Is it awful that I would rather curl up on my bed and watch a movie instead of reading a book before I go to bed?
It used to be the other way around. Of course now with the advancement of technology I not only have a TV but also a laptop with a plethora of connections to TV shows and videos right at my fingertips. So now it’s easy to just press a button and watch a film instead of opening the book casually lying on top of my desk.
And I am not the only one. I know that most people, especially my age, choose a movie over a book any day. But is this a bad thing? Are we really “losing not just the will to read but even the ability” as Crain feared?
I think not. McLuhan pointed out that new technology changes the old. It will “oppress the older media until it finds new shapes and positions for them.” If this has happened for countless numbers of years, then what is there to fear from change? We must step back and look at this with a fresh approach.
1) Writing is not obsolete. If anything, the internet has encouraged reading by providing cheaper methods of mass distribution of written works. Arguably, reading something online, anything, involves the same process of analyzing that reading a book or article requires.
2) Even the entertainment industry must know how to critically read. Certainly, the audience can just lap up the amusing material the entertainment industry produces, but the artists, director, writer, actors, and many others cannot lose their ability to take a script or written piece of work, analyze it, and use their imagination to make it come to life.
3) Ultimately, you could argue that life and time is a pendulum that swings back and forward. Humans like homeostasis and balance. We tend to drift one direction and once we reach a point of discontent, we drift back the opposite way. I used to love reading every night. Eventually I reached a point where a book couldn’t satisfy me enough to fall asleep. So I switched to movies and television shows. Then I reached a peak where after hours of electronic entertainment, I never found fulfillment. So once again, I have veered back towards books.
Possibly, electronic media is not this gaping black hole for reading that most people fear it is. Perhaps it’s just another change that we must all adapt to.
-Victoria
Great points! However, I think there are a few places for further discussion. On point 2), a possible counter argument may be that people in the entertainment industry are another form of elite (this is especially true for all of the people at the Oscars, for instance). Rather than an elite based on nobility and inherentence, today's elite is a meritocracy, which is based on education and the ability to read and analyze.
ReplyDeleteOn point 3), I think your pendulum analogy gives humanity too much credit. Our brains like sensory challenges. Both television and the Internet bombard us with a horde of stimuli, a challenge the brain finds entertaining. And all of this fun can occur in the span of a few minutes or several hours. Books, on the other hand, require time and patience to enjoy. In a society that is increasingly obsessed with time (hence the creation of the soundbyte, for example), reading is losing its appeal. Plus, the books we still find entertaining are often dumbed down (like Harry Potter). After all, how many people would pick up a copy of War and Peace and read it for fun? Not many. Humanity is moving toward an instant gratification society. I'm not certain if there is room for literature in this type of world.
Food for thought,
Devin
Electronic media IS a change we must adapt to! Writing was the first change, and it has evolved into technology and digital media. Some people are just like Plato in this situation, thinking internet and movies are no good but maybe this technology will led to something else where we will think, why aren't people watching TV and movies anymore-- just like we are wondering why people aren't reading anymore. Who knows what the next new invention will be!
ReplyDeleteEmily
Emily,
ReplyDeleteYour comment could also be interpreted as a downward spiral from reading to electronic media to who knows what else. In this case, the intellectual environment would get worse and worse, until we are all reduced to a futuristic type of Tweeting. To clarify, do you think that TV and the Internet have the same intellectual value as the printed word does? It is true that society must adapt, but are we making intellectual progress in doing so?
Devin
But keep in consideration that internet is considered, by most people, (and proven by studies) to not hinder reading and writing skills. You HAVE to be able to read and write in order to use the internet. Furthermore, since internet has become such a vital part of everyone's life, we have, in a way, started to read and write MORE, not less.
ReplyDeleteThink back to when you were still a child and computers were still sparse. We were the crossover generation growing up. We are young enough to remember a time without computers but not quite old enough to where technology is foreign and difficult. Now think: how many times did you really reach for a book instead of playing with toys or friends? For some of us, sitting down to a good book was a ritual. For others, reading was torture.
Arguably, the internet has made reading and writing eye appealing and more interesting for those out there who are not lovers of books. Because, let's face the truth: not everyone loves to read.
-Victoria
Although the Internet does not hinder reading and writing skills, that doesn't mean that it helps them either. When used properly, the Internet is a wonderful tool that is a major extension of the written word. However, how many of us use the Internet in this way? It is far easier to get lost in the land of Facebook and meaningless Tweets than in the world of academic pursuit.
ReplyDeleteMy contention is based not on the threshold ability to read and write, but on the quality of stuff being read and written. Quantity does not equal quality. A thousand Tweets does not a book make (this statement sounds so philosophical, I couldn't resist). We are reading more because of the internet, but most of it is unfiltered garbage.
The overwhelming amount of stuff we read and write on the internet may actually hurt our intellectual abilities. Trying to cope with the never ending flow of information reduces us to automatic responses with little time for thought.
This conversation is so much fun,
Devin
I Think this argument can be proven many ways. I think that it needs to be balanced. Everyone likes to watch movies but at the same time sometimes the book can be more interesting. The reason is because the book is different than the movie because it usually has more specific detail. Also media is changing everyday people are using more of the internet to read things and research because it is easier, but we need to all remember that books and reading is important and can be useful in difficult situations.
ReplyDeleteThis conversation hardly needs adding to! It does seem key to point out, as Devin does, that there's a difference between digitizing, which allows us more ways to read texts--on the internet, on ereaders, on ?? in the future--and consuming image based media, or simply text fragments, which require/allow us to use our brains in a different way. The key is to look at-and be aware of--our media use wherever it is and make choices, rather than allowing media consumption to define us. The fact that I'm online at 9pm and not relaxing with a nineteenth century novel on my kindle (and I do have nineteenth century novels on my kindle) says something what I value and who I am.
ReplyDeleteI think the 3rd point you made about homeostasis and balance was interesting though I think you can find examples of people who stay pretty consistent in their interests and routines.
ReplyDelete