wait what? Somehow, I made it through In Defense of Food, even though I found it sloppily written and condescending. (I did not enjoy it at all.) My thoughts and beliefs were not superceded by Pollan's.

In that vein, I feel sorry for you if you can't read books because you don't agree with them. That's one of the saddest things I have ever heard.

Actually, Anonymous, I read things I don't agree with all the time. This is more about the authors' whose perspectives or characters are so alien, I find it difficult to get swept up in their writing, no matter how good it is. And part of getting swept up in a good book, in my opinion, is surrendering yourself to it for a while.
Nancy

I have had this happen to me before with a few books. I have had such a strong personal dislike of the character(s) or the situations they put themselves in, that there is no way I can finish the book. Often these have turned out to be books that others in my book club raved about. Even after a good discussion, I still can't make myself finish the books. So I understand exactly where you are coming from.

I have started In Defense of Food on three separate occasions. I barely get through 20 pages. Pretentious arrogance is a huge turnoff for me.

1984 was written waaaaay in advance of the date. Really, it was very cool in the mid-60s when I read it. Thought was beginning to lean toward The Government Is Not Your Friend and Orwell fit right in. To read it now, 25 years past its "due date" (if you will) is almost out of context.

So, it's not books you don't agree with, just books with characters or ideas you can't relate to or personally identify with?

While I understand the distinction you are making (I think), I still find it a tragic idea.

How does one learn about distant ideas, or understand alien perspectives then? How do you get past that? Or, do you just accept that there are things you cannot relate to, and never will and then not try?

I'm not sure we're understanding each other. The point is that I do read these books, and work hard to understand them. But, especially when I read fiction, I enjoy being transported to a different place while I'm reading, and really getting into the characters' heads. My disappointment comes whenever I find I can't do that. And there seems to be a pattern that I now recognize of why that happens.
Nancy

As a Dickens lover (and Dickensblogger), I'm intrigued by your association of despair with Dickens. I don't associate the two at all. Tragedy and suffering, yes; despair, no.

I'd like to write at my blog about this article later this week, but first, could I ask you to elaborate a little? If you want to, that is. In fairness to you and your perspective, I'd like to know how you're defining despair in this context. Thanks.

Thanks for posting about Pollan, Nancy! I was actually impressed by how NOT condescending Pollan seemed as he spoke downtown Saturday night. Pointing out the evils in our mainstream food culture is, of course, a risky venture, as almost all of us are caught up in it--though in importantly varying degrees-- whether we know it or not...and no one likes to be reprimanded.

Pollan was careful to emphasize the simplicity of his ideas and claim that he's still not so sure how he framed his message to register so well with the public. I think his ability to avoid condescension in these ways has been central to his effectiveness and influence.

I think you raise a good point, Nancy, and I've been there too, many times. Up to a point, I think Pollan is correct that the reader has to find certain premises that the writer is proposing to be acceptable in order to get the point that the writer is making. But what happens when the reader just isn't buying what the writer is selling?

It could be that the reader doesn't agree with one or more of the writer's basic premises, or doesn't find the argument sustainable or well-reasoned. In fiction, it could be that the writer's use of exposition grates on the reader's ear. Whatever the reason, there's a little inner voice that just keeps saying "this isn't working."

I say, heed the voice. We all have our own reading tastes, which change as we read more, and more broadly, and as we tune our own personal ears over time. How boring we would all be otherwise. Vive le difference!

Nancy, I think you can blame your feelings about Orwell on me. You were probably over exposed at too young an age. Animal Farm is one of my favorite books, Boxer is a character all working class Americans should know well.

Whoa, I'm going to have to disagree heartily with Eve. There is no "due date" on concerns over governmental power, cultural conditioning, or the frightening fragility of Truth. Doublethink is as frightening today as it was in 1948.

Books are like salad bars, we take what we want and we leave the rest.