What makes you think I'm jaded? What makes you think I have ceased to have fun? What gives you this deep insight into other people's motivations?
You don't know. You're attacking a whole class of people, not because you know anything, but for some reason of your own -- but in any event you're doing so without a shred of evidence.[\quote]
Actually, I have never commented on your specific reading habits one way or another. I have generalized the argument into what I believe it is. You disagree, it is your right. I am not sure why you're getting so defensive about it.
Are some people snobs? Yep, they sure are. It is NOT snobbish, however, to state one's tastes. If somebody says "Borges rocks and King sucks" they're not being a snob, they're just telling you what they like. If somebody says "Only jaded cynics like Borges" then they're being a snob.
However it is not being said that "Borges rocks and King sucks" it is being implied that if you like King and not Borges then you must like inferior trash rather than classics. Rocks/sucks arguments happen all the time. But when a group tries to imply not that "King sucks" but that King's fiction is inferior to Borge's fiction and with it, carry a implication that those who like it aren't discerning readers well....
The difference between Liberals and Tories is that they share different opinions on how political decisions ought to be made. If you want to say that some people enjoy intellectual stimulation and some people do not, I have no argument. But to pretend that you know people's motivations is just silly, because we all know you don't.[\quote]
Again, you're getting defensive. I find that interesting. Let me say it again, I've never commented about your specific reading habits.
You don't enjoy intellectual stimulation when you read. Well and good. Like I have said, everybody has their own joys and thank heavens for that.[\quote]
I didn't say I don't enjoy intellectual stimulation. I said it's not the reason I read. I read for enjoyment. If I get intellectual stimulation, that's an added bonus.
Here's the thing, though. EVERYBODY'S a moderate, in some way, shape or form. Creating artificial distinctions like this only makes it harder to hear what somebody's saying, because now they have to overcome your tendency to lump them into a group. They have to first demonstrate why they don't just fall into one of these categories before they can even get listened to.
Categorization (generalization) like this inhibits communication.
[\quote]
This statement is hard to respond to. You seem to imply that you think I said somebody is wholly in one camp or another. Interestingly enough I didn't. Of course noone is TOTALLY in one camp or another. (Though if we're talking politics, people like Rush Limbaugh would say a moderate is a Liberal who just won't own up to it. If we're talking our general debate, I suppose a moderate is a member of one of these proposed camps who won't own up to it.)
Exceptions DON'T prove the rule. They do the opposite. A rule that admits to exceptions isn't a rule at all, it's a false generalization.[\quote]
Ok. We're not talking physics here where one false result in an experiment means that the theory you're trying to test is false. We're talking what is essentially an academic debate. Just because some people straddle a line doesn't mean the line doesn't exist. It means that yes, there are shades of gray. However, shades of gray are very difficult to argue. It's alot easier to generalize two different sides and go with the assumption that to some extent most people belong to one side or another. To somewhat steal your quote about moderates, noone is Truly a moderate. Everyone has some kind of an opinion one way or the other.
So what? As I have noted, the fact that we're talking about subjective opinions doesn't mean we can't have meaningful debates. Convince me that there really are two kinds of readers and that only one kind reads for enjoyment.
Note that I'm not saying NOBODY reads for something other than enjoyment. I'm saying that since it's impossible to know why anybody does anything, using such speculations as evidence for any conclusions is pointless. Much more useful and fun and interesting is for you to tell me what you like or dislike and why. Why don't you like Hemingway? What makes Asimov so great? Those are opinions about which we can have useful conversations.
I don't like Hemingway because I find his novels hard to read and they are from a viewpoint I don't particularly empathize with. Reading Hemingway to me is like being told a story by a very wordy old man and it's not even an interesting story. I like Asimov because despite being writtenin the 1950's it still feels "modern". In addition, I have never felt like Asimov was condescending to me.
