Competition is good for a market. A company sees a competitor's offering and tries to improve its own in order to stay ahead. As a result, consumers get better product and everyone wins. Until you turn 'reading' into a market for both readers and writers to compete trying to review and advertise respectively in the same place.
It sounds great to hear a person reading hundreds or maybe thousands of books a year. Such astronomical figures might place that person in your head in the upper echelon of human intellect. But a quantitative analysis is not necessarily a qualitative analysis.
Timeless phrases are stretched into classic books then are diluted into contemporary volumes. It's easier for a writer to write standing on the shoulders of the giants rather than taking his readers on a journey climbing up. And it's even harder for a reader to follow along his guide because the path is not paved clearly enough for the novel and intrinsically deep ideas. So both parties just resolve to the high grounds of axioms and narratives. And in doing so, one just builds up one layer of events over another while never questioning the thoughts that goes into them.
What's my point?
We are not critical enough of ourselves. We virtue signal standing on a perceived moral high ground by calling ourselves avid readers. But birds that prey on the surfaced fishes will never know the taste of the fishes underneath. And if we don't train ourselves to hold breath for long, we can't go much deep. By fast and voracious reading, I think we are restricting our mind to delve deep. It's no wonder we see many religious people knowing excerpts or holy books by heart, yet having no idea what they mean or infer.
I like the idea of everyone reading. But everyone's take on their readings is not important unless it's a self-reflection.
30.3.25
- Mr. Ahmed
Comments
Post a Comment