one of the oddest arguments i've ever gotten into was like. i had agreed to give a dude a chance. we were on a first date. and he got. just. so mad. because i had told him i read about 2-5 books a week.
but he found out it was actually that i listen to 2-5 audiobooks. he was dead set on the idea - that's not reading, it's just listening. that i was lying, somehow, by implying i'd "read" the book.
language has a beautiful ability to adapt over time, particularly in the face of technology. when i "connect to the internet" i'm referencing the oldschool method of literally plugging into the internet - which i very rarely physically do. i roll down my window, which is a reference to the circular mechanical action it used to take. hell - the floppy disc remains our resolute save file icon. when i say i "ran to the store," nobody expects me to actually run - and what my version of running to the store looks like and your version are probably pretty different.
i told the guy, baffled: i look at things through glasses, that's still seeing. nobody complains i'm filtering the image.
he says: that's not the same and you know it.
i use audiobooks because i have adhd, and it makes it so i can actually focus. i am using it to help a medically diagnosed condition.
language also has a really cool ability: when we read something, our brains look at a word and make an image. when we hear a story, our brains hear a word and make an image. whether we hear it or read it - the word means the same thing, written or spoken. there is no quantifiable difference in the knowledge-encoding experience - i still happily hallucinate while i'm listening.
and i just kind of stared at him while he was telling me that "claiming" i had "actually read" a book that i had actually-listened-to was lying
and my only baffled response was like: "... are you gatekeeping the experience of... reading?"
2K notes
·
View notes
legitimately saw someone argue that you shouldn't include trigger warnings when you recommend books to people because "if you're warning people that the book contains things like rape and slavery and eugenics, then at that point you may as well not even recommend it at all, because it's just a list of horrible things!"
Like. You do grasp the concept that talking about these topics in a serious manner that points out how evil they are is fundamentally different from things that portray them as Positive and Wholesome Gay Rep???? The list of triggering things in the book are not the entirety of the book. How they're fucking handled is in fact fucking relevant and necessary information.
If you warning people about triggering topics in a book can't distinguish between "A Black woman writing a scifi series exploring the horror of slavery in all its aspects" and "a white person writing slavery fantasies because they think it's hot" then uhh, full offence that means you, personally, are bad at fucking describing books and providing warnings for them.
It's not that providing trigger warnings is inherently bad for when you're recommending books, you're just fucking bad at it personally.
If you are personally recommending people to read books that you know contain triggering content, then, yes, it is in fact the bare minimum requirement for being a decent person for you to warn people about that triggering content.
Come on people. It's not difficult.
And this doesn't just apply to books, it applies to anything you'd recommend to other people, like TV shows.
18 notes
·
View notes
books i read this january:
1. 'station eleven' by emily st. john mandel
5/5 stars — literally so good, such a great start to the year. i loved the writing style and the story and the characters and i am forever grateful to the friend of a friend who kept telling me i should read this because he was totally right and it's so good. definitely recommend this if you like apocalyptic stuff that's more an exploration of humanity than action/thriller
2. 'ghosts: the button house archives' by mathew baynton, simon farnaby, martha howe-douglas, jim howick, laurence rickard and ben willbond
3/5 stars — everything i wanted from a ghosts book tbh, loved getting to hear more about the characters but i would've liked a bit more serious stuff about fanny (this isn't really a criticism just wish there had been because she's such a compelling character to me)
3. 'i am malala' by malala yousafzai
4/5 stars — really good for anyone unfamiliar with pakistani culture and politics to help explain recent history as well as being genuinely very interesting. definitely recommend
4. 'heartstopper: volume 5' by alice oseman
3/5 stars — cute and nice to read as a queer british teenager, i like alice oseman's art a lot and i liked how she approached the topics discussed in it. only 3 stars just because like it doesn't really speak to me personally not because it isn't good or anything
5. 'never let me go' by kazuo ishiguro
4/5 stars — i have a weird relationship with his writing i feel like with both the books i've read by him the endings have just been a bit lacking for me? but not for a reason i can actually define and i still really liked the rest of the book and i really like his writing style as well
6. 'yellowface' by rebecca f. kuang
4/5 stars — not my favourite work by her but i found it really interesting to read. idk it's been quite controversial and i don't think i know enough about the issues discussed in the book to have an opinion but it did make me think about a lot of things i'd never really considered before which was why i found it interesting
7. 'gideon the ninth' by tamsyn muir
5/5 stars — this book was right up my street; i absolutely love gideon and the way the book's written. gideon and harrowhark's relationship was really compelling and i love the concept. if you read this book (please do) i would recommend that you read the glossary before you start the book because i spent at least the first 50 pages with no idea what was going on but after that it was amazing
8. 'the seven husbands of evelyn hugo' by taylor jenkins reid
3/5 stars — kind of just not my thing, sorry to all my friends who love it (none of them are on tumblr lol). i thought it was interesting but it just wasn't really my taste
9. 'tsunami girl' by julian sedgwick and chie kutsuwada
4/5 stars — i definitely didn't expect to enjoy this as much as i did but i actually really liked it the whole way through. the characters were great and i found the romance subplot way more well-written and believable than i expected (this might just be me because i'm a bit weird about reading relationships as romantic in books so a lot of straight romance where they sort of just expect you to pick up on it as romantic purely because it's a boy and a girl comes across as really flat to me and i end up just deciding that they're only friends to me whereas in this book i actually did read their relationship as romantic and wanted them to go out)
10. 'nation' by terry pratchett
5/5 stars — i think this is the first terry pratchett i've read other than good omens and i really, really enjoyed it. it took me a while to get into but i liked the characters and also found the sort-of-romance in this believable which was cool. also just really interesting to be honest, i recommend this as well
10 notes
·
View notes