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?

It's really sad when people feel reading is a highbrow pursuit. My local library is a community hub & I hope it helps foster that feeling that books are not something to be enjoyed only by a select few.

Personally I think one can gain so much more knowledge and information from reading.

Kindle isn't bad- I do think reading on a screen too much may be bad for the eyes

I'm not sure about that. Wiki is fine if you check each fact has a proper citation but there is a lot of dodgy stuff on there too.

It more being passive or active. So more reading is more active than watching something, or so I have read.

Reading the last few posts it's funny because growing up I didn't think reading was 'highbrow' at all. I also came from a very working class family and at that point nobody on my mum's side had ever yet been to uni. But most of them were very avid readers and my grandpa especially was an autodidact, in that great working class tradition. There was a huge element of 'monkey see monkey do' with me which I guess is why I started reading the 'women's fiction' books that got passed around the women in the family. People do try to do these books down but I genuinely think I learned a fair bit about working class worlds, class divides, women's lives, poverty, stereotyping, all kinds of things. Of course it was never the full picture as it was fiction so a lot of artistic licence but it gave me knowledge both directly and indirectly - things to think about, find out more about, sift through over the course of decades.

So to me reading isn't highbrow at all, thought I think books are a meaningful symbol of self-improvement and education.

Women's fiction is badly underrated for sexist reasons often imo. A bit like how 'women's pictures' were in the US in the 40s and 50s - but now many are being reappraised.

Depth too though - films have other ways of being deep, but say, a Dickens adaption will have to miss out a lot of the dialogue and most of the narration which is a huge part of Dickens.

I may be late to the reading debate but here is my two pennies: Reading a novel is one of the few things that will engage both sides of your brain at the same time and encourages hemisphere integration. A better integrated brain is one that improves thinking at a deeper level , reflection over reaction and better emotional regulation. It also encourages focused attention, develops imagination and enables connection with worlds, places and people beyond your immediate sphere.

So actually, reading does make you better and smarter.

I used to teach an insert to teachers about reading and it is really one of the best things you can do for your brain - and why early encouragement to read books - is so important.

how can it be a fab read for someone who doesn't like autobiography? BTW I love a good footnote!

I do think voracious readers often have a wider vocabulary, and I think children who read a lot are more likely to be good at spelling. Reading a lot of non-fiction could also make you more knowledgeable, but I’m doubtful reading would actually make a person more intelligent.

I think he was a junk novelist of his time.....as was Charles Dickens.

Agree - it varies widely. But Heyer is very well regarded for her research, similarly Jean Plaidy. You have to take a historical novel with a pinch of salt, but a friend of mine has a father who writes history books and he speaks highly of some historical novelists, particularly those two.

Dickens was certainly popular, but not junk.

Interesting re Jean Plaidy : my mother read her as a teen in the 70s,,and my grandmother also a huge fan. I'd always assumed from the titles & covers they were very melodramatic, but reading up it seems she's as you say been good on historical accuracy. I must give her a go!

Both Heyer & Plaidy sometimes get described as 'romance novelists ' in a trivialising way which is clearly unfair given the depth they put into research & plots in general.

I’m off to bed now but have enjoyed reading this thread and want to leave you with this quote from one of my dc’s favourite books when they were little:

The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.”

Goodnight! 😁

I think there are always people who will be intellectually snobby about things whatever media you are using. So even if you read books someone somewhere will sneer about it because they’ll look down on the author or whatever. Fuck em!

You do you.

For what it’s worth I love reading and have definitely learned a lot, expanded my mind, become aware of other cultures and the way other people experience the world from books. But there are lots of ways to do that, that don’t involve books. I’m not sure from your post if you feel like you want to read or should be reading. But if you do want to get into reading don’t do it for other people and don’t choose a book to impress other people, do it for yourself and read whatever perks your interest. A good book is like a new friend, a bad book is just a burden.

Yes, if they were men they would have a similar level of esteem to a Ken Follett, Bernard Cornwell or CJ Sansom. Its like the numerous fantastic female writers dismissed as chic lit - just patriarchy telling us that womens achievements are less good and womens interests are less valid. Plaidy is particularly fascinating because she wrote so many books about so many different historical figures, not just in the UK history. She must have been a very very learned woman.

Reading doesn’t necessarily make you smarter, OP. What you “get” from reading widely can make you understand the world better, but not unless you are receptive to the clues gained from the way that the words are put together, or the way that words sound like those of different languages.

If you gain a deeper understanding of language and nuance from reading, you might feel smarter than you did before - but there are many other topics that can have the same effect. That’s why teaching these days includes (often) an embrace of different learning styles.

We are all different, and IMO, those that are “smarter” are those that recognise that people can get to the same level of understanding by many different means - it ain’t a competition!

Reading is a great shortcut to the aquisition of vocabulary, knowledge and all its wider benefits, but it isn't the only path there.

I've produced two dyslexic children who have no great love of trying to decipher wrigging letters squirming around on a page as a form of pleasure. Being children of a book lover they have still benefited from years of bedtime stories, and by proxy gained a lot of the benefits of reading including through audiobooks and kindles to make stories more accessible. It's not the same, but they have advantages over children whose lives don't feature books outside of school which sadly is common, and well documented to be a hinderence to academic success.

DS1 is praised for his general knowledge by his teachers. He did like children's fact books when he was younger and tends to watch a lot of factual content on youtube. The gap on non-fiction sources is probably smaller than fiction.
DH is a (probably undiagnosed dyslexic) reluctant reader. He has a PhD and can read technical, acdememic content in his niche, but seldom reads for pleasure. It's probably not a co-incidence that he also struggles with quiz levels of general knowledge.

A fiction book will contain a greater range of vocabulary and depth of ideas than a screen adaption that lets the visuals do the talking. In the Harry Potter fan community, you can tell the difference between the book fans and the film fans because the books explained so many plotholes that weren't covered in detail in the films.

Pretty much any reading is a good thing. Reading is (generally) great for a state of mental flow and prolonged concentration. For me, smartphones came in at a time of sleep deprivation and nightfeeds which ruined my attention span. In recent years, I've made windows of time to read novels again and it gets easier with practice.

I suspect there is chicken and egg. You don't have to be a book lover/ reader to be intelligent and curious but to be a book lover/ reader there will be a baseline of intelligence and curiosity in the first place, then there are the mental benefits of reading on top of that initial advantage. Books are also an accessible way to gain cultural capital (especially through the wonders of libraries)

I find MN very snobby about reading. In "decor" or how people judge houses, people often comment on no books shelves or hardly any books in the house. Neither DH or I are big readers. The biggest collection of books we have is cookery books!
I read 4 books (chick lit type novels) in the summer that I really enjoyed but I started another book and it just doesnt engage me the way the others did....so I've barely read since September (apart from a few articles in metro)

Im not university educated, but i dont think im unintelligent. i feel I have a reasonable grasp of current affairs etc.

I love books and reading. I always have. My granny used to take me to a library every Friday from when I could toddle behind her lol

I had to get rid of over 1000 books when I downsized my house, they were donated. I also have a kindle with 1000s on it lol.

I love the way a story can take me from my life and its stresses into a whole other world. It plays like a film in my head. I read fast, and I see the ‘shape’ of a word rather than the letters. I don’t need the connecting words, my brain can put them in which apparently is weird lol. I thought it was quite normal until I was an adult.

Always disappointed by film adaptations. So much detail is lost, characters don’t look like they did in your head, storylines are completely altered at times!

Nope. I read for pleasure and am average in terms of intelligence. My husband works for a top law firm, very intelligent guy, has no interest in reading for pleasure. Obviously he’s reading work papers etc but I don’t think that was the question

Exactly. Reading about Plaidy, she certainly seems to have done a good portrayal of the Borgias : resisting the temptation the TV succumbed to of exaggerating how bad they were, and instead sticking to the sources & showing Lucrezia more as the pretty normal woman (who ended up running a cheese factory!) that she probably was, rather than the incestuous poisoner of legend.

I think that reading a lot of novels improves your vocabulary and writing style. It doesn't make you smarter but it teaches you about people.