I don't think we disagree about much here, Nick. But you have changed the subject. (Changing the subject is fine, of course, but your post seems to imply that it's disagreeing with my answer to your question.) You asked
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick McRae
why read much if you find it unexciting?
|
I may have misunderstood the tenor of the question. I doubt my answer said anything you didn't already know.
I agree that telling non-readers that reading is good for them is a poor way of helping them. Showing that it can be entertaining may be better.
"Entertainment" doesn't well express very much of what we get from reading. Not that reading for entertainment is a bad thing; it's more enriching than most other forms of entertainment and can be a gateway drug to more reading.
As an undergrad, I was taken to task by a professor for using "entertaining" to describe
King Lear (or something in it). I don't remember what I meant; probably I was too lazy when I wrote the paper to figure out what I meant. Writing, reading, and thinking are overlapping activities. (Now
I've, in a way, changed the subject.)