A cafe is the best place to read

The argument

Proponents of this position argue that a cafe supplies at once the several conditions that sustained reading requires, and that a private setting supplies only some of them. The first is straightforward provision: cafes have food and drinks, so a reader can settle in for a long stretch without the interruption of having to leave in order to eat. The second is sensory. Cafes are rife with the smell of fresh-ground coffee, which supporters of the position treat not as an incidental pleasure but as adding to an already cosy ambiance — the atmosphere is itself part of what makes prolonged attention comfortable. Some cafes add a third provision in the form of small libraries, and on this view that is a distinctively public advantage: a private shelf holds only what its owner has already chosen, whereas a cafe's allows for exploring new titles a reader would never otherwise have picked up. The obvious objection to reading in public is that other people are a distraction, and proponents meet it directly. Most people at cafes have their own work to get done, which means they have little occasion to interrupt a reader just when a great book was starting to get even better. The result is an atmosphere that is at once lively and quiet — populated enough to feel social, yet with each occupant absorbed in something of their own, so that company is available without being imposed. What recommends the cafe, on this account, is therefore the combination rather than any single feature: food and drinks, a quiet yet social atmosphere, and caffeinated aromas, none of which a solitary setting assembles in full. Since that combination is obtainable only where other people are present, supporters of the position conclude that a cafe is the best place to read, and that reading is accordingly better in public.

Premises

Counter-arguments

While cafes are great places to grab a bite to eat or something to drink, they're too busy for a good reading experience. The loud whirring of coffee grinders and espresso machines will never fail to jolt a reader out of even the most compelling story. Simply put, cafes are too loud and trafficked to lead to a good reading experience.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] These are agreeable features of cafés rather than reasons for reading in one, and several work against the claim — food and drink occupy the hands, and a "lively atmosphere" is the counter-argument's objection restated as a virtue. The in-house library point applies to a small minority of cafés. [Rejecting P2] The premise is doubtful and the conclusion does not follow from it. Cafés vary enormously in noise, and grinders, music and conversation are what a reader has to contend with; the claim that other patrons are busy working describes one kind of café at one time of day. More importantly, the position is that reading is better in public while the argument defends a single venue — a case for cafés is not a case against a quiet room, which is the comparison the position actually needs.