Books...Who Reads Books Anymore?

smoothmoniker · 07-09-2006, 05:17 PM

Explain to me why this is a bad thing. If you look at the quality of most of those books being published, I don't know that we would be better off for having read them.

If I decide to watch something on the History Channel or PBS instead of reading a trash fiction novel, isn't that a better choice? Why is the printed word more sacred than then spoken or visual word?

Griff · 07-09-2006, 05:27 PM

With your examples, sure. In general, though, books require more interaction than tv, more mental exercise. Of course, many of the folks watching History Channel are the same ones reading real books. I can't have cable in my house, since I'm raising children, so its books for me.

Elspode · 07-09-2006, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce's Source

One-third of high school graduates never read another book for the rest of their lives. Many do not even graduate from high school.

Can someone please explain to me how how school graduates fail to graduate from high school?

Beautiful_Stranger · 07-09-2006, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspode

Can someone please explain to me how how school graduates fail to graduate from high school?

LOL, how funny.

I work in the children's dept. of our public library, and it's SUMMER VACATION. Which means Summer Reading Lists, and there's a ZILLION kids visiting us every single day. Of course, this is good news.....except for those who work in the library and have to lookup, find, and SHELVE all those bloody books!!!

Rant over! Thank you....just another month to go.

Trilby · 07-11-2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griff

I can't have cable in my house, since I'm raising children,

Having cable and raising children are mutually exclusive?

I read constantly. I LOVE to read. If reading had been a sport in my high school, I would have lettered. If I could be paid to read-that would be my perfect job. I read classics and crap and the O magazine and National Geographic and the indie paper around here and poetry and...and...

Griff · 07-11-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

Having cable and raising children are mutually exclusive?

To me, they are. On some other thread, Ibram made a little mistep saying that "society" had f*cked a particular child. The real deal is uninvolved parents destroyed that child by not imposing themselves between society and their offspring. I know cable has some value like propaganda er news channels but right now I have two wonderful kids who come to Pete or myself when the world seems screwed up or scarey, rather than getting their values from Fox or CNN. When they are older and are ready to process all the images, we may get cable, but don't count on it. We broke the tv habit and I'd hate to give up book or Cellar hours to go back.

dar512 · 07-11-2006, 02:09 PM

I'm with you Griff. Our girls are now 13 & 14. The only broadcast TV they have ever seen at home were the various Olympics. Otherwise our TV is a monitor for the DVD and VCR. On school nights it's never turned on. Obviously that's just one factor, but both girls do well at school.

dar512 · 07-10-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

Explain to me why this is a bad thing. If you look at the quality of most of those books being published, I don't know that we would be better off for having read them.

If I decide to watch something on the History Channel or PBS instead of reading a trash fiction novel, isn't that a better choice? Why is the printed word more sacred than then spoken or visual word?

I think most of the music on the radio today is crap. That doesn't stop me from enjoying some of it.

I enjoyed the Jurassic Park movies, but I've also read the books. The images and thoughts in the books become part of me that wouldn't be there if I had not read them.

I just finished a collection of writings on software development that gave me a number of thoughts and ideas I would not have gotten had I not taken the trouble.

You don't have to read everything that's published, surely. But I think it's awfully limiting to exclude an entire medium.

*not seriously - but*
The main reason to read books instead of watch TV is that books have no commercials or fund-raisers.

07-09-2006, 05:17 PM	#1
smoothmoniker to live and die in LA Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 2,090	Explain to me why this is a bad thing. If you look at the quality of most of those books being published, I don't know that we would be better off for having read them. If I decide to watch something on the History Channel or PBS instead of reading a trash fiction novel, isn't that a better choice? Why is the printed word more sacred than then spoken or visual word? __________________ to live and die in LA

07-09-2006, 05:27 PM	#2
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	With your examples, sure. In general, though, books require more interaction than tv, more mental exercise. Of course, many of the folks watching History Channel are the same ones reading real books. I can't have cable in my house, since I'm raising children, so its books for me. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

07-11-2006, 02:09 PM	#7
dar512 dar512 is now Pete Zicato Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago suburb Posts: 4,968	I'm with you Griff. Our girls are now 13 & 14. The only broadcast TV they have ever seen at home were the various Olympics. Otherwise our TV is a monitor for the DVD and VCR. On school nights it's never turned on. Obviously that's just one factor, but both girls do well at school. __________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." -- Friedrich Schiller

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)