I was thinking if you dont read does it make you stupid??? Like a long period of no reading part from letters and newspaper and that sort.
it doesnt make you stupid exactly, perhaps at least it would make you a less adept reader though. if you do have time to read a lot though I think it incurs huge benefits. I'd like to take a year of after HS partially to get a crapload of reading done that i have wanted to do for year.
i dont read alot and im still pretty smart, basicaly the only thing reading for pleasure gives you is time killing and then learning new words and how to use them correctly aswell as random knowledge and better grammar.
i havent really decided yet, id like to read a tons of the classics. i think i will just go to the bookstore and buy like 20 books at once for starters, in the event that i actually take a gap year
I want to start reading a bunch of books to improve my english skills (im on A/B at the moment and that isnt good enough) so i really don't know what books to choose from ~ Ive never really been big into books soo.... Any suggestions?
i think reading broadens your mind and makes you more eloquent, but not reading doesn't exactly run you backwards... for thatcrazythang, you could try reading books you already know in your first language in english. for example, if you've read harry potter in your own language, you could try reading the original...?
Oh you misunderstood me. I meant the GCSE english in secondary school? I am British and my first language is English.. I live in Oxford =] which has been said has more books per square kilometer than anywhere else in england or europe, or something like that =]
i mean it depends where you want to start but there are so many great books. some of the classics i have read recently were Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, the count of monte christo, and paradise lost. i would highly recommend the first three, but the last one, eugh, its a bitch
In response to the original question, the thing to remember is that, in this electronic day and age, reading things online is almost as good as reading books. What you see online isn't always as eloquent, but when you read it, you are still exercising your brain.
I think that if you don't read, your language skills end up being exceptionally poor. That is, both your writing and speaking abilities suffer, in my opinion. I'm always amazed by how limited people's vocabularies are these days. And how bad their grammar is. Especially online. It makes me want to die sometimes, especially some of the posts on EC. Some of them are actually painful to try and read. I'm all for changing it up at times and I get that not everything has to be formal and stiff but there is a reason why spelling got standardised and rules of grammar were adopted. It's so we can all focus on what's being said, not HOW it's being said. And truly, I do not agree that reading online is the same as reading offline, unless you're reading something that was originally published in a more formal medium. Writing on websites is often designed to be short and punchy, and simple to digest. It hardly stretches your language abilities. And the writing on most web forums? Sorry, but overall it's atrocious. Read enough of that and I'm sure most people's language skills will actually degrade. I think communication skills are vitally important for anyone who wants to do well in life--and reading is a big part of developing your communication skills. A very common response to people who ask, "How do I become a better writer?" is "Read more." And you can bet they don't mean read more Reader's Digest or lifestyle magazines.
Woah, you must be quite an avid reader. The last time I made such a resolution to read, I waded through the first few pages of Pride and Prejudice, and subsequently left it on my shelf for dust-collection purposes.
I bought "Jane Eyre" today and im on chapter 3. Its very good ~ infact im going to go read some more.
oh sorry thatcrazythang! i did think your english sounded native, i was suprised when i thought you said it was a second language. lol sorry i wasn't implying you sound like a learner i agree joey. the general population's grammar skills make me cringe. "your" and "you're" seem to be interchangeable words these days, for instance...
You know what REALLY drives me insane along those lines? It's and its. And the general misuse of the possessive apostrophe to form plurals (it's not the 1990's, it's the 1990s, and you have 2 parties to go to, not 2 party's). Just for the reference, the possessive form of "it" is actually formed WITHOUT the apostrophe (unlike most possessives). So the cat licked ITS fur. The committee released its report. "IT'S" is the contraction for "it is," demonstrating the other main use of the apostrophe in English, which is in contractions like "can't, won't, didn't, etc." IT'S time to correct your grammar. "your" and "you're" are really easy to learn, as are "it's" and "its." their/they're, two/too/to... again, every native speaker should be able to figure those out. Further/farther I can understand because it's subtle, and even I have trouble with lie/lay, lying/laying, lay/laid, lain/laid... but seriously, all you need to do is Google the terms you find confusing and there are bunches of webpages that explain how they're used. These days it's easier than ever to round up good grammar references. Yay grammar!
