has not come into play once in my life unless you consider making chicken disecting an animal. I have yet to find a moment when discussing the anatomy of a squid made it into conversation.
So, I feel your pain Mary.
Mod
I use algebra regularly, especially at the store when making price comparisons. But I use it in other ways, too.
After college, I never once have used calculus. True story.
Mary wrote: "After college, I never once have used calculus. True story."As an engineer, you don't ever need to compute volume? I took a calculus class, and no I don't remember anything, except on the first day the professor said it could be useful for determining the size/volume ratio of cereal boxes.
I think what Brenda wrote about her son is exactly on point. You don't always know what you'll be interested in in the future. And having a well-rounded education prepares you to go into any direction. I also think that economics is a good example here. I've known more than one person who ended up really enjoying economics (discussing it, reading about it in the news, learning about it in class, etc), but then realizing that if they want to continue with that subject, they need more math, a lot more math. (For what it's worth I'm an economist and have seen my share of undergrads when I was a TA in grad school.)
@Brenda -- I do antitrust work for the Federal Trade Commission.
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Mary wrote: "After college, I never once have used calculus. True story."As an engineer, you don't ever need to compute volume? I took a calculus class, and no I don't remember anything, except ..."
You would use calculus to compute the volume under a curve - say a hill. But using an algebraic equation is generally precise enough and much quicker. You have to remember that civil engineering isn't an exact science and it's unnecessary in my field to calculate the weight to the nearest 1/2 pound.
I think you can also use it to determine a solution when you have more unknowns than you do equations - but normal people all have computer programs to output that now and it's easy enough to check the output by hand - that's just simple arithmetic.
Viola wrote: "@Brenda -- I do antitrust work for the Federal Trade Commission."That sounds kind of fun!
OK, well if you don't need to calculate the size of cereal boxes ....
Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "OK, well if you don't need to calculate the size of cereal boxes ...."That's a rectangle and simple arithmetic as well. Height times width times depth. That's not calculus. lol.
But it's also weight and volume when you're looking at shipping, settling, and economics of cornflakes and rice krispies.
Chicks On Lit
Books mentioned in this topic
The Orchid Thief (other topics)Sweet Valley Confidential: Ten Years Later (other topics)
Water for Elephants (other topics)
Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe (other topics)
Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood (other topics)
More...
*applause!*
Exactly. I have a few freinds and relatives who are book snobs, and it irks me since they seem to think that authors like Jody Picoult are too pedestrian, or that graphic novels are just for kids. (Erm...didn't Maus win the Pulitzer Prize?)
I'm not sure that I'd ever read a Nicholas Sparks novel (none seem that interesting to me), but at the same time, I'm willing to read Janet Evonovich or Charlaine Harris. In fact, I'll proudly read them in public, lol.