Warning: philosophical rambling ahead. But spec fic readers are supposed to be interested in ideas, right?
All of my writing life I have struggled with what seems like a moral dilemma to me: I’m not sure that books are that good for people. At least, not in excess, and we have plenty already.
The great thing about books is that they can take you somewhere you’ll never go and let you experience things you’ll never know. And that’s what can be bad about them, too. I think books can be seriously abused.
So you know my possibly warped bias: I’ve done a lot of fairly offbeat things, from scuba diving to martial arts to travel in Africa to knitting to owning a motorcycle. I do this because I think She Who Experiences The Most Wins, and also because I live enough in my head when I write that I’ve really got to bust out when I’m not, to make up for it. I love to read, too, of course, but if I have to choose between a book about something and actually DOING that something, the doing is going to win every time it can actually take place on this planet with the body I’ve been assigned. I come to this attitude in part because I’ve known and cared about a few too many tragic people who lived their lives between pages to avoid the real thing. Just two examples:
- A middle-aged woman in a terrible marriage who hid in paperback romances every minute she could, instead of finding the guts to achieve some romance, or at least other kinds of love, in her life.
- One shy, overweight young man who had a hard time making friends and so chose only fictional ones.
People stress over other sorts of compulsions with the potential to ruin families and lives, but I think we also can spend so much time reading that we miss opportunities to live. The elderly and disabled are automatically exempted; I’m totally getting old enough that I can understand some vicarious living simply because the bones can’t take it anymore. The youngest among us get dispensation too; I would hope that a lot of kids read about space, catch a passion, and decide to study math and sign up for NASA. Or devour horse books until they can ride one of their own. And reading about terrible things we’d never want to have happen to us is WAY better than the real thing, especially if it can help us learn to deal with anything else in our lives that’s difficult.
I think spec fic might get extra leeway, too, just because, by definition, you can’t usually do it at home. Still, I think far too many people escape into fantasy (of all media) too much of the time, and when I talk to kids who eat up sports books without playing a sport of their own, or who consume adventure books without ever going on a hike or learning a new skill or exploring a new place, I get sad. As much as I love stories, I do not think they are remotely a substitute for life. They are a worthwhile supplement only.
What do you think? How much reading is too much? (A book a day sounds like an enormous life loss to me – think of the foreign languages that could be learned, the sports, gourmet cooking, new hobbies that could be tasted! The new friends to meet! The good causes to support! — but I know people who thrive on that many books.) Or am I just wrong, wrong, wrong? Since we’re told that the subconscious really can’t tell the difference between fantasy and actual events, I might be, at least from that POV (or perhaps that of our souls).
Or is this like gambling, and adults should be able to read all they want, as long as the mortgage gets paid? What about kids — is there a point at which the bookworms should be discouraged from diving too deeply into artificial reality, and shoved out into the real-world pool?
– Joni, who is either one step up from a drug lord or a hopeless hypocrite
Parker Peevyhouse
lindajoysingleton
Joni Sensel
Chris Eboch
Nick
Greg R. Fishbone
Yes, but…
What you say about reading can be applied to over-indulgence in anything. It’s addiction.
TV. Rock Band. Computer porn. Eating. Drinking. Smoking. Legos.
It’s the balance thing. We read the books, and love doing it, but we also know we need to make the time to write the books, play with the kids, grocery shop (ugh). The list goes on.
The secret that a happy life is about balance is no secret. People need to learn this, either by example or by being taught.
And that said, for those who do not have proper balance in their lives, I’d rather they read a book then get caught up in a lot of other really horrible things they could get caught up in.
So to answer your question, if a parent or adult, or even a peer senses addiction of some sort with a child, then yes, this is something that should be discouraged. Alternatives should be presented and encouraged. Because too much of anything is normally not a good thing.
A really thought-provoking post. I, too, have known people who use books to escape bad conditions in their lives. But I agree with PJ that it is all about balance. If a book gives escape for someone on the edge, that’s a more positive coping mechanism than drugs, alcohol or other addicitions (over-eating but also over-excercising where the gym becomes the focal point of life). Books, especially if they have a positive theme, may actually help heal people’s hurts.
This is going to be slightly incoherent, as when I feel strongly about something, I sometimes have difficulty in expression. I will say clearly that I disagree, I think this is profoundly misguided on multiple levels, and I object to many of the presuppositions of your argument, and also the phrase, “The elderly and the disabled are automatically exempted.”
Um. So, if you’re old or differently abled, it doesn’t matter if you “waste your life” not “doing” anything, but reading? You’re exempt from living because you have nothing useful to offer, so it’s okay for you to spend their time any way you want ’til you die?
Wow, why let them read? We could just euthanize them. That would so speed things up.
All right. That was snarkier than necessary. But, geez.
With this line of thought, it sounds like next you’ll be willing to make allowances, if not for the types of people who are okay to be wasting their time (Academics – they read all the time), then the types of books on which it is okay to waste one’s time (Nonfiction – the choice of many academics!). And then you’ll have turned into my father, and then we can’t be friends. (As if this worries you.)
I was kept from reading much of my childhood because I was told that I should have had a Higher Calling than just reading fiction and messing around. Because of this, NOBODY is going to keep me from my books, and if I want the world to whiz on past me, I will LET IT, and would fight for anyone else’s right to do the same.
Of course, it’s your privilege to indulge in “philosophy” on this topic. You’ve had the luxury of reading what you want, when you want, so you can stand back from it and decide whether or not it’s ruined your life, but you must know, that is a luxury, as are plenty of other things that you mention. I can’t scuba dive or ski or hop off to Africa or afford a motorcycle or do all those fun hobbies which take lots of money. But I can take my overweight and tragic and otherwise escapist self to the library, where the worlds are FREE. That’s the reality for a whole bunch of people.
Also, you make a massive judgment about those whom you would label tragic. Why must they live their lives as you would have them? The presupposition in your argument states that it is better to do than to be. What if that’s “doing” thing is just your personality? You’re perhaps a bit more extroverted and sanguine. It’s still okay for them to be who they are, and deal with — or not deal with — their issues as they can. I guess you can consider them as tragic if you want to, but that doesn’t make them so.
I’m not sure Who Dies With the Most Experience Wins. I’m pretty sure whomever it is still Dies. While I’m here, I’m going to read.
Wow! I’m glad I elicited so much response. Let me say first that I *did* suggest I might be very wrong.
As for the elderly/disabled bit, all I meant was that I can understand that there are things that make it difficult, if not impossible, to get out of the house or for that matter, out of bed. (And your financial point is just a different version of that.) I firmly believe that reading is a great alternative if you *can’t.*
What I’m not so sure is whether it’s a great alternative if you *won’t.* I don’t necessarily think it is better to “do” than to be, but I DO think the definition of “be” becomes pretty shallow if there is no doing involved — I would not have been too keen on being one of the aliens in that old Star Trek episode where they were basically brains in jars, because I think that’s a further extreme point on the same spectrum. But we can agree to disagree on that and other points. The reason I posted is that I wanted to see what other folks thought!
I know you said you could be wrong. I acknowledge that, even as I disagree with you. I guess it bothers me that you sound like a parent trying to kick a kid out of the house during summer vacation. “Don’t just sit there with your nose in a book all day!”
My answer to that comment was always, “Why not?” And not one yet has given me a well thought-out, reasoned response. “You should be doing something” doesn’t count.
Wow. There’s a lot in Tanita’s comment to think about….so I’ll do that quietly, and in the meantime talk about myself!
I am almost a book a day person, but I read quickly…After I’ve read, I’ve recharged my batteries and am ready to be part of my family again, and do brisk things. Working in the garden does the same thing for me, but I find that my mind will often replay favorite books over and over while I weed, so it’s almost the same thing. For me, reading is like dreaming–I need brief periods of mind not being me worrying and doing and thinking about other people….
What makes me feel guilty, however, is spending a lot of time reading blogs and commenting and checking my email, which I don’t think (to murder the English language) is growing me as a person very much! I should be reading books instead, or going to hang up the laundry which is what I have to do now…
I loved your comment, Tanita, and actually as I’ve been thinking about it, two things have occurred to me:
1. If I was going to argue the other side of my own argument (not uncommon, believe me), I might say, “Yeah, I’m a writer, so I spend a lot of time in my own head in a fantasy world or worlds. What’s wrong with living in any kind of fantasy, as long as it makes me happy and doesn’t make anyone else unhappy?” Probably nothing. On the other hand, the same argument could be stretched, probably too far, to, “What’s wrong with being a cocaine addict as long as I can afford it?” I certainly know a few functioning addicts of one sort or another who *would* use that sort of argument. (Maybe the trick is that they are denying the impact of their addiction on others? Dunno.) And I think PJ is probably right when she says basically that anything can be abused. I’m sure balance is probably the answer.
2. I was reminded of the movie The Matrix. Remember the traitor guy who decides that being a slave in a pleasant fantasy was better than the struggle for freedom in an unpleasant reality? I think he had a valid perspective. But the movie, and our society in general, tends to take a dim view of his choice. Why do you think that is… just because his choice made things tougher for the protagonist? Or, not to go too far astray, but do we have a sort of cultural bias toward freedom at any cost?
Oh, yes, I think I may have a cultural bias toward freedom at any cost! A knee-jerk reaction against anything which I perceive will cost me my freedom, and a not-so-intelligent, indignant, childish tantruming against the way I was brought up.
*ahem.*
I’ve only seen The Matrix once and I think we were all disgusted with that guy because he chose to be “kept” human. It wasn’t the choice as much as the betrayal… What do we, as humans, owe the rest of society? Do we owe them our time? Are we taking something away from them by not being out and about, at the mall, in the park with a frisbee, sitting on the front porch, watching the mailman?
On average, Americans read about one book a year… and then there’s Charlotte. And you. And me. Should we feel guilty?
Isn’t life about relationships? If I use books (or TV or internet or cocaine) to avoid relationships, I am missing out and cheating others of the possibilities of relationship. I can enjoy lots of experiences, but without someone to share them and talk about them and revel in them, they are empty. That said, like Joni I need time in my own head to refresh me to grapple with those relationships.
I just want to point out how personality affects this argument. Because you can say life is about *doing* or you can say life it is about *relationships* or you can either say that life is about *examination* (as in, an unexamined life is not worth living). Reading is going to make you feel very guilty if you feel that it’s taking you away from achieving/experiencing or from building relationships when those are the things you feel your life must be centered around, but that has more to do with your personality than with books.
And to add in my own two cents: it’s important that reading takes us out of our world and into another one because otherwise we forget that our mundane reality isn’t the only one that exists. It’s not escapism, it’s travel.
Er.. I’m really not sure if anything I just said makes sense. This is probably a conversation we should have in person over the course of an entire conference.
What you’re actually probably attempting to express is that, ‘Escapism is wrong when it impinges upon other aspects of a “good life”‘. To express this clearly you would need to formulate a general argument about what ‘a good life’ consists in, then to couple that argument with some expression of how ‘reading too much’ negatively affects ‘the good life’.
Because you do not actually have a well-formed argument, you end up expressing that, ‘Reading is bad, in and of itself, unless you have some special, not-fully-adult status; such status may earn you a dispensation from adult behavior; to behave otherwise, if fully adult, is blameworthy.’