this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
33 points (92.3% liked)

Libraries

550 readers
14 users here now

For talk of all things related to libraries!

Please follow this instances rules.

To find more communities on this instance, go to: [email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm always amazed to see how some of my friends are just able to read any book recommended to them with no hesitation at all; whereas with me, I need to research what kind of book it is, what ideas the book will be wrestling with, the author and their writing style. Like currently, I am struggling to give "Being and Time" by Martin Heidegger a try as I am more of a fan of Bertrand Russel and analytical philosophy which seems to be scientific in nature -- especially when compared to that of Heidegger, so I've heard. I feel that if I am spending my time reading something, that I should come away at the end of the book having learned something of value (to me, that's a pretty subjective statement). I think this is a good thing, as just about every book I've chosen to read has been an enlightening and somewhat euphoric experience that cannot be replaced. I wonder though, does anyone else relate?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The books I read are probably a lot lighter than the ones you're talking about, but I definitely am choosey with the ones I do pick up.

I'm pickier about petty things in fiction but it's because cliches and shorthands rip me out of the flow of reading. I refuse to read a fiction book with too many apostrophes on the first page because that usually indicates the author spent more time on world building and making the elves/aliens different than writing a decent story and I'll spend more time being distracted than invested. Another one that annoys me that I forget the name of is using strange words when a normal one would do, like younglings instead of children.

Non fiction-wise, I'll do a little more research on if the author is a horrible person, like I wouldn't read a book by Jordan Peterson (not trying to drum up politics, just getting that recommendation from a former friend was a sign of them disappearing into the far right) if it were recommended to me, as a low hanging example. Getting a gist of the overall ideas of the book to make sure I'm not walking into known BS territory is usually on the list as well.

When I do find a good book, it's great, but separating wheat from chaff has definitely slowed and reduced my reading.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That is interesting, you don't find that world building further engulfs you in the setting; or is it that when world building is overdone? I see this complaint a lot with The Lord of the Rings, and agree that it can be overdone -- however I do feel that verbose world building done right can be extremely immersive. What do you think? Do you prefer simple settings and descriptions? We might differ on vocabulary usage, I find that learning new words in fiction can be a bit fun, though distracting, to your point; but I find overusing normal words can be a dull and banal experience. Do you like sprinkles of strange words in small dosages or do you prefer just normal words with as little honeyed words as possible?

I can agree with you there -- I am not a big fan of Peterson myself, even before becoming a fan of Destiny and Dawkins; but I do find myself more engaged when reading things I disagree with to strengthen my arguments and worldview. Have you ever had this experience?

I agree -- especially after a particularly good book, it can be hard to find something to follow up with!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Two scifi book series I've enjoyed are the Imperial Radch series by Ann Leckie and the Bobiverse by Dennis E Taylor.

The former has a lot of names and history, but the thing that I really enjoyed about it was the concept of ancillary, a human that has been turned into part of a ship's AI. The idea of being just a piece of a being, what it's like to be separated from that, what the legal ramifications would be for an ancillary, and so forth, were absolutely brilliant. That premise was still handled with simple vocabulary. In the rest of the story, there were a bunch of names that were hard to get a handle on, but otherwise the world building was interesting and how the different parts of culture and history that were important to the story were presented. I don't remember many of the details, though, and only one name. It's the interesting concepts that stuck with me.

On the other hand, the Bobiverse is about a cryogenically frozen guy that gets brought back as a self-replicating probe. His name is Bob. All of his replicas are called Bobs until they start giving themselves other names to help differentiate the ones that drifted away from the original spec. There are several secondary plots that are easily summed up and I remember a lot more of them: fights against other replicating probe groups, how a being that can't forget can heal psychological trauma, the saving of a catlike sentient race from their dying planet, how an immortal being dealt with falling in love and the in laws that come with that, watching and protecting a primitive civilization without becoming a god, exploring a ring world filled with otter-like people, the weight of the differing opinions of all the Bobs and the schisms that happen. And aside from the names of the aliens, the language was pretty mundane. Some of the alien individuals are given handles that are easy to remember, like a smart one gets dubbed Archimedes. It was simply less work to store the details when they're familiar.

Radch series is by far the one I enjoyed more, but also the one that I don't remember nearly as much about. Radch also was much more literary, for lack of a better word, and I really enjoy the elevated writing in it, too, but the enjoyment of that sort of thing is usually much more fleeting.

As for non fiction, engaging with ideas I disagree with it text form is unsatisfying because I can't drill into any of the specifics or get clarification; it covers exactly the parts of ideas the author finds convincing, usually cherry picks citations, and goes at the author's pace. And if I find an issue with any of the fundamentals, none of what's build on that foundation carries much weight. So for being challenged, I prefer conversations with people that want to explore and test ideas as opposed to win an argument or defend their viewpoint as the right one. But finding that is very, very rare.

Most of the nonfiction I read then is usually pop science like Nature's Nether Regions by Menno Schilthuizen, about some of the weirder things sexual selection and evolutionary pressures have done to reproduction. I tend to avoid prescriptive non fiction as there's so much chaff. A podcast I listen to called If Books Could Kill tears into some of the type I'm thinking about with a focus on "airport books" like Blink or Omnivore's Dilemma. There are some less fun things I read, but I get the information I want from them and leave the rest.

Thanks for the interesting prompts!