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

The joy of reading books you don't understand

reactormag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 263 posts

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#221

Post by sigriv »

mamonster wrote: post #209
sigriv wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deleuze, Bourdieu, Malebranche, ... I find it incredibly satisfying to stretch my brain with books that are inaccessible on the first read.

Deleuze is so overrated(although I am personally biased against everything that came out and was concurrent with Mai 68 in general). I don't know if you read it in French, but in French the only "French Theorist" worse than Deleuze/Guattari is Baudrillar(for how bad the concepts are). IMO the most interesting one from that era is Clouscard.

Did you read Deleuze's Logique de la sensation?

Yes I read him in french. Unfamiliar with Clouscard. Not a fan of Baudrillar either.

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#222

Post by lmm »

lukan wrote: post #88
lmm wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative to considering "asians" or "germans" is probably not understanding each person's cultural background individually but rather putting everyone in a single "world" box. Which is the biggest and most useless one of all. Once you have a good understanding of a typical german you can of course zoom in and get more detail, but if you refuse to learn about germans in general then that's going to make you les…

There is also the alternative of treating humans as humans first, if you don't know much about them, except their looks and their passport nationality. And not assuming one has these and those traits, because they look "asian", but were raised in the US for example. I know I met many people from many backgrounds all over the world and my thinking in boxes default mode, was never really helpful, but often very wrong.…

> There is also the alternative of treating humans as humans first

No there isn't, that's the same thing as just putting everyone in the "world" box. Which tends to boil down to just treating everyone like a member of your own culture (since most of the people from the world you've met are from your own culture), and ends up being worse.

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#223

Post by Insanity »

k2enemy wrote: post #193
jyunwai wrote: post #10

A useful habit that I've begun to follow with more complicated books—especially when reading them out of personal interest—is to actively avoid taking notes or worrying about background material on a first read. I've recently read and greatly enjoyed a historical fiction novel called "Augustus" written by John Edward Williams and published in 1972. On the surface level, it's about the events of the life of Augustus C…

If you enjoyed Williams's Augustus, do give Stoner and Butcher's Crossing a read. I "enjoyed" them even more than Augustus. Enjoyed is in quotes because they are both emotionally devastating -- Stoner more so than Butcher's Crossing. I didn't feel like myself for a week after reading Stoner and a decade later I still often think about it.

I read Stoner a month ago, and just finished Augustus. Both are among the best books I have read this year, so far at least. I’ll be picking up Butcher’s Crossing soon but needed some lighter reads in-between :)

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#224

Post by sweeter »

techostritch wrote: post #190
joaorico wrote: post #148

Kafka [1] on which types of book to read: "I believe one should only read those books which bite and sting. If the book we are reading does not wake us up with a blow to the head, then why read the book? To make us happy, as you write? My God, we would be just as happy if we had no books, and those books that make us happy, we could write ourselves if necessary. But we need the books that affect us like a disaster, t…

I don’t know if I’m taking Kafka too literally here, but the books that I read that bite and sting probably fall into two categories. Things that are cynically written in bad faith and things that are hopeless and callous. Torture porn bites and stings, reading hacky partisan politics bites and stings. Anything that makes me feel stupider after reading it bites and stings. The things that I think that he wants to say…

I think he is ultimately saying that you should be emotionally vulnerable, and you should read things that break through that inner barrier that we all put up. Reading a good book is like making a connection, and becoming emotionally invested in that world and the ideas within it. Turning that last page and knowing that its all over can be a heart-wrenching experience as well. I know I've experienced this indescribable feeling of loss or even grief almost after reading a good book.

That could also mean reading biographies of others lives, love stories, things that challenge your world view and things that are a little above our skill level. There is value in being willing to challenge your own beliefs (if they can't be challenged with a new understanding or new knowledge, then they aren't so much beliefs as they are a doctrine to be followed) and being willing to be emotionally vulnerable.

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#225

Post by djeastm »

lupusreal wrote: post #212
joaorico wrote: post #148

Kafka [1] on which types of book to read: "I believe one should only read those books which bite and sting. If the book we are reading does not wake us up with a blow to the head, then why read the book? To make us happy, as you write? My God, we would be just as happy if we had no books, and those books that make us happy, we could write ourselves if necessary. But we need the books that affect us like a disaster, t…

I don't know anything about the man; what kind of life did Kafka have that happiness was easily had IRL and he needed books to experience misery?

Kafka's life abounded with misery. Great writer, though

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#228

Post by changexd »

emmanone wrote: post #85

I’ve recently moved to Europe and found myself surrounded by hundreds of famous galleries, which are essentially the main entertainment here. I started visiting them and looking at classical paintings, little by little googling what it was and why. It turned out to be so exciting! Now, a year later, I can say for sure which of the women with a severed male head in their hands in the painting is Judith and which is Sa…

I can relate so much! Went to Uffizi once, I wondered why so many people were lining up to get in because I had zero clue about art at the time, after deciding to actually take a look in the museum with audio guide, I spent almost 4 hours in Uffizi though I didn't have many clues about lots of them, I was just trying to "feel" the pieces, years later, I finally started to read books about art and suddenly I had this amazing realization of "wow isn't that art that I've seen before?" then it all makes sense now, it's one of the best feeling ever, now I usually just go checkout museums, venues or whatever it is because I know even though I cannot appreciate the art at the moment, some day in the future I'll be glad that I take the chance to look at it.

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#229

Post by lotsoweiners »

banish-m4 wrote: post #94

If works do not test you or bring new ideas, then what is the point of reading them in the first place? Uncomfortable nonfiction is like eating your vegetables. There is much disquieting history and knowledge that must not be ignored. Mainstream mass public education will not teach curiosity or imbue anyone with ambition or initiative, it is something one must cultivate on their own.

I’m not looking for too much challenge in my leisure time. Having read both the Harry Potter series and Infinite Jest, I think I prefer the former.

Re: The joy of reading books you don't understand

#230

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

TillE wrote: post #213
cubefox wrote: post #171

This reminds me of the recent "Neuromancer" discussion here on HN: The early cyberpunk writing style, and especially that of William Gibson, made extensive use of unexplained technical terms. The story was occasionally hard to follow. But that was part of "cyberpunk", at least initially. If you were really about to read a report from a different possible world, you also wouldn't understand everything. In reality not…

> All the historical details are so intricate that they are almost impossible to match by a novelist writing about a fantasy world or the far future. This is a thing game designer / writer Ken Hite always says [1], and he's absolutely right. If you dig deep enough into even the most boring corner of history, you will find more interesting details than any person could possibly invent. And if you base your creative wo…

> you will find more interesting details than any person could possibly invent.

Than any non-Tolkien person could invent.

Post reply on HN