Great! Harry Potter! It's got kids READING again!

[LesMTS]

There's a sanctimoniousness that's an undeniable part of the whole culture of reading that dictates that entertaining oneself with prose is somehow a worthier pursuit than most other activities, especially TV and film.
Indeed, reading is so revered as indicative of intellectualism or depth of character that we'll all know someone who frequently buys books that they never intend to read, to fill up the bookshelves in their house, because they think a busy bookshelf will give a particularly strong positive impression of the person they are (I'm actually sure that the book section in the erstwhile Fopp chain of stores catered directly for this market).
There's also a lot of this "read a fucking book!" attitude around at the minute.
Isn't this all a lot of nonsense, though? Reading, on the whole, is no worthier, or no better spent time, than watching TV.

Anyway, I was just thinking about this after reading a quote from Germaine Greer on the Guardian website:

I think some people are reading a whole lot more that they need to be. I think all these children banging themselves on the head with Harry Potter would be better off doing almost anything else. Why are we so sanctimonious and moralistic about reading?

Thoughts?

[MarkMono]

I personally thought it was bad enough back when children grew up reading generic fantay dreck for adults.

Although the "Read a fucking book" stuff you're thinking of is probably me (If not, who else? Off-topic curiousity) I can't think of anyone else on here presumptious and/or angry enough to hit out with it. Even Harry Potter is better for intellectual development than Big Brother, (TV undeniably generally aims for a lower common denominator) just not by much.

[Girshkin]

Even within the 'read a fucking book' message there is a snobbery as to what kind of book is being read. My ex is an English teacher who has many over-anxious parents concerned because little Timmy likes to read comics, rather than War and Peace. His usual response is that as long as the comic is age-appropriate it should be encouraged, as any kind of reading is a good thing.

There's enough vapid content in any kind of media just now, that surely the content rather than the means in which it is presented should be more important, but as you have suggested, the attitude is that books are somehow more 'worthy' than films etc.

[Potatojunkie]

Television is regarded mostly as an entertainment medium. If you want to learn about something you can either sit about in the vague hope that maybe somebody will make a half-decent programme about it, or you can go to the library.

The idea that kids reading for entertainment will somehow result in more educational reading is a little off the mark, mind you.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by MarkMono

I personally thought it was bad enough back when children grew up reading generic fantay dreck for adults.

Although the "Read a fucking book" stuff you're thinking of is probably me (If not, who else? Off-topic curiousity) I can't think of anyone else on here presumptious and/or angry enough to hit out with it. Even Harry Potter is better for intellectual development than Big Brother, (TV undeniably generally aims for a lower common denominator) just not by much.

Nah, it's not aimed at anyone on here at all. Just a general attitude that you seem to hear more and more. Also, the old "the book is better than the film" platitude, which I'm sure is, more often than not, just rolled off the tongue without consulting the brain.

Anyway, I'm positive the whole thing is much more complex than what I've said here. It's a deliberately contrary opinion on may part, just offered up for the purpose of debate.

[MarkMono]

I recommend reading a book to anyone who seems to have problems articulating themselves through the written word.

I'm just waiting for one of AltNations several Primary teachers to post saying "I disagree, I started the kids reading Harry Potter last term and this term they're reading Dark Materials"

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Nah, it's not aimed at anyone on here at all. Just a general attitude that you seem to hear more and more.

Never heard it from anyone else on here but me, why I asked.

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Also, the old "the book is better than the film" platitude, which I'm sure is, more often than not, just rolled off the tongue without consulting the brain.

I have trouble thinking of that as a platitude as its an opinion of mine which holds true for virtually every film adaptation I've ever seen. Two exceptions spring to mind, thats it.

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Anyway, I'm positive the whole thing is much more complex than what I've said here. It's a deliberately contrary opinion on may part, just offered up for the purpose of debate.

That was obvious, even to the partially educated.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by Potatojunkie

Television is regarded mostly as an entertainment medium. If you want to learn about something you can either sit about in the vague hope that maybe somebody will make a half-decent programme about it, or you can go to the library.

The idea that kids reading for entertainment will somehow result in more educational reading is a little off the mark, mind you.

Yeah, I was thinking something along these lines too.

Also, I've found myself reading less and less fiction over the years. To the point now that I can't remember when I last read a novel. I'm always telling myself "I must start reading novels again; I really should read more fiction", just got round to asking myself "until something specific piques your interest, why?".
It occured to me that the only reason I was thinking I needed to read more novels was basically because it's considered a worthy way to spend your time. So I'll stick to non-fiction until something fictional grabs me (like a ghost, or a friendly bouncer......boom boom).

[kimzor]

Originally Posted by LesMTS

Also, I've found myself reading less and less fiction over the years. To the point now that I can't remember when I last read a novel. I'm always telling myself "I must start reading novels again; I really should read more fiction", just got round to asking myself "until something specific piques your interest, why?".
It occured to me that the only reason I was thinking I needed to read more novels was basically because it's considered a worthy way to spend your time. So I'll stick to non-fiction until something fictional grabs me.

Same here, really.

I don't like the idea of reading for reading sake. I find reading a much better tool for learning, rather than story telling.

[MarkMono]

I prefer comics, by a very narrow margin. I believe the medium has far greater potential as both art and literature.

Although, thinking about it, a lot of the comics I read these days are non-fiction too.

[XMachina]

sequential tart had an identical topic to this back in 2001. I'm away to dig it up to demonstrate that the reading>TV thing is no more prevalent today than any other time in the last decade.

[MarkMono]

You don't have to bother, we believe you.

[XMachina]

good job. I'm fairly sure it was Barb Lien Cooper that wrote the article.

As for Germaine Greer asking why we are so sanctimonious about reading, I'd guess it would have something to do with written communication being one of if not humanity's greatest achievements. We're a fickle lot and get a bit protective of things like that.

[MarkMono]

Germaine Greer asking anyone why they're so sanctimonious is pretty hypocritical, at best.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by XMachina

As for Germaine Greer asking why we are so sanctimonious about reading, I'd guess it would have something to do with written communication being one of if not humanity's greatest achievements. We're a fickle lot and get a bit protective of things like that.

She's just annoyed because Rowling's twaddle is outselling her books by a ridiculous amount.

Which is a shame in some respects, because the Female Eunuch is still a pretty important book and could do with more folks reading it.

[Mwezzi]

I spent all my childhood sitting inside reading books. The result is that I have a very limited knowledge of pop culture, haven't heard of anything and am a bit awkward socially, but I can spell things correctly, my grammar is okay* and my concentration levels are perhaps a bit higher than a lot of more TV-oriented people I know of. Watching a film, playing a game or whatnot is fine as entertainment, but if you want to learn more about correct language beyond what it sounds like then it does help to sit down and read something. Not true in all cases, mind, but it does help somewhat. Also, the written word is useful if someone wants to convey ideas more effectively and with more detail than a half-hour slot on Channel 4 will allow.
However - to those who say it encourages you to use your imagination more, bullshit. My imagination's rubbish.
Reading should be encouraged, but with a bit more moderation than some people seem to think is suitable. Children need a life outside the pages, and they aren't going to be fit and healthy if they sit indoors with their nose in a book, and they certainly won't see as many awesome explosions and robot armies.



*In other words, I can write a decent-ish C.V., but fall flat on the interview.