How do you put aside your own feelings when reading?

[MarkB]

The discussion about the novel Starship Troopers and the views about it, got me wondering:

Is it hard or easy to put aside your own personal views when you read a book? Or is it out right impossible?

Is it worthwhile? What value do you gain from reading a story uncritically?

 

[aco175]

A book is a bit like a conversation. You bring in your own bias, but can be swayed if you stay long enough.

 

[TiQuinn]

The discussion about the novel Starship Troopers and the views about it, got me wondering:

Is it hard or easy to put aside your own personal views when you read a book? Or is it out right impossible?

Better have something important to say, be exceptionally well written, evocative, author is dead and buried, or I’m required to read it.

 

[GMMichael]

I mean, I don't read Ayn Rand for a reason . . .

 

[Belen]

The discussion about the novel Starship Troopers and the views about it, got me wondering:

Is it hard or easy to put aside your own personal views when you read a book? Or is it out right impossible?

No. It is not difficult. I was taught to keep an open mind and think critically. People should be open to challenging their views.

If the writing is bad, like Star Wars Aftermath, or if the editing is bad, then I may not continue with the book.

If the story is good even if the writer does not share my views, then I will consume the book.

The only caveats are that I will not engage with propaganda or content designed to teach hate.

I mainly read sf&f because I like to see good win out etc.

I do have issues with folks who put themselves in echo chambers.

 

[overgeeked]

Depends entirely on what’s in the book, who the author is, whether it’s fiction, or non-fiction, etc. I’m mostly talking about fiction below.

I love Neil Gaiman’s writing, but I’ll never buy another new book of his again. I love reading H. P. Lovecraft’s Cthulhu Mythos, but I hate his racism. Etc.

It’s easier when the author is dead and the objectionable stuff has long since been denounced by (at least most of) the wider society. Like the racism in Robert E. Howard’s Conan stories. If the author is still around and the bigotry still widely accepted, nope. Like the transphobia of J. K. Rowling.

People also tend to do this weird thing where they believe what they’re told first and that gets lodged in and is hard to remove. Like the accusations of fascism leveled at Starship Troopers. People hear that, assume it’s true, then read the book. Unsurprisingly, they then gloss over everything that disproves that reading. Confirmation bias, basically.

There are maybe two of the more modern 14 points of fascism in the novel. And there’s nothing to suggest the earlier definition of fascism as the merging of corporate and government power. But because voting is limited to those who serve the community (teacher, librarian, soldier, etc) and the book is military sci-fi, it somehow becomes a pro-fascist book. You could make an equally flimsy argument the book is pro-communism for the same reasons. Only those who serve the community are allowed to vote.

 

[overgeeked]

I mean, I don't read Ayn Rand for a reason . . .

I have read a few of her “philosophical” works just to see what all the fuss is about, turns out it’s nothing more than nonsensical and self-serving gibberish. You’re not missing anything.

 

[Belen]

I have read a few of her “philosophical” works just to see what all the fuss is about, turns out it’s nothing more than nonsensical and self-serving gibberish. You’re not missing anything.

Anthem was required reading in High School in the early 90s. I enjoyed it then but that was 30+ years ago. I have not read any of her other stuff.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The discussion about the novel Starship Troopers and the views about it, got me wondering:

Is it hard or easy to put aside your own personal views when you read a book? Or is it out right impossible?

For me it is pretty easy. I grew up in a household with a lot of books covering a wide variety of topics and we were meant to read them without necessarily agreeing with them. This applied to anything from science fiction to philosophy or religious books. So I always see the point of reading a book as being enriching my life, occasionally being challenged, engaging with an authors argument and perhaps wrestling with their argument. I also want to grade a book on its overall quality, not how hard I agree with the author's views. Someone could easily write a very terrible book, that has characters affirming my values and beliefs from beginning to end but that wouldn't be a rewarding read.

Also I like history and I find if you read old books, old sources, you get used to the idea that mindsets change a lot over time and you can enjoy something written in an age that didn't have the benefit of our social advancements and comforts.

 

[jian]

Very occasionally I set aside my priority of whether I expect to enjoy a book, more or less so that I can assess what I’m reading outside that framework. That’s how I read Twilight, Atlas Shrugged, The Churchill Factor (a terrible book by Boris Johnson), and 12 Rules for Life (an even worse one by Jordan Peterson), and so on. That is also how I read Starship Troopers after the first couple of chapters (I didn’t enjoy it; I thought the author’s opinions about society, politics, and social responsibility were obvious and I disagreed with them). It’s hard to have an opinion on something without having read it.

But I don’t set aside my feelings - I don’t even really know how I’d do that. My emotions are part of my critical and cognitive faculties; like most people, I think about my feelings and feel my thoughts.