What's more rude - interrupting a reader OR ignoring an interrupter?

[MonsteraMama]

An ongoing (and light hearted!) debate in my house currently which I think can be settled with a good old fashioned poll.

Here is the situation: a person is sitting on the sofa reading a book. A member of that person's family enters the room, sees them reading, and tries to engage them in a conversation (in this instance about cats, nothing important or an emergency). The reader "hmm hmms" and makes vaguely agreeable noises but otherwise ignores the interrupter until said interrupter realises the reader is too engaged in their book and leaves the room again.

Who's more rude?

YABU - The reader should have looked up from their book and engaged in the conversation being had with them.

YANBU - The interrupter was rude for expecting the reader to drop what they're doing and engage in conversation with them.

(I am neither interrupter nor reader, just interested in how this would go down in other people's houses, as it's caused some spicy debate this evening between the two parties.)

If it's not urgent and/or quick then the interrupter is definitely BU.

Yeah ideally you wouldn’t interrupt a household member who is clearly engrossed in something. Mm hmm means back the fuck off and bother me later. Everyone over the age of 12 should know that. My ND child knows that despite missing loads of social cues.

Ohhh a bugbear of mine is people thinking that someone sitting peacefully reading a book is available to receive any passing thought of someone who happens to glimpse them. You wouldn't stride up and interrupt someone doing many other hobbies, so don't assume I'm fair game!

My children do this to me and think I'm the rude one for not immediately putting down my book, gazing adoringly in their eyes and listening to every goddamn stuttering word coming out of their mouth... Are the school holidays finishing soon?! Please... 😆😉
On a serious note, the person reading should be left in peace, end of argument.

Reading time is sacred. Interrupt it at your peril.

So long as it isnt all the time and the reader participates in family life, then allowing them time to enjoy reading uninterupted is actually essential

The interrupter is definitely very rude.

Occasional interruption: reader is rude
Constant interruption: interruptor isn’t rude but is irritating, so rudeness of reader is mitigated

Substitute reading for on phone and you’ll get different replies because of the perceived superiority of reading to other ways of avoiding engaging with actual people.

I'd say the reader is being more rude if they are just reading for fun. It's not like they can't take a short break then get back to the book. If they only have a short time to read then they wouldn't be rude to say they want to get back to the book after a short conversation though.

Yeah you don't chat to someone when they are reading, watching a film, playing a musical instrument, playing a game.. or whatever thing they have chosen to do. People don't owe you chit chat just because you fancy it.
Obviously if you have something important you need to say that's different.. but for general chit chat then no. That is really rude.
UNLESS you were supposed to be spending time together and had arranged that.
If you've just walked in a room and someone is sat doing something they are concentrating on and you've decided to interrupt them just because you want to chat then you are a twat.

I mean it's essentially you deciding that what you want them to do is more important than what they were already doing. Which is immature and rude.
Unless it genuinely IS more important. But if it's just that you are feeling slightly bored and wanting to chat, it's just really rude and selfish.

I don't think either of them were rude. Ok for the interrupter to try to chat, ok for the reader to make it obvious they weren't up for it, ok for the interrupter to recognise this and leave them to it. All good.

Don't interrupt a reader unless it's life or death.

Depends a bit on wider context, eg is reader always unavailable, or was this a rare moment of relaxation.

Generally, human interaction trumps non human interaction.

I bet your reader would happily interrupt someone on their phone! I am a voracious reader, but I don’t think it’s sacred above other hobbies.

It depends on how long they've been reading and how many times they've already been interrupted. If they've been sitting there for hours and hours, left in blissful peace, then Yabu. If they've only just parked their arse and are already being pestered, or if they're interrupted every single time they try to read, then Yanbu.

You break the flow though.

What kind of reading is there other than for pleasure? (when at home on a sofa, not in a library or research dept or something) You wouldn't start up a conversation in the middle of a film, would you?

Optimal outcome -
"Is it something important or can it wait? I'm reading, I'll talk to you later."
"Oh ok, sorry for interrupting.I was just commenting on the daft cat."

(From the reader's point of view, optimal outcome is not to be interrupted except to be brought a cuppa and biscuits)

My son does this to me every time I'm having g a bit of quiet time reading my kindle or something, he will waffle on about shite and not stop

Wider context - Reader is an avid reader and spends a lot of time reading, and will often be so engrossed that any attempts to communicate with them (short of being actively on fire) will fail.

However Reader is also very sociable and spends a lot of time with Interrupter doing a mutual hobby, playing games, cooking etc, so is not lacking in human interaction with Interrupter.

(They love eachother very much and this interaction won't change that, they're just both very stubborn and both very much think they're right today!)

I kind of think they're both as rude as each other actually

If in a shared social space (eg living room) the reader was rude. In a non-social / private space (eg bedroom) the interrupter was rude. I'm an avid reader and play video games - I apply this rule to both.

will often be so engrossed that any attempts to communicate with them (short of being actively on fire) will fail. I do find this inappropriate and annoying. (Am an avid reader myself).

You said... 'in this instance about cats, nothing important...'

Isn't that a contradiction in terms? If it is about cats of course it is important.

The cat may have looked at you in a 'funny sort of way' , fallen off a shelf or perhaps pushed an object off a worktop. That's much more important than a person sitting on a sofa reading a book. (IMO)

Agree with this. If you want to do something privately and not be interrupted, you need to go somewhere else, not in the main living area where chatting/socialising happens.

This, I think.
It's probably ok for Interrupter to ask Reader if they want to chat/play/whatever, but if R is clearly engrossed and obviously don't want to engage, then don't persist.