I don't. I really dislike people who think that reading is in some way something special or unusual. People who think that reading is all about literature. That's like saying movies are all about French Films with 15 minute stretches of silence.
There are many types of books, and there are many types of reading. Books are just like talking, but written down. Talking does not fit neatly into your 3 categories. When Jay Leno does a monologue, do you criticize him for not imparting ancient wisdoms? No. But people have nothing against criticizing a writer of popular sci-fi for not doing the same.
Crichton was not a bad writer at all. In his genre, he was excellent. His purpose was never to create some long lasting work, it was simply to entertain. And succeed he did.
Books are not some mystical source of magical knowledge like so many pseudo-intellectuals seem to think. It's just someone telling you something, but in a written form. You may not like what a person says, but if millions like it, then he is doing it well.
Of course, I can make this argument as long as I want, but I'll never be able to make these people understand that having Dostoevsky on your bookshelf does not mean you understood it. When you read it and then all you get from it is the same as what one could get from Wikipedia, then you have failed in your attempt to access literature that is not for you to understand.
Some of the most ridiculous dialog I have observed is usually between two people talking about books that are noted in popular culture as being intellectual. What most readers can do is talk about the books, but they don't understand what the guy who wrote the words was trying to tell them. They see the surface, they analyse the tricks, but the fail to understand the meaning. Ridiculous!
It's often those same people who will criticize "lesser" books and "popular" authors. I really dislike this pseudo-intellectualism.
One has to achieve humility in interacting with other minds.
One has to achieve humility in interacting with other minds.
=
Seems like you need to take a bit of your own medicine, mate. On the one hand you look down on those so-called "pseudo-intellectuals", "these people", for having a multi-dimensional understanding of the purpose of books, and on the other, you preach humility.
Get some humility into your own brain first. Those people you look down on see something you don't. That doesn't make them inferior, it just means your perspective is narrower.
I don't look down on these people. I dislike them.
And my view on books is that it's open. There are no constraints, so I don't see my viewpoint as narrow. A book is what you make of it.
I grew up on books and nothing else. No TV, no Radio. I read books at random, without a system, and I judge them by if I like them or not. And not by if others tell me I should like them or not.
Humility is not really something that can be explained easily, but when you finally become humble about the books you read, you will know it.
There are many types of books, and there are many types of reading. Books are just like talking, but written down. Talking does not fit neatly into your 3 categories. When Jay Leno does a monologue, do you criticize him for not imparting ancient wisdoms? No. But people have nothing against criticizing a writer of popular sci-fi for not doing the same.
Crichton was not a bad writer at all. In his genre, he was excellent. His purpose was never to create some long lasting work, it was simply to entertain. And succeed he did.
Books are not some mystical source of magical knowledge like so many pseudo-intellectuals seem to think. It's just someone telling you something, but in a written form. You may not like what a person says, but if millions like it, then he is doing it well.
Of course, I can make this argument as long as I want, but I'll never be able to make these people understand that having Dostoevsky on your bookshelf does not mean you understood it. When you read it and then all you get from it is the same as what one could get from Wikipedia, then you have failed in your attempt to access literature that is not for you to understand.
Some of the most ridiculous dialog I have observed is usually between two people talking about books that are noted in popular culture as being intellectual. What most readers can do is talk about the books, but they don't understand what the guy who wrote the words was trying to tell them. They see the surface, they analyse the tricks, but the fail to understand the meaning. Ridiculous!
It's often those same people who will criticize "lesser" books and "popular" authors. I really dislike this pseudo-intellectualism.
One has to achieve humility in interacting with other minds.