For me it is not so much reading not to think but what one thinks about. I do not find
thinking about form terribly exciting, but if I didn't want to think about ideas, I
certainly wouldn't read sf (hence after a hard day I am reading a romance).
Farah Mendleson
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 12:57:52 -0400 Nalo Hopkinson wrote:
>
> NH: This sounds pretty much like my trajectory too. I used to read to not
> have to think, just look at pretty pitures in my mind's eye, but I
> couldn't get away with that for long; the type of reading that I enjoy
> exercises the mind; it *makes* you think, and I enjoy it.
>
> -nalo
>
> On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Hope Cascio wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 97-04-09 18:55:18 EDT, you write:
> >
> > << People a book is to be enjoyed, have fun. When I read a book buy
> > Margerat Weis I don't sit there thinking about why she wrote about
> > something. >>
> >
> > I don't completely agree. I used to just read for pure pleasure and escapism,
> > until I came to college and "learned how to interpret what I'm reading." At
> > first it felt so artificial, but now I feel like I can get so much more out
> > of something. I never could have attempted most poetry, for instance, before
> > I learned to interpret, and now I can actually get something from Adrienne
> > Rich. So it's a construct, but so's the literature. I can still read
> > ocassionally for the escape, but I much prefer to read something I can think
> > about later, like while I'm driving or doing the dishes. And I'll reread
> > things I've enjoyed to see if there's more to it than the lovely escape.
> >
> > Hope Cascio
> >
>
> "Starchild here. Put a glide in your stride, and a dip in your hip, and
> come on over to the Mothership."
> P-Funk, "Mothership Connection"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:01 PDT