New books aren't worth reading?
atlaspress.co
New books aren't worth reading?
1–10 of 44 posts
Re: New books aren't worth reading?
#2I almost gave up on this after the first couple of paragraphs but I’m glad I stuck with it. It’s an interesting perspective.
I’ll recommend on old book I randomly found a couple years ago: We Took to the Woods. It was surprisingly fascinating.
Re: New books aren't worth reading?
#3> Because everyone alive today has the same perspective, and none of us have experienced a wide breadth of anything.
Is the author living in completely different alternative reality then I do?
> The average ancient historian led troops, tutored a prince, governed a province, advised a king, made a fortune, fell from favor, was exiled, and buried 7 of their 10 children. The average modern historian passed a few tests then wrote a book on their laptop next to their cat.
Who are all those ancient historians author talks about? Isnt actually studying history better background for writing about history then "making a fortune, being politician and having many dead kids"?
But obviously what you wont find in the books of these super high level people ... is experience majority of the people who lived earth never had. Nor even had option to have. Frequently because of their lives suffered greatly by actions of these great conquerors.
So tldr, Mary Beard is bad at being historian, because she studied history. Also, because she credits feminism for her own understanding of what it is being a woman. Also, because she is estimated to have liberal opinions on climate change, democracy and religion. In the world where everyone is having the same opinions on those ... we will ignore the fact that fascism is currently not just on the rise, but literally winning the institutions.
Re: New books aren't worth reading?
#4> Unfortunately, reading books for entertainment is ridiculous. You do not live in a log cabin on the prairie. You have Netflix, you have video games, you have TikTok, you have Twitter (you really spend too much time on Twitter anon). No one reads books for entertainment anymore, because paper is an inferior entertainment platform.
That's a hard disagree from me - I'm not a heavy reader but I'll still easily get through a couple of fiction books every month. TV/Movies are far less information dense (ie interesting) that even a light fiction book.
I'll happily watch a show or movie on TV with the family - there's a lot to be said for shared entertainment, but there's a reason for the trope "the book was better than the movie".
Re: New books aren't worth reading?
#5> There are two sides to this debate: entertainment or information. Unfortunately, reading books for entertainment is ridiculous. You do not live in a log cabin on the prairie. You have Netflix, you have video games, you have TikTok, you have Twitter (you really spend too much time on Twitter anon). No one reads books for entertainment anymore, because paper is an inferior entertainment platform.
I'm not reading this article any more. The author is either nuts or a troll, maybe both.
Also, I think he admits to spending too much time on Twitter? Any time on Twitter is too much time. Even Elon agrees that it has gone to shit[1].
[1] https://nitter.space/elonmusk/status/2013482798884233622
Re: New books aren't worth reading?
#6I almost gave up on this after the first couple of paragraphs but I’m glad I stuck with it. It’s an interesting perspective. I’ll recommend on old book I randomly found a couple years ago: We Took to the Woods. It was surprisingly fascinating.
"The average ancient historian led troops, tutored a prince, governed a province, advised a king, made a fortune, fell from favor, was exiled, and buried 7 of their 10 children. The average modern historian passed a few tests then wrote a book on their laptop next to their cat." so good!
Re: New books aren't worth reading?
#7>No one reads books for entertainment anymore, because paper is an inferior entertainment platform
There are more forms of entertainment and people have diversified how they spend their leisure time. I don't think that it necessarily follows that it's an inferior platform unless your only metric is "more people is more good".
>Because everyone alive today has the same perspective, and none of us have experienced a wide breadth of anything
Completely bonkers statement.
>I don’t know if she’s ever talked publicly about religion or democracy or climate change or immigration, but I could tell you exactly what she thinks about these things anyway. So why would you bother reading what she thinks about Rome? The answers are just as predictable
I mean, I could take a stab at what a dork named Roman Helmet Guy is going to think too.
Re: New books aren't worth reading?
#8The problem is this blog post fails the exact same rule of thumb. Predictable confected contrariaism much like so many others.
Re: New books aren't worth reading?
#9> Unfortunately, reading books for entertainment is ridiculous. You do not live in a log cabin on the prairie. You have Netflix, you have video games, you have TikTok, you have Twitter (you really spend too much time on Twitter anon). No one reads books for entertainment anymore, because paper is an inferior entertainment platform. That's a hard disagree from me - I'm not a heavy reader but I'll still easily get thro…
I second that, after more than a decade of all quoted entertainment I started to read books again and that’s really refreshing. Just choose a good book and no bad acting or directing gets in the way. I read sci-fi books and I wondered if I ever could appreciate a movie version of it because they are so hard to get right with all variables that can make a sci-fi movie bad. I can read everywhere, no battery needed or screen pulsing in my eyes.
It’s one of the best form of entertainment because it’s getting the brain engaged with creativity in ways TV or movies can’t.
Re: New books aren't worth reading?
#10Obviously a lot of this was exaggerated for effect (dare I say attempting to entertain the reader, even though reading for entertainment is apparently obsolete), but I still couldn't agree with any of it. Clearly "everyone alive today has the same perspective" is not true because I can't really imagine having the perspective of the author.
> The average ancient historian led troops, tutored a prince, governed a province, advised a king, made a fortune, fell from favor, was exiled, and buried 7 of their 10 children.
No they didn't? I'm sure there are exceptions but I'm not even sure what exceptional case you're trying to use as the "average". The average ancient historian was a highly educated man who wrote a lot and corresponded with other highly educated people. "advised a king", sure, but it's not that unusual in modern times for academics to be appointed as advisors to world leaders. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. is a famous case in the US.
> And worse, they all passed the same tests at the same institutions.
Just read a book by someone who didn't go to one of the colleges you don't like? If you're worried about groupthink because all the historians were friends and worked together, you're going to have a much bigger problem finding independent ancient historians.
> Meanwhile Xenophon was an Athenian student of Socrates
Yeah man exactly, they were all students of Socrates, is that not the same problem?
> Thankfully it’s still possible to find people with unique experiences and perspectives.
What if you're looking for the perspective of someone who isn't in the 0.1% of the most educated people on the planet? Do you think you're more likely to find that in ancient historical works or modern books?
Finally, who do you think is finding, translating, and discussing these ancient historical works? Who decides which ones become famous and are published in English so you can read them? Unless you're doing original research, I think you'll find you're still subject to the perspectives of the modern historian.