To think being a reader doesn't make you better or smarter?

[OnceaReaderNeveraReader]

Never been a reader. I have tried many times in my life and have enjoyed the odd book here and there but have never managed to actually become a regular reader and don't miss books ever. I was talking about this with some colleagues the other day and one of them made me feel a bit bad about this as if reading is a sign of better intellectual ability and superiority.
I am uni educated and enjoy a variety of other cultural hobbies such as art, theatre and dance but I just cannot understand what is so special about books!
How does one become a reader later in life and is it really that bad if I don't enjoy it?

depends on what you’re reading. Jilly Cooper / Catherine Cookson novels aren’t going to expand your knowledge beyond love affairs and dowdy period settings…

I've only heard of this recently and looked into it more when I read Project Hail Mary because anything to do with a certain part of the book I could not visualise at all. I can't wait for the film so I have something concrete to put to the words. If I have a frame of reference I can visualise all day but this was an absolute wall. The internet pointed me towards partial or situational aphantasia so I wonder if that's true. I can absolutely see why it would put people off reading fiction.

I don't read as much as I'd like to. My brain definitely works better when I've been reading. There's something about the way it makes me focus (in a totally different way to scrolling on my phone or the computer) that makes me think and speak more clearly.
I also love getting lost in fictional worlds, being moved to tears by an author's words, being transported to different times or places.

The process of reading is complex and often involves the brain creating vivid mental imagery, similar to watching a film. This mental visualization is a key component of deep reading and comprehension, allowing readers to emotionally connect with characters and fully immerse themselves in different worlds. This "film-in-your-head" approach transforms reading from a passive information intake activity into an active, engaging experience. By visualizing, the reader becomes a co-creator of the story, filling in sensory details (sights, sounds, smells) that the author may not explicitly describe. By comparison watching a film can be a very passive way of imbibing information because you are being spoon fed. Its like the difference between fine dining (where you savor every mouthful) and fast food where you shovel it in.

I don't know why I find that more surprising than someone who doesn't read. But obviously it's no one's business but yours. May I ask what other things you enjoy?

I never really liked Catherine Cookson books much but I do like similar authors that come under the "saga" genre.
I went through a phase of Liverpool set novels and many novels set during WW1 and WW2.
This actually led me to a big interest in that era and I began to read more non fiction and history books.
I visited museums such as the Imperial War Museum thanks to this interest.
I have been saying for years I want to visit Liverpool because I became interested in the city through these "historical saga" books - which are often dismissed as "romance".
I also became very interested in the history of womens military and nursing experiences through these books.
Never had the urge to read Jilly Cooper though. Don't know why.

It doesn't make you 'better' as in superior to others but I'm pretty sure it does make you smarter. I think there's a fair bit of scientific evidence for the positive effects of reading on the brain.

TV and films are wonderful if done well, but watching is generally a passive experience. Everything the director wants you to see/know is spoken or shown to you deliberately at the pace of their choosing. I prefer to read, because I read very fast, and I find TV, especially documentaries, mostly very slow and dull. I could read the script, including the filming instructions, in half the time.

Why are you saying you aren’t clever and comparing yourself to your husband?

An English degree is the equivalent level to a technical degree. Why is Stem prioritised over everything?! I’d much rather have an informed and interesting discussion about literature with you than discussing forces or whatever.

You are equally intelligent!

I think reading improves your general knowledge because you absorb a lot of information. Most of the reading I do is in the form of novels, and most novels are well researched, so you pick up a lot of facts. For example, I've read a lot of Georgette Heyer's novels and nearly everything I know about the Battle of Waterloo comes from reading one of them. The danger nowadays is that you can go down an internet rabbit-hole and end up believing a great deal of rubbish if you're not careful. I wish children were taught how to discriminate between good sources of information and bad.

Another thing: if you're very intelligent and you don't read, where's the outlet for your mind? Writing?

I did say reading widely soboo ks from a broad range of genres, authors periods, fiction as well as non fiction, maybe journals, newspapers.

I think people who read about current issues on the internet are more aware.

If people only get their information from online sources, it will be rather limiting, online reading is often unbalanced and opinion based (aka my truth). Online content is driven by algorithms that show you more of what you already agree with and is often emotionally charged with simplified explanations, which makes it easy for misinformation to spread. Top your internet sources up with some good quality non fiction books. It doesn't have to be either or.

I read for a couple of hours a day, only child gen x raised by my Dad, so no computers until late school, no mobile until a year after graduating and a quiet house with a small B&W telly, taken to library every week as long as can remember to get books. I'm used to it being quiet and I do watch TV but it's what I want to watch when I want to watch it. I couldn't do Eastenders every day. So I think your history matters but I also think we're wired differently. Went to Turner, Whistler exhibtion with some friends, one friend L was in tears. I love art history programes, private life of a masterpiece is a fave but move me to tears just looking at it, no, appreciate beauty, skill, history yes. On the otherhand L came to Royal opera house once, again could appreciate but didn't move her, she didn't come again. Different wiring.

I think as long as people get their education/information elsewhere, then it’s fine. DP isn’t a reader and only recently has been diagnosed with dyslexia, but he watches a lot of documentaries etc.

I do think people end up missing out, but to each their own really. A lot is adapted to cinema and TV of course, but more often than not a lot of details has to be left out.

Hmmmm, tricky one. It's been proven that reading increases intelligence/can make people smarter, but that doesn't mean non-readers are thick/less intelligent that readers. I am a bit of a reader. (Well, maybe 2-3 novels a month) and I enjoy real life factual stuff too. DH reads nothing - except Twitter and messages on his phone LOL. Yet I am no more intelligent than him.

Heyer's Waterloo is very accurate: apparently even read at Sandhurst

Most novels are very well researched- I'm not so sure of that. They certainly can be but a lot of historical novels are weaker on factual details. Same as books about a job etc which the author has researched. Many are very well researched though.

I agree re taking longer.

Otoh a novel shows you what the writer wants you to know. I agree films etc are a bit different. Novels can convey things via language, structure, etc that a film cannot. Ofc film has advantages like acting, camera angles etc

@Zov I think the pertinent question isn't to ask if you are smarter than a specific non reader and more if you are smarter because you read a fair bit than you would have been if you didn't? It's kind of impossible to say subjectively but in studies where they look at it individuals reading habits over time it does show intellectual improvement, so it's likely you are smarter than you would have been otherwise and that your husband might also become even smarter if he did read books.

Nevil Shute is literary I think?

An interesting perspective from Keith Richards, especially about "keeping books unburnt". https://youtube.com/shorts/jTXa46FU1U8?si=5XQ7rCHe3uAXT7x7https://youtube.com/shorts/jTXa46FU1U8?si=5XQ7rCHe3uAXT7x7

Neville Shute is like reading the abridged and simplified A2 or B1 version of a good writer, I always think

Improves comprehension too, theory of the mind for literary fiction et

Im a massive reader, always have been since being a kid and love it. I'm totally thick in so many other ways that would actually benefit me in day to day life and it really means nothing. Just a hobby as also there's a million book choices you could make and be judged on your intellect off that. It's bollocks, ignore it.

Hmm... I read A Town Like Alice a long while ago. My school was good for English & recommended him on a long mostly literary list. But there were some on there more for historical context etc than strictly literary. They also noted On The Beach, which is interesting probably for early nuclear age plot, though I've not yet read it.

A big one for me is learning about different cultures. Non fiction esp journalism & travel writing is good for this.

And of course novels! I read Pachinko recently & wanted to read more about Korea, so started some Korean language novels (there's been a translation boom recently, esp Korean women I think). That's one of the best things about reading.

Also if like me you're a nosy person : it's an ethical form of eavesdropping. And so relaxing to take a break from one's own life for a bit.

How reliable is it though? Constant updating doesn't equal reliability