There is no type of reading that’s going to make you less intellectually healthy, or dumber. Sure some books might challenge you more, but is it necessary to read difficult books like it is to have vegetables? I’m not sure it is. So many people aren’t reading at all. People reading Colleen Hoover or SJM are still reading and I think that’s a good thing. Thoughts?
by FoghornLegday
3 Comments
I think you see this in all forms of art and entertainment. K-pop music is for teenage girls and not on the same level as The Mars Volta or watching Minions isn’t as enriching or valid as Spirited Away. It’s weird where people choose to draw lines, gatekeep or otherwise put down one form of entertainment to elevate their own tastes and interests.
>There is no type of reading that’s going to make you less intellectually healthy, or dumber
that is not the association i make when i talk about my ‘junk food’ reads. to me junk food read is something that gives you pleasure with least amount of effort.
a Tolstoy classic is pleasant to read because you work out your brain muscles. Taylor Adams book is fun to read because it is edge of your seat, while severely unrealistic so i don’t have to engage my brain much.
You can’t make the argument that reading is objectively a good thing but then argue that it’s unnecessary to ever read difficult books. Yes, some books *are* like popcorn, and if you want to indulge in them, that’s perfectly fine. But if that’s all you read, then you’re going to end up intellectually and emotionally stunted.