Usually about 32% more scholarly. Unless my reading was a favor on behalf of someone else. 
Last edited:
How do you feel when and after you read a book?
- Thread starter Ginny
- Start date
-
- Tags
- books feeling infj books
- Aug 21, 2015
- 9,462
- 89,174
- 2,590
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5w4
If it's a good book my reaction is similar to Wyote's.
I exit in that place, beside the characters and it can be hard to snap back into the real world.
There is a sense of 'loss' when the story runs out, not only for the characters, but for the time and place that exists only in a particular novel, even if it is set in present day. Re-reading isn't the same as having the first, fresh experience.
After that, I revisit books by re-reading favorite parts, or the entire book.
If it is not a good book I'm glad it is over and sometimes pissed I read it all the way through. There is a satisfaction in reading books I don't like, though. I can give an opinion on the writer when asked, and I also have a good excuse not to read any more novels by that author.
Mans search for meaning, Viktor Frankl - actually I have to re-read it, but there are some books that have so much wisdom etched in them, you want to keep go back to them again. The road less travelled, F. Scott Peck, one of my favourites, I have also read again and again. It's also true of a really great novel. They can be like sanctuaries to retreat to.
For some reason the Handmaids Tale Margret Atwood is one of my favourite novels. I have many but this one stands out for some reason. It's just very well written. Most books, even 'masterpieces' have imperfections within them, but some few are crafted and plausible all the way through. I think the Short Story is the hardest forms and there are some amazing short stories around - some of my favourites by American authors like Raymond Carver and Truman Capote. Find a great book of short stories and there's really nothing better in my opinion...those nights when you should be going to sleep but just keep on reading. Books and my notebooks are some of the most precious things ever to me. Most of everything else material I consider replaceable.
For some reason the Handmaids Tale Margret Atwood is one of my favourite novels. I have many but this one stands out for some reason. It's just very well written. Most books, even 'masterpieces' have imperfections within them, but some few are crafted and plausible all the way through. I think the Short Story is the hardest forms and there are some amazing short stories around - some of my favourites by American authors like Raymond Carver and Truman Capote. Find a great book of short stories and there's really nothing better in my opinion...those nights when you should be going to sleep but just keep on reading. Books and my notebooks are some of the most precious things ever to me. Most of everything else material I consider replaceable.
Last edited:
One of my favorites, and probably the book I've recommended to other people the most.
- Sep 28, 2008
- 41,216
- 246,525
- 4,281
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 954 so/sx
- Aug 21, 2015
- 9,462
- 89,174
- 2,590
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5w4
@Wyote - LOL! I'm the type of person who says I don't like a book/music, not, "This sucks!" So, no not threatening. I just like to be able to give an informed opinion (if asked) and I like to be sure before I give up on a writer. Sometimes I read several of that person's novels/short stories before calling it a day. (There are some famous writers I'm not that into.)
I usually keep my mouth shut about it. I beta read a novel recently where the author was definitely trying to imitate a book that doesn't resonate with me, and I was able to give solid feedback, and also never disclosed that I didn't like the book this writer friend champions.
I usually keep my mouth shut about it. I beta read a novel recently where the author was definitely trying to imitate a book that doesn't resonate with me, and I was able to give solid feedback, and also never disclosed that I didn't like the book this writer friend champions.
Me too. But I wouldn't really read more books - of the same kind, that is. There are styles and genres which certain writers are not good at. I could like a writer's poetry, but not prose, things like that. This I would read more of. Or I would think I weren't educated enough and retry it a few years later. Tastes can change, after all.
I'm not sure if I would even notice someone imitating another writer's style. Sometimes I see similarities, but I would never assume until I got proof. Well, maybe privately. If anyone asked for my opinion on their work, I would try to be as impartial as possible. Not that anyone did since my high school graduation, but that's another story.
- Aug 21, 2015
- 9,462
- 89,174
- 2,590
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5w4
@Ginny – In this case he was trying to copy a very famous novel a lot of writers try to emulate.
The type of feedback I give when beta reading (beta listening/ beta testing) depends on many factors, but in general 100% positive feedback is not helpful for strengthening work. I prefer to receive a questionnaire because it is the only way to know what the author is looking for, and it keeps friendships from being bruised if you point out a flaw. It's really hard to give criticism without a clear go-ahead. If they ask me to look for flaws, I will, but if the work is in the early stages and the author just needs encouragement, I stay positive.
The type of feedback I give when beta reading (beta listening/ beta testing) depends on many factors, but in general 100% positive feedback is not helpful for strengthening work. I prefer to receive a questionnaire because it is the only way to know what the author is looking for, and it keeps friendships from being bruised if you point out a flaw. It's really hard to give criticism without a clear go-ahead.
If they ask me to look for flaws, I will, but if the work is in the early stages and the author just needs encouragement, I stay positive.
@Ginny – In this case he was trying to copy a very famous novel a lot of writers try to emulate.
The type of feedback I give when beta reading (beta listening/ beta testing) depends on many factors, but in general 100% positive feedback is not helpful for strengthening work. I prefer to receive a questionnaire because it is the only way to know what the author is looking for, and it keeps friendships from being bruised if you point out a flaw. It's really hard to give criticism without a clear go-ahead.
Questionaires would be very useful. It's hard for me to find the line between constructive crticism and being an "insufferable know-it-all". I generally overcriticise spelling and grammar, which wouldn't be so bad if I didn't always find something wrong with some choice of words or other as well. Sometimes I get too deeply entangled in semantics, or pragmatics, without balance or a definite tendency to either.
Come to think of it, it's probably a good thing I am rarely asked to proof-read something. They would either have to be as good as or better than me or have really thick skin.
I thought I will give another go at this. Right now I'm extremely turned off reading by other life events but how I described my experience of reading earlier in thread is not my usual experience of reading.
When I'm reading I get completely involved with the author and I'm reading what they've written as though they're telling me all about their ideas. Then when something comes up that conflicts with what they've told me, it's as though I've asked them a question and they're giving clarification. I get a sense of the author being in the room with me, it's an intimacy. I smell the alcohol on Joyce's brain, I Feel the intensity of Mitchell's rage and sorrow over slavery.
When I finish a novel I have a detailed idea of what an author has intended to say through their work. I sometimes go to online forums and tell people off for misinterpreting an author and their work. I get angry when I've been listening closely to an author and I find that people are ascribing views to the author and thrusting interpretations on the work that relate to preconceived notions of the historical location of the work rather than the meaning that the work is constructing by its own internal logic. I ask people to question things like, why is it more important to you that Lucy Snowe has a "happy" ending than a morally irreproachable ending - what do you think would have been more important to Lucy? I get very indignant on behalf of the author.
I'm not afraid to say when a book is shit. There are shit ones, and they're objectively garbage, for good reasons that I'm prepared to give. It's not always a matter of personal taste. Art can be vacuous or worse, prejudiced. Dreadful art deserves to get pulled into the muckiest part of criticism. Then people might question it instead of automatically adoring it because of some stupid cultural reason that has managed to become historically attached to it.
When I'm reading I get completely involved with the author and I'm reading what they've written as though they're telling me all about their ideas. Then when something comes up that conflicts with what they've told me, it's as though I've asked them a question and they're giving clarification. I get a sense of the author being in the room with me, it's an intimacy. I smell the alcohol on Joyce's brain, I Feel the intensity of Mitchell's rage and sorrow over slavery.
When I finish a novel I have a detailed idea of what an author has intended to say through their work. I sometimes go to online forums and tell people off for misinterpreting an author and their work. I get angry when I've been listening closely to an author and I find that people are ascribing views to the author and thrusting interpretations on the work that relate to preconceived notions of the historical location of the work rather than the meaning that the work is constructing by its own internal logic. I ask people to question things like, why is it more important to you that Lucy Snowe has a "happy" ending than a morally irreproachable ending - what do you think would have been more important to Lucy? I get very indignant on behalf of the author.
I'm not afraid to say when a book is shit. There are shit ones, and they're objectively garbage, for good reasons that I'm prepared to give. It's not always a matter of personal taste. Art can be vacuous or worse, prejudiced. Dreadful art deserves to get pulled into the muckiest part of criticism. Then people might question it instead of automatically adoring it because of some stupid cultural reason that has managed to become historically attached to it.
I'm currently submerged in a volume of Gaiman short stories...and gosh darn do I dislike when a really good one refuses expound beyond a few pages. He's so comfortable not continuing those stories which he's contently dubbed short.
*moan-sigh*
The boring ones can stay short...but Cassandra and a few others are quite noteworthy.
*moan-sigh*
The boring ones can stay short...but Cassandra and a few others are quite noteworthy.
You have a really intense relationship there, I feel so shallow now. I often wonder how people can read such garbage into a story (at least half of the papers I find in my research are useless), but never really managed to read something that is actually there. At least I don't think I did. Or I am reading the wrong books. I am mostly captivated by the stories though, at first, so I think I am primarily identifying with the characters than the author. It might be that after the third reading or so I start interpreting and not merely enjoying the story, which is what I usually do. But I believe that there are books that have been made for this kind of reading, and those that haven't, so...
I hope to reach that point someday where I can self-assuredly say that I have made an interpretation of my own that is simply right. Completely, irrefutably right. I admire that you have that kind of insight. And even though it can be useful, I almost hate that in our literature courses in university we first had to learn everything that is historically significant for each period and genre before we actually read anything. Maybe this is what makes other people think that this is so important, so much so that they ignore the author's voice.
Having been indoctrinated to do something a specific way, but thinking differently myself, I tend to ignore other people's interpretations in my own work, for the most part (because lecturers tend to frown on papers without or with few sources, first sign of plagiarism), but mostly because they haven't been asking what I am. And thus, I have to make up my own mind about it, the sources only being the primary works and the theory I am working with. I'd call myself lucky if I ever found a published scholar that did what I want to do (and a bit disappointed), I'd help me back up my assumptions.
@SeanSquared It is her fault I made this thread, after all. Her character whose name I chose as mine, as close as it already is to mine. If we mean the same.
As the first line goes: "You've got to be kidding me!"
As the first line goes: "You've got to be kidding me!"
I think it's great and important to know the historical context. People just take it in the wrong direction. They say stuff like "It is wrong to give our contemporary views to an author" and then in fear of doing so, look for confirmation of the historical period in the author's work.
But seriously. I have no idea what the fuck gets this type of scholar excited about literature in the first place. If you think that a literary document is only a historical artefact, why don't u piss off and study history? If you think that an artist has no ability to voice critical reflection on their times and to change dominant cultural beliefs and practices, then why do you believe in the significance of art to humanity?
Yes I guess I do "know" that I'm right. It sounds insufferable I guess. But on the other hand it just seems obvious a lot of the time what the author is saying. Why would anyone think that GWTW is racist and pro slavery when all the slavers end up broken and destroyed, and the most racist of them ends up dead? It doesn't make sense that people would think that. Do people really think that Kurtz is supposed to be an appropriate model of humanity? It's obviously not what the book is saying. Do people really think Tolstoy believes Anna didn't deserve what became of her? Oh come off it. "Vengeance is mine, I will repay". There is no one "right" interpretation, but some are clearly better than others.
You're right. But I hate not being right or being less right. I want to work towards some kind of truth (well, aren't we all?), and some people use this scholarly sense of never-wrongness to make something distasteful out of something beautiful and/or memorable. I must admit I haven't heard of "GWTW" (I'm sorry for my ignorance), but from what you have written, this racist idea sounds ludicrous. Doubly so, considering the historical context. And you aren't insufferable, you just want to be heard and I am sorry if you feel like you have to be so outright--- no, I'm not sorry, really, I am glad you are. It's nice to know someone is fighting for a better opinion. For more common sense, really. Sometimes I feel like the people have gone mad...
I was really bummed when I finished the last Octavia Butler book after she passed away. I mourned. Same for Pearl Buck after I finished reading everything written by her.. my two faves. Still searching for other authors to connect with like that.
Last edited:
I feel like i'm gonna die, but not after reading a book, only after reading a few pages.
