Books and Intelligence

[Shade]

Oops, sorry!

 

[jay]

Seeing as there was mucho action, this time I read ahead and will not respond to every lil’ thing. I think…

Could you be more specific? How much do you think editors in the US make, on average?

This is *really* way off the subject. But no, I honestly do not remember what someone working at Houghton Mifflin 14 years ago was making exactly. I have a pretty good memory, but that never seemed to be a significant thing to hang onto. I do know it was more than I was making as a nurses’ aide (a figure I also do not recall) and getting annihilated by Uni bills.

What over-scores this -and is more on topic- is your formula that by means (excuses?) of not-great pay, I guess, the editor is therefore entitled to be a not-very-good editor. Which then also means, since they make ‘around the same pay as teachers’, that it is also acceptable for teachers to be lacking in basic skills cuz they’re not being ‘shown the money’. [my apologies if that annoying phrase has dropped from circulation]

Also, I did read this entire thread, believe it or not, so I'm not only referring to the last few posts when I say you don't make your points very well. You're very good at conflating meaning, whether intentionally or not.

I’ll just leave you and your curious insights alone on that one.
Many here seem to get a small grasp of what I’m trying to say, and I think I try many people’s patience with long-winded posts as it is.
These are posts; this isn’t my job.
This is a virtual conversation round a table. Not a speech in front of a committee.

My points are and remain pretty sharp, in my view. For what they are.
You want to try to dull them down my called what I call a “post” a ‘review’, that’s your thing.
Just pretend this entire post is a recipe for bread…

Intellgence and intellectual curiosity are not the same thing. Nor are they necessarily related.

Typos aside, I disagree.
That said, intelligence is, obviously, a fairly expansive thing and can’t be whittled down to someone that isn’t very active can probably be denoted as “not athletic” (I’m being broad here).
Albert Einstein liked a dose of literature now and again. Is he known as ‘more intelligent’ because of this? No. Would he be considered ‘less intelligent’ if he wasn’t a reader? No, probably not.
So in the case of intelligence as we are using it, it’s not such a clear formula as x + y = z, but it’s a formula nonetheless and is a pretty obvious one. To many.
The way one decides to spend their free time *does* denote something on a intelligent level.

This is just one example of your failure to understand subtleties of meaning.

Maybe in your little universe, here on Earth it clearly seems more a steep failure in your logic. Or since you like word-switch maybe you meant “impeccable” instead of “failure”…

I disagree with jay on Harry Potter, but I'm not going to rabidly defend my right to read it.

I don’t recall anyone every dismissing “rights” to read it. I don’t believe anyone is calling for censorship.
If anything I find the mass swarm to rush out and read this banal, but ever-so popular series to be self-censorship.
Maybe I’m funny but to know that millions of people will not read _Don Quijote_ but will read and re-read Potter…I find that…[wordless].

However, I do think the books you choose to read reflect something about your "intelligence" (for want of a better word) - or rather, how far you wanted to push your brain at the time.

I had to read the Half-Blood Prince the day it came out, because otherwise my friends would have called me to tell me the whole plot, rendering the whole exercise of reading it pointless (which I'm sure jay would say it is.)

Not so much. And I *really* don’t mean this as personal (honestly), I just moreso would question the judgment of your friends.
I now have Paul Auster’s new novel, it’s not officially released until this coming January. Other people probably have it to. I’d have to honestly believe I like Paul Auster more than most people “love” Harry Potter. I haven’t yet read the book, but I will shortly (and just for the record I will buy a copy when it officially comes out, the day or days after it comes out, in support of him). I’d assume some others, maybe even someone here, has read it already. I’d hope they, and damn well especially if they were my “friends”, would respect that I want the experience for myself and –as far as I know- the world aint ending tomorrow, so talking about it RIGHT AWAY is really completely unnecessary.
[for those failing to see a “point” in there, pretend I was talking about tea]

I think the popularity of such books is not doubt to a lack of intelligence in readers, but to a facet of the publishing industry I don't much like.

While I am agreeing with a lot that you say, but maybe I might add, to me, if one is going to be easily subjectable to the Madness of Crowds and outright propaganda, this too has something to do with intelligence.
Whenever I see a McDonald’s ad I really don’t feel swayed to give in to some notion that I reaaaallly need a pseudo-burger.

To clarify, I think it's perfectly acceptable in an intelligent person to read such books from time to time.

I think I’m on the record a few times saying stuff like this, but I’ll agree here also.

Your attempts to provoke and inflame me are as laughable as you suggestion that reading material somehow indicates or dictates a persons intelligence.

Um, er, um. You original post was an attempt to be caustic, witty and maybe some form of cunning, quite possibly “provoking”.
So, please.

Careful of the assumptions you make as they often will reflect more on you than the person you apply them to. You were wrong in your assumptions. This doesn't bode well for your asserted intelligence. Dare I say that your intelligence comes across at the very level that you wish to attribute to readers of Harry Potter.

My repeated statement of standing by every word I write still holds, dear. My “assumption” that you were a “friend” of SFG (if this is even what you’re talking about - but instead of quoting and commenting you’re flailing about in pseudo-psychology and overly defensive “assumptions”), well, that was one of the more obvious jokes I’ve ever written. My apologies that I don’t use smileys so often, I try to ‘assume’ readers have a bit more “intelligence” to catch these things and don’t always need colourful cues.

If you’re taking offense to my citing the “Narina” books (again, see how *conversation* can clear all this up, instead I’m potentially wasting my time writing this part (as if I’m not anyway)), note I used “someone”. It was *just* an example, I honestly didn’t have you in mind at all – nor was it offending in the least. CS Lewis is *hardly* a closet religious nutter, I mean writer. These books *are* “loved” by some for that *exact* reason. Just as _Lolita_ *is* loved by some twisted people for a specific reason.
I assure you, you’re not the only one to have read the book, and in light of the forthcoming movie, I’m sure many more will.

that's how I felt on first encountering the phrase "baguette magique".

Heh.
If you’re French is up to par and you’re looking for something cool, check out Alan Hollinghurst, pretty wild stuff. (My French bites and I have to rely on the trans...)

Writing after many ups and down at the desk, so sorry if it has an uneven feel.
j

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

The way one decides to spend their free time *does* denote something on a intelligent level.

I disagree (surprise, surprise ). What you do in your spare time shows nothing about your intelligence. Sure, a lot of intelligent people do like to read or stimulate their brain in some manner in their spare time, but I don't think that you could judge a person's intelligence by what they do in their spare time. Take, for example, my cousin. He has an IQ of about 120-125 (which I think is in the intelligent range ) yet all he does in his spare time is street-rat (hangs around on the streets). Wait, no, he also drags off other cars and runs away from cops. Our family has great expectations for this boy let me tell you! But anyways to get back to the point, although his spare time antics give off the impression of a moron, in reality he is actually reasonably intelligent.

[wordless].

My god I never thought I'd see the day... this is /definately/ something to tell the family

Not so much. And I *really* don’t mean this as personal (honestly), I just moreso would question the judgment of your friends.
I now have Paul Auster’s new novel, it’s not officially released until this coming January. Other people probably have it to. I’d have to honestly believe I like Paul Auster more than most people “love” Harry Potter. I haven’t yet read the book, but I will shortly (and just for the record I will buy a copy when it officially comes out, the day or days after it comes out, in support of him). I’d assume some others, maybe even someone here, has read it already. I’d hope they, and damn well especially if they were my “friends”, would respect that I want the experience for myself and –as far as I know- the world aint ending tomorrow, so talking about it RIGHT AWAY is really completely unnecessary.
[for those failing to see a “point” in there, pretend I was talking about tea]

I see what you are trying to say and agree with the theory that friends should be respectful - but it's painfully obvious that you havn't been in the vicinity of a high school in a loonngg time. It's "funny" to ruin the ending of movies and books.. didn't you know? Believe me when people tell me the ending of a movie or book that I am really looking forward to I find it /hillarious/ [mutters... ]

While I am agreeing with a lot that you say, but maybe I might add, to me, if one is going to be easily subjectable to the Madness of Crowds and outright propaganda, this too has something to do with intelligence.
Whenever I see a McDonald’s ad I really don’t feel swayed to give in to some notion that I reaaaallly need a pseudo-burger.

Again, I don't believe that this has anything to do with intelligence. It has something to do with /willpower/, which is fully different from intelligence. I'm not sure how you see this as a matter involving intelligence.. would you care to explain?

 

[Shade]

I now have Paul Auster’s new novel

The Brooklyn Follies? Cool. He's been on a rising path in recent years in my opinion. I look forward to it.

If you’re French is up to par and you’re looking for something cool, check out Alan Hollinghurst, pretty wild stuff. (My French bites and I have to rely on the trans...)

Hollinghurst in French? Zut alors!

 

[jay]

although his spare time antics give off the impression of a moron, in reality he is actually reasonably intelligent.

Hm, well, maybe ‘hanging on the streets’ he’s fine honing his conversational skills. Gawd knows language is dying…

My god I never thought I'd see the day... this is /definately/ something to tell the family

I knew someone would jump on that one. And before the family even offers, yes, I’d be delighted to come over for dinner next Wednesday.

I see what you are trying to say and agree with the theory that friends should be respectful - but it's painfully obvious that you havn't been in the vicinity of a high school in a loonngg time.

Yes, you are very correct. And that’s where *some* of this stuff may get lost in translation, most of these comments are made at a certain aged audience.
Although I did think high schoolers would be involved in that so yes, its distressing that high school aged people are reading Potter, I guess to a certain degree this is at the age where street-ratting (a new phrase!) is still deemed as, “oh, s/he’s young yet”.
And we (well, some) wonder why we’re cruising downhill…

It's "funny" to ruin the ending of movies and books.. didn't you know? Believe me when people tell me the ending of a movie or book that I am really looking forward to I find it /hillarious/ [mutters... ]

Well, really, I just don’t know. I’ve never been in this kind of scene and never want to be. I’m sure I could jokingly go up to the people and probably be right if I yelled “Tom Cruise saves the world!!! Again!!” to people walking into War of the Worlds, and I’ve even seen a frame of it.
Those not giving a gawdamn about Potter –no matter what age- and realizing it is what it is shouldn’t care. Not one damn. Someone may have muttered something about any of the Star Wars flicks but I didn’t feel slighted, not influenced to watch any of them.
“Everybody’s Doing It” does not equate: everything’s ok.

Again, I don't believe that this has anything to do with intelligence. It has something to do with /willpower/, which is fully different from intelligence. I'm not sure how you see this as a matter involving intelligence.. would you care to explain?

To be very short about it:
Willpower: the way one acts: the use of the brain: the use of the brain: *something* (not everything,) to do with intelligence.

The Brooklyn Follies? Cool. He's been on a rising path in recent years in my opinion. I look forward to it.

Yes, and yes. He started off great, hit a plateau and has been rising with the last few.

Hollinghurst in French? Zut alors!

Shit. Sorry. Houellebecq, Michel Houllebecq. Major brain slip. I don’t know how the hell that happened as one is interesting and the other wins awards for a very, very bland and unfinishable book (for me).

Must work now…and get a coffee,
j

 

[novella]

"subjectable (sic) to the Madness of Crowds (sic)" ?



Do you mean susceptible to the Madding Crowd, as a ref to Thomas Hardy? If so, I don't think you've quite understood the reference.

I find it strange that you believe lower pay justifies crap work. It's a lucky thing you don't like children, because it would be a terrible shame to raise one with that view.

 

[jay]

Do you mean susceptible to the Madding Crowd, as a ref to Thomas Hardy? If so, I don't think you've quite understood the reference.

As you stated, I’m a “big boy” and I know subjectable isn’t a proper word. I’m fine with that. It fits.
But no, if I was meaning to allude to Hardy, I would have done so. I’m capitalizing it for emphasis. If anything it’s a Charles Mackay ref.
So please, we all know you’re a former editor, but stick to what’s what.

I find it strange that you believe lower pay justifies crap work.

I find it strange that you can’t clearly see I was alluding to your mentioning they don’t make much. Possibly as if this were an excuse.
Moreso, [that’s not really a word either, but I like it] I find it strange that you’re offering *very* little to this thread other than trying impress Those That Hate Jay.
Which I’d have to think you’re failing miserably at.

Actually, I find neither strange after having written it.
File under “typical”.

It's a lucky thing you don't like children, because it would be a terrible shame to raise one with that view.

Not so much. Maybe they’d strive for better paying jobs?
But no, I assure you, my family tree stops with me.

So please, keep your “sics” to yourself.

I can’t think of a way to go back on-topic…
j

 

[novella]

Oh jay, I'm just having fun. Do you really think there's a crowd of people who hate you?

If I'm going to quote you, I have to use (sic) occasionally.

To get back on topic, I see Harry Potter and The Da Vinci Code as social phenomena, with many people reading them because their friends or schoolmates have, and they want to be part of that discussion. I haven't read either, but in my experience, so many people have read them that it has become social currency for certain types of people who used to say, "did you see Seinfeld?" or "How 'bout those Mets." It serves the same social purpose as seeing the latest popular movie, a form of conversational lubricant that is neither offensive (to most) nor difficult to obtain.

 

[direstraits]

If I'm going to quote you, I have to use (sic) occasionally.

[Laugh!]

ds

 

[jay]

Oh jay, I'm just having fun. Do you really think there's a crowd of people who hate you?

No, I was moreso hoping…

To get back on topic, I see Harry Potter and The Da Vinci Code as social phenomena, with many people reading them because their friends or schoolmates have, and they want to be part of that discussion. I haven't read either, but in my experience, so many people have read them that it has become social currency for certain types of people who used to say, "did you see Seinfeld?" or "How 'bout those Mets." It serves the same social purpose as seeing the latest popular movie, a form of conversational lubricant that is neither offensive (to most) nor difficult to obtain.

I agree.
I just don’t really understand the ‘doing it because everyone else is’ situation(s). And there’s the ol’ phrase that goes something like, ’if a million people say a stupid thing, it’s still a stupid thing’.

Mediocrity has often risen to the top, this is not new. But that doesn’t mean it’s any easier to digest.
We’re here on this forum because of books, and few can deny that the extreme popularity of these two books hasn’t made effects that may be irreparable.
I’d have said (well, not said) “damage” instead of “effects” but then I’d have to wipe out the “few can deny”…

All that said, I can’t stand Seinfeld and never discussed sports with people.
j

 

[clueless]

We’re here on this forum because of books, and few can deny that the extreme popularity of these two books hasn’t made effects that may be irreparable.

I think the only damage will be to trees. Most people will go back to talk about Big Brother or to read the Mary Kate and Ashley tie-ins. Do you really think that people who reads only that would have read something better if they had not been published?

 

[StillILearn]

Henry James's sister Alice (poor thing) said this, and this thread seems to be the place in which to share it:

"What a sense of superiority it gives one to escape reading some book which everyone else is reading."

 

[jay]

Do you really think that people who reads only that would have read something better if they had not been published?

Nooooooooooo, not at all. But this has shaped the market for years to come.
The general misconception is that these books profiting is “good” because then the publisher has more money and can take chances on different things, new writers, etc.
That’s rubbish.
It’s a business and they just reinvest (some of the) money to look for The Next da Vinci Code/Potter.
When a U2’s new album makes millions, sorry, this doesn’t open up a door more struggling musicians.

Computer off mode now,
Bis Morgen.
j

 

[Jennifer]

I don’t recall anyone every dismissing “rights” to read it. I don’t believe anyone is calling for censorship.

Neither do I. I just meant I wasn't about to jump all over you for daring to dislike the Almighty Potter.

Maybe I’m funny but to know that millions of people will not read _Don Quijote_ but will read and re-read Potter…I find that…[wordless].

In some moods I could get quite depressed about this situation. But I hope that many who will read Potter will, like me, simply read it as light relief between other books. Perhaps I'm too optimistic.

And I *really* don’t mean this as personal (honestly),

And I really don't take it so. This is a message board, and while I may disagree with what you think, I'm unlikely to really care.

I just moreso would question the judgment of your friends.

I'm 17. The mental age of my friends is, at times, half this. Running up and down school corridors shouting out who dies is a favourite pastime.

I’d hope they, and damn well especially if they were my “friends”, would respect that I want the experience for myself and –as far as I know- the world aint ending tomorrow, so talking about it RIGHT AWAY is really completely unnecessary.

Sadly reading isn't an "experience" for many people - knowing what happens before anyone else seems to be the only point of reading for some people.

tea

Yes please, milk and no sugar.

While I am agreeing with a lot that you say, but maybe I might add, to me, if one is going to be easily subjectable to the Madness of Crowds and outright propaganda, this too has something to do with intelligence.

Quite possibly. A tendency to follow the crowd does suggest a lack of independent thinking and the ability to make decisions for yourself. Many people will read Harry Potter or the Da Vinci Code just to see what all the fuss is about, and in the case of the latter, certainly, will actually be able to feel their braincells dying as a result.

Whenever I see a McDonald’s ad I really don’t feel swayed to give in to some notion that I reaaaallly need a pseudo-burger.

Me neither, but if you were already thinking of eating a burger (or reading a book), seeing the mad fuss around a certain burger (or book) might convince you to go for that choice rather than another, without you being less intelligent. I will never think someone is stupid for following a trend (though I might if I saw them in McDonald's...). Maybe all they need is a push in the direction of better books and their intelligence will become apparent.

I think I’m on the record a few times saying stuff like this, but I’ll agree here also.

I suspect, Monsieur jay, that your image as a grumpy guy beating people over the head with hefty tomes may be slightly unfounded. I might suggest that some of your opinions might be seen as... tolerant?!

If you’re French is up to par and you’re looking for something cool, check out Alan Hollinghurst, pretty wild stuff. (My French bites and I have to rely on the trans...)

My French is erratic, but I'll look into it (or rather, into Houllebecq, which seems to be what you meant.) Thanks for the recommendation.

Just to finish off, I note that you find it depressing that high-school age people are reading HP (not the sauce, the books). I suppose in a way it is, and as a high school age person, I for one am eaten up by guilt every time I touch a book that is not 1000 pages long and in translation (this may or may not be true). I think you take reading very seriously, which is fine - so do most of us. I think seeing it as a form of entertainment is not a view you are inclined to take. But just sometimes, some of us want to take off the Eng. Lit. hat, put down the pencil and the dictionary, and feel what it's like to be able to pick up a book without discussing the symbolism and underlying sexual tension in the title. My friends, despite aforementioned childish tendencies, are intelligent teenagers who happen to read Harry Potter. I suppose I'm just trying to say that Harry Potter does not equal stupid, despite the fact that stupid seems to equal mindless which seems to equal Da Vinci Code. Which you already knew.

 

[Renee]

Um, er, um. You original post was an attempt to be caustic, witty and maybe some form of cunning, quite possibly “provoking”.
So, please.

Sorry. That's not quite right.

My repeated statement of standing by every word I write still holds, dear. My “assumption” that you were a “friend” of SFG (if this is even what you’re talking about - but instead of quoting and commenting you’re flailing about in pseudo-psychology and overly defensive “assumptions”), well, that was one of the more obvious jokes I’ve ever written. My apologies that I don’t use smileys so often, I try to ‘assume’ readers have a bit more “intelligence” to catch these things and don’t always need colourful cues.

When, by chance, did I suggest any irritation by your suggesting that SFG and I were friends? You really must stop pretending to know what I'm thinking and feeling, it does not benefit your argument in anyway. Now you only appear even less intelligent than you did before.

If you’re taking offense to my citing the “Narina” books (again, see how *conversation* can clear all this up, instead I’m potentially wasting my time writing this part (as if I’m not anyway)), note I used “someone”. It was *just* an example, I honestly didn’t have you in mind at all – nor was it offending in the least. CS Lewis is *hardly* a closet religious nutter, I mean writer. These books *are* “loved” by some for that *exact* reason. Just as _Lolita_ *is* loved by some twisted people for a specific reason.
I assure you, you’re not the only one to have read the book, and in light of the forthcoming movie, I’m sure many more will.

Again with the baseless assumptions. I had not read any comments you might have made in regards to Lewis or his work. I used The Chronicles of Narnia for reasons of my own - it well suits my opinion and feelings on the matter of intelligence and what a person choses to read. And again you drop down the intelligence scale. Do you also assume that I read the Chronicles of Narnia simply because of the movie? That would also be a wrong assumption.

Intelligent people simply don't go around making whatever assumption will suit the argument they wish to make. It's a blatant act of stupidity. Now I must ask if you've not read anything above the level which you deem Harry Potter to be. Intelligent people also do not read defensiveness into everything they find disagreeable.

What you have demonstrated to me is that your reading comprehension is not what you might like to think it is, and that you lack the capactiy to ask questions in regards to things you do not understand. As I said previously, how you conduct yourself in discussion is more apt to demonstrate your intelligence, rather than the material you chose to read.



You might want to study up on human behavior a bit - learn about "wise mind" and "emotional mind". Perhaps then you could better discern when a person is writing from a defensive standpoint and when they are not.

 

[jay]

Perhaps I'm too optimistic.

Ohhhhhhh, don’t get me linking that to “intelligence” now! [this is a joke for the humour impaired]
Yes, many people start out this way (and most stay this way, of course). You seem to be –gawd I hate clichés but- ‘really on the ball’; I’m betting that you’ll see things for what they are. Until then, enjoy your youth.

Sadly reading isn't an "experience" for many people - knowing what happens before anyone else seems to be the only point of reading for some people.

Odd.

Yes please, milk and no sugar.

Coming right up…

Quite possibly. A tendency to follow the crowd does suggest a lack of independent thinking and the ability to make decisions for yourself. Many people will read Harry Potter or the Da Vinci Code just to see what all the fuss is about, and in the case of the latter, certainly, will actually be able to feel their braincells dying as a result.

You put most other posts on this and every other thread to shame…

Me neither, but if you were already thinking of eating a burger (or reading a book), seeing the mad fuss around a certain burger (or book) might convince you to go for that choice rather than another, without you being less intelligent. I will never think someone is stupid for following a trend (though I might if I saw them in McDonald's...). Maybe all they need is a push in the direction of better books and their intelligence will become apparent.

Another fine-tuned statement.
17? Hopefully there’s more like you…

I suspect, Monsieur jay, that your image as a grumpy guy beating people over the head with hefty tomes may be slightly unfounded. I might suggest that some of your opinions might be seen as... tolerant?!

I can live with anything. When it comes down to it it’s all here in front of us, and the discerning can tell what’s what. A few ‘cool’ people understanding what I’m saying? Nice. A few unbalanced stuck in non-linear thinking? To quote your fine self, “I'm unlikely to really care.”

My French is erratic, but I'll look into it (or rather, into Houllebecq, which seems to be what you meant.) Thanks for the recommendation.

Yes, that’s the name I meant. I have NO idea how the other surfaced. Proof of my French being ‘crap’ (or whatever I said) and that I can not even think small things in it.
Anyway, yes, he’s the big but controversial name in current French writing. I thought _Les particules élémentaires_ (_The Elementary Particles_ (US), but the UK translation is _Atomised_) was a very interesting work.
I’d be happy to send it to you if you wish (French and/or English)

I think seeing it as a form of entertainment is not a view you are inclined to take.

[Reading]
I do, to a certain degree. And of course I totally understand the need to have ‘escapism’ or ‘beach reading’ (and I’m on the record about this several times).

I do rank reading a bit different than “pop” music (for example) though, as I’ve said earlier (maybe on another thread, for this one and “required reading” are merging a bit), most forms of entertainment can be done while doing other things.
Frankly, I prefer “jazz” and “classical” music, but at work I need something with a bit more ‘umph’.
Whereas reading is a pretty solitary act.
But when it comes down to it, there are really only a handful (statistically speaking) of really challenging reads. A good book doesn’t necessarily mean “keep one’s dictionary close by!”).
So for me to actually think about the fact that people are quickly devouring a book [checking Amazon] that is 652 pages, which I’d say has to take _at least_ 6-10 hours I’d equate this to sitting in a room with headphones on listening to the newest Miss Spears album, staring at the walls, for 10 hours straight.
10 hours may not seem like a lot of time, but I’m of the notion that 24 in a day just aint enough…

I suppose I'm just trying to say that Harry Potter does not equal stupid, despite the fact that stupid seems to equal mindless which seems to equal Da Vinci Code. Which you already knew.

Yes, yes. I most certainly don’t mean stupid by any means. More…unfortunate?
(not people, the situation)

Jennifer, thanks for an engaging post. Made my morning.

And now for a step back into the Twilight Zone; cue Rod Serling….

Sorry. That's not quite right.

Feel free to fill us in on what you *were* attempting then…

When, by chance, did I suggest any irritation by your suggesting that SFG and I were friends? You really must stop pretending to know what I'm thinking and feeling, it does not benefit your argument in anyway. Now you only appear even less intelligent than you did before.

No, dear Renee. You made and accusation (or moreso a statement) that I’m trying to goad you.
You (that would be you-you) made no reference(s).
I like a good mystery, but not baseless and unfounded statements only to then be whined over and accordingly off-topic.

And again you drop down the intelligence scale. Do you also assume that I read the Chronicles of Narnia simply because of the movie? That would also be a wrong assumption.

Didn’t assume it at all. If you’d chose to read all the posts on the thread (as you say you haven’t read “any” comments I’ve made on Narina, well, that means you haven’t been paying attention.) you’d notice I said the attribution was not to you. It may have been fresh in my mind as a workable book to use as example due to your mentioning it, but that’s about tit, if anything.

Intelligent people simply don't go around making whatever assumption will suit the argument they wish to make. It's a blatant act of stupidity. Now I must ask if you've not read anything above the level which you deem Harry Potter to be. Intelligent people also do not read defensiveness into everything they find disagreeable.

Were you able to type that whole sentence while looking directly in the mirror?
The closest I’ve come to being “defensive” is to Jennifer when I make a broadcast that I am ‘not making a personal attack’.
I may counter, Renee, but I’m not seeing much that needs any “defense” of any sort.

What you have demonstrated to me is that your reading comprehension is not what you might like to think it is, and that you lack the capactiy to ask questions in regards to things you do not understand. As I said previously, how you conduct yourself in discussion is more apt to demonstrate your intelligence, rather than the material you chose to read.

Give us a bit more to read and then there *may * be something of substance to comprehend.
I can understand if you don’t have the time, gawd knows I’ve wasted a shed load of work time writing all this crap that _still_ gets lost on some….but if you don’t have the time, don’t put up something half-assed and unfounded and then try to turn the tables.

You might want to study up on human behavior a bit - learn about "wise mind" and "emotional mind". Perhaps then you could better discern when a person is writing from a defensive standpoint and when they are not.

Take it to a different thread and I’ll wipe out any theories and “debates” you have about those too.
Until then, we have a free bed here in the clinic if you’d like to lay down for a bit…

j
Cue TZ outro: take it away Rod…

 

[Motokid]

Just a quick note to say that I have really enjoyed this thread...I can't say much as my thoughts on most of this are pretty much captured in the "Mainstream Blockbuster" thread but I do have to commend Jay for sticking with his opinion and I hope he stays around for quite a while...

read for enjoyment
read for education
read to combat boredom
read just to read

the world should have all of the above....and it's better than soap operas, professional wrestling, Jenny Jones/Jerry Springer, and/or Anna Nichole Smith...

Everyone can have an opinion, and every opinion can be different. I think it's funny when people get all bent about one person's opinion. Keep it up Jay...run 'em ragged....

 

[SFG75]

I should perhaps refrain from mentioning this, since Jay will undoubtedly find more "fire in the belly" so to speak after reading this link. The New York Times picked the newest Potter book as it's book of review this previous sunday. I'm sure Jay would be interested to learn that according to the reviewer:

Because Rowling's gift is not so much for language as for characterization and plotting, to reveal much of what happens would wreck the experience for future readers. Suffice it to say that this new volume culminates in a finish so scorchingly distressing that the reader closes the book quaking, knowing that out of these ashes, somehow, the phoenix of Rowling's fiction will rise again - but worrying about how on earth Harry will cope until it does.

The link can be found here.

So Jay, what do you think of the NYT review? I must admit that while I do believe there is absolutely no correlation between intelligence and "guilty pleasure," I do believe that this whole Potter-craze has truly been over the top. This is yet another example of it.

Any thoughts Jay?

 

[Stewart]

There's absolutely no correlation between intelligence and the New York Times either.

 

[clueless]

There's absolutely no correlation between intelligence and the New York Times either.

I don't think SFG75 is interested in your thoughts. He wrote Jay 3 times in bold. I thought the hunting season did not start until the autumn but this law might not apply to witches.