Is reading really better for you than tv?

paleoperson · 26-08-2019 8:07pm #1

If so how?

"imagination"

When you watch tv and hear dialogue, you are using your imagination a lot. By filling in all the details like what the characters look like so seamlessly, your brain has more free time to think about the important points.

If reading is for smart people then why isn't talking by text online or on mobiles considered for smart people? There are too many contradictions to the typical reasons given.

Woke Hogan · 26-08-2019 8:10pm

I’m certainly not feeling any smarter for reading that first post.

PsychoPete · 26-08-2019 8:11pm

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 26-08-2019 8:16pm

There's reading and then there's reading.

IamtheWalrus · 26-08-2019 8:17pm

Bentlee Fresh Shellfish wrote: »

There's reading and then there's reading.

I much prefer the latter

mariaalice · 26-08-2019 8:17pm

I can't remember which book I read this in

but those with a rich inner life survived psychologically much better in the concentration camps, a rich inner life is cultivated by things like reading music, etc.

maudgonner · 26-08-2019 8:18pm

Watch TV with the subtitles on. Problem solved OP.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 26-08-2019 8:19pm

https://whytoread.com/benefits-of-reading-over-watching-tv/

odyssey06 · 26-08-2019 8:19pm

If I had to choose one, I would choose reading. I think especially for non-fiction \ factual, you can read information a lot more quickly than it can be presented to you in a documentary.
Also, for fictional works, books are much better at representing internal monologues than film.
Especially in pre-CGI era, for something like Lord of the Rings, your imagination was a much more effective 'world builder' than anything that could be put on screen.

Against that, with appropriate use of graphics, some documentaries eg The Planets, Cosmos can explain certain concepts much better than a book.
And in fictional works, films are usually much better at presenting actions and both displays of emotion - and their concealment.

Luckily we don't have to choose only one... so enjoy all mediums!

26-08-2019 8:20pm

Spending all day looking at screens OP?

Lookit your eyes are probably sore.
Go look at some paperback.

Or even an adult colouring book. That's acceptable in the AH forum.

26-08-2019 8:21pm

I'd say so, i always feel recharged after reading, in a way that tv couldn't do

paleoperson · 26-08-2019 8:26pm

I'm not here trying to argue that tv is better. I'm opening a discussion. Reading is a lot more "passive" than interacting here, because you're not constantly pushing back with something - and that's no bad thing. I'm not saying reading isn't better, I'm saying the conventional reasons given are flawed.

odyssey06 wrote: »

Against that, with appropriate use of graphics, some documentaries eg The Planets, Cosmos can explain certain concepts much better than a book.
And in fictional works, films are usually much better at presenting actions and both displays of emotion - and their concealment.!

Crime documentaries, survival stories, Chernobyl... anything involving interviews with the people. A lot of fiction also you just have to see.

maudgonner · 26-08-2019 8:27pm

Bentlee Fresh Shellfish wrote: »

https://whytoread.com/benefits-of-reading-over-watching-tv/

No offence to you Bentlee Fresh Shellfish, but that article contains more than a bit of smug ráiméis. For example:

We cant imagine a “[fill in you favorite show] TV club” to discuss the latest episode. Can you?

Anybody who's turned up to work having not watched the previous night's Game of Thrones/Making a Murderer will have felt the effects of water cooler TV.

In comparison, TV eliminates much of the extra inputs and provides a visual feed instead. The typically simple plots limit the variables a watcher needs to remember. After all, you can only fit a limited story into a 30-50 minute ‘episode’.

Modern quality TV shows have intricate plots that span not just multiple episodes but multiple series. The like sof Arrested Development had such density of gags that some were only spotted years after first broadcast (there's probably some that still haven't been picked up.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 26-08-2019 8:37pm

There's a bucket load of mind numbing, soulless TV out there but there's also a mountain of trashy dull literature. Fortunately, we're not forced to choose, nor limited to either. There's stimulating, educational, entertaining TV galore and a multitude of quality books in all genres. We're in the happy position of being able pick and mix.

beauf · 26-08-2019 8:38pm

With the exception of the hobbit, which they made 3 films from one small book. Most books will have vastly more detail and content than the equivalent movie/TV show.
There's also a huge amount more variety and diversity in books than in movies.

But enjoy both. End of....

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 26-08-2019 8:39pm

maudgonner wrote: »

No offence to you Srameen, but that article contains more than a bit of smug ráiméis.

Oh no offence taken. Just throwing it in there for the sake of the discussion.

Yer Da sells Avon · 26-08-2019 8:40pm

No its for nerd's why read the book when you could of just watched the film instead lol

odyssey06 · 26-08-2019 8:41pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

No its for nerd's why read the book when you could of just watched the film instead

We should've kept the internet that way...

A better question... book then film or film then book... I'm going to say book then film; except Game of Thrones, it was good to get introduced to the world via TV before plunging into the book.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 26-08-2019 8:45pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

No its for nerd's why read the book when you could of just watched the film instead lol

I read a couple of books a week and, while I enjoy TV and Film, nothing I've read in the past few years has yet been filmed.

CrankyHaus · 26-08-2019 8:47pm

Much more risque stuff can go into books, even widely read ones, without triggering the outrage brigade as it would in film, Tv or music.

This was even more true in the past when film and tv censorship was much more of a thing.

This suggests that the audience for books is both less likely to be outraged by "decadent and immoral" material and perceived as less likely to be influenced by it. This in turn suggests that readers are both more intelligent and perceived as more intelligent.

odyssey06 · 26-08-2019 8:55pm

If we can broaden this out to other mediums, I think that some of the BBC output of radio plays do a great job of combining the best parts of reading (internal monologue, narration) with the atmosphere through background sounds and music and the emotional delivery of the voice actors. But it is a hard trick to get right.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 26-08-2019 8:57pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Much more risque stuff can go into books, even widely read ones, without triggering the outrage brigade as it would in film, Tv or music.

This was even more true in the past when film and tv censorship was much more of a thing.

This suggests that the audience for books is both less likely to be outraged by "decadent and immoral" material and perceived as less likely to be influenced by it. This in turn suggests that readers are both more intelligent and perceived as more intelligent.

An influence in all that is the tendancy to watch TV or a film just because it's on or somebody else is watching it, while we choose, or make a more conscious effort, when it comes to selecting a bit of reading material. Hence a book can have an audience made up of those it's targeted to, while that of TV or Film can be much broader.

26-08-2019 9:22pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

No its for nerd's why read the book when you could of just watched the film instead lol

0lddog · 26-08-2019 9:32pm

Bentlee Fresh Shellfish wrote: »

....... Just throwing it in there for the sake of the discussion.

In the same vein

(a) What of talking books ?

(b) Are people with ( even a modest ) tendency to dyslexia a special case ?

facehugger99 · 26-08-2019 9:42pm

I've never met an interesting person who wasn't well-read.

Rubberchikken · 26-08-2019 9:43pm

audiobooks. kinda like reading and no telly.

paleoperson · 26-08-2019 9:48pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

I've never met an interesting person who wasn't well-read.

That's a bold statement, how do you know they how well-read people you meet are? What about people who are dyslexic. I guess your reading never led you to stories of tremendously successful people who were hiding their illiteracy? What about bushmen, aborigines, farmers... not interesting enough for you?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 26-08-2019 9:52pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

I've never met an interesting person who wasn't well-read.

I have. Many indeed. The previous generation that I had contact with in my youth were hardly literate but were interesting, perceptive, original and inspiring people all the same.

Church on Tuesday · 26-08-2019 9:55pm

I love a good book. Cup of coffee, quiet space, lost for hours.

joe40 · 26-08-2019 9:58pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

We should've kept the internet that way...

A better question... book then film or film then book... I'm going to say book then film; except Game of Thrones, it was good to get introduced to the world via TV before plunging into the book.

Always book first then film for me. If I watch a movie and then read the book it is hard not it visualise characters as they appeared in the movie which may not be how they are described in the book.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 26-08-2019 10:23pm

joe40 wrote: »

Always book first then film for me. If I watch a movie and then read the book it is hard not it visualise characters as they appeared in the movie which may not be how they are described in the book.

A classic example of that is the Jack Reacher series of books - a big mountain of a man and that stature is pivotal to both the character and many of the plots. And who is in the movies?. Wee Tom Cruise.

Greyfox · 26-08-2019 10:26pm

odyssey06 wrote: »

If I had to choose one, I would choose reading. I think especially for non-fiction \ factual, you can read information a lot more quickly than it can be presented to you in a documentary... for something like Lord of the Rings, your imagination was a much more effective 'world builder' than anything that could be put on screen.

If I had to choose I'd choose tv as tv generally values your time more. In the case of Lord of the rings seeing it all on screen saves you from reading endless dull descriptions.

joe40 · 26-08-2019 10:34pm

Greyfox wrote: »

If I had to choose I'd choose tv as tv generally values your time more. In the case of Lord of the rings seeing it all on screen saves you from reading endless dull descriptions.

I would hate to choose one over the other they're both fantastic when done well.
I started to find the game of thrones books very dull and long wait between books was a pain. TV show was better overall, last season been the exception.

odyssey06 · 26-08-2019 10:36pm

Greyfox wrote: »

If I had to choose I'd choose tv as tv generally values your time more. In the case of Lord of the rings seeing it all on screen saves you from reading endless dull descriptions.

Sometimes yes but then sometimes on TV you have Netflix bloat... a 2 hour story stretched out to 6 just to fill airtime.

Junkyard Tom · 26-08-2019 10:40pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

No its for nerd's why read the book when you could of just watched the film instead lol

Ya, like imagin trying to read love island Lol.

Salthillprom · 26-08-2019 10:40pm

Why does it have to either or? Can't you watch a bit of telly and then go to bed and read your book?

odyssey06 · 26-08-2019 10:44pm

Salthillprom wrote: »

Why does it have to either or? Can't you watch a bit of telly and then go to bed and read your book?

Exactly.

Plus in bed I prefer audiobooks / radio plays... total focus on the voices.

Salthillprom · 26-08-2019 10:44pm

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

No its for nerd's why read the book when you could of just watched the film instead lol

Let's do a little grammar and punctuation check for you:

1. Comma needed after 'no'.
2. No apostrophe in 'nerds'.
3. Don't write "could of". Say 'could have' instead.
4. Punctuate between the words 'instead' and 'LOL'. The 'LOL' should really be in capitals as its an abbreviation.
5. You asked a question and I don't see a question mark anywhere.

You'd know all of the above if you had a different mindset and actually read books, which would then improve your grammar and punctuation.

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 26-08-2019 10:47pm

You missed a couple of errors there...

You don't need a TV licence to read books, so it's better for your wallet.

Redneck Reject · 26-08-2019 10:50pm

I read more than I watch tv, and when I do it's mostly old shows I grew up with. I'm in the library once a week. I think reading stimulates your mind more than watching tv, but that's just my opinion.

touts · 26-08-2019 10:51pm

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Much more risque stuff can go into books, even widely read ones, without triggering the outrage brigade as it would in film, Tv or music.

This was even more true in the past when film and tv censorship was much more of a thing.

This suggests that the audience for books is both less likely to be outraged by "decadent and immoral" material and perceived as less likely to be influenced by it. This in turn suggests that readers are both more intelligent and perceived as more intelligent.

I sometimes wonder about that level of intelligence. The Game of Thrones TV series was excellent but when I picked up the books and realised some of the characters were as young as 12 or 13 and basically being raped or seducing older men well that put a decidedly paedo feel about some of what I was reading and I gave it up. When I hear all these book fans swearing how much better the books are in comparison to the TV show I wonder have they actually comprehended what they are reading. Yes I know it's set in a medieval world and that these sort of child weddings etc were common back then but does that justify reading in detail about a step warrior raping his new 12 year old bride? Does the fact that the target modern audience has the intelligence to understand the setting and norms of the medieval life justify writing those sort of scenes.

Greyfox · 26-08-2019 10:52pm

joe40 wrote: »

I would hate to choose one over the other they're both fantastic when done well.
I started to find the game of thrones books very dull and long wait between books was a pain. TV show was better overall, last season been the exception.

Yeah I really liked the GOT books but found the tv series much better. In fairness your right, there are things a book can do better for example getting you into the thoughts and motivations of a character. Choosing both is better than picking one over the other

CrankyHaus · 26-08-2019 11:20pm

touts wrote: »

I sometimes wonder about that level of intelligence. The Game of Thrones TV series was excellent but when I picked up the books and realised some of the characters were as young as 12 or 13 and basically being raped or seducing older men well that put a decidedly paedo feel about some of what I was reading and I gave it up. When I hear all these book fans swearing how much better the books are in comparison to the TV show I wonder have they actually comprehended what they are reading. Yes I know it's set in a medieval world and that these sort of child weddings etc were common back then but does that justify reading in detail about a step warrior raping his new 12 year old bride? Does the fact that the target modern audience has the intelligence to understand the setting and norms of the medieval life justify writing those sort of scenes.

You're dead right. A lot of very odd stuff makes it into books, and they're not always better for it. However readers generally react by thinking "this is a bit creepy and I don't like it" rather than starting a censorship crusade (or deplatforming/cancelling/whatever they call it nowadays) as would occur with other media with a mass audience. This greater understanding of the value of free expression indicates a greater intelligence among readers. This isn't to say that very intelligent people don't watch TV, rather that they share membership of the audience with many who may be less intelligent.

Similarly most moral crusades base their argument on the impact the objectionable material may have on other, more impressionable, members of society. This happens less with books, indicating an unarticulated but widespread perception that readers are less impressionable to objectionable material.

juneg · 26-08-2019 11:21pm

I'd advocate a mix. I read a lot and listen to a lot of audiobooks. I also love peaky blinders and game of thrones! I'm listening to the

26-08-2019 11:25pm

Salthillprom wrote: »

Let's do a little grammar and punctuation check for you:

1. Comma needed after 'no'.
2. No apostrophe in 'nerds'.
3. Don't write "could of". Say 'could have' instead.
4. Punctuate between the words 'instead' and 'LOL'. The 'LOL' should really be in capitals as its an abbreviation.
5. You asked a question and I don't see a question mark anywhere.

You'd know all of the above if you had a different mindset and actually read books, which would then improve your grammar and punctuation.

*Whoosh*

The poster was being facetious.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 26-08-2019 11:42pm

Unless its something really good on Netflix I never watch TV and anyone who followed the 'what book are you reading' thread will know that my ideal Saturday night is sitting at the bar of my local with a pint, my Kindle and a bowl of chicken wings.
poetry.

I love reading, I'd be lost without my Kindle but I've been recently gifted with a book of Francis Ledwidge poetry and Leonard Cohen's poetry book 'Book of Longing'.

Greyfox · 26-08-2019 11:53pm

Israel Whispering Cemetery wrote: »

Unless its something really good on Netflix I never watch TV and anyone who followed the 'what book are you reading' thread will know that my ideal Saturday night is sitting at the bar of my local with a pint, my Kindle and a bowl of chicken wings.
poetry.

I love reading, I'd be lost without my Kindle but I've been recently gifted with a book of Francis Ledwidge poetry and Leonard Cohen's poetry book 'Book of Longing'.

Reading a book using a kindle is wonderful but 95% of poetry is garbage

Earthhorse · 27-08-2019 12:04am

touts wrote: »

Yes I know it's set in a medieval world and that these sort of child weddings etc were common back then but does that justify reading in detail about a step warrior raping his new 12 year old bride?

What’s a step warrior?

Greyfox wrote: »

Reading a book using a kindle is wonderful but 95% of poetry is garbage

95% of everything is garbage.

Yeah, I would say books are better for you than TV or rather TV is worse for you than books. Due to its passive nature it’s easier to get sucked into wasting time with it than reading, which takes effort.

Sardonicat · 27-08-2019 12:26am

Earthhorse wrote: »

What’s a step warrior?

.

He's only related by marriage.

ILoveYourVibes · 27-08-2019 2:35am

Well we're reading right now....so no

Ficheall · 27-08-2019 5:42am

Salthillprom wrote: »

Let's do a little grammar and punctuation check for you:

1. Comma needed after 'no'.
2. No apostrophe in 'nerds'.
3. Don't write "could of". Say 'could have' instead.
4. Punctuate between the words 'instead' and 'LOL'. The 'LOL' should really be in capitals as its an abbreviation.
5. You asked a question and I don't see a question mark anywhere.

You'd know all of the above if you had a different mindset and actually read books, which would then improve your grammar and punctuation.

Salthillprom wrote: »

Why does it have to either or? Can't you watch a bit of telly and then go to bed and read your book?

You've missed a "be", an apostrophe, and the fucking point.

Is reading really better for you than tv?

Comments