I grew up in a family of bibliophiles. When my grandfather died, I helped move part of his collection of thirty nine thousand books from the three apartments where he kept them. Thankfully he had files on all of them so it was not a big process to select which to keep, which to give and which to auction. One of his two deathbed regrets on was not acquiring a certain first edition when he had a chance, I believe these days.

He was, as I am and my father is, a very well-read man. It hasn't made us better people but it's sure made it easy to spot silly pseudointellectual BS.

Books are just dead trees wrapped in dead cows. I keep maybe 20 in my house. No better or worse than trying to signal with a Rolex or an instagram following. No better to learn from than YouTube or HN or any number of street corner conversations. Get your head out of your ass.

> No better or worse than trying to signal with.....

"Signalling" ?

Part of me has just died. Have you ever thought about not giving a toss what others think and just reading?

I have little idea of what «signalling» in the original post meant and asked clarification, but

> not giving a toss ... and just

Is not that (per se, I do not understand it in the context) simply against the whole workings of communication?

A poster diminished the importance of books: I observed that they represent an effort of transmit knowledge and wisdom - which is something "high". The poster mentioned one specific social network: I observed that books represent selection in comparison (to randomness and noise). If anybody is in for the communicational game, those are the proposals. Somebody misunderstood: that happens. If one "does not give a toss", why spending the time (unless one uses the expression "spending the time" for the same that I called "yelling at [running] cars").

And that «pseudointellectual BS» would be mine? If so, is not that contradictory with your statement that being «very well-read» gave you abilities for discrimination?

(Note: if the above is correct, and they are incomplete, then it's duly to roll the sleeves again, and be back to the "discrimination builders". Like for all of us.)

I am not sure about that «trying to signal»: it seems as if you interpret that somebody uses books to "show off". That would be completely nonfactual. They are there for you, why should one use them to display - that would be strongly inconsistent with their nature.

Now the core point:

**

books are explicitly the concretion of an effort towards development

**

as such, they are symbol and object "incarnating" something very high.

I do not understand the expression «Get your head out of your ass», but I consider it a friendly encouragement, for which I am sincerely grateful. To actually meet in communication, we would probably need more exchange though - I think we have probably not understood each other.

Translation into actual English:

>I think you are very wrong.

>Sure, if you think you were born to have fun, doing something such as reading books will be "fun" too, since it's different from your normal life. But you aren't actually seeing the real value in reading.

>One of the main reasons books exist is so my company can be more "high-class", since those who don't read often are usually not as fun to hang out with.

FTR I think this is an insane way of thinking, but I thought I would try and translate it to the best of my ability to words people can actually understand

You have translated it, and you have not understood it. The correct approach with text is to give an interpretation and a level of confidence - and wait until the confidence is high.

I do not think the ideas of the poster are just "wrong" (though it's a very good term, originally meaning "giving the reaction of disgust (which can also be given by disapproval)"): I wrote «blasphemies» because the depreciate what has high value.

And those mentions of «high-class» and «fun to hang out with» are completely out of what was meant. And completely out of perspective: nobody told you you are there to have "fun". And one does not even meet people for "fun". It's your time, you are not there to waste it; "fun" is one part of it - "break", "completeness", "recovery" or whatever.

More that "«insane»", that way of thinking would be "childish" (and surely more), but it was not what was expressed - you put that in. And your reading fails on the guidelines about "strongest plausible interpretation" and "assum[ption of] good faith".

Edit:

Nonetheless, the translation «Sure, if you think you were born to have fun, doing something such as reading books will be "fun" too, since it's different from your normal life. But you aren't actually seeing the real value in reading» was quite close to the original intention - though not overlapping. With "«yell at cars»", for example, I meant to stress the improductive side, the "consuming the day without much focus on growth". In the idea that the opposite of "growth" is "waste" ("fun" already may contain some value).

Can you rewrite or break down your last sentence? I can not understand it.

It's not worth the bother. This is an exceptionally good example of intentionally obtuse writing, otherwise better known as good old fashioned BS!

If you cannot understand what people write, of course it will appear BS to you. The writing from here looks like the right one.

Edit: about that «'intentionally'»: this is the way I think, this is the way I write. (Not precisely so, but the expression will be clear enough to those who want to understand it.)

No problem!

> among the well recognized functions of books, they are there to have selected, better company that those in mentioned "social networks gone bad" - even taking special cases into account. (Of course, you have to be able to perceive what "better" is.)

-- The text of a book represents, in the "good cases", an as-best-organized-as-possible expression of the refined thought of an author. That communication from such author is "company" you choose. It is a "selected acquaintance", picked to enrich you. It can be better than many other options, which will contain less value.

-- With possible exceptions of very selected containers (whatever their elected term - 'subs'?) in «mentioned "social networks gone bad"», the general quality in the content found by commenters is very, very poor. So, the competition with a selected writer would be "not in the same league". If you took special cases of very well moderated, luckier containers, the collective effort could bring special value, yet we would be comparing quite different things (and the book would still be superior in some areas, e.g. structure).

-- So, you may compare "material intended for growth" (the book) and "an involving experience" (the popular social network), but of course there is value to be recognized in order to appreciate the difference. You have to be able to recognize "better company" - otherwise, of course you will see little difference.

"Incidentally: among the well recognized functions of books, they are there to have selected, better company that those in mentioned "social networks gone bad" - even taking special cases into account. (Of course, you have to be able to perceive what "better" is.)"

Zounds, this might be the most deliberately obfuscated and yet simultaneously poorly written diatribe I've ever read. You seem to possess a penchant for verbosity but an inability to smoothly couple your thoughts together.

And yes, just like any physical matter from a hobby, it can act as either a beacon or a warning signal to other like-minded people.

You are the second one going along the lines of "deliberately obfuscated": I do not see why, it seems to me "deliberately properly written and clear"! «Verbosity»: it seems to me condensed, precise... Where is the "extra fat"?

Edit: to show that «inability» you mention, somebody should provide better expressions. Mine are constructed with much consideration, and I have not found examples of better equivalents.

Help me/us instead with your «And yes ... like-minded people»: I do not understand it. (I do not understand «physical matter from a hobby», and I do not understand what is 'it' that «can act as either...».)

to help you understand: you wear a band t-shirt, you meet people who like the band.

the fact you think you're being highly precise and terse and laughable at best. the guilletes are absolutely pretentious as fuck. I assume for somebody like you, your favorite fictional character is Ignatius Reilly. something about feeling seen

> laughable at best

You can have all the reactions available in the drawer, but without "showing why" they are pretty wasted expressions.

> guilletes

I have no idea what that is. A web search did not reveal anything.

> Ignatius Reilly

Not acquainted, sorry.

> feeling seen

No idea what you are trying to say. Who should "feel seen"? In which terms, paranoia? Look: sorry, but I hope you do not consider yourself clear in turn.

> you wear a band t-shirt, you meet people who like the band

Ok, but I do not see how this is relevant to this whole discussion.

> being highly precise and terse

Sure, that is part of the attempt. The burden to interpret, analyze and synthesize etc., remains with the other side. I try to be as precise as possible to facilitate that (meaning: when you analyze something, the "mechanism breaks" if the pieces are "loose", "ill chosen").

> Ok, but I do not see how this is relevant to this whole discussion

groups tend to gravitate towards each other or coalesce around material indicators of similar interests. for example, people who enjoy the same music from the same artist see the artists t-shirt and form a relationship with each other.

similarly, some with a penchant for speaking or writing in a particular way, maybe a way that others would describe as "haughty", "cultured" - or as some might argue, "correct" - tend to gravitate towards each other as well.

the point is sometimes shitty communication is fine because you can just keep engaging as long as you are friends - or at least respectful. trying harder is simply way too tedious for the medium of the internet.

edit: i meant << guillemets >>. mb

> coalesce

Ok, but this is an international, multicultural forum, where it is supposed that different people come to exchange. Under the umbrella of the "intellectual curiosity relevant", all trades - here, you will meet the different, and many in the same page. Some people will think and write this way - it's the way they are, and very legitimate -, you know it in advance coming here, that you will interact with them.

Edit: possibly more clearly, if somebody writes in a certain way, and judges those formulations to be "properly working", do not expect stylistic changes just because. Joyce would not write like Proust - not just that they hated each other, simply that one would say "The formulations are or should be clear, why the efs should I write like somebody else!".

(Differences granted, I would call it a base that participants do not post replies like "I judged the language, hence BS", as some member took the liberty nearby - just saying. It is logically offensive.)

> cultured ... correct

It is not the same. There is no intention to appear "cultured"; "correct" instead is something that some may want to seek, for many reasons - to give the chance of interpreting correctly to anyone who wants to, for example. If "correct" stresses an idea of "cultured", that is a side effect. Surely many of us write this way (with more or less "care").

> engaging ... the medium of the internet

Ok, you (say) "will keep on chatting", but where is the exchange? Of what? We are dropping payloads here. Sure, «sometimes» other communicational factors prevail (stag party, whatever) but on HN... Mind you: flexibly, respecting a sense of community (I took the liberty of a rare off-topic joke just hours ago elsewhere, still curiosity-relevant hopefully), but this is supposed to be a purposeful environment.

Somebody comes with the idea that "reading is secondary", he will get the reply that Woody Allen joked that "women are secondary, breathing comes later" - and what comes first must then be cultivation. That books are a most respect deserving creation - the preservation of wisdom -, hence his perspective some will label "blasphemy", not just "disagreeable". That he may be missing a perspective, and that it may be better if one notices - just in case some inner gears start moving (very respectfully). That if he arrives to comparing books and a social website which, posts-wise, typically reveals civil devastation, he may be reminded that "books are selected company" - shocking that nowadays some may call this "smug", because normally the framework would be to make optimal choices!

Former replies were analytic, this one will be synthetic - and based on tone, given the hardly manageable replies proposed.

> pretentious

Wait until the first doctor maims you, the first renovator ruins your house, the first moron ruins your life.

Then it will be clear that you must "strive" not just for your ideals (or even ambitions), but because you are a social actor and you have to be an asset, not a liability.

So, "pastime", "fun", "pretentious", "smug", "high-class", "bullshit" - I am tempted to quite a crude language to label the whole perspective, I am just restraining myself. You have to be not even "quite something" in what you are, which will reflect on others: you have to be "decent", and already that is very far to be possibly taken for granted. Not just for yourself or anything: because you can be a damage, and you are required not to be a damage. For duty.

Already if you operate among people, cultivation is not just an option.

--

Edit: I forgot (important point linking the above with another side of the importance of books): in many territories a socio-cultural crisis is evident where one of the main mechanisms to transmit civilization and refinement, i.e. structured society at the base, the "extended family" which includes the teacher, the older brother, the neighbour etc., is vanishing. This model was structured, some say "pyramidal" (the "older brother" takes care of the "younger" - the "elder" of the "younger" in general); other societal models (e.g. "online") are heavily random and noisy; even education is (stats also prove) living a dire crisis.

The "book" is, as I already stated, a "selected companion" that is remains even more fundamental in order to patch the gaps in proficuous relations that said crisis, made of distance and weakened roles, has created. Some of the best men we had gave us their wisdom for tradition - not a small gift at all.