Book-clubby question: social/educational bubbles, overexplaining concepts in media

Options
jlahorn
jlahorn Posts: 377 Member
in Chit-Chat
This is probably a little serious for MFP, but hey, it's Chit Chat, right? :)

I'm currently reading The Life We Bury and the author, Allen Eskins, did something that kicked off a random train of thought. In close succession, he (to me) over-explained some things: Occam's razor and Jackson Pollock. The first time, I thought it was odd that he was explaining this to adults, and the second time, I seriously googled to make sure that this wasn't a YA book.

That started me thinking - what American adult doesn't know what these things are without having them explained? I am pretty sure I knew who/what those are before I graduated high school, but I have always been a big reader so I'm not a good representative of the average.

I grew up in a poor working class bubble, but ever since I left high school x-ty years ago, I've been in a different bubble of educated people (whether formally- or self-educated). I'm still in regular contact with my less-educated family and friends, but they don't really inform my daily experience in any way. I wonder if the people in my old bubble would understand these references immediately or not. If not, would they even be reading this book?

Out of curiosity... did you just have to google Jackson Pollock or Occam's razor? What kind of education do you think you had? (little education, self-educated, formal education, etc.?) Are you American?

When you're reading a book or watching TV or movies, do you prefer to have things explained to you, or would you rather research unfamiliar things on your own? (I prefer the latter.)

I'm also curious to see if this post will sink like a rock to page 17 ;)

Replies

  • saranne1015
    saranne1015 Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    I knew about both, although I didn't learn about Occam's Razor until I got to college. We weren't big philosophy folks at my high school. I don't think most are, so I can't imagine most adults being familiar with it. Yes, I'm American, with a graduate degree, also a big reader, and I'd rather research things on my own or have to figure it out from the context of the book/show than having it explained.

    And down to page 17 we go!
  • jlahorn
    jlahorn Posts: 377 Member
    Options
    _A_Real_Mouthful wrote: »
    i know about them but it doesn't really mean anything. i mean there's always going to be someone who is smarter and more knowledgeable out there.
    you could read every encyclopedia ever printed and still learn something new just by talking to someone you never met i'm sure.

    Oh, absolutely.

    To clarify, the scenarios I'm talking about are more like this:

    Character A throws spaghetti against the door of a refrigerator.
    Character B: "You're like the Jackson Pollock of pasta."
    Character A spends a paragraph on an internal monologue that serves no purpose except to explain to the reader that Jackson Pollock was an artist who worked with a paint splatter technique.

    I would have expected that to just be a quick aside.

    The book is actually pretty good so far -- I just found those little tangents unnecessary and distracting, and they made me curious enough to take a quick survey :)

  • enterdanger
    enterdanger Posts: 2,447 Member
    Options
    I had to google Occam's razor, but I'm familiar with Jackson Pollock. I'm also American, late 30s, and hold a college degree...the only philosophy class I took was "Contemporary Moral Problems." It didn't cover Occam's razor. Although my teach would always come up with these bizzare scenarios about Mel Gibson. Like "Mel Gibson shoots your husband but then you find out he has a brain tumor pressing on his brain making him nuts. Is he bad?" Thank you University of Delaware.

    I get what you mean though. When an author goes into too much detail describing things it bothers me. Unless it's Tom Robbins. His entire intro to Jitterbug Perfume describing beets was damn masterful.
  • enterdanger
    enterdanger Posts: 2,447 Member
    Options
    HA! @_A_Real_Mouthful Martin looks like a man who would over describe food. I actually had a problem with all the GOT books after the 1st one. Everything is overdone. Too many plots. Too much description. Yes, the stories are interesting, but I had to go back and re-read a bunch because there were too many characters for me to keep track of. I hate that.

    There's another fantasy author named Melanie Rawn who's books are like that. She actually starts the sequels or books in her series with a list of who died in the last book. Even with that, I couldn't care enough about most of the story lines to keep reading.
  • jlahorn
    jlahorn Posts: 377 Member
    Options
    newmeadow wrote: »
    Even if they don't share my interest in Hostess snack cakes, the National Enquirer, American made automobiles or eight dollar marked down sweatpants from Walmart.

    Hah :) Anyone who can't appreciate a Ho Ho should be banished from your circle immediately!

  • saranne1015
    saranne1015 Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    _A_Real_Mouthful wrote: »
    enterdanger wrote: »
    HA! @_A_Real_Mouthful Martin looks like a man who would over describe food. I actually had a problem with all the GOT books after the 1st one. Everything is overdone. Too many plots. Too much description. Yes, the stories are interesting, but I had to go back and re-read a bunch because there were too many characters for me to keep track of. I hate that.

    There's another fantasy author named Melanie Rawn who's books are like that. She actually starts the sequels or books in her series with a list of who died in the last book. Even with that, I couldn't care enough about most of the story lines to keep reading.

    I believe Martin's problem is he either fired, or lost, the editor who helped him sort out the first book (though I may be remembering that wrong). the books are good still, but way too bloated. Stephen King has always suffered from the same thing, major problems with bloat.

    OK, I'm glad I'm not the only who thinks that. I used to think, "Oh, this gaping plot hole is left here for a reason and it's going to be resolved right now--oh, no, wait, he's describing every knight who is at the joust complete with all titles, nicknames, relatives, and thorough descriptions of their house sigil."
  • saranne1015
    saranne1015 Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    jlahorn wrote: »
    _A_Real_Mouthful wrote: »
    i know about them but it doesn't really mean anything. i mean there's always going to be someone who is smarter and more knowledgeable out there.
    you could read every encyclopedia ever printed and still learn something new just by talking to someone you never met i'm sure.

    Oh, absolutely.

    To clarify, the scenarios I'm talking about are more like this:

    Character A throws spaghetti against the door of a refrigerator.
    Character B: "You're like the Jackson Pollock of pasta."
    Character A spends a paragraph on an internal monologue that serves no purpose except to explain to the reader that Jackson Pollock was an artist who worked with a paint splatter technique.

    I would have expected that to just be a quick aside.

    The book is actually pretty good so far -- I just found those little tangents unnecessary and distracting, and they made me curious enough to take a quick survey :)

    That sounds like a very YA author thing to do...."Edward Cullen's eyes burned like the fires of Mordor. Mordor is a fictional place in the JRR Tolkien series Lord of the Rings. It is the place where...."

Categories