Thread: How Reading Affects You

do you think reading, anyhting from media material, to books and literature affects you in the same way as the Television does?

what are the pros and cons of reading?

I think you get more out of reading. Television and movies are for people with short attention spans, otherwise when movies are made from books they would have every single little detail in the movies. That aside, information like on the news has to be concise and give as much information as possible in the shortest amount of time. And every broadcast team have to pick and choose what they think is relevant at the moment. With writing an article about the same story, I think more time can be spent giving more information, because a newspaper reporter knows that if someone has the time to pick up a newspaper, they have the time to actually absorb the information shared in the story.

In my opinion, reading is a lot better than tv or movies.

Both have their places. I've had many ideas spawn from watching the latest episode of a television series. Paradoxically, I've also had many ideas spawn from reading books. Still, watching television won't teach you how to write, so I'd have to go with books as the better use of one's time.

Originally Posted by Offeiriad

Television and movies are for people with short attention spans

Well, that's a massive and kind of strange generalization. It depends entirely on the person -- and the movie or program. Some TV shows -- and certainly many movies demand some level of attention. And all kinds of people who watch TV and movies don't have short attention spans. Where are you getting that?

Originally Posted by Offeiriad

I think you get more out of reading. Television and movies are for people with short attention spans, otherwise when movies are made from books they would have every single little detail in the movies. That aside, information like on the news has to be concise and give as much information as possible in the shortest amount of time. And every broadcast team have to pick and choose what they think is relevant at the moment. With writing an article about the same story, I think more time can be spent giving more information, because a newspaper reporter knows that if someone has the time to pick up a newspaper, they have the time to actually absorb the information shared in the story.

In my opinion, reading is a lot better than tv or movies.

Iagree that reading is far more effective then watching TV but aren't both responsible for our moods swings or inner feelings.
although they are both very different, they do however come together in the way they affect our emotions.

The cons of reading? I honestly don't think there are any.

I don't watch news anymore. It affects me badly. We don't have cable, but do watch movies frequently on Netflix. I love books, I love movies. I tend to watch a lot of foreign films, or smaller production films. But also whatever is new and too cool to miss, coming out at the theaters. I have very little patience for most tv shows which I only ever see while traveling anymore. Well, except Big Bang Theory, which is too funny.
As for emotional impact, and my moods changing, both books and movies can do that to me and it can be a fairly big impact, depending on the nature of the book/movie. I don't watch horror, for instance, or read it, with some very few exceptions.

Originally Posted by JosephB
Well, that's a massive and kind of strange generalization. It depends entirely on the person -- and the movie or program. Some TV shows -- and certainly many movies demand some level of attention. And all kinds of people who watch TV and movies don't have short attention spans. Where are you getting that?

Probably from the masses who claim that reading is lame and for squares, and that TV and movies are always better than books.

Reading affects me greatly, because any story that stirs my imagination greatly will influence my own stories, either now or later. Also, some authors' writing styles influence mine. TV and film, as well as video games, help spark my imagination also. As for the forms of entertainment that stimulation my emotions, no book has ever made me cry, though there are a few that have come close, and only four films have out of pure sadness or joy, or even both (Wall-E, Up, Toy Story 3 and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 2). One film made me cry out of disgust, followed quickly by vomiting (Shyamalan's The Last Airbender, what an abomination. Among the largest collective middle fingers to any fanbase) But countless books, films, games and shows have gotten my adrenaline pumping, like last night's Castle episode, the finale for Avatar: The Last Airbender, the suicide mission in Mass Effect 2, or any of Rick Riordan's mythology books.

Originally Posted by beanlord56

Probably from the masses who claim that reading is lame and for squares, and that TV and movies are always better than books.

People make that claim? Really. I think some people just prefer to watch TV and movies -- and not necessarily at the expense of reading. Otherwise, I think it's a humongous stretch to say TV and movies are for people with short attention spans -- which is what Offeiriad claims. I think you might be able to claim that TV watching has possibly has led shorter attention spans overall -- but that's about as far as you can take it.

I went to school with people like that, my brother goes to school with people like that, I've met adults like that. They all strike me as sad, imaginationless folks.

OK. So in your experience, people who prefer television and movies to reading books are sad and lack imagination. That’s interesting, because I know all kinds of people who prefer TV and movies over reading and they seem perfectly happy to me -- and I can’t really see that they lack in imagination either -- although it’s kind of hard to tell. And I know some people who never read at all – they get all their news on the internet or TV news and radio etc. They just don’t like to read. And yet they’re relatively content, successful and well adjusted people who lead productive and fulfilling lives. How does that happen, I wonder?

I very often prefer to watch TV or a movie over reading. I sometimes go days or weeks without cracking a book. Can’t say that it ever makes me sad or that it affects my imagination in the least.

I never said that they actually lacked an imagination. It's simply the impression I receive. That doesn't make it true.

Originally Posted by Bruno Spatola

The cons of reading? I honestly don't think there are any.

I will have to disagree with you Spatola.
literature has much a concept of effectiveness ,or not, on our mental abilities and health in more ways that you could ever think.
in fact I am pretty sure that literature and reading, shape and affect our beings in the way that we think behave and express ourselves more then Television ever would.
words are louder then sound.

Books are, and always have been, for a certain type of person. Not liking them doesn't mean that they're not worthwhile, but quite a number of people simply don't enjoy reading, irrespective of their intelligence or imagination. The same can be said for drama, television, movies, etc.

Personally, I'd say that television takes a distant second to movies and books. Television very rarely does something that sticks with you over the years, unlike a book or a movie, which can all too easily alter the course of your life. I was a huge fan of Lost - think sad, nerdy fan, and keep going - but when the credits rolled every week, that was that. I might remark on how much I enjoyed the episode, but I didn't wake up in the middle of the night over it or think about it during a time of crisis or whatnot.

A movie like 2001: A Space Odyssey or Blade Runner or Alien (sorry, sci-fi fan) aren't just good, I think they can change how you see things. On a personal level, books go further. A book like Alas Babylon or A Town Like Alice or Tau Zero can change how you live your life.

Books are an element that enrich, just as other art forms do. It's snotty to call yourself better for reading, but it's always nice to know that you're getting a little extra something that quite a number of people never grab on to.

Good question! As the replies have shown, I think the answer is going to be a little different for everyone who responds. I've always been an avid reader, but having been born in the early 1950s I'm also a child of television and movies. Even today I split my time fairly equally between the three and am quite happy. I think reading and the visual media have had equal effects on my life. For every powerful book, or story I've read I can think of an equally powerful television program, or movie.

The effects on my writing are, likewise, very similar. I know my writing style owes a great deal to Ray Bradbury, Stephen King, and Arthur C. Clarke, but I've been told it is also very visual "like watching a movie". Physiologically reading engages more of the brain and is a better exercise for developing young brains, but the visual images from TV and movies are more easily stored and recalled. Go figure.