Today's question on Booking Through Thursday:
What, in your opinion, is the definition of a “reader.” A person who indiscriminately reads everything in sight? A person who reads BOOKS? A person who reads, period, no matter what it is? Or, more specific? Like the specific person who’s reading something you wrote?
Let me start with the assumption that I am a typical reader. What do I, or for that matter, any reader, read? Books, obviously. Textbooks (usually only on the day before exams.) ;-) Newspaper in the morning. Feed reader twice or thrice a day. News aggregator on the internet. And pretty much anything that I can read.
Now, how am I different from other people whom I'd call non-readers? I have friends who read everything on that list except for books and I don't call them readers. They read all those other things to know what's going on... they read for the knowledge that they get out of those sources. But I doubt if any of them reads the newspaper out of love for reading.
I think that's what separates readers from non-readers. That readers read not just for knowledge, they also read for pleasure. They don't look at reading as a chore that has to be done, but as something that they enjoy doing.
15 comments:
I think my answer would still cover the definition that readers are people who read for the love of reading, just depends on what they love to read. :D I know some people who actually love to read the newspapers, textbooks or encyclopedias (me included hehe). Happy BTT! :D Thanks for dropping by mine ^_^
Anyone who thinks of reading as a chore is not a "reader" in my way of thinking.
I think you have to read for the joy of it to count as a "reader", and I'm a book junkie.
You're right: it's pleasure obtained that defines a reader.
I agree that it's reading for pleasure that defines a reader, but I don't think only someone who reads books is a reader. I used to lament that my boys weren't readers because they rarely read books, until I realized my oldest reads much more than I do on the Internet. He is constantly sharing interesting tidbits he finds. That kind of reading gives him pleasure: he's not so much into stories.
Reading for pleasure - I think that's a great point when it comes to defining a readeer!
I think I disagree at least a little.
I think the people who read newspapers, on-line information sites, etc. do get pleasure from it.
There is pleasure to be found in reading a technical manual for example. Reading the manual is a part of fixing your bicycle for example. Figuring out the directions is part of the fun for some people.
I used to read four newspapers a day when I lived in San Francisco and could get them. I read them for news and for pleasure.
I totally agree with your last statement!
I think your distinction of the reader vs. non-reader is interesting - the reading for pleasure as opposed to for the sake of gaining knowledge. I'm not sure I agree completely with your post though that reading books is essential. Sometimes it's a time factor and the reader will read whatever he can anyway even if he cannot get through so many books a year.
I'm with you. I'd like to think a "reader" who enjoys reading for pleasure.
Hi, everyone. Thanks for dropping by. :)
I'm not saying that people who read newspapers, magazines or articles on internet can't be called readers just because they don't read books.The main point is that if someone enjoys reading they can be called a reader, irrespective of what they like to read.
I think the enjoyment is the key too...
Readers are people who read even when they have something else to do. But then it would mean I'm not a reader.
I think you said it perfectly. Even better than me. ;-)
Post a Comment