[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 27 KB, 500x330, the_more_you_know1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1795482 No.1795482 [Reply] [Original]

Can anyone agree and atest to this? What is it about reading that makes it seem more compelling?

>> No.1795489

When you're finished, you get to praise yourself for it on anonymous imageboards.

>> No.1795491

>go it at your own pace
>your imagination is exercised
>you get to fill in the blanks

>> No.1795493

No, actually I think you've got it backwards. There's a reason bookstores are going out of business and "impoverished" people have 3 TVs.

>> No.1795505

>>1795491

Watching shows on Netflix
>Go at your own pace
>Imagination is not as excercised, however imagery is more intense and full
>Can still fill in blanks and analyze elements

>> No.1795509

>>1795489

This is the best part of reading.

>> No.1795513

lol Netflix kills GB limits

but otherwise fuckin awesome

>> No.1795520

>>1795513

I've spent a couple hundred hours on it since January. I love reading (the reason why I'm on /lit/), but even if I had access to all the books I'd ever want to read, I wouldn't spend that much time reading.

>> No.1795524

>>1795482
Books have been around longer so there are more examples of masterworks within the medium, reading can be done almost anywhere and in complete silence. That said, I'd say:
good book > good TV > bad book > bad TV > worst books

>> No.1795544

TV has its strengths; so do books. I think books can, in general, more easily address deeper ideas, but this may also simply be based on the fact that TV is so heavily influenced by viewer numbers. Really, each has its own strengths as a medium, and it's hard to compare them. The visual aspects of TV give it a lot of versatility and allow for things such as camera angles and shot framing to convey meaning, but the sheer malleability of language lets the author do almost anything and draw the reader's attention to something in a very carefully crafted way to influence his thinking.

>> No.1795549

>>1795482
To all the idiots and/or trolls saying television is better,
http://www.nea.gov/research/ToRead.pdf

>> No.1795563

>>1795549

>implying preferring television over books makes you an idiot

>> No.1795567
File: 178 KB, 380x288, 1299900092119.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1795567

>>1795563
>implying American Idol is more mentally stimulating than literature

>> No.1795574

>>1795567
>implying entertainment has to be mentally stimulating
>implying that when you say "mentally stimulating" you don't mean "appropriate for a person of such high intellectual caliber as myself"

>> No.1795578

Well, I've yet to read a book better than watching The Wire.

>> No.1795579

>>1795567

I'm not talking about American Idol. I'm talking about Dexter. I'm talking about Weeds. I'm talking about Torchwood. I'm talking about quality shows, but while we're on the topic I'm sure American Idol is entertaining, therefore worth a viewers time.

Don't get me wrong. I like reading. I read more than the average American (not much to brag about, I realize). I just enjoy television shows more and I devote a lot more time to it.

>> No.1795598
File: 17 KB, 250x250, 1300044776986.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1795598

>implying twin peaks isn't more of a mind-fuck than every book ever written by any author from any country on any continent residing on any planet in any solar system contained in any galaxay existing in one of billions and billions of mutlti-verses

>> No.1795603

I think you can make an economic case as to why this is.

Let's assume that people have more of an interest and an attachment to things that they can relate to. The television industry is such that all programming is organized into schedules, and different episodes of different programs fit into slots in that schedule. Very few programs in television are oneoffs. So we can assume for the most part on a weekly schedule of television, that changes perhaps three times a year. A week consists of 168 hours, or 168 one-hour slots. Excluding daily two hour morning and one hour evening news, that leaves 147 hours. We can take out midnight to six am every day as well as most people are asleep during this period. That leaves 105 slots of possible television that can be watched at all by people who are awake. For most people, we can also take out 10 hours a weekday for work and transit. Which leaves 55 slots.

>> No.1795605

Out of these 55 slots, perhaps 10 get changed triannually, which would leave 75 slots available for an entire year, multiplied by the 4 networks. Since shows are driven by advertising dollars and television ratings are the accepted measurement of both programs and the ads during them, it is essential to all parties to maximize ratings, for both the current ad dollars and any future deal for the ad space. Only 300 slots a year means that each of these will be tailored to a wide demographic as opposed to a narrow demographic. The tradeoff in this case is that while more people are reached, the ones that are reached may be less likely to become dependent on a show because it is not as specialized to their tastes as it could be.

The appeal of literature is different because the economic structure of publication is vastly different from television. The income a publisher and author receives is directly correlated to the sale of a book. Thus the object of selling a book is not necessarily to make it appeal to a wide demographic, but to get that demographic to become interested enough with a book that they will spend 20 dollars to buy it. This sort of structure lends itself to niches as smaller fanbases can be devoted to many authors, ensuring them a source of steady income, allowing them to keep writing books that appeal to that audience.

The result of that is a more fulfilling experience reading a book, as opposed to watching a television show on a watered down version of the same topic as the book.

>> No.1795634

>>1795603
>>1795605

wow /thread

>> No.1795652

>>1795598
I really hate Twin Peaks.
It reminds me of my inbred hick family.
(one of them makes purses in prison & gives them to my sisters as gifts.)

>> No.1795658

>>1795634
samefag

>> No.1795667

I never really understood why either until recently, whilst watching an interview.. some author or another was explaining that when writing a screenplay as opposed to a novel his imagination was confined by the constructs of the film budget. In a book you can destroy an entire city and it not cost thing, the same cannot be said for television.

>> No.1795768

>>1795579

>Dexter
>Quality Show

pick one

>> No.1795769

if you have the ability to pay attention to something for longer than 45 seconds, read this:
jsomers.net/DFW_TV.pdf

>> No.1795798

>>1795603
>>1795605
You forgot to mention authorship. An author of a novel shouldn't have any problems staying true to his intent, while people working on a show have dozens of limits they have to abide by, making a large gap between the two; one as potential art, the other as pure entertainment.

By the way, here are some interesting thoughts of David Lynch on staying true to your ideas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBpLDKAwfLQ

>> No.1795823

TV historically, as said Netflix may change this somewhat, has been Push as opposed to Pull as reading is by it's nature unless someone is reading to you.

Pull reading/learning requires the person to actually engage in transporting the information from media to brain. Push TV requires the person to absorb at the pace and time set by the creator.

Now I forgot where I was going with this..but hey this is /lit someone else finish it off :)

>> No.1795826

I enjoy watching TV after I've come home from a long day and so I can have something to watch while I eat. I honestly can't take it too seriously though, stupid shit always goes on because T.V is too externally affected. i.e "I want mo monay, ohh shit your character just died"