I love to read. I feel like there is nothing like being midway through a really great book. My husband, on the other hand, hates to read. I don't think I've ever seen him pick up a book in the entire time I've known him.
It doesn't bother me that we don't have that in common. To be honest, even if he loved to read, he probably wouldn't be into the same kinds of books as me. My taste in movies is fairly gender-neutral, but my taste in books is very girly.
Anyway, his assertion is that people make too big a deal out of reading, like it's some higher activity. But is it really any better to read a book than it is to watch a movie? Is there a greater cultural value in reading the book gone with the wind than there is in watching the movie, both of which are considered classics? or to pick something with less literary value, the Harry Potter books versus the Harry Potter movies?
Truthfully, even though I like to read a lot, I sort of agree with him. I don't read because of any sort of cultural value. I read because I like it. I'm not sure if it's any more highbrow then watching a movie. It's just more portable and often more fun for me.
Depends on the content of a book. Many will give you way more than their movie counterpart. Take the upcoming movie Unbroken (coming out around Christmas, I think), and compare it to the book of the same name written by Laura Hillenbrand. She puts in tons of WWII history and other details in the book, which she wrote about American Louis Zamparini, than the movie could possibly ever cover.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, READ THIS BOOK. I'm not usually a big fan of nonfiction/biographies, but this man's life was amazing and he is very inspiring.
As a "non-reader" I can very much understand his viewpoint. It's not the fact that people read that is irritating, and it's not that reading is better than movies or movies are better than reading, it's that people read and then look down on those that don't. If they're not looking down on the non-reader, they're trying to convince the non-reader to just try this one book of theirs, as though reading that one book will turn them into a reader (make them better).
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing is, if you ask most "non-readers" what they've done today, it may have included reading things, sometimes big things, but because it's not what we associate with the semi-snobby world of reading nobody realizes their choice in reading is just different from what others generally enjoy. I can read news articles one after the next after the next, but I don't call it "reading". I learned how to design websites on my own and yeah, that requires a lot of reading; I also google random subjects and learn everything there is to learn about the breeding patterns of the catfish (not really that, but I might now...). But this isn't the type of reading people are referring to, it's always fiction books, and if you're not reading fiction books there's something wrong with you.
We place a value on reading fiction that it doesn't necessarily deserve, as though persons whom read fiction books but not the news are more intelligent than people who read the news every day but prefer movies for their fiction... society places more value on reading fiction books as a way to gauge of your level of intelligence and in that level of intelligence a classification on who is deemed better or worse than on whether or not what you ARE reading is actually expanding your knowledge.
With movies, if you don't watch movies it's because you're just not interested in movies, and that's it. People don't usually try to force you to watch movies, people don't judge you for it, they rarely look down on you for it (every interest has its assholes, so I'm sure there's somebody, somewhere looking down on you for it). You just don't like movies, and knowing that doesn't change your value in the world.
This cuts both ways, though. I LOVE Terence Malick movies. Most people do not. I find them deep and thought provoking. Most people find them boring, confusing, nonsensical. Who gets mocked in this case? Me! "That was the biggest waste of money, if you liked that movie, there is something wrong with you" is the typical line I get. And it's not like I brag about being able to comprehend the movies or anything, I typically just say that I liked them and found that they really made me think.
DeleteI think the movie-watchers who mock other people for not having the same movie "tastes" as them are extremely insecure.
And, may I just state for the record, Thin Red Line is one of the most amazing movies ever.
How is reading news articles "not reading"? I don't get it.
DeleteStarting at a young age, when somebody asks "what do you read?" and you say "newspapers" (or anything that is not a book, really), the followup is always "no, I meant what books do you read". So non-readers, having learned over the years that "newspapers" is not the response they're looking for, automatically answer the "what do you read/what are you reading/what have you read lately/are you a reader?" questions with a negative response. By the time they reach adulthood, the non-reader no longer identifies as a reader despite reading newspapers because the format that he's reading is not a book.
DeleteThe non-reader genuinely believes through social conditioning that the answer IS "I don't read", which sends a mis-communication to the reader that the non-reader does not read AT ALL. Find a friend who reads newspapers but not books, ask them what they've read lately when they're not actively reading the newspaper, and the answer will more often than not be something along the lines of "I'm not a reader". Point out to them that they read newspapers all the time, and they'll usually respond with either "that doesn't count" or quiet shock. Because this is what they've been taught growing up, that if it's not a book it doesn't count.
Oh, and Anonymous reply #1:
DeleteI fully agree with you, but this is a somewhat different topic. You're actually referring to type-snobs, which occur in any interest type: movies, books, music, television...
Any and every interest has its critics, cliques and interest groups. And its snobs. Lots and lots of snobs.
What do book readers get? Full-on rolleyes if they read romance novels. People tend not to take them seriously, "they wouldn't know what a good book is". One's level of book-snob can be gauged by how many of the classics they've read outside of high school, the more classics you've read the higher your standing in the book world regardless of if you've actually comprehended why the book is a classic.
What do movie watchers get? Usually ratings-based bullying. If you're a fan of movies that often end up with low ratings, deemed "corny" or "poor acting" you're a target for anyone that deems themselves a movie critic (whether or not they deserve to call themselves a movie critic).
Television? Nobody wants to admit that they watch reality TV, because people WILL judge them. It's why we refer to it as a "guilty pleasure" when discussing them, as though we're claiming "no really I was dragged into this mess by a really awful friend and now I can't get out! I know I enjoy smut and I hate myself for it! I have taste, really!"
Music? Pop. Country. Two wildly popular genres that are often negatively criticized by persons whom like any other genre. Think "fan of Justin Bieber", or the way fans of one genre mistreat somebody just forming an interest in it whom dares to speak of an artist that genre has deemed "poor".
What you don't get, however, are people constantly saying "how can you not enjoy movies!", "if you just tried listening to this song you would love music", or "you just haven't found the right TV show yet". With books, people push at you when they find you are not a fan of reading. With movies, music, TV, they might think you're a little odd and they may be very curious about what life is like without those things given today's world is so obsessed with them, but they don't try at every turn to make you listen to or watch what they enjoy.
I think that when people ask "what do you read", it's implied that they are referring to books. It's sort of like a shorthand. Obviously, most literate people are going to do a fair amount of reading in their daily lives. I don't think when people ask that, they mean to be insulting to those who only read the news, it's just that they were looking for The answer to a different question.
DeleteReading a book is a very personal experience. Two people can read the same work of fiction and walk away with two very different experiences; that's why book clubs are so much fun, because you get to share your experiences with others.
ReplyDeleteCan't you say the same thing about a movie though?
DeleteI don't think so, I see a movie base on a book as one person's interpretation of a book.
DeleteThere are plenty of movies whose interpretation have been discussed to death. And they're also important movies based on books that were largely ignored, such as the movie psycho. One movie I've discussed ad nauseum with friends is fight club, which I know is based on a book, although none of us read the book. Not to mention all the movies that are not based on books.
DeleteI enjoy both books and movies, but one reason it's better to read a book than watch a movie is that watching a movie is passive but reading is active and stimulates and improves your brain.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if I buy that argument. Lots of people do books on audio tape, so they're not actually "reading" so is their brain still stimulated? Why is reading more active than watching a movie? If a blind person reads a book, is that still active?
DeleteSome movies are silly and don't require much concentration, but I've seen many films that I know if I stop paying attention for a couple of minutes, I would've been completely lost.
I say this as a person who both loves to read and loves movies.
What I like about books over movies is that you get more of the characters thoughts and feelings. It brings me into the story in my imagination in a way that movies can't.
ReplyDeleteAudio books usually read everything that's written, so I like that. But, since I only listen in the car, my enjoyment of the story is often cut short. Making it less enjoyable than either a book or a movie for me.
I think it all depends on what you read. There are a lot of crappy silly books out there. I don't think those books really help the brain with anything . I mean does reading some stupid teen fiction book do anything for you? No. Oh, and those cheesy romance novels that have covers with some dufus that has no shirt on. Brain loss on that one. If you read ridiculous books, then yes, you will learn nothing. Some educational books might help though for the majority of people.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that people are smarter for reading a book with a thousand pages, or a book with a hundred. I read mostly classic books and biology books (nerd alert), but I'm not a genius either, I just love love love to read. Which is why I think it depends on the person and what they read. I know teenagers that read a book for school and then let it gather dust, read twilight vampire stuff, or some other vampire book. They aren't any dumber, but not smarter either.
As for movies, I've never been big on them, but I do like movies based on books, just so I can say that I know exactly what will happen. And so that I can point out scenes that never appear in the book.
Oh, and just because you do like to read a lot, doesn't mean you're a secluded hermit. While I was reading at four years old, most kids were still wetting the bed. So whether you read, listen to audio books, or watch only movies, its all cool.
Definitely depends on the quality of the book/movie. But overall there is a big difference. Check out "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman.
ReplyDelete