Like 300? Please read this.

[RatPunk]

That's quite the leap in logic. I said it's fairly telling that few people seem to have read Gates of Fire, the only novel of historic fiction based on the battle of Thermopylae in the last nine years, compared with the hordes that have turned out to see 300. Sure, the mass-marketing 300 recieved is a big factor, but I still think it's a telling, though admittedly anecdotal, example.

Or, it's just possible that even people who read alot have never heard of Gates of Fire and therefore haven't read it yet. In my own case, despite the fact that it's nine years old, I first heard of it last year from a different messageboard. That doesn't really make me illiterate.

Okay, so I know reading novels isn't really in vogue anymore...

Well, my statement is from purely anecdotal evidence, but given the amount of people on these boards who have seen 300 versus those who have read Gates of Fire, a highly regarded historic novel, I'll stand behind it.

I said it's fairly telling that few people seem to have read Gates of Fire, the only novel of historic fiction based on the battle of Thermopylae in the last nine years, compared with the hordes that have turned out to see 300.

Frankly I don't see Whizbang's "leap of logic" nearly as outlandish as your assumption that people don't read just because they haven't read one particular novel. The number of people who turn out to watch a movie, no matter the subject, is in no way indicative of the number of people who read books, and frankly I find your assumption just a tad insulting.

For what its worth, though, I also highly recommend the book. It is an excellent read.

 

[replicant2]

Frankly I don't see Whizbang's "leap of logic" nearly as outlandish as your assumption that people don't read just because they haven't read one particular novel. The number of people who turn out to watch a movie, no matter the subject, is in no way indicative of the number of people who read books, and frankly I find your assumption just a tad insulting.

For what its worth, though, I also highly recommend the book. It is an excellent read.

As I have stated several times in this thread, that observation was purely anecdotal, i.e., based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis. I'll leave it at that, and bow out of a thread which I started to publicize a book I enjoyed--and which has taken a decidedly different turn thanks to a throwaway line in my first post I would have been better served leaving out.