Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 1343702" data-attributes="member: 812">Indeed you have. You claimed that there were two types of people -- people who read for enjoyment and people who read for intellectual stimulation. Given that I read for intellectual stimulation (among other things, but still) then any statement you make about those people in general must apply to me in specific.I'm not getting defensive. If I was getting defensive I'd be indulging in "Yeah!? Sez who?" kind of behaviour. What I'm doing is applying your generalizations to specific cases -- mainly in order to show that making generalizations like this is useless. If they don't apply in all cases then how do you determine in which cases they DO apply?What we are seeing in this very debate is that your generalizations fail the moment they  get applied to ANY individual -- you always have to start from scratch anyway so you've wasted your time developing and presenting these generalizations. They haven't helped you.I happen to think King's fiction IS inferior to Borges'. I happen to think I can show why.I am NOT implying that people who like King aren't discerning readers. YOU are making that implication, not me. A statement of taste is nothing more or less than that. If you want to take from that an attack on yourself, it is YOU who are doing it.I'm not saying (again) that snobs don't exist. But you are saying that ANY statement of the type that fiction A is inferior to fiction B carries with it an implication of insult to people who hold opposing viewpoints -- and that's not true.It is possible to discuss ideas without any reference to the people who hold those ideas. Indeed, that ability is at the very center of rational debate.Okay, let's examine that. You didn't say that you don't enjoy intellectual stimulation.That's not quite the same as saying that you ENJOY intellectual stimulation. But let's assume that it's true, that you enjoy intellectual stimulation. If my assumption is incorrect, then I'm wasting my time, but that's okay.So you enjoy intellectual stimulation. Which means, at the very least, that intellectual stimulation falls into the category of "things that can cause enjoyment". So when somebody reads for intellectual stimulation, they are reading so as to experience one of the things that can cause enjoyment. Similar to reading for humour, or action or romance, or whatever. I think this is identical to saying that they are reading for enjoyment.Ergo, people reading for intellectual stimulation ARE reading for enjoyment. Ergo, your distinction between the two categories is false. This isn't my opinion, it's a result of logical analysis. If there's a flaw in my reasoning, please point it out.That's because it's true. It's not HARD to respond to -- it's IMPOSSIBLE to refute.Generalizations inhibit communication. Is that untrue? Prove it. I don't believe you can, because I believe it's true.Then why try to divide them into these camps in the first place? It accomplishes nothing. You still have to deal with each individual on their own terms, so why waste time trying to pretend there's these easy categories you can stick them into? Yes, it does. Or at least, it means the line doesn't show us anything very useful -- so why should we waste time worrying about it? Logical distinctions ought to make understanding easier. Generalizations about people do not do this. They make it harder. They lead us to false conclusions. They make it easier for us to be lazy.Shades of grey are NOT difficult to argue. If you want to argue that something or other is a little bit of this and a little bit of that -- that's not any more difficult to argue that to say that it's all one or the other. Both need evidentary support if they're going to carry any "convincibility".Yeah, it sure is.If you have any interest in getting to like Hemingway (not saying you should, but IF) first off, read his short stories -- he's one of the best short story writers ever (I would not say he was one of the best novelists). Secondly (or firstly) read Death in the Afternoon a non-fiction book he wrote about bull-fighting. It really is a wordy old man telling you stories -- but what stories. It's really awesome -- after you finish reading it, I guarantee you will want bullfighters in your campaign.</blockquote>

Verification