PDA

View Full Version : Reading v Television



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10

IceAlisa
08-12-2011, 06:42 AM
Would you rather have hot and wild sex, watch porn or read about it?

There is a time and place for everything. :shuffle:

Prancer
08-12-2011, 07:03 AM
Someone who devours Harlequin romances is likely using their brain less than someone who watches 'Law and Order' or CSI type shows and goodness knows, there are enough Harlequin addicts out there.

Having read Harlequins and watched both shows a few times, I would disagree. CSI in particular is pretty ridiculous.


And the popularity of reality TV speaks for itself.

What does 80 million copies of The Da Vinci Code sold say? How about A Shore Thing making the New York Times bestseller list? Twilight? Harlequin? Nicholas Sparks? Do those very popular works reflect a higher common denominator than, say, Deadliest Catch? If I read current bestseller Heaven is For Real, am I using my brain more than I would watching The Amazing Race?

Maybe we should all just switch to surfing the internet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7667610.stm) to make ourselves smarter.

IceAlisa
08-12-2011, 07:23 AM
Well, Law And Order really tells you nothing about law and order as I had found out here on FSU. Yes, I was crushed. I really thought I was watching educational programming when at 3 a.m. I was suffering from pregnancy-induced insomnia.

Kinda like House tells you nothing about medicine.

And I've read The Da Vinci Code and think it may be the worst book ever or up there in the top 10 at least. There's junk content everywhere.

Japanfan
08-12-2011, 07:45 AM
What does 80 million copies of The Da Vinci Code sold say?


Nothing really. It has to be compared to numbers of a TV audience across the same population (i.e. national or worldwide). And it is difficult to make such a comparison as TV shows are done in a day, whereas the book was on the list for longer than that. Plus, that fact that reality TV shows with identical formulas are replicated in many countries and languages has to be taken into account. So I don't know what an appropriate methodology would be.


What does 80 million copies of The Da Vinci Code sold say? How about A Shore Thing making the New York Times bestseller list? Twilight? Harlequin? Nicholas Sparks? Do those very popular works reflect a higher common denominator than, say, Deadliest Catch? If I read current bestseller Heaven is For Real, am I using my brain more than I would watching The Amazing Race?


The only title of those I've read is 'The Da Vinci Code', so I can't comment on the others.

I agree with Ice Alissa that it is a candidate for worst 10 top sellers, but I would say that it did require me to use my brain more than 'The Amazing Race'. However, to be fair I haven't watched The Amazing Race closely so I'm better able to compare it shows I'm more familiar with. For example, 'Entertainment Tonight', where the commentators spend half the show talking about what they are going to talk about, then eventually get around to talking about it after a few commercial breaks for less than half a minute. Or Reality TV where they give flashbacks of what has happened on the same episode and series recaps (i.e. America's Top Model). If you watch a show like that you don't need to pay much attention in order to get the story. In fact, such shows appear to be oriented to inattentive audiences. Bad as The Da Vinci Code was, IMO it required more attention than that.

Even the mostly terribly plotted and terribly written of Robin Cook's medical thrillers is more challenging than Entertainment Tonight - though Entertainment Tonight is more interesting and entertaining.

IceAlisa
08-12-2011, 07:55 AM
What's Amazing Race? And do I really want to know...

Japanfan
08-12-2011, 08:06 AM
What's Amazing Race? And do I really want to know...

It's a reality TV show where teams of four (I'm quite sure it is four?) have to navigate their way across a certain landscape, surmount various obstacles, and figure out puzzles on their way. They get to choose between options like climbing down a high rise building or swimming across a river with a raging current. They go to various countries around the world and there are spin-offs like Amazing Race couples or twins.

Last team to reach a designated point gets eliminated each episode and first team to the finish line wins in the final episode.

So far as reality TV goes Amazing Race is far from the worst.

IceAlisa
08-12-2011, 08:12 AM
Was anyone ever hurt? :eek:

kia_4EverOnIce
08-12-2011, 09:49 AM
Meyer is clearly trying to pass off Bella as a strong, even feminist heroine, and I find that insulting. Yes, some teenagers who read it also see through that and find it insulting as well, but many - many - do not.

I agree Twilight has no literary merit, and I hate it too. But I don't agree teenagers really believe Bella is a feminist heroine. Actually, if you look on FB or on some teenagers forum you'll find a lot of "Hermione Granger taught me how to be a strong intelligent indipendent girl, Bella taught me that all we need is sparkling men" and so on.

For me, books, even the worst ones, are always more challenging than TV, because it requires a lot more to understand them (time on reading, re-reading paragraph, remembering what's before and find it, wondering how it's gonna finish), than to merely listen what it's been said on TV (passively or not, it's always a quick consumption, whether you understand all or not, you can't go back and re-listen or reflect on a point before going on).

Erin
08-12-2011, 02:21 PM
I get that. That wasn't my point.

Would you mind clarifying what your point was? (Genuinely asking.) I actually didn't understand what it was from your original post and would suspect I'm not the only one.


Maybe we should all just switch to surfing the internet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7667610.stm) to make ourselves smarter.

As someone who spends way too much time on the Internet, I like this article a lot better than the one about how google has made us all attention deficit (which I probably proved by being unable to finish the article).

milanessa
08-12-2011, 04:18 PM
Would you mind clarifying what your point was? (Genuinely asking.) I actually didn't understand what it was from your original post and would suspect I'm not the only one.


Sure, it wasn't much of a comment at all and I probably wasted bandwidth with it. :lol:

It was much like saying chalk one up for conventional wisdom. It wasn't a dig at Japanfan's opinion versus ag's.

Prancer
08-12-2011, 05:00 PM
Nothing really. It has to be compared to numbers of a TV audience across the same population (i.e. national or worldwide).

It's a given that more people watch television, but if we are talking about the merits of television versus reading, why does it matter if one is more popular or common? If you are comparing the nutritional value of eating quinoa versus eating Big Macs, it doesn't matter that more people eat Big Macs. That has no effect at all on the nutritional value.


Plus, that fact that reality TV shows with identical formulas are replicated in many countries and languages has to be taken into account.

I could argue that successful book formulas are replicated endlessly, too, but again, I don't really see why this makes any difference in terms of whether it is better to read or watch TV.


For example, 'Entertainment Tonight', where the commentators spend half the show talking about what they are going to talk about, then eventually get around to talking about it after a few commercial breaks for less than half a minute. Or Reality TV where they give flashbacks of what has happened on the same episode and series recaps (i.e. America's Top Model). If you watch a show like that you don't need to pay much attention in order to get the story. In fact, such shows appear to be oriented to inattentive audiences.

Much like The Da Vinci Code, with its very short chapters, cliffhanger endings, and repetition of plot points at the beginning of each chapter?


Even the mostly terribly plotted and terribly written of Robin Cook's medical thrillers is more challenging than Entertainment Tonight - though Entertainment Tonight is more interesting and entertaining.

Is it? By what measure? I haven't seen ET since Mary Hart was a mere slip of a girl because I think it's boring as hell. I haven't read Robin Cook, either, so I can't compare, but I find it hard to believe a thriller is worse.


It's a reality TV show where teams of four (I'm quite sure it is four?) have to navigate their way across a certain landscape, surmount various obstacles, and figure out puzzles on their way. They get to choose between options like climbing down a high rise building or swimming across a river with a raging current. They go to various countries around the world and there are spin-offs like Amazing Race couples or twins.

Last team to reach a designated point gets eliminated each episode and first team to the finish line wins in the final episode.


Not a big fan, eh?

With the exception of one season, there are two people on each team; they sometimes get to choose their options and sometimes do not. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no spinoffs; couples and twins might be featured as teams, but they don't get their own shows. Sometimes the last team is eliminated and sometimes it isn't.


Was anyone ever hurt? :eek:

Seriously? No. I can think of a couple of superficial injuries. But while rapelling down a high-rise is a fairly common challenge once a season or so, I don't think I've ever seen anyone swim across a current. If they did, they were safely clipped to a line.


For me, books, even the worst ones, are always more challenging than TV, because it requires a lot more to understand them (time on reading, re-reading paragraph, remembering what's before and find it, wondering how it's gonna finish), than to merely listen what it's been said on TV (passively or not, it's always a quick consumption, whether you understand all or not, you can't go back and re-listen or reflect on a point before going on).

Unless I am reading something very dense, I never go back and re-read sections, nor do I pause to reflect on a point. I've never felt the need, and I can't imagine too many people do if they are reading the worst books. I don't think bodice rippers require a whole lot of reflection, although people do go back and read certain parts sometimes. But it's not because they, you know, need to or want to ponder.

I think most of us have the technology to go back and rewatch things if we need to.

:confused:

I don't watch a lot of TV, and I do read a lot of books, but I think I would be kidding myself to say that most of what I read requires a lot of brain power or particular engagement. If you do, more power to you, but that would have more to do with the quality of what you read rather than the mere fact that it IS reading.

numbers123
08-12-2011, 07:31 PM
Of course, you could say the same about Romeo, so it's not really a gender thing.

At least Juliet tries to work the pretend-death plot first, but it doesn't work out.


Because the Friar suggests it. She was going to off herself until he brought it up.

So, when we have groups of teens committing suicide in a group, should we blame R/J?

Really people - the classics aren't always the best examples of great literature


Someone who devours Harlequin romances is likely using their brain less than someone who watches 'Law and Order' or CSI type shows and goodness knows, there are enough Harlequin addicts out there.

Really - both have the tendency to repeat the same formula over and over and over again.
Romance: damsel who is considered a spinster or a bit too old for marriage or too independent for marriage is saved by the handsome guy.
CSI or Law and Order: Crime happens usually a murder or significant assault on a person, law gets involved and usually a strong female lead wearing spiked heels/low cut shirts and a ton of make-up solves the crime and the criminal is punished. It may be possible that both could happen in RL, but not very likely.
when I read or watch either of those things, I figure out who is the villain by the third chapter or the first 20 minutes of the show. Because they follow the same patterns over and over again.

IceAlisa
08-12-2011, 07:45 PM
CSI or Law and Order: Crime happens usually a murder or significant assault on a person, law gets involved and usually a strong female lead wearing spiked heels/low cut shirts and a ton of make-up solves the crime and the criminal is punished. It may be possible that both could happen in RL, but not very likely.


:confused: Olivia Benson of Law And Order doesn't wear that kind of clothes and neither do other women in the show. She is usually in slacks and a blouse. Everyone wears make-up but I don't see why that would be a problem. Don't really watch CSI though.

numbers123
08-12-2011, 07:48 PM
But the basis plot line is the same over and over and over again.

skatingfan5
08-12-2011, 08:02 PM
CSI or Law and Order: Crime happens usually a murder or significant assault on a person, law gets involved and usually a strong female lead wearing spiked heels/low cut shirts and a ton of make-up solves the crime and the criminal is punished.
:confused: Olivia Benson of Law And Order doesn't wear that kind of clothes and neither do other women in the show. She is usually in slacks and a blouse. Everyone wears make-up but I don't see why that would be a problem. Don't really watch CSI though.I'm trying to get my head around the image of Christopher Noth or Meloni or Jerry Orbach in spike heels. :yikes: :lol: But I actually do know what numbers is talking about with the female detectives/medical examiners/whatever on some crime shows, e.g. Castle, Body of Proof, etc.