I think it depends on the type of reading. If it’s reading books that expand your mind, make you think of new things, consider new opinions, change your mind, etc., then it’s great. But if it’s reading for entertainment’s sake, I don’t think it’s nearly as beneficial. It’s one step up from watching a movie or playing a game.
I consider much of the Harry Potter/Fantasy books as entertainment reading along with murder mysteries, romance novels, most pop fiction, etc. Reading them is an enjoyable way to spend a few hours, but in the end it’s just an entertaining way to spend a few hours.
Compare reading a HP book to reading Tom Sawyer. After reading HP, you’re left with a feeling of what a great story and your vocabulary has been expanded. After reading Tom Sawyer, you have a greater historical understanding of growing up in the South. The former was a fun way to spend time, the latter made you into a better person.
One problem I have with people who read a lot is that they often isolate themselves with their reading. I have a brother who reads a ton of fantasy books. Even when we come to visit he reads the books while we’re there. I think the problem with that level of reading is that it counter productive to becoming a better person.
Some forms of entertainment do make you a better person the more you do it. For example, someone who plays tennis several hours a day will benefit from greater health and confidence. But someone who reads for several hours a day will not necessarily benfit from just ‘reading’. It depends on what they are reading.
This is just silly. How long does it take you to read a novel? Five hours? Ten? The reason that adapting a novel into a movie requires throwing away large chunks of the novel has nothing to do with writing being more “economical” than movie-making. It’s purely because movies need to be two or three hours long. If you let me make a movie that runs as many hours as it took you to read the book, I’d include all the written detail, and more, I’m sure.
I know this is from early in the thread, but still:
So, books are better than movies because books require you to use your imagination to picture the “image of the scenes”, whereas movies lay out all the details for you. And books are also better than movies because the writing can lay out all the details for you, requiring no use of your imagination to fill in the blanks that movies are unable to convey.
I don’t know about Slade, but it doesn’t take me anywhere near that long to read an average novel. If it’s some 800 page monster yeah, but an average sized paperback is more like three hours.
Reading Harry Potter allows me to gain a greater knowledge of life in British boarding schools.
I think I agree with Indistinguishable. While there is no doubt that reading does have many intellectual benefits, some of which aren’t found in other intellectual pursuits such as watching movies or playing video games, I don’t get why it should be considered to be “higher quality” entertainment than these other intellectual pursuits. And I will reiterate that I especially don’t see how some can believe that reading novels is superior to reading things on the Internet (which, granted, is where I do most of my reading, seeing that I enjoy discussing and debating politics on blogs and message boards) or even reading non-fiction.
I don’t recall anyone saying that novels are better than non-fiction. Can you point me to that?
But here’s a difference between reading a long piece of unified text, such as a book, and reading political discussions on the Internet–
A good non-fiction book (say, on political philosophy) has a coherent, carefully arranged argument to make. It develops that argument by making logical statements that build upon one another, constructing a detailed, unified whole that the reader evaluates on its merits. It refers to important ideas or developments of the past and takes possible objections into account, and it takes sustained concentration and careful thought on the reader’s part.
A political discussion on the Internet is fun, no doubt about it, but it isn’t well thought out. It isn’t particularly logical, unless you have one or two posters who are doing that amidst the chaos. It isn’t very detailed, tends more towards vituperation than civility, and is difficult to fact-check. It is simply not even the same kind of thing. Enjoyable, yes, possibly educational and thought-provoking—but coherent, careful, thorough, unified, no. Anyone who develops a political philosophy based on Internet discussion rather than real research and serious reflection is not going to have a coherent political philosophy.
I’m sorry, but when it comes to serious intellectual development, books have got it all over movies and video games. Those things are great, but if I could only pick one kind of food for my mind for the next 40 years, it’s not even a contest.
You’re oversimplifying. CircleofWillis was referring to the audiovisual experience, Gorgon Heap the emotional. Movies provide a ready-made audiovisual experience but cannot convey emotional subtlety or state of mind. They rely on acting, directing, and cinematography to provide a basic emotional description which the audience must then fill in for themselves.
Books provide a ready-made emotional experience but cannot convey an exact aural or visual scene. They rely on exposition, style, and tone to provide a description which the reader must then fill in on his or her own.
My objection to this stems from what even sven observed earlier - the majority of human knowledge is contained in the printed word. The simple fact is that the improved skills and intelligence gained from reading a really good book go well beyond what video games and movies are able to provide. Even a novel, depending on the style and the author, can impart understanding about geography, philosophy, communication, and the human condition - or indeed about any subject at all under the sun if the author chooses to make one or more of them part of the novel’s setting or plot. What’s more, assuming the author possesses any skill whatsoever, the reader improves vocabulary, grammar, sentence structure, et cetera. The lessons one can take away from books are immediately applicable to all areas of one’s life.
If someone never does another math problem or science experiment after they get out of school, that’s not intellectually deficient. But to never again wonder about a math or science question (which are encountered daily: What does a survey’s confidence level mean? Why is the inside of my car hotter than the summer day?) … well, that is intellectually deficient. And one addresses those questions by, you guessed it, reading.
Bottom line, humans are storytellers. It is through stories as children that we learn right and wrong, bad from good. It is through fable and rhyme that the lessons of antiquity come to us (Aesop’s fables, Ring around the Rosy). It is through stories that religions expound their principles (the bible, the qu’ran, dianetics). To not read voraciously is to miss out on an integral element of the human experience.
Sure, if you’re reading a textbook or the like. But it’s more the way people treat reading novels that prompted me to start this thread. Obviously it would be nearly impossible to learn anything of reasonable complexity without reading being involved at some point.
But someone cracking open a Harry Potter book is typically treated as being better for you then watching the movie. That i don’t get. I’m not saying reading is useless for learning. I’m not saying it isn’t fun. I’m saying it isn’t, when reading a novel for entertainment, better for you then any other hobby. Indeed i’d argue gaming, crafting, or exercising are far better for you.
This is true of any sort of story telling though. Video games, TV, movies, and even just browsing random crap on the internet. It’s not something that’s at all unique to novels. Hell i’ve learned more about geography from Risk then i have from reading.
Once again this is true of other communicative hobbies.
Yes, but probably by reading on the internet. A hobby that typically seems to be looked down on. At least compared to reading a novel.
While video games, TV and movies are certainly capable of imparting understanding on any subject, they frequently do not address complex subjects in any depth. There are exceptions, documentaries and history programs and science programs, et cetera. But when was the last time Law & Order mentioned Hobbes’ social contract? When was the last time a Hollywood blockbuster used the second law of thermodynamics as a plot point? Doesn’t happen.
I’ve not been discriminating between fiction and nonfiction when expounding the virtues of books. I think what you’re running into, regarding the excitement over kids reading more young adult novels, is a very distilled expression of a more complex hope. Professed bibliophiles such as myself and others on this board remember reading similar books when they were children, and we remember how that led to other books, and then to still others, in a progression that has continued to this day. So when you see someone excited over a child reading Harry Potter, it is not because Harry Potter itself or any other particular novel is necessarily better or better for them than alllll the other things they could be doing, it is because we hope it is the beginning of a lifelong appreciation for reading.
I’ve deliberately not mentioned the internet. When it comes to evaluating the internet as reading material, it’s not a singular entity. Yes, there is lots of great reading to be found on the internet, but for every one website like that there are nine mind-rotting, time-wasting, not-encouraging-you-to-think websites. So by all means, waste time on the internet to your heart’s content. I myself do it frequently. But as a means of learning via reading it needs to be used carefully and with guidance, either in the form of a parent if the browser is a child, or by one’s own experience and education. This is not to say that there aren’t crappy books out there. Cheap fluff novels abound by the thousands, in fact. But because publishing a book comes with a self-selection process as well as several rounds of editing, it’s a lot easier to find crappy writing on the internet than in a book.
What do you mean by “communicative hobbies”, exactly? I am unable to think of any that require continued exposure to or generation of the same level of writing found in a well-written novel.
I can only speak for myself and what reading gave me was tons and tons of common knowledge. As a child of immigrants and an immigrant myself I just didn’t have the same grounding that other people do. I always was a little behind in that sort of stuff.
Plus, vocabulary - I still have a greater vocabulary than non-readers.
And yes, depth of thought and critical analysis. I’m going to get that from a video game or a movie? And I love video games and movies. But I just read a lovely philosophy book on how one’s mother relates to the daughter and the daughter’s sexuality. 350 pages and an in-depth discussion. What movie do I get that from, pray tell? Last year, I read a very troubling and interesting book on severely mentally & physically disabled babies and how the parents and doctors deal with the situation. And how sometimes they choose to let the babies die. The parents choose this. I was floored by the complications of the ethics of this situation. This is not even addressed anywhere in any game, movie, any place in the common media.
Also last month and this month I worked my way through the Bourne novels. Sure, the movies were great but the books are very different and full of a great deal more detail. I have to follow all of that detail and keep track of all of the characters and I don’t have pretty faces to match up.
Reading is substantially different from anything else.
There isn’t anything inherently intellectual about watching movies. (Video games can go either way depending on the complexity of the game.) There can be, but one can also watch a movie without giving it very much thought. A look at the IMDB message boards should reveal that plenty of people are barely even paying attention when they watch a movie. Reading a book requires a degree of concentration and mental effort that are not required to watch a movie.
I see what you’re saying. The first study is largely based on speculation. As for the second, I think it’s a matter of perspective. For me, staring at a TV for hours on end is rather like staring at a blank wall. I get extremely antsy and bored in front of the TV, but if I’m given something to read, I feel engaged. For me, television and movies feel extremely one-sided; reading feels more interactive. But I can see where that would be very different for someone else who was more visual.
Regardless, for very little kids, my understanding is that reading helps expand vocabulary and also helps them better understand the rhythm of language. Now, I’m pretty biased, having been a writer and editor before, but I’d agree with that. Also, even if reading doesn’t directly teach you grammar (only a grammar book can do that), it will teach you grammar more indirectly. You’ll be better equipped to distinguish when a sentence sounds right, even if you’ve never had formal training on sentence structure.
As for why reading is better for, say, teenagers or adults, I couldn’t give a concrete reason. However, I will say that most people don’t mindlessly eat in front of a book, whereas many people do so in front of a television. Also, when you’re reading a book or magazine, it seems to me as though people are less likely to move on as quickly as they would if they were, say, surfing online or reading an article online. People’s reading behaviors online are very different than what they are when reading a book; that’s one reason there are people who specialize in Web content. I think that the ability to engage in what you’re reading and truly focus on it for more than 30 seconds is important - it helps you really think about what it is you’re reading instead of just moving on to the next shiny thing.
My personal bias for reading and against television and video games is mostly related to more active self-engagement and also time management. For example, if I turn on a TV for my 3-year-old son, he will stay there, doing nothing, as long as the television is on. The same is true for my 34-year-old husband. Both of them are absolutely hypnotized. Both will forget everything they’re doing if they walk into a room with a television on and will each stand there, forgetting even to sit down, if they’re not already seated. I’ve never seen anything like it. It’s actually kind of disturbing to see.
Anyway, I worry that if my son gets too used to electronic entertainment like that, he’ll be unable to entertain himself without it and won’t use his imagination, but will instead have someone else’s ideas poured into his head while he sits, rooted to the spot. At least with a book, he can set it aside and take some time to mull over ideas, shape half-formed thoughts and ask questions.
As for my husband, he simply finds it impossible to be effective if the television is on or if he doesn’t put a time limit on the video games he plays. Because he’s so susceptible to getting sucked in, nothing happens if visual electronic media is on.
This is true–I notice that my own attention span shortens when I spend more time on the Internet. It encourages hopping around, and even when I do get a large block of text, I am quickly looking around for something else to do.
Ah, that makes sense, i’d never considered it before.
I mean any hobby that has language in, any form, as a main part of it. Movies, TV, video games, music, online browsing or chatting, etc, etc. People keep claiming vocabulary and grammar as a large part of why reading is good. But anything that uses language is going to have a chance at teaching you new things about your language. Unless you want to be a writer and/or are actively analyzing the text i don’t feel you are going to be taking more out of reading than you would from experiencing any other use of language.
Vocab especially seems to be something that a lot of people claim as a benefit of reading that just doesn’t mesh with my experiences. I’ve learnt far more words from video games than i have from books. Admittedly it’s probably not a fair comparison in my case as i started playing games before i could read and almost a decade before i started to read voluntarily.
I disagree. There’s nothing inherently intellectual about reading books either. You can easily pick up a pulpy page turner with all the depth of morning dew. You can easily pick up more complicated works and read with little to no examination or thought. It doesn’t require a higher degree of concentration. It certainly helps though. But that’s true of movies as well, if it weren’t it wouldn’t be so obvious that posters at IMDB are hardly paying any attention.
It certainly seems logical but i’m not convinced. Mostly because of my own experience. I’m a terrible writer and have only the vaguest ideas on grammar and spelling. A fact that seemed to confuse a couple of my high school English teachers quite a bit when i told them how much i read. What has improved my writing, however, is writing. My writing has improved considerably in the few years since i discovered forums. And from what i’ve seen most people who read a lot also write as a hobby so i can certainly see how the connection would form. On the other hand i could just be an anomaly and reading may well be very good for most people’s writing skills.
Hah, i have that same problem with books. If i’m enjoying the book at all i’m going to end up reading it pretty much non-stop until i’m done. And if it’s part of a series… well there goes my week.
I can only assume it varies from person to person i guess. As i’m the opposite. But then i’m obsessive about nearly everything i do. When i first found the Straight Dope articles, for example, i read through pretty much the entire online archive over a couple of days. The same thing happens to me often. Whenever i find a website i like.
Throws comic books into the fray
I think I got more of my vocabulary and learning about different things from reading comic books as a kid than from reading regular books. And I read a lot of both.
IME reading a lot will improve a lot of students’ spelling and grammar, but certainly not all. Many kids need explicit instruction in those subjects–well, everyone does actually, but not everyone will pick up enough to get by from reading.
For example, as far as I can figure out, there are ‘natural’ spellers and then there are kids who don’t naturally pick it up. My sister and I both read a lot, but spelling is easy for me and difficult for her. It seems to work the same way for grammar and writing conventions.
Which is why, IMO, schools need to teach grammar more explicitly and deeply than they do. They frequently expect kids to pick it up from reading, and not everyone does. Even those who do don’t know why things are wrong or right, and they’ll have blind spots they don’t know about. (I’m one of those–reading all the time helped me know what worked, but I didn’t know there was a usage difference between less and fewer, for example. Not to mention that everything was done by instinct, and in a sort of fog–I was never sure that I had it right because I didn’t actually know what I was doing. Now I have a 9yo and we are learning grammar together–I wish I’d learned it when I was 9!)
