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.)

Being on the phone generally isn't comparable. Unless you're watching a film or reading an ebook, you're generally flitting around between messages, websites, posts on social media etc, and it's inherently interruptible. If you're reading, you may be at the most exciting part of the story, or reading something that is central to the rest of the book, or trying to concentrate on something complicated, or just enjoying the book generally - so being interrupted is going to be be a real pain in the neck. What is more comparable is expecting someone half way through a film or other drama on TV to stop instantly so as to talk to you. Would you do that?

Only two interruptions are permissible :

"Would you like a cup of tea?"

"The house is on fire."

I also think it depends on the interruption.

A short statement to give information may be necessary at that moment , chit chat is able to wait.

Both poor communicators really. The interruptor should have asked if the reader can chat, not just launched in with a topic. The reader should use their words to say "I'd like to read for an hour and then chat please." The interruptor should then respect that.

As far as I'm concerned, reading takes precedence over any conversation that isn't important. What's more, I bet a lot of people who'd cheerfully interrupt a reader would be well disgruntled if someone tried to talk to them while they were watching TV.

There's nothing quite like picking up a nice hefty novel or putting earphones on to draw all the sods I live with out of their lairs to chat shit at me.

Most of my reading is now MN because it's bitesize and interruptable. I don't end up going through the annoyance of re-reading the same paragraph 5 times.

Reading a novel is immersive. It takes time to enter a flow state of mind.

I tend to read most when the DCs do activities now. There's one where I take myself off to the nearby pub and get a blissful 45 mins to read.

My brain doesn't go into flow mode easily in this house. Having moved here in the baby years, it's just permanently in on-call mode.

If only I had a sound insulated, lockable lady-cave to retreat to!

I can't stand being interrupted when I'm reading and my husband does it all the time!!! In fact, as I was reading this thread, glasses on and focussed, he's just interrupted me to show me a bloody photo on his phone that could have waited!
So the interrupter is the rude one in my opinion.

I don't think either is terribly rude - it's just a difference in habits / expectations /priorities between the two people. Some people may enjoy reading but be happy to be interrupted for a quick chat, so they might be surprised that others wouldn't. I don't think a hard-and-fast judgement can be applied. It probably partly depends on what mood you're in and what you're reading. But if the reader Mmm hmmms, the interrupter should quickly realise chat isn't wanted, without being offended.

Interrupter is rude if they just start talking.

It should go...

'hey, <gives chance for attention to switch> sorry, can see you're reading, can I ask you a quick question?'

Response is then either...
'can it wait I'm busy!' (which is followed by 'sorry, can't wait urgent' / 'I'll ask you later')
Or
'yeah, what is it?'

the advantage of this is the minimal thought process required from reader who can go straight back to reading with less chance of breaking flow completely.

If the interrupter is just making conversation while someone is reading then they are out of order and should take the hint!

See I'm not a fan of asking for permission to speak to someone in my home. It would really put me off saying anything not urgent to them which I suppose would be a result for the living room reader. Not good for a relationship though.

I get that it's different somewhere like a staffroom which has a mix of people wanting to be left alone and talk. I don't get why you'd choose to sit in a communal part of the house when expecting to be left alone when you could just as easily read in a bedroom.

Interesting - I think my answer would differ if I was reading a book or looking at my phone. 🤔

There are no arbiters but the individuals themselves. If a person doesn't like to be interrupted when reading, they need to make that clear, because it's not universal. Once it's been made clear, it needs to be respected, unless the other person objects. The objection then needs to be respected.

It seems like people think there is a 'set of rules'... was I right to do this? Should he have not said this? Etc. Like children :)

In my (scientific) workplace it was part of our culture that if you approached a colleague to engage in a query (or whatever,) that you asked “may I interrupt you?”

The colleague then had a choice.

It worked well. No-one got offended. Maybe it would work well in families too?
It’s a form of “respect.”

In my (scientific) workplace it was part of our culture that if you approached a colleague to engage in a query (or whatever,) that you asked “may I interrupt you?”

Isn't that the norm everywhere?
Though we're a software company so better yet use IM - check status, drop an IM with a clue to what you wanted to discuss and then it's up to the other person when and if they respond. Doesn't translate to domestic book-readers but it might for people engrossed on their phones.

@MonsteraMama Please will you tell us who is who?

I always feel so unsatisfied by threads like this. I think you are the reader?
Is it DH or DC that interrupts?

Huge difference between the workplace and your own living room.

It's normal, and positive, to have chit chat with the people you live with. Ignoring them because your book/phone/TV show/game is more interesting to you is pretty rude.

Go on then, I was starting to annoy myself with the Reader and Interrupter thing anyway. Most people seem to have assumed it's me and my husband anyway.

Reader is our 16yo daughter, Interrupter is my husband/her father.

A few things people have mentioned: daughter was reading in the living room rather than a private space because she wanted to bask in the sun and that room has the best sun. She was reading a book not her phone, and it was at the end of a day we had spent together as a family so while she is prone to vanishing into books, she'd actually been quite social yesterday!

I'm still on the fence over who was more rude, but I was enjoying their lively debate over it! Seems the poll is weighted in daughter's favour, but I've enjoyed reading the mixed views here.

So trivial conversation trumps reading a book?

Team DD.

Yup Team DD.

if we’re discussing a one off interruption then I think it’s rude to ignore the interrupter instead of politely saying ‘I’m reading, can we chat later?’

If the interrupter is a serial offender who hasn’t learned their lesson, ignoring them is justified.

Someone in my home does that while I'm sewing, I have my machine in my private space, it's quite a powerful beast. Last time it happened I asked how he felt about getting the fire brigade in to release me if his distraction caused me to run over my fingers. I gave a fairly graphic description and included the cost of replacing the machine if the working parts were full of blood. Surprisingly he's not done it since. My tolerance is very low, I grew up in a home where reading a book was likely to get me a tongue lashing. My mother considered it to be very ignorant to read a book if there was anyone else (her) around. With hindsight I'm not actually sure that she could read at all. The only thing I ever remember seeing her read was a knitting pattern.

Team DD here too.

I find it incredibly rude that someone thinks I need to pay attention to them when I'm quite clearly in the middle of something else requiring my attention. The interrupter should ask if they're free to speak or when would be convenient, not expect that their want to speak is more important than the person reading / watching TV / working etc.

@WickieRoy

It's normal, and positive, to have chit chat with the people you live with. Ignoring them because your book/phone/TV show/game is more interesting to you is pretty rude.
Its normal and positive for home to be a place of respite and a sanctuary where everyone respects each others needs to have uninterrupted quiet time to recoup their energy. If not at home then where?
Nope. This is exactly what home is for.

Absolutely, but not the communal bits, that's what bedrooms are for.