My imagination does get going when I read non-fiction, that’s why I love reading it 
My opinion is that it’s largely something that people who read say to make themselves feel good. And I say that as someone who reads, a lot, and really does get warm fuzzies when kids read. It’s terribly affirming to think that kids are going to be doing the things I did, and enjoying them. I must’a had a good life, eh? I’m all right!
And I’m not saying reading isn’t good. I still maintain that 70% of my vocabulary comes from reading purple-prosey fantasy as a kid. But, frankly, I’ve seen no evidence that the things you pick up from reading are more valuable than the things you pick up from games, or movies. Sure, I probably improved my writing abilities by reading, but I know I practiced the hell out of math figuring out optimal resource-gathering rates for Civ 4, and I learned the ins and outs of Excel largely by analyzing skill trees. My first forays into Visual Basic were because I wanted to program an army builder for Warhammer.
Basically, I’m saying that pretty much anything you do is going to teach you something, and it’s a little silly to say, “my recreation activity is better for me than yours, neener neener!”
But I still wouldn’t date someone who didn’t read.
This sounds like it may be something I have. I’m a non-fiction reader and I have a hard time finding TV shows that I like because of this kind of thinking.
With that being said, my two favorite fiction books are Of Mice and Men and Native Son.
I agree with all of this. And the same even moreso when it becomes “Spending lots of time reading books is really good for you, but spending lots of time reading things on the Internet is really bad for you.”
Keep stating, because it’s not obvious. I was one of those people that truly was reading college textbooks at age 3. I read every book in the library on war (it was an interesting topic to me for some reason when I was a sprout) before 4th grade. Granted, after that, I fell off reading, but I majored in English in college and you can imagine how many books I’ve read during that. Also, in recent year, I’ve picked back up on reading recreationally.
I’m not trying to be snippy, and I fear that I’ve almost certainly come off as such, but don’t speak in certainties when you aren’t, and can’t be, certain.
I find this difficult to reconcile with your assertion that you get stuck every two sentences and have to ruminate for a while. Either you had the longest, most painful English major career ever, or you misrepresented how often this problem occurs.
I have no doubt as to your sizable reading experience and all the rest of it, but, wow, what college textbooks were you reading at age 3 and how well did you actually understand them?
Several people have said something about “learning grammar”, but no one learns how to follow the rules of their native spoken language (which is what I assume is meant by this) from books; they learn it through automatic osmosis from interacting with their peers, and even the most uneducated illiterate ends up fully fluent by the time of adulthood.
As for the rest of it, of course reading lots of books help you discern outstanding books from popcorn books and helps with the skills to write books well, the same as watching lots of movies helps you discern outstanding movies from popcorn movies and helps with the skills to make movies well, and listening to lots of music helps you discern…, and so on. I’ll grant you that reading can expand your vocabulary, but that doesn’t explain why that would be somehow a better accomplishment than, say, spending one’s free time on sports or videogames instead to improve coordination. The fundamental question isn’t really “What good does reading do for you?”. It’s “What makes the good that reading does for you so much better than the good that other things do for you?”
I don’t think reading is super special compared to many other activities. However, I think people should be encouraged to do it because it’s a useful skill to develop, and it’s something they might not do much of otherwise.
Compare it to encouraging children to participate in sports. There’s nothing about being able to throw a ball through a hoop that’s super extra special. But physical fitness and coordination in general are useful skills to develop.
If children are playing video games constantly, it’s good to encourage them to go outside and get some exercise or to read a book once in a while instead. If children routinely did nothing but read and run around getting exercise, I wouldn’t have a problem encouraging them to occasionally try out a movie or a video game.
I can learn more material clearly and quickly from reading than any other method. Other methods of communication work for me too, but reading is at least 10 times more productive. And I am far from the best reader I know. Frequent reading makes it easier to to read, it becomes almost second nature to want to read something constantly, like breathing. Others have pointed out a number of entertainment reasons, which I need not repeat. But for information purposes it is by far the broadband to the brain.
Here’s a some things that strike me as great about reading.
Books are portable. Sure you can carry other pass-times around with you, like stereos, games, and video players. But a book requires neither batteries nor a charger.
People often will think you’re smart if you read, even if all you read is trash. Like you could read nothing but genre fiction and some people will still think you’re smarter than somebody who only reads magazines.
The written word imparts information very quickly. Well-written prose can teach a practised reader a list of interesting facts faster than they can intelligibly be spoken. Actually, I don’t know this for a fact, it’s just something I noticed seemed to be true long ago. I could be wrong. (I see The Second Stone just posted this one… so yeah.)
You can find books written by experts on nearly any subject. Sure you can find information on the internet, but often it’s sketchy or dubious. A fair home library may have books dedicated to subjects as diverse as Turkish miniatures, Amish cooking, and World War II rockets. When a young person finds inspiration to pursue an unusual career in a book, they probably won’t face the same problem a kid might who was similarly inspiration by movies or TV. That is, a market glut for photojournalists who want to be like that guy on “Lou Grant” or Indiana Jones wannabe archeologists. Anybody want to bet there’s going to be an excess of… um… whatever it is that perky goth chick does on NCIS? Them. I bet there’s going to be about a million too many college grads in that field in 5-10 years.
Movies and such haven’t been around very long, only about a hundred years. Kids still read Twain and Kipling, or at least my stepson has read a bit of them. I’m not sure what the practical advantage it to this aspect, but I like it. Also, movies and TVs cost a lot of money and require many participants. With books fringe dwellers like Kafka and Kennedy (the “Confederacy of Dunces” one) can make a contribution and continue to be heard. Again, not sure on the practicalities.
Light reading makes an excellent sedative. Reading is relaxing and helps me get to sleep.
I’m pretty sure there’s a connection between reading a lot and being able to write well, and writing quickly and clearly is a practical skill with applications in many professions.
I’m very sure that the more you read, the faster you read and the more you retain. Again, this has practical applications.
I’d say that not only should kids be encouraged to read, they should be coached, just like they should be encouraged and coached in sports. I think this because by the time I got to college I realized that I’d misspent my youth reading pulp fiction every chance I could get. It would’ve been fine if I’d hit some of the better parts of the fiction ghetto and moved on, but I went up every side ally and kept coming back. I ended up foreswearing genre fiction altogether-- except historical, which I considered educational-- and I doubtless screwed myself out of some reading enjoyment by the overreaction.
So if my stepson rarely picked up a book and suddenly became a big Rowling fan, I’d be pleased. As it is, he already reads enough popular juvenile fiction IMO, so we never pushed JKR and instead try to keep him stocked with the sort of jokey non-fiction he likes.
There are lots of enjoyable aspects to reading; no one denies that. But the question is, does anything make reading novels for entertainment somehow “better for you” than doing any other sort of thing for entertainment (reading magazines, reading stuff on the Internet, watching TV, watching movies, playing sports, playing videogames, whatever)?
Reading is active where movies are passive. You are constantly having to expend cognitive energy while you are reading. If you sort of veg out while you are reading then you have to go back and reread that section so that you can understand it (this happens to me quite a lot). If you are doing something passive like watching TV then it is very easy for the mind to wander and just generally be in a “relaxed” state.
Video games are also active, but they really very heavily on memorization, rote, and reflex. Some (not all) video games do require cognition more than movies and TV do if they require puzzle solving or creative thinking, but never as much as books.
If we put spelling and typing aside for a minute, I really do think books make you smarter and more knowledgable. Certainly the latter. Even if I only read a basic non-fiction piece I’m often more or less guaranteed to pick something up from it.
Video games, of course, have gone a long way from the days of colored dots shooting other colored dots. Nowadays you can find advanced simulations, engrossing role-playing games, creative platformers, engaging music games, etc. You can certainly learn a lot from these as well. However, I think (based on experience) that books have a much higher time spent/knowledge gained-ratio, so to speak.
I am a person that encourages a well-rounded cultural diet. Play some video games, watch some movies, listen to music, read books, go see a play. There is something to be had from each of these media and each have given me incredible satisfaction over the years. But, if I had to choose one medium to call “superior”, it would be the book.
I like reading for the same reason I love old time radio (OTR), because the image in your mind is much better than the screen. I hate most music videos, 'cause I have my mind’s eye interpretation of how it should be.
That said, reading isn’t a passive activity like watching TV or listening to radio is.
If you want to encourage reading, I strongly suggest, books on tape. I work out at the gym a lot and instead of taking the bus I walk, and I use books on tape. Now I finally got around to “reading” all those books I’ve heard about.
Every medium has it’s strengths and weaknesses. There’s things you can do, stories you can tell that you couldn’t tell in a movie or game as well or at all that you can in a book. Also; games and movies tend to be narrower, more censored than books are. I’ve read any number of books ( and not especially daring ones ! ) that would never be made into a movie. Books don’t have to fit the straitjacket of a ratings system and a big budget to be paid off in order to be published; they can appeal to fewer people and be more “offensive”.
But that’s missing the point of the question again; it’s not “What are some unique things about novels which make them enjoyable (potentially, in complement to all other enjoyable activities)?”. It’s “What are some things which make the activity of reading novels uniquely ‘good for you’ (to the extent that it should be encouraged to take higher priority over other forms of entertainment towards which one may be more naturally inclined)?”.
As I said before, reading requires more cognitive energy than those other activities. You have to constantly process and interpret the information more actively. Your mind cannot wander and daydream while you read and comprehend. In short, it is mental exercise in a way that those other things can never be.
That’s the answer, unless you contend that using one’s cognitive skills more frequently isn’t as good for development as not doing so.
Reading is the closest thing to telepathy we have. Not only does reading exercise the imagination, it introduces you to other ideas and world-views.
Reading requires you to use and exercise particular parts of your brain. Many people believe that this process confers other, related benefits, such as helping you to develop and improve your communication, comprehension and reasoning skills. As a corollary, some think if you don’t read much then these parts of your brain, and these skills, will remain under-developed. In addition, many people would say that reading the work of a broad selection of good authors can be very educational and enjoyable.
With regard to non-fiction, if you have good reading skills you can sift, absorb and evaluate large quantities of information relatively quickly and easily. This is a very useful skill that can be useful when you want to learn how to do something, read a user manual, build a career, assemble some flat-pack furniture, obtain information, pass an exam, assess the blurb on the back of a DVD, investigate new ideas and perspectives or enjoy the Straight Dope.
With regard to fiction, reading gives you access to as much fun, pleasure, enjoyment, satisfaction, challenge and provocative ideas - from literally thousands of great minds with things to say and ideas to share - as you can fit into your life. We are very lucky, and very privileged, to enjoy this access.
Every time you read and enjoy good writing, you are learning about the world around you, and learning by example how to express yourself, share ideas, communicate your thoughts and process or shape information. One might even say that all good writers teach us how to think and express ourselves.
Other activities, such as playing video games or sports, will of course develop others parts of the brain and confer other skills. The relative value or worth of these skills is a matter of opinion and, usually, a function of the society and culture in which you live. For some people, it’s more important to know how to dive into the sea, catch a fish and cook it than it is to know what Swift’s Modest Proposal was, and why it’s considered a significant piece of satirical writing.