«

[BeefontheBone]

I'm with seb on this - the underlying people haven't changed (though the media ARE dumbing down) it's just more obvious now that we have so many more entertainment media available to us. I don't read nearly as much as I used to when I was a kid, though I do still read.

Originally posted by Sebatianos+Jul 9 2005, 06:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sebatianos @ Jul 9 2005, 06:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Well there are quite a few points I have to agree with you Triton (all you've said about television and music), but I can't really agree with you on the reading issue.

The thing is - people never actually read stuff (at least not the majority).
Those who read for the pleasure of being taken on a literary jurney to a world rich and mind boggling still read (there are many people that still read).
But it is true that less and less people read (statistically). It's because of television - yes. But these are the people that are now watching sopa operas (and use to read soap operas in the past). I couldn't care less if these people do not read anymore (is it really bad if they stopped printing numerous Juan and Anita and the sad love X-angle of their passion while visitng the beaches of lust in the romantic and exotic Acapulco).
Oh and the yellow press has a lot to do with this also. Such people can simply read the same stories they read in book (about fictional characters) in yellos press (about celebreties).

Trust me - not more the 15% (and that's a really optimistic number already) of people are on the intelectual level high enough to really apreaciate a good book (or really understand anything that isn't shallow and with an unmistakable moral served to them on a plate).

The world has not deteriorated - it just stopped covering up for its stupidity.
[/b]

I would have to disagree. Over the past 100 years, the primary forms of entertainment shifted from reading to other, more modernized forms; literature and newspapers gave way to the radio, which turned into television, and then the Internet. However, before the radio, the printed word was the primary source of entertainment all the way back to 1450 when Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press. It's not that people never actually did any reading, it's the fact that the advancement of technology brought newer and more simplified forms of knowledge dissemination.

Originally posted by Quintopere@
You are right, Triton, about the mass media that are occupying our free time and when we are not in front of the Television set, we must buy and consume... we must have all and now!

That's not what I'm really talking about. I mean to say that mediums such as television are reducing modern man's appreciation of the written word. As a result, the literary arts are becoming more and more obsolete in favor of art where you look and you're done.

Case in point: at my college, there are a number of art scholarships for the visual arts, and every year there is an art contest. In one frequently used corridor, the art department showcases a number of its finest works by its students. On the other hand, there are only two scholarships for English, and the Student Writers of Any Genre (SWAG) club does not have the popularity of the other clubs.

<!--QuoteBegin-Playbahnosh
Sadly, the reading era seems to be over soon. The quality book getting vanished, and more crappy books come to the market with un-literalistic texts, huge pictures and fonts. Just becouse the TV and Internet damaged people won't read that much. Hairy Putter is a modern cr@p. I read all of those books, and I liked the story of the first three. After the third book(the time when JKR got REALLY famous), the story became a hunk-a-junk. Why? Becouse the kids need this kinda stuff... Bleh... They have no sense for REAL literacy. Shame.[/quote]

It drives me nuts to see crap like "The Da Vinci Code" do so well when it really is just a load of crap. It was poorly written, the characters were flat and two-dimensional, and the history used in the book was not researched properly (though I understand it is a fiction book, it concerns religious history, and I for one think that if the author is going to make up his own history, he should have a disclaimer stating that the back-history is not related to actual historical events).

However, books like the Harry Potter series and "The Da Vinci Code" do well because they are just page-turners; they are books with more style than substance. No one wants to read a masterpiece like "The Brothers Karamazov" or "The Master and Margarita" because they have to think about the story and what the author is trying to convey through his writing.

Originally posted by Playbahnosh
I met with an American guy on a chat channel, ca. one year ago. I was writing about... um... I don't know, it doesn't matter, but the guy suddenly stopped me. He couldn't understand some words I used in my text. Unbeliavable. omg2.gif The wordpower of some people who's mother laungure is English, shrunk. Opinion?

The mass media is just one thing. That makes people lazy. They don't have to read no more, or understand anything, becouse they get an already digested form of information. Ex: "My heart skips a beat when I see you. You chained me with your beauty(...etc)" translates to "I luv ya beech!". I hope your undestand my little example. The language shrinks, words vanishes, sentences became ununderstandable. Shame.

I think I understand what you are trying to say. I'm sick and tired of hearing slang because it ravages a language. Colloquialisms are one thing, but completely corrupting a language because someone thinks it is cool is much different.

I can't stand it when someone whose first language is English and they don't care how bad their writing and speaking skills are. They say that grammar isn't important, but it's just an excuse for their laziness.

Originally posted by Playbahnosh+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Playbahnosh)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The books are good. It teaches you to have your own imagination. If your just watch TV, you get ready images, no need to imagine stuff. If you have no imagination, your life will suffer. You can't think, do arts and stuff... You loose your originality sad.gif[/b]

Hear hear.

<!--QuoteBegin-Playbahnosh
I read ALOT. Now, my favorite wirter is Philip K. Dick, he is the best. You cannot predict what will happen in his books, it is TOTALY awesome. I read "The man in the High Castle" now. You should try it , worth it ok.gif[/quote]

Try reading "The Pearl" by John Steinbeck or "The Old Man and the Sea" by Ernest Miller Hemingway. They are both good books, and should be good practice for someone learning English.

Originally posted by Beefonthebone
Blah blah blah

Whatever.

[Sameeralord]

Originally posted by Triton@Jul 10 2005, 12:41 AM
It drives me nuts to see crap like "The Da Vinci Code" do so well when it really is just a load of crap.* It was poorly written, the characters were flat and two-dimensional, and the history used in the book was not researched properly (though I understand it is a fiction book, it concerns religious history, and I for one think that if the author is going to make up his own history, he should have a disclaimer stating that the back-history is not related to actual historical events).

However, books like the Harry Potter series and "The Da Vinci Code" do well because they are just page-turners; they are books with more style than substance.

I have to agree with you here cause what all these books do is end chaptes telling things like he pushed me and then I fell to the water. The authors in these books makes the reader go to the next page by putting stuff like that. The reader is curious to know what happens next so he keeps on readings. These are good books to read once in a while for enjoyment. I think long as you keep a balance everything should be allright.

[Playbahnosh]

Triton.... <sob> THAT was beautiful <sob sob>
I agree with ya on the Da vinci Code thing. The story wouldn't be so naive and stupid if the would take the time and work on it. The base idea is rather interesting, but the movie itself just sucked, becouse it was made for the un-literated class <_< Good films perish on the altar of human stupidity and books too, wich is much worse

I've never read Steinback and Hamingway, but I shall try. Ya know it is too hard for me just like this. It is hard for the English readers, now imagine me, a non English reader trying to decode that
Second, it is hard to find an originl language copy of either of these books here.

Hemingway is not my style after all. I like sci-fi, like Asimov or Philip K. Dick. (but none of those new-age sh*t, ya know those fantasy covered books tons of them <_< )

[A. J. Raffles]

Originally posted by Triton
However, before the radio, the printed word was the primary source of entertainment all the way back to 1450 when Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press.

Sorry, but that's just plain wrong. The printed word couldn't possibly have been the primary source of entertainment at a time when the great majority of people was unable to read and books were still rather expensive. Reading didn't really become that widespread until about the nineteenth century when a large number of people were actually able to read. Before that, the "primary source of entertainment" as you call it would have been dancing and music - yes, there was music before the invention of the radio.

[omg]

very true aj. and in cities you also had the theatre, which back in its early days was a classless thing.
i am finding this topic quite funny really, just an excuse to show others how you are one of the reading class and to mock those who dont like to read as being lower than you all. also the dissing of people who use slang. the thing is on any other site than this i use a lot of slang. not like leet, but i will type a bit more like i talk on sites that are more people who speak english as a primary language. i dont think that makes me inferior to you who study this language. so you all hate people who use slang. well your going to have a lot of fun when you come over here then arnt you ....... people in england do not speak *properly.* for a long time after meeting my wife i would have to switch to using *queens* english so she would understand me. and still 5 years on i have to de slang certain tv shows for her so she understands.

as for this decline in reading thing. so that explains why the book market is still steadily increasing then doesnt it. yay statistics

ok triton. you are wondering why the writing sites you belong to are recieving less visitors than say art and music sites. now i cant be bothered to find the link for this study right now (but i will if you contest it) but it is a fact that most people dont retain information read from a computer screen as well as they do from a book. hence why the internet hasnt lead to the predicted demise in book publishing. personally i tried to read e books and found them headache inducing if i read for as long as i do when im storming through a printed book. so dont feel disheartened. maybe try to find a publisher that publishes short storys (or a magazine) and send them to them.

[Quintopotere]

Originally posted by Triton+Jul 10 2005, 12:41 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Triton @ Jul 10 2005, 12:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Quintopere
You are right, Triton, about the mass media that are occupying our free time and when we are not in front of the Television set, we must buy and consume... we must have all and now!

That's not what I'm really talking about. I mean to say that mediums such as television are reducing modern man's appreciation of the written word. As a result, the literary arts are becoming more and more obsolete in favor of art where you look and you're done.




It drives me nuts to see crap like "The Da Vinci Code" do so well when it really is just a load of crap. It was poorly written, the characters were flat and two-dimensional, and the history used in the book was not researched properly (though I understand it is a fiction book, it concerns religious history, and I for one think that if the author is going to make up his own history, he should have a disclaimer stating that the back-history is not related to actual historical events). [/b][/quote]
THEY are getting us used in having not time to read, attracting us with the colourful box... i know that years ago the Television was even useful... did you read the novel "Farenheit 451" by Ray Bradbury? That's what i mean!



... and, of course, "The Da Vinci Code" is a crap :not_ok:

[Sebatianos]

Originally posted by Triton@Jul 10 2005, 02:41 AM
I would have to disagree. Over the past 100 years, the primary forms of entertainment shifted from reading to other, more modernized forms; literature and newspapers gave way to the radio, which turned into television, and then the Internet. However, before the radio, the printed word was the primary source of entertainment all the way back to 1450 when Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press. It's not that people never actually did any reading, it's the fact that the advancement of technology brought newer and more simplified forms of knowledge dissemination.

It's true that the printed word was an importaint source of knowledge and entertainment ever since the printing press has been invented.
But there were morality plays back in those days also.
The majority of people was still illiterate, so they could understand the morality play (like The Sheaperd's Play), but they could not read.
This situation started changing with more and more people being literate, but as the crowd of readers grew larger, the quality of the texts started lowering.
Fortunately most low quality texts have fallen into oblivion by now.
The modern media simply replaced the low quality texts.
On the other hand if you look at what books become best sellers (apart from the 'pushed books' such a Harry Potter), you'll see it's mostly cook boks, books on imporving your self image, sexual manuals,... Not literature!

There is still a certain procentage of readers (and these represent the core). There probably was a slightly higher procentage of these readers in some periods in the past, but not much higher. As I stated before: No more then 15% (tops) are actually intelectuals (among other things - these are the people who read for the pure enjoyment of reading).
Just one more thing:
An intelectual isn't simply someone who has a job where he would have to work more with a brain then with muscles. An intelectual is someone who cherishes knowledge.
So a lawyer who never read a book (even if he has tones of them on his book shelves), never visited an art galery, never seen an opera... (at least not because he'd feel the urge to do it) can not be seen as an intelectual.
On the other hand a cab driver who reads the classics in his free time (even if all from the library and doesn't own a book of his own) and saves up money so he can go and see that concert of the local philrharmonic orchestra (simply because he enjoys the music) would be an intelectual.

[Iron_Scarecrow]

Well I just read this thread, it was quite a read too.

[Quintopotere]

Originally posted by Iron_Scarecrow@Jul 10 2005, 11:43 AM
Well I just read this thread, it was quite a read too.

Uh... well... maybe you're "optimistic"... :whistle: :bleh: