I think reading is overrated as hell....anyone else with me?

[WhiteSteve]

obviously I don't mean being literate, that's VERY important, and I'll concede that you need to do some reading in your early years to be literate. I'm talking more about the idea that the more you read, the smarter you are.

one of my favorite Seinfeld quotes was from the "bizarro jerry" episode where elaine starts hanging out with a somewhat similar, but at the same time, opposite group of guys than jerry, george, and kramer. at one point, jerry asks what's so great about these guys that she wants to hang with them instead. she says something like, "they're fun to talk to, they're NICE to each other...they READ...", to which jerry replies, "i read!", she says "they read BOOKS, jerry...", and he replies (perfectly, in my opinion) "oh...BIG DEAL."

i get that reading can be a source of knowledge, but if you ask me, it's an inefficient, outmoded form of communication. if you made a video teaching me the written material from a textbook, or acting out a storyline of a novel, I'll retain 80-90% as opposed to 10-20% from reading it. when people say books are better than movies, I feel like movies could easily be better, the problem is just that someone decided somewhere along the line that movies shouldn't exceed 3 hours and should ideally wrap up in 90 minutes. but if you take your time and act it out page for page, how could it NOT be better? one medium gives you a visual picture of the goings-on, while the other is just a bunch of printed text. I want to know what characters look like and whatnot, I can't just operate on an idea, that's unfulfilling for me, and I don't have the imagination to dream it up myself. plus, it takes me like a month to read a book, why wouldn't it be better to knock out a mini-series version of the same story on video in a weekend?

i don't begrudge people the enjoyment of reading. if that works for you, rock on I guess, but I'll never understand how you don't fall asleep in that ocean of letters. it almost makes me nauseous, not Because I hate it, but like the same feeling as being carsick or something, it just overwhelms my senses.

but what DOES bother me about readers is the way a lot of them look at you if you don't read. textbooks with facts and whatnot, that'll make you smart. but I fail to see how tom clancy, john grisham, or stephen king's stories make you even a little bit smarter. so if you READ the DaVinci Code or Pet Sematary, and I watch the movies, you're smarter than me? HUH? I don't get that at all.

your thoughts?

[zombiefood]

Well I guess I'll start out with- it's perfectly fine that you don't enjoy reading. As and English teacher it does make me sad but, ya know what, I know that it's not for everyone and my whole philosophy in the classroom is to get kids to enjoy the story, the journey, the meaning and English in general. They don't have to like reading so long as they understand why the assigned texts are important.

Books are considered better because there are a lot of things in books that just can't be portrayed in movies- at least not in the same way with the same depth and meaning and weight. Or people won't care. If a book is in first person, or close third it's very difficult to capture the delicate moments of emotion, thought and reasoning. Voice overs are cheap and ruin the entire effect and monologues after the fact are tedious and annoying and stupid (just to be blunt) and they suck up screen time from other important pieces. Putting books into movie from changes them because it is nigh impossible to recreate a book exactly, with the same emotion and depth, on screen.

I respect that some people don't have the imagination and concentration to build a world in their own heads and that's perfectly fine, not every one was made to be a reader, but that's what literature is all about. It's about setting you free, setting your mind running in an open world. Yes there are characters and a story to follow but it also allows you to jump start your own imagination and create your own ideas and stories. It gives you inspiration. One simple sentence about the girl's hair, or the way a tree looked in the sun can spark an entire novel of your own. Descriptions that aren't present in movies, that can't be present in movies because there are no written words in movies. Yes movies provide their own inspiration but it's different.

The thing I think you're missing is that it is beyond difficult to capture the true meaning and depth of a book when putting it in movie form. Some books are easier than others and with some books it is possible. But between Hollywood's need to please audiences and the inability to translate certain things into movies or TV shows things get really muddled. Look at Ella Enchanted, they changed the entire meaning of the book. They literally changed what the book was all about. Look at My Sister's Keeper- spoiler alert- the wrong sister dies. How can the do that? How the hell does that happen? It's like people just don't understand what stories mean. And that's the problem. They're all about what will get the most views so they take parts out or change things to appeal to audiences, all audiences, not just the people who read the book. And so in the process the story changes, the deeper meanings change and in the end it's hardly ever the same.

[WhiteSteve]

yeah, I think I'm missing some important part of my brain dealing with imagination, hahaha. you have to paint the picture for me, I can't do it myself. the thing you said about the description of a tree in the sun, etc...when I read that, all I can think is "why the f*ck are you telling me what the tree looks like? is this important to the plotline? hahaha...i'm kind of a "black-and-white" guy. in life (in my opinion), stuff either IS or ISN'T, if that's understandable. I'm not into...

[WhiteSteve]

...flowery details. that's a waste of my time, as I see it. get to the point, what's happening in the story? I guess I just don't want to have to dream up landscapes and faces. just show me what sh*t looks like, I won't even think about it, I'll just accept it as the scenery, and we can get on with the story.

i did read Friday Night Lights in high school because I'm a football player (did I mention I'm an idiot jock? hahaha...). I was pretty pissed at the outcome of the movie though, for sure.

[WhiteSteve]

but that's my main argument vs book-to-movie stuff, it gets rushed and not done properly. I also read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and that one, I preferred the movie because I could SEE what's going on, and johnny depp acting it out brought it all to life. the book was just OK to me, mostly because it just TOLD me about hunter s. thompson's antics. I don't know...

anyway, thanks for your insight!

[tohrment]

I am the complete opposite of you.

I learn best from reading. I love reading words and putting my imagination to the fullest of its use when I interpret them. I'd easily choose reading a book over watching a movie, because not only do I retain the information better, but I find it more satisfying.

I think it's perfectly fine that you dislike reading. If you get your information through another means, why should it matter? I don't think people should frown upon you for that choice, but I also can't ignore the perks of reading. Research shows that (obviously) people who read frequently are better writers (spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc) and often more articulate. That isn't limited to non fiction. Whilst I don't think that means people who don't read aren't capable of being linguistically strong, I do think it puts you at a disadvantage.

[WhiteSteve]

that's fair. but I guess my retort would be that despite a lack of reading as a kid, I got a 780 out of 800 on my SAT verbal. I was told in college that I was a great writer (i'm being informal and lazy here and not capitalizing, punctuating correctly, etc for the sake of speed) and that it was a shame that I wasn't passionate about it because I was gifted at it. unfortunately, I have ZERO imagination, so I'm no good at making up stories, hahaha.

[tohrment]

I'd say you're in the minority, ya know?

[TheDarkNoodle]

Readings not your thing, doesn't make you less intelligent or anything.

I disagree that reading is outdated, a bad form of learning or unejoyable however.

I love reading, and I can be a bit of a literature nerd. Books taught me half of my vocabulary, books afforded me an escape when I needed, books can give insight into the way other people live, and hugely expanded my general knowledge.

It also gets your brain way more active than sitting around watching tv.

I don't know many people who see reading the way I do so I've never seen it as a sign of superiority but it does make me value being able to talk books with people.

I'm also inclined to think that if you hate reading you just haven't found the right book yet :)

[Belgie]

"and I don't have the imagination to dream it up myself"

That was the most important part of everything you wrote, and you glossed right over it.

Readers have that imagination. That's why I can remember books I've read years ago in great detail, whereas a few days after walking out of the cinema, I couldn't tell you what a particular movie was about. Because the movie was just visual chewing gum - my brain wasn't engaged.

And I know I'm going to sound like a snob when I say this but - things like Tom Clancy, John Grisham (who has never written a book that wasn't about photocopying) and the Da Vinci code, are hardly good examples of what 'readers' read. They are mainstream pablum, predigested and simplified, to appeal to the sorts of people who don't normally read.

They are the Budweisers of books. Simple, unchallenging, produced for mass consumption.

And someone who actually likes beer wouldn't be seen dead drinking one.

And I don't think I'm better than you, or smarter than you. I think I'm more widely read than you. And you have probably seen way more movies than I have. But that's not a judgement or a reflection on either of us as individuals. The world is big enough to contain both of us.

[WhiteSteve]

yeah, that's legit. imagination is something I just don't have. if I'm asked to imagine something, it's like a logjam in my brain. I feel like I'm in a phonebooth (remember those things? hahaha...) and the door won't open and I can't move, just trapped and feeling claustrophobic. SUCH AN UNCOMFORTABLE FEELING!

but it was interesting what you said about not remembering movies but remembering books. I'm the exact opposite. in fact, if I have a "gift" in life, it's remembering quotes from tv...

[WhiteSteve]

...and movies. most people I know think I'm a funny guy. I have a good sense of humor, comic timing, etc. and while I do have my own original jokes, a major part of my schtick is well-timed tv/movie quotes. I'm drawing a blank for a specific example, but basically, when people say things, my brain is just automatically reminded of a funny quote that's appropriate to that situation/conversation, maybe from Seinfeld, or Family Guy, or Wedding Crashers, or Superbad. it comes as easily...

[WhiteSteve]

...as breathing or blinking, I don't even try to do it, it just happens. and more often than not, it gets a big laugh. meanwhile, when I read a book, I get lost all the time because I forgot what I read two chapters ago. there was no visual to stimulate my memory. but I can have most of the best lines of a movie memorized without trying after two or three (and sometimes even one) viewings, and remember them for over a decade without re-watching.

well, thanks for the input! interesting!

[Cryostatic]

Books (in terms of novels) are just another form of entertainment. No better or worse than movies. Enjoying one, both, or neither doesn't make you any more or less smart than anyone else.

Textbooks often contain far too much information to be efficiently conveyed through another medium. Books still offer advantages in that regard.

[Moloch]

I hate books that have no purpose to them. Why read books with stories? I have comic books for that, and they're even better. Last I heard, they're making comics into movies and TV series. Anyway, I read, but I only read to learn. If I can't learn anything from it, it's not worth reading (comics being the exception). I rent textbooks all the time, I just got a textbook on nursing that I'll read until school starts again in two Weeks. Bottom line is.novels suck.

[Cantremember]

Short and simple answer: reading is active, watching is passive. It's exercise for your brain to read. Ergo: you are using it.

And an exercised brain simply works better than one that doesn't. Just like a muscle (to oversimplify).

[aMuse]

For someone who doesn't like to read, you sure do make your questions wordy enough. =P

[tohrment]

lol

[WhiteSteve]

hahaha, yeah, I'm remarkably long-winded for a non-reader.

[ihatework]

i like reading as much as I can, but to each their own. I have a cousin who dislikes reading too, he's done pretty well in life, so it's no big deal to me either way.

[Anonymous]

no, I'm quite a traditionalist (mainly from the influence of my mother) and believe reading is KEY to erudition and raising EQ.