Books

polaris

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

My fiance' just bought this book, she is a complete junkie when it comes to climate (and open minded to both sides to boot), so it is a pretty good read I assume then?

yeah ... it is really comprehensive ... almost too much - i dunno if its too scientific for the average reader but i think its presented in a very objective way ...

polaris

Heineken Helen wrote:

I completely see where you're coming from... but a documentary can physically SHOW me what a village in Vietnam looks like... or I can go to the viking exhibition which will recreate viking... stuff! Also getting me out of the house and perhaps meeting people.

bloody hell! ... turn that tube off - it's sapping you of your life! ...

cincybearcat

polaris wrote:

there is a thing called nytol - no need to buy the book ...

Well, if you change your mind and want to read about the greatest American to ever live, you can buy this book or wait for my soon-to-be born daughter's biography in 60-70 years or so.

Jeanie

Heineken Helen wrote:

Oh no, I disagree completely. Reading is NOT good for my health. If I find a good book, I have to survive every day on one hours sleep... if I'm lucky

Well there's that!

But at least a good book will get me to go to bed, as opposed to sitting here reading all bloody night! :eek:

I usually wake up and discover the book dropped on the floor and that I've lost my page!!

Heineken Helen

polaris wrote:

bloody hell! ... turn that tube off - it's sapping you of your life! ...

Put the bloody book down and get out there and OBSERVE life

Sorry, I'm a bit of a watcher :eek:

I just like being out and about and I think I can learn far more from listening and watching than from reading the words of others... I don't do enough of it but I think people should be encouraged to be more active rather than sitting down for hours reading I know most people won't agree with me but that's where it is.

wavescamecrashing

helen, I know you can be proactive but library books are free and readily available. We provide a service to housebound people, and they really appreciate it. I know you can get out there, and i like doing that but reading can happen 24/7 anytime, anypalce, anywhere and in solitude. Im not sure much else compares to that...

I love reading and always have. My mum taught me to read from a very early age and i will do the same for my kids.

Also, i work in libraries and books are rivalled by people using the free internet facility we provide. In fact, without the net, we would prob close more libraries. It seems that we no longer fill a gap for the majority of people these days, for a variety of reasons...sad.

Heineken Helen

Jeanie wrote:

Well there's that!

But at least a good book will get me to go to bed, as opposed to sitting here reading all bloody night!

I usually wake up and discover the book dropped on the floor and that I've lost my page!!

I can ALMOST honestly say (cos I can't think of one time it happened but it may have done) that I have NEVER fell asleep with a book in my hand . I will pry my eyes open with matchsticks to get to the final fucking word rather than fall asleep

Heineken Helen

clairenordon wrote:

helen, I know you can be proactive but library books are free and readily available. We provide a service to housebound people, and they really appreciate it. I know you can get out there, and i like doing that but reading can happen 24/7 anytime, anypalce, anywhere and in solitude. Im not sure much else compares to that...

I love reading and always have. My mum taught me to read from a very early age and i will do the same for my kids.

Also, i work in libraries and books are rivalled by people using the free internet facility we provide. In fact, without the net, we would prob close more libraries. It seems that we no longer fill a gap for the majority of people these days, for a variety of reasons...sad.

OH I've said I love reading too and I read a good bit and have a problem trying to get to the end of a book once I get into it.

I just don't see the big deal... if people want to be out and about doing stuff rather than reading, I think that can only be a good thing. I use my bus time to listen to music... if I'm sitting out on a nice day I read but that's me and that's what's good for me and what I like doing... but I can't say it's good for all

polaris

cincybearcat wrote:

Well, if you change your mind and want to read about the greatest American to ever live, you can buy this book or wait for my soon-to-be born daughter's biography in 60-70 years or so.

congratulations!

polaris

Heineken Helen wrote:

Put the bloody book down and get out there and OBSERVE life

Sorry, I'm a bit of a watcher :eek:

I just like being out and about and I think I can learn far more from listening and watching than from reading the words of others... I don't do enough of it but I think people should be encouraged to be more active rather than sitting down for hours reading I know most people won't agree with me but that's where it is.

oh ... i'm out there! ...

Jeanie

Heineken Helen wrote:

I can ALMOST honestly say (cos I can't think of one time it happened but it may have done) that I have NEVER fell asleep with a book in my hand. I will pry my eyes open with matchsticks to get to the final fucking word rather than fall asleep

Maybe you shouldn't read hon.

It really sounds like it's not your thing!

I do know what you mean though, I remember the weekend I bought Shantaram a few years back. I don't think I moved from the bed other than to eat or go to the loo and I know I didn't sleep. It was such a massive book that the only comfy place to get with it was under the doona. It was Winter so I wasn't so keen to get out and about anyway. And it was massively heavy, but I just could not put it down!!! I think I read the whole thing cover to cover, 1000 pages in 2 days.

The book I'm reading now, Emergency Sex is an awesome series of stories about UN workers, and I'm really enjoying it, but I keep nodding off mid page and then having to go back and re read to find my place the next night!

NMyTree

Jeanie wrote:

Nice work tree. Don't forget that you'll be helping them develop their imaginations by reading to them too. Not to mention their listening and comprehension skills.

Absolutely and I eluded to that in my post. But I also play with him and help in the imaginative/creative play, which is essential (in my opinion) in teaching them to use their imagination and play make-believe.

Last night we were playing with this toy that has a key you hit, which in turn has an internal hammer which strikes four xylophone-like pieces of colored-metal plates and give off four different tones (one tone per plate).

My three year old started playing this game where he would ask me to pick a color, then he would press the corresponding key to hit the note/tone of that xylophone-like metal plate. Once the key was hit, he would make-believe he was pouring me a tiny invisable cup of juice and hand it to me, to drink.

I would pretend I was drinking the tiny invisable cup of juice and then go ..." Ahh.....tasty...refreshing":D

Then he set up one of his books on the floor next to us, said it was the trash container and that I needed to toss the tiny invisable cup in the trash, when I finished drinking the forementioned inviisable juice. Which I of course did.

So not only does he like books to read and look at pictures, but when he's not reading and he's doing imaginative-playing; he utilizes the books for whatever he wants them to be. And this is just one (and the most recent ) example of his imaginative play. Books have been boats, airplanes, houses and a plethora of other things in his make-believe world. In my opinion, this is good, healthy stuff.

Jeanie wrote:

I'm forever buying books and reading to my niece and nephew.
I have to battle sometimes to get them to turn off the tele, but once they settle down, they really enjoying having me read to them and looking at the pictures.

Honestly, it can be a battle more often than not. Television is a huge distraction and that's why I want the thing turned off.....most of the time.

But most of the time I have to settle them down a bit, before the reading can begin. We don't give our kids candy, cookies, soda and anything with proccessed sugar or caffiene. Only on the rare occasion as a rare treat or a birthday (birthday cake). My kids are hyped up on natural body energy, form a high protien diet and an appropriate amount of carbs.

A lot of kids are hyped up on sugar-blasts and caffiene-blasts, which makes getting their attention much more difficult and settling them down; almost impossible.

It's a neverending battle with the grandparents to keep them from giving our kids sugar-loaded treats. It's unbelievable how stubborn and aggravating the grandparents can be over this very important issue. They are always trying to sneak my boys treats, against our will and rules.

Her mother and grandparents (my kids great grandparents) are the worst.

My parent will ask first and then try to politiely debate the issue with me; but they understand and conceed to my wishes politely and respectfully.

Her's get nasty and belligerent over it. As if they're insulted:rolleyes: I have several times tried to sit down with them and rationally explain my approach and why I feel sugar and caffiene are bad. But they simply don't want to hear it. They just keep insisting.

I couldn't care less what their opinions on sugar and caffiene are. My kids won't be subjected to that crap. And if they can't respect my wishes and my rules for my kids, they can kiss my ass.


Although her father completely understands and respects my wishes and rules. The problem is really her mother and her grandmother and grandfather. Pains in the ass, they are.

NMyTree

cincybearcat wrote:

Well, if you change your mind and want to read about the greatest American to ever live, you can buy this book......

Who, Reagan? hahahahahaha!:D:D

Jeanie

NMyTree wrote:

Absolutely and I eluded to that in my post. But I also play with him and help in the imaginative/creative play, which is essential (in my opinion) in teaching them to use their imagination and play make-believe.

Last night we were playing with this toy that has a key you hit, which in turn has an internal hammer which strikes four xylophone-like pieces of colored-metal plates and give off four different tones (one tone per plate).

My three year old started playing this game where he would ask me to pick a color, then he would press the corresponding key to hit the note/tone of that xylophone-like metal plate. Once the key was hit, he would make-believe he was pouring me a tiny invisable cup of juice and hand it to me, to drink.

I would pretend I was drinking the tiny invisable cup of juice and then go ..." Ahh.....tasty...refreshing":D

Then he set up one of his books on the floor next to us, said it was the trash container and that I needed to toss the tiny invisable cup in the trash, when I finished drinking the forementioned inviisable juice. Which I of course did.

So not only does he like books to read and look at pictures, but when he's not reading and he's doing imaginative-playing; he utilizes the books for whatever he wants them to be. And this is just one (and the most recent ) example of his imaginative play. Books have been boats, airplanes, houses and a plethora of other things in his make-believe world. In my opinion, this is good, healthy stuff.

That's awesome tree! He sounds as though he's really clever little fella and all the reading and imaginative play will do him the world of good!
I love the stuff they come up with when you let them.
My niece got very attached to a snail that she found in the garden and she brought him inside and made a home for him and showed us all her new friend.
She was a bit devestated when he didn't survive, but I don't think he liked being cooped up so much! And he father was more than happy that he wasn't going to be eating the garden anymore!!
She's always drawing pictures for us and showing us things she's found in the garden and dressing up. My sister in law has a box of fabric and it's amazing what some of it becomes. The nephew well he's been having the time of his life "building" the extention with his dad! "Hammering" in nails with his toy hammer and he loves Dads measuring tape! They're both great kids, but I would like to see them spend less time in front of the tele. But it's not my call to make.

NMyTree wrote:

Honestly, it can be a battle more often than not. Television is a huge distraction and that's why I want the thing turned off.....most of the time.

But most of the time I have to settle them down a bit, before the reading can begin. We don't give our kids candy, cookies, soda and anything with proccessed sugar or caffiene. Only on the rare occasion as a rare treat or a birthday (birthday cake). My kids are hyped up on natural body energy, form a high protien diet and an appropriate amount of carbs.

A lot of kids are hyped up on sugar-blasts and caffiene-blasts, which makes getting their attention much more difficult and settling them down; almost impossible.

It's a neverending battle with the grandparents to keep them from giving our kids sugar-loaded treats. It's unbelievable how stubborn and aggravating the grandparents can be over this very important issue. They are always trying to sneak my boys treats, against our will and rules.

Her mother and grandparents (my kids great grandparents) are the worst.

My parent will ask first and then try to politiely debate the issue with me; but they understand and conceed to my wishes politely and respectfully.

Her's get nasty and belligerent over it. As if they're insulted:rolleyes: I have several times tried to sit down with them and rationally explain my approach and why I feel sugar and caffiene are bad. But they simply don't want to hear it. They just keep insisting.

I couldn't care less what their opinions on sugar and caffiene are. My kids won't be subjected to that crap. And if they can't respect my wishes and my rules for my kids, they can kiss my ass.


Although her father completely understands and respects my wishes and rules. The problem is really her mother and her grandmother and grandfather. Pains in the ass, they are.

My mum was a stickler for Adele Davis when we were growing up. No refined sugar, no refined flour. Healthy treats and lots of fruit and veg.
And my granparents were shocking at slipping us "treats" when she wasn't watching! Used to drive her mad!! She's actually really good at not giving the grandkids a lot of sugary, junk food now. But I'm not so sure that my brother and sister in law are quite so vigilant. But again I guess it's their call to make.
I don't tend to give the kids sweets unless I get the ok from their parents.

cincybearcat

NMyTree wrote:

Who, Reagan? hahahahahaha!:D:D

Yes.

NMyTree

Jeanie wrote:

My niece got very attached to a snail that she found in the garden and she brought him inside and made a home for him and showed us all her new friend.
She was a bit devestated when he didn't survive, but I don't think he liked being cooped up so much! And he father was more than happy that he wasn't going to be eating the garden anymore!!
She's always drawing pictures for us and showing us things she's found in the garden and dressing up. My sister in law has a box of fabric and it's amazing what some of it becomes. The nephew well he's been having the time of his life "building" the extention with his dad! "Hammering" in nails with his toy hammer and he loves Dads measuring tape! They're both great kids, but I would like to see them spend less time in front of the tele. But it's not my call to make.

That's great stuff! In my opinion, that's what kids need more of in their lives. Imagination and the freedom to let their imaginations take them wherever they want to go.

Byrnzie

Heineken Helen wrote:

Does it really matter that the paper doesn't have a book section? You buy the paper to read the paper, you buy a book to read a book. The drop in book section may not actually reflect a drop in book sales... or maybe it does. Anybody know of any figures?

Books are too slow for todays world... it takes a few days (or weeks or months) to read a book... but only a couple of hours to watch a film and get pretty much the same story.

Watching a film requires NO effort whatsoever. Reading a book forces you to engage your concentration and apply your imagination into transforming the words on the page into images and ideas, and connections in your head. And you will not get pretty much the same story from watching a film. You will get someone else's interpretation of a book from a film - an interpretation that will always only ever skim the surface of the depths of a book. There are also some books which are nigh on impossible to film.
And as far as the reasons for someone buying a paper...is there any similarity between someone reading 'The Sun' In England and someone reading the Observer or Independent? I don't think so. There's no comparison. 'The Sun' is the complete opposite of intelligence, and imagination. Again, it requires absolutely zero effort on behalf of the reader. It's just a distraction, or entertainment. If you asked someone who reads the sun everyday to tell you what they'd read just ten minutes after they'd finished reading their paper, I guarantee they wouldn't be able to tell you. Most newspapers, and films, for that matter, are mere junk food - an easy fix, but with no substance. And that goes for all newspapers. They are the diametrical opposite of literature, and of art, or poetry. On some rare occasions a film may come close to crossing the line and achieving the status of 'art', but very, very rarely.

Anyway...just to pop back into the main thread topic - some newspapers at least are intelligent enough to point people in the right direction, both in regards to news information, and literature. The Observer and Independent have great book sections in their Saturday and Sunday editions. And the Independent even once included a glossy poster of a different painters paintings every day for about a month - which I thought was pretty impressive. So yeah, a good newspaper can act as a good pointer whilst also striving for intelligent news coverage. Good literature is something else altogether though.

catefrances

the motto of my house is: there is no such thing as too many books.

books feed my imagination and open worlds to me. sometimes they're worlds of my own creation.

Byrnzie

Heineken Helen wrote:

Put the bloody book down and get out there and OBSERVE life

Sorry, I'm a bit of a watcher :eek:

I just like being out and about and I think I can learn far more from listening and watching than from reading the words of others... I don't do enough of it but I think people should be encouraged to be more active rather than sitting down for hours reading I know most people won't agree with me but that's where it is.

It's about finding a balance. I did most of my reading between the age of 18 - 21. Probably read a book a week, sometimes two. You tend to slow down a bit though - I think most people would agree. I've heard many writers say that there comes a time when you just don't read anymore. There is an element of 'burn-out' to reading. So, yeah, personally, I hit my peak back then. Now it takes me a looong time to finish a book, and I'm more easily distracted. Still, I'll never place a film on a level above a good book, or even on the same level. A film director is someone who merely adapts someone else's ideas into another medium. An actor is on an even lesser level in my opinion. I think actors are the most over-rated people on this earth.

Anyway, end of rant.

Jeanie

Byrnzie wrote:

........An actor is on an even lesser level in my opinion. I think actors are the most over-rated people on this earth.

Anyway, end of rant.

Hmmm....well I was gonna reply to your previous post Byrnzie and tell you that I completely agree with you about books. There's nothing better than being able to lose yourself in a good book. And take a little mental trip along with the author.

However, I'm hoping you'll qualify this remark please, and say that you are speaking about the majority of film actors I presume? Particularly the current Hollywood generation?

Because fact is Byrnzie, we are all actors, even you.
And a good actor, particularly those in theatre, can be the medium between the writer and the audience that truly brings the words to life. A good actor can make you feel, help you to see, offer you understanding, a good actor can make you laugh and make you weep. A good actor can breathe life into text and character. A good actor can completely engage you in the story being told. I would say that you haven't spent enough time around good acting.