Thread: Is Reading Antisocial? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024663

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
We have just been away on holiday with friends, a couple about our age.

My wife and I find reading quite a companionable activity, but our friends appeared perturbed if we picked up reading material when we were with them.

We are not sure whether they felt guilty because they imagined that they must have been bad company, or whether they were passively remonstrating against what they imagined to be our appalling manners.

Neither of us when young was permitted to read at the meal table, and we didn’t allow our own children to do so.

However, we both do so now, and I found myself in sympathy with an American president’s child (was it Chelsea Clinton?) who was reported some years ago as having been in the habit of reading at the White House table.

A related problem is that non-readers seem to think that a person reading isn’t “really” doing anything, and is reading only because they don’t have anything else to do, and that therefore it is perfectly legitimate to interrupt them and ask them to do something else, in a way which would be unthinkable if the person were occupied in just about any other activity.

On the other hand, I can see that reading when another person is not, could be construed as excluding, particularly if the other person is not very literate, and perhaps kids need to be taught that they sometimes need to put themselves out to be considerate, even if it means putting up with boring people rather than engaging with an interesting book.

I suppose that I'm just a bit pissed off and sorry for myself that readers always seem to be the ones expected to make the sacrifices.

[ 24. February 2013, 10:41: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
It is a clash of cultures thing, and some people on discovering communal reading are overjoyed! The negative response is partly due to being taken out of their comfort zone, i.e. what they are familiar with.

When I finished university my parents took me and a friend on holiday to a flat we often went to. This flat had a gorgeous bay window that looked out over Windermere. The big struggle with my family was to get us to do anything else there but sit in the window, read books and watch the weather move across Windermere.

The first morning when my parents and I picked up our books my friend was astounded. She although an English major had never ever at home experienced people reading together. She had assumed it was always something you did in private. That did not stop her finding a book and reading to.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I was thinking about this quite recently when I passed a table at lunchtime, which was occupied. A young couple were sitting together - both immersed in reading their phones; a friend of theirs was sitting with them reading a book, and a fourth person had just come to join them, bringing a newspaper. And I thought: what's the point of your all sitting together if you don't want to communicate with each other?
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
I think it depends on whether there is a truly communal activity going on, or whether you are pursuing individual instances, even of the same behaviour.

So in our house, we can both get our lunch of choice, sit at the same table, and read. But if it's dinner, which I've prepared as a communal meal, then reading anything other than the wine label is Not Allowed.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
But the absence of conversation is not the absence of companionability. I can remember once at University coming too from a revere. The corridor had groups of students gathered together in friendship groups.

This was pre mobile phone, I recall no books or newspapers.

Yet the corridor was silent.

Yes it was that sod awful time in Candlemas term when everyone is tired and exhausted, it was final year too and if we weren't recovering from a cold we were going down with one. Stressed tired and under the weather nobody was up to making the effort of conversation, but we still desired the companionship of our friends. We could have all spaced out to give maximum space between people we did not.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by busyknitter (# 2501) on :
 
In our house reading at table is allowed if you are the only person there. If two people sit down together to eat at the same time, then that becomes a communal meal, regardless of who is eating what.

Similarly, smartphones are outlawed from the communal table, something Mr BK finds very easy to comply with as he doesn't actually own a phone of any kind. That one's more difficult for me, especially when a quick Google search would prove me right about whatever we are discussing.

But we do read together at other times and don't think it anti-social at all

[ 24. February 2013, 12:24: Message edited by: busyknitter ]
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
What about when you get a bunch of people who know each other and who are all sitting silently together, catching up on Facebook/texts/emails on their phones? To me that says: "I'd rather talk to someone else than the people I'm with."
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
What an interesting question.

When I was a child we often sat together as a family and read books, usually in the evening - never at the tea table 'tho!

At meal times now we don't have TV, radio, books or anything else on the go. But any other time we'll often be found reading our own books/devices. Whyever not? I would hate to have to keep up constant conversation just because someone else is in the room!
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I can remember being told off as a child for reading at the breakfast table and feeling quite disgruntled because my father always read his paper, unchallenged, at the breakfast table. I don't think it would ever have occurred to us to read at other 'proper' meals.

With my own children the rule became if all four of us were sat down eating together (with or without other guests) then it was a family meal and no books were allowed, but if only part of the family were eating then the individuals could read. Books were also useful when going out for a meal at a restaurant which took ages to serve - the boys could read while they were waiting for their meals, and between courses, but had to stop reading while they were actually eating. It was really good that they wanted to read, so I didn't want to discourage it too much.

Now the boys are grown up, we tend to read over snack meals (breakfast/lunch) but sit and talk over longer, fully cooked, evening meals.
 

---

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
We don't read over meals at all. If we are on our own, we might sit and watch TV with meals on a tray.

As to whether it is an antisocial activity, it is very much dependent on context. Sometimes I will read when with other people - family and in-laws - and even on the occasions we have been away with friends. It is not considered antisocial, because everyone has a book to read, and often some of the gathered company are talking.

At the same time, I can see how it could be seen negatively. But, given the context (a holiday), I think sitting and reading should be an acceptable relaxing holiday activity. So I am on your side, KC, while accepting that others would find it odd, and some people could find it offensive. But then, maybe they should be more accepting and read something themselves?
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:
What about when you get a bunch of people who know each other and who are all sitting silently together, catching up on Facebook/texts/emails on their phones? To me that says: "I'd rather talk to someone else than the people I'm with."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
How does that relate to reading a book or newspaper?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Elgood:
The most secure place to do it is in the bath. You need to make yourself a simple lectern to keep the book dry.

---

I love reading in the bath, but have learned through bitter experience to only ever read books that are my personal property.

And of course the capacity to survive a light dunking is the killer advantage that paper books have over e-readers.
 

---

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
I love reading and agree that it can be a very companionable thing to do, but there's a time and a place and it can come over as very anti-social. I'd never read at a meal table even on my own - fear of splashing the book with gravy - as to me mealtimes are social occasions. Having said that, we will often eat a meal while watching TV but what we watch has to be agreed on by everyone present so that we all enjoy it.

My father used to read the newspaper at mealtimes and we hated it; to me it signals that the person would rather read than make conversation with other people present. Although my dad wasn't much of a conversationalist, so maybe that's what he was signalling. I even find it difficult sometimes when Mr Nen reads the paper (he is not much of a one for books) because to me it signals he doesn't want to talk to me. He insists that he can listen to me and flick through the paper as well but I've tested that out by stopping in mid sentence and he doesn't notice, so I know it's not true.

I'd have talked it over with the couple in question - "Do you mind if I read for a bit? I've got a really good book on the go, but if you want to chat or do something else do say so."

Nen - who counts herself lucky to have never met a boring person.
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I am single, when I take myself out to dinner at a pub or restaurant / pub I always take a book.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I do not see the difference between that and what my father did which was to have the news on the radio and the rest of us had to quiet.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
Same here, I always carry a book to the pub (and a clip-on reading lamp to make sure I get good lighting).

I find it slightly worrying that some people tend to see reading a book as less desirable than having a conversation. Not wanting to talk to someone does not equate not liking them. It just means that one prefers to be with one's thoughts (and/or book)

As an extreme introvert, the general insistence on conversation as sole acceptable behaviour when in the presence of others is very difficult for me to live.
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Desert Daughter:

quote:

---

I read, thereby choosing my engagement with something other than that which crops up haphazardly from my external environment.

---

quote:

---

No, reading -and especially reading in the presence of others!- is a great act of intellectual and physical sovereignity. Which is precisely why it irritates some people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The perfect way to say "screw you and your presence" with an intellectual flair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
It does not mean I don't like the person or their presence. It just means I don't want to talk and prefer reading. Again: Why is it that most people consider conversation superior to reading and/or silence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
How does that relate to reading a book or newspaper?

---

They're still reading. With the extra of writing. Are you OK with people doing Facebook or Twitter at a meal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I do not see the difference between that and what my father did which was to have the news on the radio and the rest of us had to quiet.

---

I agree, I don't think there is a difference.

I don't think it is so much that everyone regards conversation as superior to reading, it's just that to read in people's company is to say, "I'd rather read my book than talk to you." Which is quite rude, I think, unless everyone understands the ground rules and agrees that it's ok. Or unless the people around you are also doing different things. You may never get back the opportunity to share a particular conversation with a particular person; you can always return to a book.

Nen - seize the day.
 

---

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Elgood:
I boarded this ship two days ago and am just exploring. Reading is at least something I feel able to comment on. The most secure place to do it is in the bath. You need to make yourself a simple lectern to keep the book dry. But if the bathrooms on this ship are the same size as most cruise liners there won't be room for both body and book.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
It does not mean I don't like the person or their presence. It just means I don't want to talk and prefer reading. Again: Why is it that most people consider conversation superior to reading and/or silence?

---

Reading and silence are fine. I do a lot of that myself. But there's a time and a place. If you do it in social situations, it comes across as rude. Do it at mealtimes with other people and you are saying, in effect, "You aren't interesting enough to talk to." It comes across as losing interest in them, switching off and shutting them out. In a social situation. You might as well go to a party, stick your earphones in and sit in a corner reading a book and ignoring everybody for the rest of the evening. I don't think I can explain it any more clearly than that.

It's not the same as a relaxed evening (after dinner) where one person is watching TV while the other is absorbed in their book.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jedijudy:
Apparently we aren't the first generation to read while in the company of others. The first time I read Pride and Prejudice, I remember thinking how remarkable it was that people were together in the drawing room, (or whatever room it was), and some were reading, some were writing, and some were walking around the room. That seemed to me to be strange, yet I could see how individuals might feel comfortable occupying themselves in different ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gussie:
I'm another reader in the bath, much to the horror of at lest one librarian colleague. Now I've got a kindle I have to have a specific 'bath book'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gextvedde:
Am I the only person who (perhaps inconsistently) doesn't find reading anti-social but would mind of someone was on their phone texting or looking at facebook?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gextvedde:

Am I the only person who (perhaps inconsistently) doesn't find reading anti-social but would mind of someone was on their phone texting or looking at facebook?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But even so - it depends on context. If the situation would normally be one in which people expect to chat, then I think books/phones/notebooks should all be left in handbags/manbags/pockets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rogue:
A lot of the discussion has been about reading at the meal table and as I grew up the given reason for not doing this was because of not wanting to spill food on a precious book. Newspapers weren't such an issue because they were only going to be chucked out anyway. Nowadays I will read (or play) if I am on my own but not when anyone else is there. Usually.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
If one is with a group of people, there is a universal assumption that the group will act according to a group decision while they are together. We are as a species social creatures - solitude is taken on one's own. Reading is an unmistakable sign of "opting out" of that group decision, unless reading is itself the group decision. There is no way out of that - any more than there is for users of mobile phones, tablets etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
I'm with Karl on this one. I wished society was a bit more tolerant of us introverts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
I'm with Karl on this one. I wished society was a bit more tolerant of us introverts.

---

I'm an introvert myself, but I don't see that introversion gives one licence to ignore the impact of behaviour on those around one. I can see no objection to drifting in and out of conversation, but the big "back off" sign a book puts up is a powerful communication in and of itself, and not a means of avoiding communication. The normalisation of people using smartphones at "social" gatherings strikes me as worrying because social skills are not innate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
I'm with Karl on this one. I wished society was a bit more tolerant of us introverts.

---

I'm an introvert myself, but I don't see that introversion gives one licence to ignore the impact of behaviour on those around one. I can see no objection to drifting in and out of conversation, but the big "back off" sign a book puts up is a powerful communication in and of itself, and not a means of avoiding communication. The normalisation of people using smartphones at "social" gatherings strikes me as worrying because social skills are not innate.

---

My reading a book while people talk about United's prospects next Saturday (about which I know nothing and care less) does not impact them. At least not half as much as being expected to keep up with such conversations would impact me, anyway.

I mean, I could try to join in by making conversation, but I'd sound like an idiot, because it'd be on the level of "who does the bloke in black play for? He never seems to get the ball." And if I do find a kindred soul and we start banging on about Brythonic languages or punctuated equilibrium or quasar red shifts, then I really, really won't be offended if you turn to the back page of the paper in the meantime.

Similarly, when you've finished looking around a formal garden, wouldn't you rather have a good humoured me with a pint inside me, than a miserable me who's resenting being dragged around the sodding hydrangeas?
 

---

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
Yes of course there are social conventions . But I think there is something else about the unease many people have with seeing someone deep in a book. That person is engaging with something private. The reading person is not transparent, not available, pursuing his or her own agenda, in silence, and in exclusion of the outside world. Given the high degree to which most modern people's herd instinct is developed, silence in another person scares them.
 

---

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I should add - if someone's absenting themselves from my conversation, I tend to take it as a hint that I'm being boring, not them.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But what's so terrible about opting out if, for example, you're just not interested in the conversation or whatever it is that the group wants to do? If I'm happy to be left to read whilst everyone else chats about - I don't know, football or cars or personal relationships or something that I don't really want to talk about - or whatever, what's wrong with that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Yes, it is very context-dependent.

It's just that... well, some of us find socialising and conversation very hard work, and much prefer to disappear into either their own thoughts or a good book. Most people have no idea how much it costs us to uphold social conventions and appear "polite". Believe me, it is very, very hard work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
I suspect that many people are extremely uneasy with the sight of a mind engaged in a silent, and private, activity.

---

Is the mind not engaged in a silent, private activity when daydreaming or sitting quietly, not joining in?
 

---

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
It is indeed. Have you ever witnessed the reaction of most people when they see someone contemplating, meditating, or simply daydreaming? They chat them up, asking "are you okay?", and think they do them a favour by pulling them out of the blissful solitude of their thoughts/daydreams.

It's the silence most people have a problem with. The fact that in case of reading the silence is accompanied by a book (intellectual activity in silence ... the ultimate subversive act!!!) only exacerbates the problem.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
It is indeed. Have you ever witnessed the reaction of most people when they see someone contemplating, meditating, or simply daydreaming? They chat them up, asking "are you okay?"

---

That's a kindly reaction

I used to get 'snap out of it' more often than not. But of course my zoning out happens when I *should* be focussing.

Of course the question as to when we should be focussing and what we should be focussing on is also an interesting one. In schools these days very little chance for thinking is given, all is interactive learning. You'd think a noisy one like me would love that but no, I hate being told what to focus on. My brain is visual and creative and keen to go its own way!
 

---

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
I won't go into theological perspectives on evolution, and especially Teilhard de Chardin, here, but if the "reason" we are all different is that we are all meant to contribute something specific to human advancement, then it is very dangerous to take creative, "bubbly" people and try to shepherd their energies into pre-ordained channels. That kills the very creativity they are capable of.

Ditto for pulling the "hermits" out of their caves / libraries.

Modern society is a great leveller for both types, preventing them from being who they are, clipping their wings.

As to interactive learning and all that pedagogical wizardry, I'm a professor and believe me I have very dim views on these and the capacity of most students to think, and learn, under their own steam.

[ 26. February 2013, 07:52: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
 

---

Posted by hanginginthere (# 17541) on :
 
Thanks, Desert Daughter.
I did in fact eventually sort the matter out with my d-i-l, explaining that I was able to relax with a book because I felt at home, so she should take it as a compliment! She accepted this, but I still feel uneasy now about picking up a book while at her house. I should mention that she herself is a great reader, which is another reason why I was so surprised by the attack. She is however also an extrovert, unlike me.
 

---

Posted by Sighthound (# 15185) on :
 
I remember being told, as a child, that reading in company was bad manners. But that surely presupposes that one has something to add to the general conversation, and that what one says will be accepted gracefully?

Frankly I can think of few things worse that forcing myself to contribute to a conversation that has no interest for me. And in such circumstances, the chance of saying something deemed inappropriate is high. Well, it is for me anyway. The book seems safer.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
I have always thought that the monastic practice of being read to during an otherwise silent breakfast is a good one for those of us who are antisocial until mid morning.
 

---

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 
The cafe that I frequent on weekends is fairly small, with limited seating. This often means that I wind up sharing my table with someone else.

Often, on Saturday or Sunday afternoons, it's another regular who tends to be very garrulous and completely insensitive to the body language of another customer sitting in his comfortable chair and reading his book. He's a nice and friendly guy, but sometimes I am just in no mood to chat; I'm decompressing or just enjoying a sunny afternoon with a coffee. I can't count the number of times I have wound up listening to a tiresome monologue about politics instead of enjoying my novel.

What I want to know is, if I have to be prevented from reading, why can't it be by one of those cute hipster girls that are always hanging around the place?
 

---

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I have always thought that the monastic practice of being read to during an otherwise silent breakfast is a good one for those of us who are antisocial until mid morning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I have always thought that the monastic practice of being read to during an otherwise silent breakfast is a good one for those of us who are antisocial until mid morning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...
I tend not to read at table or in the bath because I'm obsessive about keeping books in good condition. (Most of my paperbacks look unread, because I don't break the spines.) ...

---

Adeodatus, you and me both!

And no, reading can never be antisocial, but can sometimes, depending on circumstances, be unsociable.
Angus
 

---

Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
I find being read to in the way Leo describes OK. It's a different experience and a corporate one too, rather like being read a long reading in church, but not as formal - as the marmalade has to be passed etc.

As I read through this interesting discussion I was reminded, for some reason, of Noel Coward's Nina who said that

quote:

---

syncopation had a discouraging effect on procreation
And she'd rather read a book and that was that

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kitten:
I would hate that,although I love reading and do so at every opportunity, I detest being read to, I think that's why I learned to read so young

---

As a small child I loved being read to and it made me really keen to learn to read for myself. These days, I don't like being read to. Though I have sometimes found myself gripped by Radio 4's "Book at Bedtime" and I do have a collection of audiobooks (which I hardly ever listen to: irritatingly, many of them seem to be abridged).
 

---

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :
 
Florence Nightingale had strong opinions on being read to:
"It is like lying on one’s back, with one’s hands tied and having liquid poured down one’s throat."

I'm generally happy to read in front of family, even when visiting, but with friends it will depend on the context and whether I thought they would expect conversation.
I would love it if my boys read at the table, they don't read enough, IMO. I often read at the table as a child ( especially if I hadn't eaten all my dinner and my mum said I had to stay at the table til bedtime )
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percy B:
As I read through this interesting discussion I was reminded, for some reason, of Noel Coward's Nina who said that

quote:

---

syncopation had a discouraging effect on procreation
And she'd rather read a book and that was that

---

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0