Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Unread Books

theparisreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: On Unread Books

#31

Post by everyone »

lj3 wrote: post #29
Mediterraneo10 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TV and movies will rot your brain regardless of whether it's The Big Bang Theory or Citizen Kane. I cannot agree with that at all. A great deal of cinema is heavy enough on information to be educational. Think about how much you can learn about history, literature, economics, or politics from watching Jean-Luc Godard’s output from 1962-1968. Even if the medium has flaws in the depth of its presentation, its compila…

You're talking content. I'm talking neurobiology.

Can you elaborate? post some links or references? Sounds interesting.

Re: On Unread Books

#32

Post by derefr »

platz wrote: post #2

TLDR; the most important thing about a book is it's historical and social context in the web of literature of it's time, so by understanding relationships, peers, and authors, reading the actual text is not necessary

I never heard this about books, but this has always been my understanding of modern art. An entirely-red canvas is meaningless and valueless on its own; but in its context as a response, in a specific cultural time and place, to artistic trends of the time, one particular entirely-red canvas is quite valuable indeed.

It's much more akin to objects (including books!) signed by people: the value of the object is that the object participated in some part of history, rather than anything about the object per se.

Re: On Unread Books

#33

Post by Santosh83 »

everyone wrote: post #8
Santosh83 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everything we produce needs to be valued by how much they contribute to industrial/scientific civilization. I specify that because loss of much of STEM won't lead to collapse of civilization, it will only set us back to the dark ages. We'll begin again. Same as we'd do if all art disappeared.

Its not the same. If all existing art disappeared we would still be able to produce art at our current rate with no discernible or measurable difference in its quality or effect. Scientific or technological progress on the other hand is iterative. More advanced theories are slowly formulated on the backs of older ones. For precision tools for example you need to start off building crude tools with nothing, then use t…

They're not the same I agree. Which is why saying art is trivial and by implication disposable as compared to science is not IMO a healthy way to look at it. They are two sides of the same coin the way I see it. Through both we ultimately seek to understand reality inside and outside ourselves. I mean think about... why do we look at the stars? Why do we want to visit other planets? Why do we want to understand molecules and atoms? It's not all for the mere utility of being able to control materials and forces and therefore make our lives physically comfortable, though it's obviously a very important side effect. The core reason is we want to understand the meaning & beauty underlying reality, and art tries to do the same in a different way. So the way I see it, loss of STEM knowledge will set us back materially, while loss of all art and philosophy will set us back equally grievously in another sense.

Re: On Unread Books

#34

Post by lj3 »

everyone wrote: post #22
lj3 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arts aren't just entertainment. They're a reflection of the soul of a culture and exist long after that culture is dead. If you look at every culture ever recorded in human history, you'll note there is a direct correlation between a culture's progression in art and a culture's progression in science and technology. That said, I agree with you that most written literature has very little to offer most people. Most pi…

"the medium is the message. The medium a piece of art chooses is significant. TV and movies will rot your brain regardless of whether it's The Big Bang Theory or Citizen Kane. Reading will improve your brain, regardless of whether you're reading Danielle Steel or Chaucer." I have not heard that before. The medium a piece of art chooses is significant, yes, (and in a lot of cases the creator chooses the wrong medium,…

You're making the mistake of thinking that all fiction is entertainment. It's not. There's a reason humans are hard wired to share stories.

> Imo big bang, citizen kane, danielle Steel and chaucer are all somewhat equatable, because they are all fiction/entertainment.

It doesn't work that way. The medium has an impact on the formation and development of the brain itself.

Re: On Unread Books

#35

Post by everyone »

lj3 wrote: post #34
everyone wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the medium is the message. The medium a piece of art chooses is significant. TV and movies will rot your brain regardless of whether it's The Big Bang Theory or Citizen Kane. Reading will improve your brain, regardless of whether you're reading Danielle Steel or Chaucer." I have not heard that before. The medium a piece of art chooses is significant, yes, (and in a lot of cases the creator chooses the wrong medium,…

You're making the mistake of thinking that all fiction is entertainment. It's not. There's a reason humans are hard wired to share stories. > Imo big bang, citizen kane, danielle Steel and chaucer are all somewhat equatable, because they are all fiction/entertainment. It doesn't work that way. The medium has an impact on the formation and development of the brain itself.

So are you talking about exposure to certain mediums at certain ages?

Re: On Unread Books

#36

Post by coldtea »

ukulele wrote: post #3

Strategizing about how to discuss a book you haven't read has to be the ultimate form of pretentiousness.

Or mere utility/functionality (save time not reading some books AND advance your scholarly/literary/etc career as someone who reads and knows them).

A con isn't "pretentious".

People who have actually read a book can be much more pretentious about it -- in the sense of acting as if this gave them some unique insight over other mere mortals who haven't read it.

Re: On Unread Books

#37

Post by nkhodyunya »

I don't always enjoy the books I've read, but i always enjoy those that I haven't. People never ask me for recommendations. In spite of this, I generously provide my unwanted opinion.

Re: On Unread Books

#38

Post by coldtea »

everyone wrote: post #6

Imo a lot of literature has 0 novel content, so this is not suprising. Additional: I'm always shitting on the humanities in the comments here. I dont have anything against them, I both produce them and consume massive quantities of them. My point is simply that they are trivial. If all art suddenly disappeared it wouldnt really matter. If knowledge about, and/or the fruits of STEM stuff disappeared it would be a huge…

>My point is simply that they are trivial. If all art suddenly disappeared it wouldnt really matter. If knowledge about, and/or the fruits of STEM stuff disappeared it would be a huge setback, it could cause civilization to collapse.

I'd say it's mostly the opposite: civilization is what remains when you remove most of the STEM -- and culture surely is that.

We could be savage warmongering apes with fully advanced STEM. And we often are.

Re: On Unread Books

#39

Post by Bodet »

derefr wrote: post #32
platz wrote: post #2

TLDR; the most important thing about a book is it's historical and social context in the web of literature of it's time, so by understanding relationships, peers, and authors, reading the actual text is not necessary

I never heard this about books, but this has always been my understanding of modern art. An entirely-red canvas is meaningless and valueless on its own; but in its context as a response, in a specific cultural time and place, to artistic trends of the time, one particular entirely-red canvas is quite valuable indeed. It's much more akin to objects (including books!) signed by people: the value of the object is that t…

Context does not add to the fact that the red canvas is still red.

Re: On Unread Books

#40

Post by derefr »

Bodet wrote: post #39
derefr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never heard this about books, but this has always been my understanding of modern art. An entirely-red canvas is meaningless and valueless on its own; but in its context as a response, in a specific cultural time and place, to artistic trends of the time, one particular entirely-red canvas is quite valuable indeed. It's much more akin to objects (including books!) signed by people: the value of the object is that t…

Context does not add to the fact that the red canvas is still red.

There is no value to the red canvas; there is only value in the conversation you're able to have about the red canvas, and especially value in controlling that conversation (and where/when it happens) by owning the red canvas.

I.e., modern art is valuable in part because people will go to art galleries and museums to stare at denotationally-valueless art if it gives them an excuse to talk/think about art history. Art galleries and museums are willing to buy those pieces to capture that foot-traffic, which gives a price to the pieces.

Post reply on HN