I'm actually reading a lot more than what I ever did for quite a long time. I remember being 11 years old and I use to read as many hardy boy books I could get my hands on. I haven't really kept up with much reading until recently. I work at a job that requires sitting in a truck for the majority of my work day on occassion, so I try to take as much reading material as humanly possible to try to occupy my time.

I just finished reading Battle Royale the actual novel, not the manga, and I usually read a few books concerning the type of work I'm doing to help improve myself with all the environmental work that I do.

So pang, what are graphic novels?

A graphic novel is a comic book with a BA in English. And they're fine, this isn't a LOL COMICS R FOR KIDZ tirade. For a long time Batman was taking up more of my drive space than my music directory. Comics are fine and good, and many of them contain great stories, but they're not books. The difference between a comic and an actual novel is vast in terms of the way they disseminate information. A "graphic novel" contains about as many actual words as half a chapter of a legitimate novel, and that's generously counting OOF!, POW!, BLAMMO!, and ZAP!

(well, ok, they might be "books" in some loose meaningless sense that they have covers, pages and bindings, but nobody's going to get credit for reading map books or stampbooks, are they?)

I don't even remember the last book I have read. I have graphic novels. But I rarely even buy those. Not one book has not caught my attention, I know I'm not gonna find one for awhile to many crappy books.

I read quite a lot, about 2-3 books a week. When I was in Japan I had to spend a lot of time on buses and trains, and aside from my ipod, what could keep me better entertained then books? I think I must have read close to 150 books in the past year, most of them Japanese pockets, since they're cheap and help me with my studies, but I've read some heavier books from time to time.

I don't read for pleasure very often as I simply don't have the time. Maybe 1 or 2 books a year at most, if that. I do read quite a bit though but in the form of text books, technical/science journals and tons of material on business theory.

Well, I guess that means that sandman doesn't count; still doesn't knock me out of my vote bracket.

I read all the time but I hardly ever finish books, probably 10 a year. As far as subject matter covered, I've read far more, but I hardly ever finish books anymore. I get what I want out of them and then move on. My adhd gets priority here!

Anyhoo, though I tend to favour books, I actually read my first manga recently. Akira. It was mind blowing.

I don't read and I'm not ashamed of it at all. In fact it annoys me when people act like if you don't read you aren't intelligent. It really does nothing but marginally expand a person's vocabulary. I find reading boring... period. I have a low attention span and I can't focus on books. Have I read books before that I liked? Yes, but it still was a chore to get through them.

I read things like news articles, sports columns, etc. But there are plenty of other things I'd rather do than read. Like play sports, workout, go to movies, play a video game, whatever.

It's not exactly intelligent to not read and not feel a little bad about it, no. You're an unread cretin, basically, instead of being unread.

YouTube Video

Bradylama...that video is fucking dope. However, something tells me that Beethoven is doing acrobatics in his grave right about now.

It is perfectly intelligent. Your words may sound cool to you as you type them out, but you really can't explain your logic. It sounds to me like you just say things and latch on to them simply because other people say it. That is something I would classify as unintelligent.

No, not reading books because "they're all boring and I struggle" is unintelligent.


Well, unless you're dyslexic. And even then, I know dyslexic people who read MORE THAN YOU.

You're either unintelligent or arrogant to the point of.

Moronic and ignorant response dude. It has nothing to do with my intellect. I simply don't enjoy reading books. I find the hobby boring. There are other things I would much prefer to do with my time and it has nothing to do with intelligence or arrogance. It is no different than someone who doesn't enjoy skateboarding or someone who doesn't enjoy tennis. People just aren't into certain hobbies.

If you had half a brain you would've realized that before you spouted out that pointless drivel. Especially since you don't know a thing about me.

Books present new ideas, perspectives, and lessons about the world, human life, social interactions, and human values that aren't as easily expressed in other mediums. Willfully avoiding these ideas means that you're not interested in anything outside of your myopic lifestyle, and are therefore an ignorant cretin.

GET FUCKIN EDUCATED NIGGA

and you can learn about those things through other mediums like the internet, movies, tv, documentaries, etc. Anything educational that is in a book, you can pretty much find online, and you can learn plenty of things from educational TV shows, movies, documentaries, among real life social interactions and conversations.

and as technology continues to grow, the easier this information will be obtained.

Back in the day when these other mediums didn't exist to this capacity, I can understand where the whole "read books and be educated" stuff came from, but that certainly isn't the case anymore. You can get educated in plenty of different ways today, through plenty of different mediums.

Is reading bad? Absolutely not. I encourage everyone who enjoys reading to read. But is someone who read a lot of books automatically smarter and more educated than someone who doesn't? Nope.

Ok dude, have you ever read Agymah Kamau's Pictures of a Dying Man? Of course you haven't, you don't read books, but if you had read it, it would become apparent just how unworkable the story is when transferred to another medium.

Have you ever read Starship Troopers? Of course you haven't, you don't read books. If you had read it, though, you'd notice just how off-base from the book the film is, despite doing well on its own merits. I suppose you should read Stranger in a Strange Land, which is another one of Heinlein's masterpieces, but I don't think it's been made into a movie yet so I don't think you'll bother.

Ever read Thomas Sowell? Of course you haven't, you don't read books. Sowell's tendency to bash dem lieberuls doesn't exactly sit well with a lot of people, myself included, but Affirmative Action Around the World is a comprehensive study of affirmative action and how its effects have been counter-productive for race relations in all countries that it is implemented in.

The understanding of the subject won't be as complete if you merely read about it on a website, or wait for a documentary that will never come (do you think Michael Moore is a documentarian?).

The internet cannot transcribe all evidence to support a claim. The internet does not care about academic standards or review. Film can't convey the intricacies and layers of information that a book can. You sure as Hell won't read about a lot of things in books in the sports page.

Stop being a cretin. Read a book, nigga. A fuckin book nigga.

You learn things from books. That is evident. I never said you don't. My point was reading books doesn't make you smarter on a whole than someone who doesn't. You don't NEED books to be educated and learn things was my point. Certain books may enlighten you on certain subjects where you can't quite get to that level on other things, and some books aren't like that. Either way though, you can look up the information in books online and read passages and get information from books.

Btw, I do have interest in certain books that provide studies of certain things, and I didn't say that I NEVER read. I do read an occasional book here or there if it really interests me, but it is usually things like studies and not fictional novels or mystery books.

For the most part though, reading books is on the very end of my lists of favorite hobbies.

Okay dude, it is impossible to argue with you. You obviously can't comprehend the virtues of reading a book if you don't read.

You are avoiding books. That is unintelligent, period. Do not tell me that you are not broken, you Eagles-loving Dragon Force-rocking retard.

Bradylama has already explained why this should be considered a rhetorical question, but he veered off into the fringes of an awkward pretendetarian polemic like he usually does (and he used "Heinlein" and "masterpiece" in the same sentence :( ). So, for the sake of your short attention span:

Yes, you idiot. Yes.

Books are an extremely efficient method of conveying information, THEREFORE:

People who get information from books get that information highly efficiently, THEREFORE:

Those people can more easily absorb a like quantity of information as compared to those gleaning said information from other sources, THEREFORE:

You're just dumb as hell. The only information you'll get from TV is the information the station's billionaire owners want you to get. Enjoy that. Also: enjoy your delusion that writing as a method of communication survived for millenniums because it's LESS useful than conversation.

Fuckin' moon unit

or we can just agree to disagree on this particular subject.

No, no, agreeing to disagree is like when both people have a valid point but no one wants to budge.

THIS is something else, because it's basically us saying "dude, educate yourself, wtf" and your response taking the form of "BUT I NEEDS RITALINZ!"

I am plenty educated. I graduated college with good grades, and learn new things all the time. You know nothing about me, yet you assume these things about me because I'm not reading books all the time. For someone who claims you get smart by reading, that is a pretty stupid thing to do.

It is also stupid to say that you don't get much out of TV, because I have learned plenty of things off programs like documentaries. Different kinds of first-hand exclusive interviews that you won't get anywhere else. For example HBO's White Light/Black Rain had exclusive footage and interviews that you aren't going to get anywhere else about the bombing of Hiroshima.

It is also stupid to assume that reading informational facts and studies in books is the only form of "learning" and "education." I'm sorry, but I play sports every day and I don't care how much reading you do, you aren't going to get information from a book that you get first hand from playing sports.

There are all kinds of ways to learn and educate yourself on certain aspects of life. Say person A is highly educated on literature, math, and law, and person B is highly educated on sports, weight-lifting, and movie directing. Person A isn't smarter than person B. They are educated on two completely different subjects. You are assuming education only comes in specific forms and subject matters.

Ok. Going to college does not make you smart. Have you ever heard of Ward Churchill?

Of course, you could probably read a book about Hiroshima and it would convey much more information than the documentary. We aren't telling you to stop watching informative programming, we are telling you to start reading books.

The internet doesn't have this word, it's probably in a book somewhere. Can you explain the mystery? (I see it referenced to pretend vegetarians)

That's true, but it's also completely irrelevant to the argument. There is no substitute for direct experience, and that's true when it comes to anything. However, for most people direct experience is out of the question on a great many issues. Like, um... oh! Yes, you mention this HBO DOCUMENTARY about the Hiroshima bombing. Now, obviously I have no idea what it's like to live through an atomic bombing of my city, nor do I have any desire to find out firsthand. But I can satiate my curiosity via research. Now, I can watch a CABLE DOCUMENTARY with whatever "exclusive interviews" they can get out of the handful of decrepit oldsters left alive from that period, OR I can read this: Children of the A-Bomb: Testament of the Boys and Girls of Hiroshima, a collection of the eyewitness accounts of child residents of Hiroshima a mere six years after the bombing. Which version of this information do you think is more robust?

(seriously guys, awesome (horrifying) book, get it if you can find it)