Performative Reading is Middle Class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one is doing this.

I do not notice what other people are reading. What? Who has time for this!!

[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!

Ha, me too! I'm much happier with my cozy mystery reading.

Reading the New Yorker and discussing it is performative OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1. The article is a pathetic attempt at clickbait to generate relevance.

2. If I saw someone reading Proust or a recognizable classic, I would assume they didn’t read it in middle/high school or college. Put differently, I don’t think it’s a flex.

3. You said you judge people consuming social media in public, pp. Question: how do you know what I’m reading on my phone? I’m usually reading work-related emails and related attachments (sadly). If I’m killing time in line or enjoying a quick lunch alone, I might scroll dcum, daily mail, or reels. Given the excruciatingly heavy stuff I’m dealing with at work, I need a break. My mom called it “bubble gum for the mind” and said you need a break to relax your mind, body, and soul. She had a PhD from Hopkins back when women didn’t get in unless they were truly brilliant (and she had a full ride).

An extremely intelligent, upper upper class, old money, friend with whom I've been sharing reading recommendations for decades recently stated she has never reread a book. Ever. Until then, it hadn't occurred to me some avid readers don't reread.. It completely shifted my world view. Are there art lovers looking at a painting once and they're done? What's the difference? Not a question I'm going to be asking in real life. But really interested in what the answers would be.

During the decade or so, waiting for kids doing activities stage of life, there was always a stack of classics in my car for rereading. It was relaxing and easy to read a favorite section and then just put it down because I already knew the whole story. The two volume Moncrieff translation was part of my car book stack. Wallace wasn't part of the stack because I don't really enjoy his writing, but wish we could have seen what he did as he aged.

Did the other parents think my reading was a performative flex, or pity me for a non elite education? Or, most likely, they didn't even notice or care, because we had a whole lot of other much more important stuff on our multi tasking minds.

These days I only read on a kindle. Huge relief from lugging around a car or suitcase library.

[Anonymous]

People should stop worrying about class and do what they want to do. I rarely see people reading paper books in public though.

[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!

Ha, me too! I'm much happier with my cozy mystery reading.

Reading the New Yorker and discussing it is performative OP.

Is it? This is an anonymous forum, not a public display. Who cares what you read so long it’s not scrolling instagram or TikTok. My SO also loves mysteries and describes these as intellectual junk food, which is needed after a hard day’s reading and writing legal briefs.

[Anonymous]

I don't have access to this article. Is this about the BookTok trend, like that guy Jack on YouTube?

[Anonymous]

So what. People have to stop denigrating the middle class. It's a good demographic spot and nothing to sneer at.

[Anonymous]

Isn't an anonymous message board a pretty safe space for performance? There is still an audience. Otherwise we'd all be writing in private journals, while reading Emily Dickenson behind closed doors. Which actually sounds kind of peaceful now I've imagined it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1. The article is a pathetic attempt at clickbait to generate relevance.

2. If I saw someone reading Proust or a recognizable classic, I would assume they didn’t read it in middle/high school or college. Put differently, I don’t think it’s a flex.

3. You said you judge people consuming social media in public, pp. Question: how do you know what I’m reading on my phone? I’m usually reading work-related emails and related attachments (sadly). If I’m killing time in line or enjoying a quick lunch alone, I might scroll dcum, daily mail, or reels. Given the excruciatingly heavy stuff I’m dealing with at work, I need a break. My mom called it “bubble gum for the mind” and said you need a break to relax your mind, body, and soul. She had a PhD from Hopkins back when women didn’t get in unless they were truly brilliant (and she had a full ride).

Your assumption is probably wrong, and only someone who is not intellectual thinks that reading a "classic" in middle school, high school or even college means that you have really understood or internalized it. The reason things are "classics" is that they address serious human questions, and these are best considered with wisdom and experience.

Disagree.

A lot of the classics we were forced to read really aren’t deserving of the acclaim they have received. Furthermore, many of the best schools no longer feature them.

I agree that some students don’t fully appreciate a book, but some books simply aren’t as deep or noteworthy as some think.

I’ve been very disappointed when I’ve reread classics from my childhood. Ymmv

PS - I do adults who never read certain popular classics as students who have slogged through them as adults and hated them.

Really? Any classics I've read were great reading. Novels, especially, were embraced by the reading public for entertainment just as we do Netflix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Ha, me too! I'm much happier with my cozy mystery reading.

Reading the New Yorker and discussing it is performative OP.

Is it? This is an anonymous forum, not a public display. Who cares what you read so long it’s not scrolling instagram or TikTok. My SO also loves mysteries and describes these as intellectual junk food, which is needed after a hard day’s reading and writing legal briefs.

Now I find that weird because the New Yorker has such great articles. I became a subscriber because we used to use this automotive shop that specialized in foreign brands (I had a BMW I bought used that turned out to have a ton more problems than the one I previously owned). His waiting area was stocked with his old New Yorker mags instead of Car and Driver and tire ads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cancelled my New Yorker subscription because of garbage articles like this one. Good to know I’m not missing anything.

That's too bad, because it's still one of the best publications out there. OP completely misunderstood the article-- or didn't actually read it, which would be ironic in this context.

Yes if you read the New Yorker article it's absolutely not on the side of the people sharing these videos.

"The only way that an internet mind can understand a person reading a certain kind of book in public is through the prism of how it would appear on a feed: as a grotesquely performative posture, a false and self-flattering manipulation, or a desperate attempt to attract a romantic partner."

Yes. It’s much more of an indictment of our social media addiction or at least those who don’t read. Who cares why someone is reading? Isn’t reading anything that isn’t drivel these days a good thing? I wish there were more of us who would put down their phones and do that (unless they use their phones primarily to read).

Yes, my read on the article was more a commentary about how social media is warping people's perceptions of activities. That because social media involves and element of performance people are now viewing activities as if they are intended for display or consumption.

"If our authenticity is questioned—if we are caught pretending and playacting—what ground do we have left to stand on? If we are deemed inauthentic, how can we stand for anything at all? Conversely, if everything is potentially performative, how will we ever work up the courage to step outside of our sphere of normal, to risk being earnest and cringe, and experience something transformative?"

I'd recommend reading the article. I do feel like people are getting the wrong idea about it.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/performative-reading

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cancelled my New Yorker subscription because of garbage articles like this one. Good to know I’m not missing anything.

That's too bad, because it's still one of the best publications out there. OP completely misunderstood the article-- or didn't actually read it, which would be ironic in this context.

Yes if you read the New Yorker article it's absolutely not on the side of the people sharing these videos.

"The only way that an internet mind can understand a person reading a certain kind of book in public is through the prism of how it would appear on a feed: as a grotesquely performative posture, a false and self-flattering manipulation, or a desperate attempt to attract a romantic partner."

Yes. It’s much more of an indictment of our social media addiction or at least those who don’t read. Who cares why someone is reading? Isn’t reading anything that isn’t drivel these days a good thing? I wish there were more of us who would put down their phones and do that (unless they use their phones primarily to read).

Yes, my read on the article was more a commentary about how social media is warping people's perceptions of activities. That because social media involves and element of performance people are now viewing activities as if they are intended for display or consumption.

"If our authenticity is questioned—if we are caught pretending and playacting—what ground do we have left to stand on? If we are deemed inauthentic, how can we stand for anything at all? Conversely, if everything is potentially performative, how will we ever work up the courage to step outside of our sphere of normal, to risk being earnest and cringe, and experience something transformative?"

I'd recommend reading the article. I do feel like people are getting the wrong idea about it.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/performative-reading

That sounds right. It’s really sad that folks are judged for doing things that they enjoy in which they have no expectations regarding performance. I wish people lived more in the moment and just put their phones away. Not everything is a performance or needs to be saved or broadcasted to the internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1. The article is a pathetic attempt at clickbait to generate relevance.

2. If I saw someone reading Proust or a recognizable classic, I would assume they didn’t read it in middle/high school or college. Put differently, I don’t think it’s a flex.

3. You said you judge people consuming social media in public, pp. Question: how do you know what I’m reading on my phone? I’m usually reading work-related emails and related attachments (sadly). If I’m killing time in line or enjoying a quick lunch alone, I might scroll dcum, daily mail, or reels. Given the excruciatingly heavy stuff I’m dealing with at work, I need a break. My mom called it “bubble gum for the mind” and said you need a break to relax your mind, body, and soul. She had a PhD from Hopkins back when women didn’t get in unless they were truly brilliant (and she had a full ride).

Your assumption is probably wrong, and only someone who is not intellectual thinks that reading a "classic" in middle school, high school or even college means that you have really understood or internalized it. The reason things are "classics" is that they address serious human questions, and these are best considered with wisdom and experience.

+1

And high school is for Catcher in the Rye and To Kill a Mockingbird. Not In Search of Lost Time or Finnegan's Wake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cancelled my New Yorker subscription because of garbage articles like this one. Good to know I’m not missing anything.

That's too bad, because it's still one of the best publications out there. OP completely misunderstood the article-- or didn't actually read it, which would be ironic in this context.

Yes if you read the New Yorker article it's absolutely not on the side of the people sharing these videos.

"The only way that an internet mind can understand a person reading a certain kind of book in public is through the prism of how it would appear on a feed: as a grotesquely performative posture, a false and self-flattering manipulation, or a desperate attempt to attract a romantic partner."

Yes. It’s much more of an indictment of our social media addiction or at least those who don’t read. Who cares why someone is reading? Isn’t reading anything that isn’t drivel these days a good thing? I wish there were more of us who would put down their phones and do that (unless they use their phones primarily to read).

Yes, my read on the article was more a commentary about how social media is warping people's perceptions of activities. That because social media involves and element of performance people are now viewing activities as if they are intended for display or consumption.

"If our authenticity is questioned—if we are caught pretending and playacting—what ground do we have left to stand on? If we are deemed inauthentic, how can we stand for anything at all? Conversely, if everything is potentially performative, how will we ever work up the courage to step outside of our sphere of normal, to risk being earnest and cringe, and experience something transformative?"

I'd recommend reading the article. I do feel like people are getting the wrong idea about it.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/performative-reading

That sounds right. It’s really sad that folks are judged for doing things that they enjoy in which they have no expectations regarding performance. I wish people lived more in the moment and just put their phones away. Not everything is a performance or needs to be saved or broadcasted to the internet.

DP. Agree that it's sad that people get judged for things like this, but what's far worse are the people who are judging and who think everything is a performance. I couldn't care less if some dimwit is judging me for reading a novel in public because TikTok has declared it performative, but how sad for them for failing to understand that reading can be an enjoyable way to pass the time for some people! It's a goal in its own right, not just a means to appear a certain way. How sad that they are viewing life through the lens of social media and influencers and have become unable to recognize authenticity in the real world!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I cancelled my New Yorker subscription because of garbage articles like this one. Good to know I’m not missing anything.

That's too bad, because it's still one of the best publications out there. OP completely misunderstood the article-- or didn't actually read it, which would be ironic in this context.

Yes if you read the New Yorker article it's absolutely not on the side of the people sharing these videos.

"The only way that an internet mind can understand a person reading a certain kind of book in public is through the prism of how it would appear on a feed: as a grotesquely performative posture, a false and self-flattering manipulation, or a desperate attempt to attract a romantic partner."

Yes. It’s much more of an indictment of our social media addiction or at least those who don’t read. Who cares why someone is reading? Isn’t reading anything that isn’t drivel these days a good thing? I wish there were more of us who would put down their phones and do that (unless they use their phones primarily to read).

Yes, my read on the article was more a commentary about how social media is warping people's perceptions of activities. That because social media involves and element of performance people are now viewing activities as if they are intended for display or consumption.

"If our authenticity is questioned—if we are caught pretending and playacting—what ground do we have left to stand on? If we are deemed inauthentic, how can we stand for anything at all? Conversely, if everything is potentially performative, how will we ever work up the courage to step outside of our sphere of normal, to risk being earnest and cringe, and experience something transformative?"

I'd recommend reading the article. I do feel like people are getting the wrong idea about it.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/performative-reading

That sounds right. It’s really sad that folks are judged for doing things that they enjoy in which they have no expectations regarding performance. I wish people lived more in the moment and just put their phones away. Not everything is a performance or needs to be saved or broadcasted to the internet.

DP. Agree that it's sad that people get judged for things like this, but what's far worse are the people who are judging and who think everything is a performance. I couldn't care less if some dimwit is judging me for reading a novel in public because TikTok has declared it performative, but how sad for them for failing to understand that reading can be an enjoyable way to pass the time for some people! It's a goal in its own right, not just a means to appear a certain way. How sad that they are viewing life through the lens of social media and influencers and have become unable to recognize authenticity in the real world!

I think there has got to be some projection in there. It would never occur to me that someone sitting around reading Ulysses or The Brothers Karamazov or whatever is doing so to be seen doing it. I think people who are being performative themselves all over the place -- highly insecure people -- are the only ones even thinking about this. Even people who may have come across such nonsense on TikTok are not going to think that hard about it, unless it is akin to something they engage in themselves. Plenty of weird insecure people out there, I guess?