Read Runners discussion

It's great to have a forum of intelligent and knowledgeable people. Of course, due to various factors, we end up having opinions that differ - significantly at times.

Let's have some healthy discussions here and hear some opinions that agree with ours, and some that don't.

It's fine to defend your stand assertively, but please DO NOT disrespect anyone. Personal attacks against members, and general offensiveness will be dealt with a zero tolerance approach.

I came across this article in the morning, which states that the annual reading challenge on GR is a hopeless idea.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/book...

Check this out, and say what you think!

Okay, I'll start with a general question...

Would you prefer to read the book or watch the movie based on the book first??

*b'coz I want to read Harry potter series but have already seen the movies and now thinking whether it would be worth it*

While it's true that we don't need to make reading a race. But with all the distractions in today's lifestyle i think we won't be able to read as much as we would want, if we don't set any targets. I know i won't.

Sharad wrote: "Okay, I'll start with a general question...

Would you prefer to read the book or watch the movie based on the book first??

*b'coz I want to read Harry potter series but have already seen the movi..."

Sorry Sharad, I started the thread and immediately put up a topic as well.

I prefer reading the book and THEN watching the movie because then I can visually create those characters in my head first, and then see the director's version of them.

But yes, sometimes it can still be fun to watch a movie and then go for the book version. Maybe, you could try the first book and then see if it seems good. :)

Sourabh wrote: "While it's true that we don't need to make reading a race. But with all the distractions in today's lifestyle i think we won't be able to read as much as we would want, if we don't set any targets..."

I agree! Overall, I like the fact that challenges allow me to be a more disciplined reader. If it hadn't been for numbers and targets, I think Anirudh and Manju would make me stand in a corner with hands up every single day!

According to me GR challenge is really good idea it helps in figuring out how many books you can read in a year and of course no body is forcing you to complete it. It’s a better way to get ‘read’ books organized rather than you not knowing when you read those book. And also there are no hard and fast rules in choosing the no of books per year, its totally left to us, so we can choose how many number of books we want read on our own.


And I prefer reading a book and not watching that movie at all :P bcoz the whole essence of book is lost when the story is not adapted well on screen (bcoz usually they don’t). Although I haven’t watched any Harry Potter movie or even read those books.

Oohh... 2 questions... and this thread is rocking already :P :P


Okay now for some serious answers :) :)

1. Am new to GR and therefore the concept of challenges is something that is truly new to me and therefore I simply love it. Secondly, as mentioned by others before me, i believe that it allows for a certain kind of discipline in reading while also allowing you to test your limits and maybe push yourself beyond that.

I always read several books in a year but through this challenge system, it helps me keep it documented as to what kind of books I have read in a particular year and which genre I am not reading. Also, it gives you the opportunity to try new genres, while being creative at the same time.

For instance, if you participated in a sub genre reading challenge, your creativity to find books that interest you and suit the challenge is first tested and secondly, you read more .. Which according to me is fun!! Isn't that the point of reading? I mean to have fun?

I do agree with the author of that blog/ article to a certain extent that there might be a rush to finish books and therefore we might end up choosing bad reads. However, where I disagree is that even a bad read teaches you something - Eg. don't choose such books again :P .. Therefore you don't really lose much, except maybe some time.. but then in the name of reading, alls fair!!

Now onto the second question...

2. Personally I prefer reading to watching movies as a whole. And in the case of books being made into movies, I believe in reading them first. I totally agree with what Vash said - they don't make good movies out of good books and therefore it is often a waste of time.

Even with Harry Potter, which was definitely one of those that skipped this problem, I still did not like the movie as much as I loved the books.

However, I can't say that all books are made into bad movies. Some good examples are old ones like Where Eagles Dare, Guns of Navarone etc where the movie was as good as the book and I truly enjoyed watching it. Guess oldies are more fun and were true to the book than the new ones.. Or it could be that I simply enjoyed the movie and did not think much about how true they were to the book.. Whatever the case, old movies made from books i believe are better than the newer one...:)

Finally, I again agree with Vash - would definitely want to avoid watching a movie based on a book, no matter how good people believe it to be. Somehow, I feel that the magic is lost!

I think GR challenge inspire one to read books and you can also see how much you can read in a year. though there is no pressure one can always go and reduce the yearly target but a target once set motivate you to achieve that in set time limit. Alteast it motivates me.

Participating in different challenges gives you the chance to explore different genres other than your generally favored genres. You can see what other participants are reading or what they've read. These kind of challenges provide a great platform to discuss the similar books. And you can meet a whole new set of people (I met Anirudh, Sumit and Vidya this way, see its a plus point) who are reading books similar to yours or have read totally different books. You can also get some great recommendations :D

I don't prefer movies over books. I think movies kills the essence of books.

& I've not read Harry Potter but I've watched every single movie and I loved it. May be I would have different views if I've read the books.

Manju wrote: "I think GR challenge inspire one to read books and you can also see how much you can read in a year. though there is no pressure one can always go and reduce the yearly target but a target once set..."

And if people subscribe to the same challenge as you, you can also bully them and make sure that they do their 'homework' (i.e. reading) on time. :P

Sumit wrote: "And if people subscribe to the same challenge as you, you can also bully them and make sure that they do their 'homework' (i.e. reading) on time. :P "

When someone ask for recommendations and volunteer for a buddy read and then did not read those recommendations & buddy reads, then you have the RIGHT and you're RIGHT to bully them :P:P

Manju wrote: "Sumit wrote: "And if people subscribe to the same challenge as you, you can also bully them and make sure that they do their 'homework' (i.e. reading) on time. :P "

When someone ask for recommenda..."

Ouch, that hurt! :P

Lolsss you two.. always manage to turn every conversation into a guilt ride :P :P

Sumit wrote: "Ouch, that hurt! :P"

:P:P:P

Yay, I can deflect some guilt to Sri! :D

Was never a party to that transaction :P :P So am guilt free .. at least as of now :P :P

@Sumit: I simply forgot to tell you that I'm reading A Song for Arbonne in June. Are you joining me for a buddy read?:P:P:P

Manju wrote: "@Sumit: I simply forgot to tell you that I'm reading A Song for Arbonne in June. Are you joining me for a buddy read?:P:P:P"

*thinks that's why girls think guys fear 'commitment'*

*is considering getting bullied into this buddy read*

*says yes*

@Sumit: you surprise me, I thought you're going to say NO.

Manju wrote: "@Sumit: you surprise me, I thought you're going to say NO."

I like doing stuff that people least expect. ;)

"You can make a throne of bayonets,but you can't sit on it for long."

What are your thoughts on this quote?

I think it's a fair thing to say, almost on the lines of "Those who live by the sword, die by it too."

If you're waging war, you can't wage it just because you love doing it. Aggression for the sake of it is ridiculous.

Even if you have an end goal in mind, ruling based on what you gained through shedding blood will lead to strife. For example, Sri Lanka might have almost destroyed LTTE through strong army action but, no one can deny that millions of innocent Tamils were imprisoned/raped/killed/tortured. This has probably caused a permanent divide in the Sinhalese-Tamil population.

Similarly, families in Punjab still bear the scars of the atrocities committed on them. That's one of the reasons why Beant Singh (ex-CM) was assassinated.

But what about all the dictators still active? There have been dictators for decades now. They govern with brute strength yet they have not been destroyed. Many African countries are still controlled by warlords.

Anirudh wrote: "But what about all the dictators still active? There have been dictators for decades now. They govern with brute strength yet they have not been destroyed. Many African countries are still controll..."

True that, but they pay a price. For example, Kim Jong-il of North Korea might have a pretty cushy life right now, but he would live in constant fear and insecurity of being killed sometime.

Hitler - forced to commit suicide when he almost lost the war
Mussolini - executed
Pol Pot - allegedly killed himself when he heard he'd be turned over to an international tribunal
Stalin - suffered a series of strokes (apparently due to paranoia and stress) and died of haemorrhage

I don't think any dictator would have a peaceful life ever. Eventually, I guess their 'karma' catches up with them.

I didn't say they will have a peaceful life. But many of them have held power for a very long time. China is still a single party government. Syria is another case. Even USSR lasted over 50 years. There are more examples of people who have held power at gun point.

Many of the ones you mention did lord eventually. But there are many who still haven't. So does that mean it is possible to hold on to power if you play your cards right?

Looks like we're the only two here on this thread..

Anirudh wrote: "Looks like we're the only two here on this thread.."

Yeah, looks like!

I think you're right in saying that if you play your cards right, you can hold on to power. But, I still have some kind of faith that the oppressed will eventually overthrow such a despotic tyrant.

Oops sorry.. did not see the new question.. so... :( :(

Anyway, I agree with Sumit here (once again Sheesh).. while trying to rule with power alone is possible and has been done, it is not without its repercussions. Every dictator has his own set of enemies who are constantly plotting to kill him or overthrow him. The constant fear of being ousted remains, whether or not you play your cards right. Also, you can never play it all correctly, at least that's what I feel.

For every dictator (and I use that because that seems to be the new flow of discussion), there is a team of people. Pleasing everyone is not possible and not every time. Grudges are very easy and has been a fact of history, which has led to their fall.

With North Korea also, Kim Jong Un is the new guy, although his father did rule the country with an iron fist, there were movements that tried to oust him. They were of course put into camps and suffered various forms of torture. Now his son is a mere puppet head with the military acting on his behalf. It is believed that his uncle was beheaded for fear that he may bring about some radical changes.

Of course, it may take a long time before people actually revolt there and do something about it. Something that Subodh and I disagree upon quite often, where he feels that the situation will always remain the same and I am of the opinion that change is inevitable; but despite that I believe that there comes a time where no one who rules with an iron fist can last long. Yes they will rule for some time but ultimately the oppressed will get the strength to overcome the oppressor.. that is the law of nature.

A very interesting book in this regard is the Pedagogy of the oppressed.. it is an interesting read to understand how society works and how the oppressed turn into oppressors and what happens thereafter.

Interesting points you two :-) Nice to see comments on this thread for a change :-D

I agree with both of you regarding the fact that no one will last long in power with sheer brutality. But as I mentioned earlier, there are some exceptions to that.

It is, I think inevitable for things to change. But despite that the basic principal always seems to stay the same. For example are sri pointed out that the oppressed will revolt and take power which brings about change. But the basic principle still remains the same. i.e there is an oppressor and an oppressed. The roles remain the same while the parties change.

In the short term, the situation will surely remain the same because I guess things change more by evolution, than by revolution.

I'd love to read that book, Sri. I guess one of the issues they have in countries like North Korea is that people lack awareness. With so much propaganda, people develop some kind of siege mentality and believe in the supreme being who rules them.

(It might be a fictitious example, but the Lord Ruler from Mistborn is a pretty good example.)

I agree with what you are saying Anirudh.. but usually before the role reversal takes place, there is anarchy. This is where some clear thinking people come up with thoughts of democracy and this is what ultimately helps in the end. Until we reach true democracy, however, we are left with being either an oppressor or the oppressed.

And as for ruling long, ya I have to agree with you.. there have been cases where power and iron rule has gone for a long time but ultimately it had to fall. Length of such rule usually translates into the level of anarchy that follows, from which it is often difficult for people to come out of. That said, it is not impossible or something imaginary. I believe that it has happened and will happen, every time someone takes the role of an oppressor.

Even in democray there is dominance. There is a oppressor and an oppressed. It is simply more civilised that's all..

As te changing in short term, I agree with you sumit, Everything needs a boiling point. Both in terms of time and pressure. It took India a long time to oppose the British thoroughly

@Sumit - its not so much as lack of awareness as the fear that rules them in North Korea. They are totally scared that if they do anything out of the ordinary, they will be put into camps or worse their loved ones executed. They have to accept what goes on and live their lives accordingly.

In fact, once at a super market, a local lady came to talk to me but was really scared. I did not know the local language and she knew very little english but after muttering a few words, she ran away. later I found out that she was taken for questioning. It is that bad in that country. And people fear for their lives. In fact, even Subodh had to tell their government liaison what happened between me and that lady. Even in the market side, we are followed to ensure that we do not buy from the same shop keepers at all times. Subodh had to hide the fact that he understood Korean, else he would have been deported immediately!!

in such a condition, nothing works.. it will take a great power to actually get them out of it.

Ya.. I agree with you on the Mistborn example. In fact, in my review also I mentioned it, as it reminded me so much of this concept.

Srividya wrote: "@Sumit - its not so much as lack of awareness as the fear that rules them in North Korea. They are totally scared that if they do anything out of the ordinary, they will be put into camps or worse ..."

Well, maybe it's a mix of both. I met a North Korean student in Mongolia - and he actually defended the Kim Jongs, and was vicious in his denouncement of the West, and how the entire world was against the utopian world that the Supreme Leader had built.

But yes, it will not be easy to get rid of the tyrant. He is firmly entrenched in the nation's psyche. :|

true that.. there are several loyalists.. that's why the rule continues. you see there are several advantages of being a loyalist.. you get better perks :P

And perhaps you live longer.

That too.. most definitely that....

why were you in North Korea?

We need to drag some people from chat threads to this :-P:-D

True that!

Sri, your cue to answer a very good question? Were you spying on the supreme leader?

@Anirudh.. Subodh was there for some development work in 2006.. Went to join him as it was a family posting. So stayed there for about 10 months. he was there for more than 2 years though

Lolss Sumit.. as if that were possible.. it took Subodh nearly one year to get permission for me and Shrija to visit the country... :) And Shrija was a baby at that time!!!

Only we three are here :-D Need to motivate more people to participate :-P

sri that task assigned to you are you're good at it :-D

Anirudh.. I will need to get a hatchet and go after them to come here :P :P Am not sure they will like me if I did that :P :P

I see a very striking similarity between all the dictators and some politicians like Raj Thakre and K Chandrasekhar Rao ( Telangana )who initially won people's support . They don't fight or strive to build the nation or bring reforms . All they do is blame one race/religion/ region for their backwardness . And since most of them are great orators, people easily get swayed by them. These leaders brew hatred and enmity against the other race/religion/region and gain stronghold among the people . That's the way most of these leaders become powerful . But once they become powerful , they realize that the problem lies somewhere but not with the race or whatever. That will be the starting point of their downfall .
*I know the debate is over about this, but just wanted to share my opinion and get corrected if I am wrong *

@Sri, Necessary sacrifice :-P

@HP, not at all. The thread is always open for new opinions :-)

Harry, good point about oratory. I guess almost all successful dictators have used the power of words before using guns/swords to get people on their side.