Performative Reading is Middle Class

[Anonymous]

Change your mind? Why? Who cares what you think?

I have a grad degree in English and if people are reading good literature I'm happy about it, whatever the reason. Your need to get all wrapped up in calling something MC (as an insult, lol ... does that happen anywhere but DCUM?), as a result of someone spouting some nonsense in an article in the New Yorker, is embarrassing.

And what is the "authentic" stuff? Bizarre. You think some people are reading that copy of Middlemarch in an "authentic" way and some people are not? Lol. Ok. Whatever you say.

I'm also laughing at you for this "I certainly think more highly of someone reading a physical book" stuff. I'm reading Proust on my Kindle right now. I guess that doesn't count for you? Ha ha. So stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is something ironic about reporting on an article you read in the New Yorker about performative reading.

For a long time the New Yorker was the only print reading I did because it was so dang performative. Then my subscription lapsed and I was forced to start reading romantasy and sci fi. Much happier!

A PP. I went to fanfic. Yours in solidarity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is something ironic about reporting on an article you read in the New Yorker about performative reading.

For a long time the New Yorker was the only print reading I did because it was so dang performative. Then my subscription lapsed and I was forced to start reading romantasy and sci fi. Much happier!

A PP. I went to fanfic. Yours in solidarity.

Xox!

[Anonymous]

Hmmm so where does listening to trashy mystery audiobooks fall into this? Kidding, I know I’m a non performative mc suburban housewife already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read heavy $hit at work ALL DAY LONG. The last thing I want to do is read something heavy when I go home. I’m going to read People Magazine.

Change my mind.

+1

When your day job entails reading and being on the computer a lot (writing), who wants to read for pleasure?

It’s okay to read dcum or garbage magazines or whatever. It’s okay to just watch tv or flip through reels (I enjoyed a bunch of content from old sitcoms and movies tonight).

Only a dcum striver would concoct a bright line rule equating reading habits and class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My secret reading of dcum is a high-class activity. Because it is a secret.

I read DCUM because I got tired of book clubs where nobody reads the books, having a subscription to The New Yorker when Trump is president because then I have to contemplate that way more than I can stand to, and reading real books on my own that nobody else wants to hear about because the books are too intellectual.

Being a nerd is socially exhausting. I've already read enough books for multiple normal person lifetimes. I'm in my DCUM and Reddit era now. It reminds me of the Usenet of my youth.

Same!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My secret reading of dcum is a high-class activity. Because it is a secret.

I read DCUM because I got tired of book clubs where nobody reads the books, having a subscription to The New Yorker when Trump is president because then I have to contemplate that way more than I can stand to, and reading real books on my own that nobody else wants to hear about because the books are too intellectual.

Being a nerd is socially exhausting. I've already read enough books for multiple normal person lifetimes. I'm in my DCUM and Reddit era now. It reminds me of the Usenet of my youth.

Same!

+2. I’ve already read everything good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is something ironic about reporting on an article you read in the New Yorker about performative reading.

For a long time the New Yorker was the only print reading I did because it was so dang performative. Then my subscription lapsed and I was forced to start reading romantasy and sci fi. Much happier!

this times 10000 - I was looking for just this comment!

[Anonymous]

Ugh. I am a well-educated woman (JD) and I only read what would be considered trash by the "elite, highbrow discerning" people. It is what I enjoy and I read a lot. I read on the Kindle app on my iPad because I am not a re-reader and books end up as clutter in my house. We have lots of physical books for my son and my husband. We use the library too. Unfortunately, much of the "trash" I enjoy is on Kindle Unlimited, which does not show up in many libraries. I've checked many libraries for many of these authors and they aren't there. I suspect that it has something to do with the contract for KU.

I hate articles like this one. Read what you enjoy, not what literary critics think you should read. That seems to be the recipe for lots of reading.

[Anonymous]

Waiting for someone to point out the obvious:

Tons of books (and authors) heralded as amazing are actually quite lackluster, problematic, boring, etc.

And like any form of art, it’s subjective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is something ironic about reporting on an article you read in the New Yorker about performative reading.

For a long time the New Yorker was the only print reading I did because it was so dang performative. Then my subscription lapsed and I was forced to start reading romantasy and sci fi. Much happier!

This cracks me up. I subscribed for 25 years then decided that it was just stressing me out to try to get through it every week. I don’t really miss it. At the same time, I’ve decided to forgo reading books that are “serious” and now just read trashy chick lit. And I a, much happier for it.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand what "performative" means in this context. Reading is reading and is always a good thing, no matter the material. Getting through a "serious" book just to say you read is not wasted time or effort, but I doubt many people (if any?) do that. There has to be some curiosity and intent to learn something for yourself behind it. There isn't anything wrong with reading something fun and light either.

[Anonymous]

the New York is itself performative reading. What a joke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what "performative" means in this context. Reading is reading and is always a good thing, no matter the material. Getting through a "serious" book just to say you read is not wasted time or effort, but I doubt many people (if any?) do that. There has to be some curiosity and intent to learn something for yourself behind it. There isn't anything wrong with reading something fun and light either.

Read the article. Performative reading is more or less defined as conspicuously reading a physical book in a public setting. A book that is considered high brow literature (eg, Proust or David Foster Wallace) or critically accepted and in a way design to convey intellectual superiority. It screams, “Look at me you rubes. I have higher status than those who waste their time addicted to brain rot social media.” It sounds like it’s a direct reaction to those who endlessly scroll social media in public places to the point that they are often obvious to their surroundings and others. Maybe it’s just another form of snobbery in our modern age. FWIW, I’m beginning to think there is a real stigma in connection with those who endlessly consume social media, especially in public. I certainly judge them.

[Anonymous]

Is it really that hard to share an article that you want to talk about?