Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Book Stigma

I've been trying for some time now to get my head around this new anti-book trend that has led to the popularity of soulless "vooks" like the Kindle and the Nook. Of course, there are many reasons for it, but in an article that scores major points for the coming Idiocracy, the New York Times recently revealed a shocking piece of the puzzle.

Apparently, there is a social stigma attached to reading books alone in public.


Pathetic misanthrope with no friends

This terrible stigma afflicts people not just in illiterate parts of the country and on junior-high cheerleading squads, but all across New York City, a one-time literary capital. What is the stigma? Simply put, if you are caught reading a book in public, you will appear to be: alone, unapproachable, "bookish," unwilling to socialize, and introverted. How awful. But there is hope!

Says a dermatologist on the subject, this dreadful stigma "no longer exists because of the advancement of our current technology. We are in a high-tech era and the sleekness and portability of the iPad erases any negative notions or stigmas associated with reading alone."


Portrait of a stigmatized loser

Dermatologists ought to know. Maybe reading books is also bad for the skin? Perhaps a little Botox for reading wrinkles? Thinking is known to furrow the brow. No, the cure for this stigma does not come from any bacterial neurotoxin (well, maybe it does). The cure is simply: Buy an e-reader, preferably from Apple.

E-readers allow you to be connected to the hive while you pretend to be engrossed in reading. "Given that some e-readers can display books while connecting online, there’s a chance the erstwhile bookworm is already plugged into a conversation somewhere," said a professor of communication and media studies.


Marilyn Monroe: Bravely battling with book stigma

In other words: Reading without digital distraction is social suicide. It will make you unpopular. You will appear intelligent and, therefore, ill-tempered and unfuckable.

Always be connected and distracted, so you appear to be more socially attuned, even though, as anyone who walks the streets of New York knows: People on smartphones, iPads, and the like pay no attention whatsoever to other human beings, rapidly moving vehicles, or open manhole covers. They are in a sociopathic trance, and that is somehow preferable to reading a book?


Unlike lame books, the iPad will get you laid

What the dermatologist and the media professor, and other iPad lovers in the Times article, fail to understand, it seems, is that book lovers are very connected, especially in the presence of other book lovers. When reading a book, we are also connected to our deeper selves, and to the "bigger picture," to universal ways of being, to--dare I say it?--the human condition.

In the New Autistic World Order, the only thing we're permitted to connect with is the anti-human "Borg" system of electronic media. Failure to do so will lead to ostracism from the hive-mind.

But would that really be so bad?

Put us all on an island without Kindles, Nooks, iPads, iPhones, and Blackberries, with lots of bookstores and avid readers, and we'll do just fine. Oh, wait, wasn't that Manhattan not long ago?




Years ago, they put images of total losers on college buildings--
now only ugly gargoyles who can't get laid read books
(
photo: Ephemeral NY)

10 comments:

  1. Hi Grumbler,

    What an incredibly stupid article (the Times' not yours). Books are a natural conversation opener - not so long ago I picked up women reading books in bars (and vice versa). A book makes someone more interesting. Someone staring into a cellphone - who cares?

    The ipad is still a novelty, so I could see it making people curious.

    I don't know that I share your distaste for e-readers. They're useful, and since we spend so much time reading on a screen anyway, anything that makes that experience less painful is a good thing. But no, e-readers don't have the personality of a book.

    And the notion that someone is anti-social for reading a book in public? How totally lame.

    T.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Nah, you've got it backwards - the book-reader is not the unpopular one, the e-reader is and that is why s/he is so jealous of you with your nose in your book and not on their antics. They scream Look At ME! but you are more interested in something else - gasp! - and that is your sin: having your own mind, own interests and ability to stand alone from the herd. They do not possess these precious things...
    ReplyDelete
  3. I enjoyed your snarky photo captions. Excellent commentary.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Jesus, the fact that the Times would print something like that is scarier than the fact that some dimwit actually took the time to write it. I don't know how many times while traveling or sitting somewhere reading that someone has said, "That's a great book," or vice-a-versa. It's a great ice-breaker for two like-minded strangers to have a conversation. When you're reading on an iPad no one knows what you're reading because the cover isn't out in the open, all we know is that you've just dropped some dough into the bank account of Steve Jobs.
    ReplyDelete
  5. A dermatologist knows best on these kind of issues, for sure!! Thank you, NYTimes, for once again filling the nation's void for idiotic socioeconomic commentary.
    ReplyDelete
  6. Spot on as always, Mr. G. And Marty typically nails it down with the finality of sledge hammer. This kind of pablum in the Times is such an obvious suck-up to the corporate hive that I can't wait for the day when their "content" disappears behind a pay-wall forever. At which point I'll keep my money, enjoy my dead trees, and miss exactly nothing.
    ReplyDelete
  7. That NYT article gave me a rash.

    Oh, wait.
    ReplyDelete
  8. - there is another trend here the MSM doesn't talk about - now you won't be reading anything the State won't know about. All purchases of ebooks - so far as I know - must be done electronically providing a record for Big Brother. if Amazon can delete books off your kindle without your control they can certainly perform an inventory. But most people are too stupid to care.
    ReplyDelete
  9. I love the photo of the gargoyle reading a book. Love your new blog too!
    ReplyDelete
  10. Marilyn looks delicious.
    ReplyDelete

NOTE: Comments are moderated by the blog owner. Your remarks and lively debates are welcome, whether supportive or critical of the views herein.

However, commentary that is intended to "flame" or attack, that is harassing, or contains violence, potential libel, and the like will not be published. Commenters who regularly harass or abuse, Anon or not, your comments come with an identifier and go directly to the Spam Box.

Please bear in mind, this is an individually run blog, not a democratic nation nor a wide-open public forum. Comment publication is entirely subject to the owner's discretion.

Thank you.