Hank's TERRIBLE Book Takes in pod #450
Listening to the podcast with Hank and Keith and wow. I can't believe how bad some of these takes were.
First, "some books are brain rot" is an insane take based on his definition of brain rot earlier in the pod. He argued that the "badger badger..." flash video was not brain rot. Apparently a video stops being brain rot if there is a story. What book is he reading that doesn't even exceed that most basic definition?
Also! If the options for your attention are AI slop on tiktok or a bad book, I think the bad book is always going to be a less rot-y use of attention. Plus, your brain processes words that are part of a sustained narrative experience (saying it like this, because I would argue that a lot of the stuff on AO3 is better than a lot of books, and absolutely counts as reading) differently than it processes a video. I have never left a book, no matter how bad, feeling like my brain has rotted in the same way that even mediocre videos make me feel.
Then his other take (which is probably more defensible) that all the classics are good is also just wrong. What are we defining as good? Culturally relevant? Than sure. But a lot of those books are boring, problematic or incredibly difficult to get through. Telling someone who wants to get into reading that they should just pick up a classic, is a great way to get someone to never read again. Can you imagine picking up Great Expectations or Moby Dick as a person who does not have the practice of reading and being able to get through it?
I do agree with him that picking up something popular from something you're interested in is a good idea. Tom Clancy might not win any Pulitzers but the stories are engaging and fast paced. Even "bad" popular books are a good way into reading because they are easily digestible and either you'll like it or you'll have a lot of thoughts.
Anyway... Rant over.