[ 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: 16 KB, 398x353, librarian.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
542857 No.542857 [Reply] [Original]

Why should people read books instead of watch tv?

They're both storytelling mediums, aren't they?

>> No.542860

TV is brainless and unengaging

>> No.542865

>>542860
The Wire is not brainless and unengaging.

>> No.542866

The obvious answer is because they're very enjoyable and have their own distinct aspects that TV cannot emulate. The same is true of TV in relation to books.

>> No.542875

>>542865

Kudos. I've actually been thinking about making a thread about this show.

Though little else on TV comes even remotely close to The Wire.

>> No.542883

>>542875
Oz
Band Of Brothers.
Battlestar Galactica (save Daybreak and season 1)
Six Feet Under
Breaking Bad

>> No.542885

>>542883
Twin Peaks

>> No.542891

>>542885
Mad Men

>> No.542893

>>542865

Never seen it

Majority of TV is brainless and unengaging

>> No.542896

>>542893
Hey guess what, so are books. But because they're not a mainstream medium most people don't care about the shitty stuff.

>> No.542911

They are an exercise in your imagination n shit, but in reality that doesn't mean anything and it's pointless.

They're good because they can tell stories of any shape and size without having to worry about budget.

And people will look up to you for it.

>> No.542912

>>542910
Sure, but how does that make it better?

>> No.542910

>>542896

I still think you have to put a bit more brain power into reading the average book than it does to watch the average TV show

>> No.542923

>>542912

I dunno, I'm of the belief that somehow exercising your mind through reading rather than watching nice moving images on screen might improve the faculties of your mind more and that in itself is good

>> No.542927

While reading you have to put more brainpower into discerning characters, playing characters even. Do you not find yourself drifting off and daydreaming in your own imagination alot more while reading compared to while watching TV. Neither are bad and neither are a waste of time but I'd say reading regularly is more advantageous certainly on a growing mind than watching all but the most provocative TV.

>> No.542928

Reading heightens your reading comprehension (you read all day every day whether you realize it or not), and to strengthen your vocabulary. Also, it makes it easier to relate to people on higher levels than television does

>> No.542929

They should do both, I suppose. However, books require more intelligence in general or, at least, more concentration and attention. There are plenty of good TV shows in the same way there are plenty of good movies. I don't care what people do, honestly.

>> No.542934

>>542928
In highschool and most universities, the guy who watches TV has a lot more to talk about with his classmates and can relate to them better than the kid who reads Dostoevsky all day.

>> No.542954

There are smart books and dumb books just like there are smart TV shows and dumb TV shows. I would much rather watch an intensive, intelligent, and deep TV show than read, say, Twilight.

It depends on what you're reading or watching, not in what medium it comes in.

/thread

>> No.542957

>>542934
...and that's why we're all fucking doomed

>> No.542962
File: 12 KB, 298x340, marshall_mcluhan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
542962

>>542857
>They're both storytelling mediums, aren't they?
The medium is the message. And TV's message sucks.

>> No.542973
File: 135 KB, 1600x1200, Hellboy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
542973

>>542934

He said higher level. Small talk is easy. More advanced concepts are tougher to grasp for the average guy who doesn't read.

Reading is a more active storytelling medium, as it requires the reader to put in effort to truly get the most out of the story as opposed to television where you are a passive observer.

A few TV shows have drawn me in quite a bit, but not nearly with the sophistication or impact that books have. I attribute that fact to the considerable headstart books had...TV's only been around for, what, 70-90 years? Writing's existed for thousands.

TV'll reach the level of reading eventually, but I don't expect it until the end of my lifetime; that's optimistic.

>> No.542989

they shouldn't do one or the other, they should do both.. or none, or whatever makes them happy.

>> No.542991

Literature is extremely engaging, it pulls you into the story a lot more than say a TV show could. You learn more about characters, you know what they are thinking. A book is an experience, while a TV show is a fleeting impression.

>> No.543020

Most books have more time and space to add details to the story. I've read the books that were made into movies, and noticed that due to time restriction, entire sections of the book were cut. Usually the section makes the story flow so much better.

Plus, books are nice because you can take them anywhere, and you can stop or start them anytime. I can't do this with TV, because I don't have a DVR.

>> No.543031

Intelligent viewers will discuss and analyze a television show in the same way they would a book. A passive reader gets no more from a book than he would a TV show. If you're passive and an idiot, it doesn't matter which you do, you won't get anything from either medium. An intelligent person seeks to broaden their horizons through any medium, and doesn't dismiss one thing or another as less worthy of their time without fully exploring it. Television is constantly changing and therefore can never be fully dismissed, just as new literature shouldn't be dismissed before it's investigated either.

tl;dr if you're stupid it doesn't matter. if you're smart both are good.

>> No.543033

>>542962
fuck you Mcluhan, you're an outdated hack with no intellectual credibillity. Do KKK television talk shows have the same emotional impact on the viewer as watching alice-in-wonderland? I don't fucking think so

>> No.543037

>>542973
>Reading is a more active storytelling medium, as it requires the reader to put in effort to truly get the most out of the story as opposed to television where you are a passive observer.

By that logic, video games (in which you are an active part of events in the story and the story's progress depends on your involvement) are the ultimate medium.

Don't get me wrong, I think video games can and do tell interesting and deep stories. Just...not all of them. Hell, most of them don't. Some do have stories worth noticing, though.

>> No.543041
File: 43 KB, 480x640, oponhxdwccxlyvfe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
543041

>> No.543043

>>543031
This. One is not automatically a passive observer because it's on a screen instead of on paper. Film and TV can have a lot of complexity and meaning to an active viewer just like a passive reader will miss complex subtleties in books.

Also, plenty of books don't have complex subtleties, too.

>> No.543044
File: 37 KB, 456x409, mcluhan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
543044

>>543033
I predicted the internet and its effects in The Global Village. I was a well-respected professor my entire career. I spoke in paragraphs, not sentences. You are the intellectual pissant here.

>> No.543057

>>543037
I've seen video games that don't tell the story through cutscenes, instead relying more or less entirely on in-level dialogue, scenes, etc.

Meaning if you're just there for the action, you can more or less ignore the plot entirely, but if you like the story and such, there's a whole second side to the game. FEAR, though I thought the story was crap, did this. So did HL2.

>> No.543081
File: 11 KB, 229x261, 1268588938855.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
543081

>>543044
but you can't disprove my argument about the varied impact of television.

Problem, Marshall?

>> No.543104

>>543044
Brevity is the soul of wit, nigger.

>> No.543892
File: 924 KB, 1280x800, bobafett.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
543892

>>543037

I wouldn't disagree with you if this were the far future.

Video games are even newer then television, so there's not. I believe they have the potential to be an incredibly interesting storytelling medium, but they haven't matured into their prime. And looking at trends in the recent video game industry, where they (for the most part) emphasize flashy new features or breath-taking graphics over an engaging storyline, I fear that we will not be seeing this medium come into its fullest in my lifetime. There's strides being made in the proper direction, but for now, video games are relegated to the duty of an entertaining advanced evolution of board games.

>> No.543905

>>543892

so there's not the depth that literature or even television is able to offer*

Finishing an incomplete sentence there.

>> No.543925
File: 55 KB, 600x469, mcluhan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
543925

>>543081
The truth is, McLuhan thought television was pretty cool.

>You'll sail with television through vanishing horizons into exciting new worlds. You'll sit at speakers' tables at historic functions, down front at every sporting event, at all top-flight entertainment. News flashes will bring you eye-coverage of parades, fires, and floods, of everything odd, unusual, and wonderful, just as though you were on the spot. All this — the world actually served to you on a silver screen — will be most enjoyably yours. You'll be an armchair Columbus on 10,001 voyages of discovery!