First, I disagree with some of your factual claims. When I go to my local library there are plenty of people there, and bookstores are still doing quite well.
But to answer your question: you read because it's fun. There's no great mystery to it. I enjoy reading books that expose me to interesting new ideas, or tell an engaging story. And books do both of those things in ways that other media just can't compete with. For example, a book can pull off the "character2 was actually character1 in disguise" twist without you ever seeing it coming, which is flat out impossible in a visual medium.
My question to you is: why on earth would you not bother reading? Given that lots of people still read, they must be getting something out of it. Haven't you wondered, even once, if you would also get something valuable from the experience of reading a book?
So, at the end of the day this stuff is all subjective. But I think you're making a mistake by thinking in terms of things like "How can you spend a bunch of time analyzing someone else's thoughts when you can just go outside or look at something dumb on the internet that's probably more entertaining right off the bat?". I actually don't think swiping through dumb shit on the internet is more entertaining, even at first. It's just lower effort. It's easy to find content that is "good enough", and lots of it. Whereas with a book you may take a few tries to find one that interests you, or you might have a book which takes a while to get good.
But make no mistake, I've read books that were incredible right off the bat. Lots of authors can set up an interesting story hook in the opening pages of the book which keeps you curious to know more. It's not like those don't exist. But they aren't every book, for sure.
All that said, all things aren't for all people. Like, some people will say that they love exercising and that it's addictive. Me, I have never found that to be the case and I think it's pure suffering (albeit necessary suffering). Or, some people (most people even) think babies are cute. I personally think babies are ugly as hell, and can't understand what people see in them. So maybe you're wired to not like books the way I'm wired to not like exercise or babies. It's OK. But if that's the case, I think you should at least recognize "it's not for me but others enjoy it", rather than asking questions that make it come off as though you think book readers are suffering when they spend time reading.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
First, I disagree with some of your factual claims. When I go to my local library there are plenty of people there, and bookstores are still doing quite well.
But to answer your question: you read because it's fun. There's no great mystery to it. I enjoy reading books that expose me to interesting new ideas, or tell an engaging story. And books do both of those things in ways that other media just can't compete with. For example, a book can pull off the "character2 was actually character1 in disguise" twist without you ever seeing it coming, which is flat out impossible in a visual medium.
My question to you is: why on earth would you not bother reading? Given that lots of people still read, they must be getting something out of it. Haven't you wondered, even once, if you would also get something valuable from the experience of reading a book?
So, at the end of the day this stuff is all subjective. But I think you're making a mistake by thinking in terms of things like "How can you spend a bunch of time analyzing someone else's thoughts when you can just go outside or look at something dumb on the internet that's probably more entertaining right off the bat?". I actually don't think swiping through dumb shit on the internet is more entertaining, even at first. It's just lower effort. It's easy to find content that is "good enough", and lots of it. Whereas with a book you may take a few tries to find one that interests you, or you might have a book which takes a while to get good.
But make no mistake, I've read books that were incredible right off the bat. Lots of authors can set up an interesting story hook in the opening pages of the book which keeps you curious to know more. It's not like those don't exist. But they aren't every book, for sure.
All that said, all things aren't for all people. Like, some people will say that they love exercising and that it's addictive. Me, I have never found that to be the case and I think it's pure suffering (albeit necessary suffering). Or, some people (most people even) think babies are cute. I personally think babies are ugly as hell, and can't understand what people see in them. So maybe you're wired to not like books the way I'm wired to not like exercise or babies. It's OK. But if that's the case, I think you should at least recognize "it's not for me but others enjoy it", rather than asking questions that make it come off as though you think book readers are suffering when they spend time reading.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link