I am reading The Croning by Laird Barron. From what I can tell, it's a series of loosely connected stories about a leech-god and it's cultists and their dealings with various people throughout history. The author is a one-eyed Alaskan man who has raced in the Iditarod which, for some reason, strikes me as a more appropriate background for a Cosmic Horror writer than the standard introverted personality.
I frankly think you'd have to almost deliberately miss the point of To Kill a Mockingbird to call it racist.
Nowadays it seems that people are so desperate to point out racism that I'd suppose the inclusion of the word "nigger" in these two books (even though they are representative of the time they were first published in) is enough for them to get up in arms about it. This goes somewhat along with what I mentioned earlier in this thread about how "Uncle Tom" is an epithet for a black person who kowtows to white authority even though in the novel, Uncle Tom was of no such character and him standing up to a white slave owner was what got him killed at the end.
I have the impression that he dislikes television, but Farenheit 451, I think, illustrates why, a little bit: its general insipidness and how it makes people stupid and isolates them, distracting everyone from reality (for example, Montag's wife is more concerned with the goings-on of a fictional family than she is with the goings-on of her husband or neighbors). This book was written even before cell phones and the internet and video games and such, which similarly distract people (though TV is still the worst among them in my opinion, for being a one-sided barrage of advertisements and manufactured mass culture). It is a book that stresses the importance of not allowing literature and thinking to be drowned out by a flood of sensationalized media, as well as the dangers of book-burning. Perhaps it is a little heavy-handed, but I think its themes are relevant.
Never said it wasn't relevant, it was a good book, but the heavy handedness made it more difficult to enjoy. That, and from what I've heard, Bradbury wasn't the nicest person either.
I have the impression that he dislikes television, but Farenheit 451, I think, illustrates why, a little bit: its general insipidness and how it makes people stupid and isolates them, distracting everyone from reality (for example, Montag's wife is more concerned with the goings-on of a fictional family than she is with the goings-on of her husband or neighbors). This book was written even before cell phones and the internet and video games and such, which similarly distract people (though TV is still the worst among them in my opinion, for being a one-sided barrage of advertisements and manufactured mass culture). It is a book that stresses the importance of not allowing literature and thinking to be drowned out by a flood of sensationalized media, as well as the dangers of book-burning. Perhaps it is a little heavy-handed, but I think its themes are relevant.
I've never bought the idea that television (or any other kind of media) cheapens one's life. Certain kinds of television, maybe, but that has more to do with the content than the medium.
Good TV (and good media in general) makes you think. That's why say, Lost was critically acclaimed (though, as a disclaimer everything I know about taht show is second hand. Never seen it).
Of course there is value in popcorn escapist entertainment too, but that's not what I mean.
Watching something is a passive experience. It is basically plugging yourself into a stream of information. It does not ask of its viewers to do much other than vegetate, most of the time (as mentioned above, there are exceptions). Even bad literature asks of its readers the effort it takes to read text from a page and understand it. That is not to say that reading lots of junk is a good thing to do, but it keeps one's mind busier than would watching lots of junk on a TV. Good writing, or even decent writing, does engage its readers and make them think. There is also this: one may digest literature at one's own pace, uninterrupted by commercials, and whenever one pleases. This is not true of watching a TV show.
Watching something is a passive experience. It is basically plugging yourself into a stream of information. It does not ask of its viewers to do much other than vegetate, most of the time (as mentioned above, there are exceptions). Even bad literature asks of its readers the effort it takes to read text from a page and understand it. That is not to say that reading lots of junk is a good thing to do, but it keeps one's mind busier than would watching lots of junk on a TV. Good writing, or even decent writing, does engage its readers and make them think. There is also this: one may digest literature at one's own pace, uninterrupted by commercials, and whenever one pleases. This is not true of watching a TV show.
You seem to be equating "requires more effort to ingest" with "is better for you"/"makes you think more". That's really not the case. If it were, even literature wouldn't be the best way of having a story imparted to you, that would be coming up with one on your own and memorizing it. Since that takes the most effort (as far as I can imagine) of any possible form of media.
You cannot honestly sit there and tell me that Twilight is better for you than Time of EVE solely because the latter is a cartoon and the former is a book series.
Honestly this entire argument seems to rely on interactivity as a metric, which I can't agree with.
You seem to be equating "requires more effort to ingest" with "is better for you"/"makes you think more". That's really not the case.
I would say it generally is.
If it were, even literature wouldn't be the best way of having a story imparted to you, that would be coming up with one on your own and memorizing it.
...I don't get it.
You cannot honestly sit there and tell me that Twilight is better for you than Time of EVE solely because the latter is a cartoon and the former is a book series.
I am not. (*Never seen Time of EVE, but it has to be better than Twilight*)
I can see the reasoning. Thinking that if you take more time on something, you're more likely to actually take it in thoroughly. But in my experience, at least, that's never been the case.
...I don't get it.
If more effort = better for you, then the most difficult means of getting a story (making one up on your own) would be the best for you. That's obviously not true, but it's an extreme that can be reasonably extrapolated from what you're all suggesting.
I am not. (*Never seen Time of EVE, but it has to be better than Twilight*)
Okay, so we can then at least agree that books are not inherently better than television?
Watching something is a passive experience. It is basically plugging yourself into a stream of information. It does not ask of its viewers to do much other than vegetate, most of the time (as mentioned above, there are exceptions). Even bad literature asks of its readers the effort it takes to read text from a page and understand it. That is not to say that reading lots of junk is a good thing to do, but it keeps one's mind busier than would watching lots of junk on a TV. Good writing, or even decent writing, does engage its readers and make them think. There is also this: one may digest literature at one's own pace, uninterrupted by commercials, and whenever one pleases. This is not true of watching a TV show.
If more effort = better for you, then the most difficult means of getting a story (making one up on your own) would be the best for you. That's obviously not true, but it's an extreme that can be reasonably extrapolated from what you're all suggesting.
...I think I lost your train of thought somewhere.
If it were, even literature wouldn't be the best way of having a story imparted to you, that would be coming up with one on your own and memorizing it.
I was actually responding to Frosty, you just seemed to be agreeing with him.
See I thought he was saying that literature requiring more effort to "get" meant it was better for you. I countered that if that was the sole reason literature was better, you could just as easily say that making up your own story is better for you than literature, since that's significantly harder than just reading something that already exists.
Comments
To Kill A Mockingbird is about as racist as a certain friend of mine, which is to say, not any.
Reading If on a winter's night a traveller now.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
So, I finished Flow My Tears, The Policeman Said which was satisfyingly mind-screwy.
Next up is Fahrenheit 451, I hope it doesn't make me cry
He was really pushing the "television is eeeeeeeevil" thing.
Actually Bradbury was pretty anti-TV because....well it was TV. I don't think he's ever been too clear on his reasons.
Of course most people just think it's about censorship anyway, so it's debatable whether or not that even matters.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
I've never bought the idea that television (or any other kind of media) cheapens one's life. Certain kinds of television, maybe, but that has more to do with the content than the medium.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Good TV (and good media in general) makes you think. That's why say, Lost was critically acclaimed (though, as a disclaimer everything I know about taht show is second hand. Never seen it).
Of course there is value in popcorn escapist entertainment too, but that's not what I mean.
Well that would depend on what you're watching, wouldn't it?
And I really don't see how it's any worse than any other kind of media. People used to have similar objections to writing.
You seem to be equating "requires more effort to ingest" with "is better for you"/"makes you think more". That's really not the case. If it were, even literature wouldn't be the best way of having a story imparted to you, that would be coming up with one on your own and memorizing it. Since that takes the most effort (as far as I can imagine) of any possible form of media.
You cannot honestly sit there and tell me that Twilight is better for you than Time of EVE solely because the latter is a cartoon and the former is a book series.
Honestly this entire argument seems to rely on interactivity as a metric, which I can't agree with.
I am not. (*Never seen Time of EVE, but it has to be better than Twilight*)
Why would you say that?
I can see the reasoning. Thinking that if you take more time on something, you're more likely to actually take it in thoroughly. But in my experience, at least, that's never been the case.
If more effort = better for you, then the most difficult means of getting a story (making one up on your own) would be the best for you. That's obviously not true, but it's an extreme that can be reasonably extrapolated from what you're all suggesting.
Okay, so we can then at least agree that books are not inherently better than television?
Well that's how it is, then.
I'm clearly outnumbered here anyway, so I'm not sure there's even a point to me trying to defend my position.
Well when I first said this.
I was actually responding to Frosty, you just seemed to be agreeing with him.
See I thought he was saying that literature requiring more effort to "get" meant it was better for you. I countered that if that was the sole reason literature was better, you could just as easily say that making up your own story is better for you than literature, since that's significantly harder than just reading something that already exists.
So I think, anyway.