What's your favorite "junk food" reading?

James Hadley Chase is my favourite junk.

I don't think anyone here forces themselves to read books that are "good for them"... or am I wrong? Books don't get to be classics because they're boring, do they?

I think "junk food" books are for when you're too tired for headier pleasures. Or you're just in a different mood. Books that are too stupid to do anything for you aren't fun to read; any book you enjoy isn't something to feel guilty about. When I really really want some spazzy junky reading, I pick up the National Enquirer. Does Wodehouse count as junk food? People respect him, but he does have a feather touch, and I can consume his books compulsively till my stomach and head actually hurt, like I have a hangover...

This thread provides some answers, Mark:

Good Bad Books

xpost

I know what you mean about devouring certain books with a metabolism that feels more like "junk food eating" even when the books are by no means bad. I read at this pace with certain authors. I can't seem to savor Dennis Cooper, Patricia Highsmith, Lovecraft, Wodehouse, Jim Thompson, Philip K. Dick, Lethem, Handler . . . I just wolf em' down.

It could also be that I have to read so much academic writing for my work that ANY fiction can feel like a sinful indulgence sometimes.

No doubt! I'm in a very slightly different place -- trying to learn Italian, working too much, trying to get back into school while writing a novel -- but I know what you mean. When I just plain read good fiction in my native language I feel like I'm being pampered by fan-waving slaves.

Old favourites, esp. short stories. Atwood, Wyndham, Daphne Du Maurier. I use them as palate cleansers between school work and more adventurous books.

I am going on a cruise with my extended family in a couple of weeks. Recommend me trashy (but not too trashy) stuff to read to distract me from family nonsense.

Joyce will be a good distraction.

Nora Roberts romance novels.

I quite like a spot of pulp sci-fi if I'm not up to anything else.

I think I've objected to the line of thinking implicit in this thread before here, partly on ideological grounds, but partly because I don't make these distinctions when I read. I just went from Nobel Laureate Oe to wrestler Mick Foley, and they were just the next books I fancied, not any sense of relaxing with some light junk after the serious existentialism. We all read Jim Thompson novels differently from Ulysses, but I think we are all far too ready to be dismissive about great writing if it's not demanding.

I like Patrick O'Brian books and once in awhile some fantasy. The reason this feels like junk food reading is that I have lists and lists of books I've heard about that sound so great that I want to read, but once in awhile I just want to read something entertaining in a few days that I know won't deeply affect the way I look at the world in any way but I don't really care.

I don't know where Ann is coming from on this, but I do take issue with Martin's statement. I often read books for the knowledge they contain rather than for the intrinsic enjoyment of reading them; the Quran, for example, is hardly the most enjoyable reading but I am tackling it so I can be more knowledgeable about it.

Drew knows where I'm coming from on this. I think that sometimes we read certain authors for external reasons (work or peer pressure) to do so; this isn't necessarily a bad thing - I would have missed out on many great works if I wasn't assigned them - but it can take a person away from the book on the shelf that they're just itching to read. I'm just wondering what those books are for people, possibly because I have a hard time imagining that they're the ones written by the authors whose works dominate so many of these threads.

I do agree with Martin's point that just because it's not demanding doesn't mean that it isn't great writing. But great writing isn't necessarily enjoyable reading, either - and sometimes some people want the pleasure of reading without having to analyze or dissect the book.

I think of 'junk food' books as books that are genuine junk, specifically designed to fill up a bit of time while leaving no resudue of thought behind, merely the sensation of having your attention occupied for a while.

To give an example, there was something called "The Preppy Handbook" published about 15 years ago. It was truly a junk food book. You could read it and forget it all in the same hour. There are other, similar concoctions like 'Uncle Somebody's Bathroom Reader' or certain celebrity biographies.

Using this definition, I don't have a favorite type of "junk food reading". If I need to kill time and something like this is sitting under my nose, I might peruse it. But these things are so slight, so forgettable, so meaningless and empty that it seems impossible to me to attach any emotion to them at all.

Fast Food Nation?

Hey, Klobas -- I'm not sure what you mean by not knowing where I'm coming from. I read some books because I "feel like I should" myself -- and I generally wind up enjoying them once I pick up the idiom -- but I don't feel guilty when I snarf down a sci-fi novel, because I wouldn't waste my time reading one that I thought was stupid. I don't feel compelled to eat cheesy poofs either; I'd eat them if I were starving and there was nothing else, but I'd leave them there if there was anything tastier and more substantial. I have a low tolerance for wasting time and effort (chewing is effort and so is turning pages!). But some people consider sci-fi to be junky period, so...

My light reading = footy reports, really.

Wait, hang on -- does pornography count?

Fair enough, distinguishing fiction from non-fiction (I think few read the Koran as fiction, even if we think it's all made-up nonsense) - I read things that way, where I want the knowledge, and it is different. But that's an entirely different distinction from that between Borges/Kafka and Archer/Cartland. I don't read any fiction because I'm supposed to or to better myself or anything like that, I read for the pleasure, and that is true whether it's Borges or Jim Thompson. I still dislike and disagree with this commonly used 'junk food' metaphor.

Because reading can't harm me?

Crossword puzzle mysteries.

"Junk food" probably wasn't the best metaphor I could have used; it was just the best I could come up with at the moment. Perhaps "hedonistic" reading would have been more accurate. But where you and I differ, Martin, is that there ARE books of fiction that I read mainly to better myself (James Joyce comes to mind for me). After trudging through one of those, I feel like picking up some Twain and just letting the prose wash through my mind.

I guess I do get where Ann is coming from after all; I just don't think of the "National Enquirer" when I'm looking for the written word as entertainment. And reading CAN cause harm; I have the dent marks in my forehead from many a book I had to pound my way through to prove it (thank you again, James Joyce!).

BTW, what's a "crossword puzzle mystery"?

Ulysses is fun. It talks about sweets and buns.

I know what you're getting at -- and my simple answer is Ross MacDonald's novels -- but, yes, I really turn to Borges for entertainment. All. The. Time. Thumb through the Collected fictions if you have it - of course not every story is going to suit your taste but start with the shorter ones and I think you'll have good luck over all. Find a used copy of The Book of Imaginary Beings. For sheer enjoyment I don't think you can go wrong with Borges who is worlds and worlds and worlds away from Naipaul.