Somehow my answers got sent in before I was ready.
The book I remember reading vividly as a child is A Wrinkle in Time, for lots of different reasons. Probably the easiest one to explain is that I was raised by very strict parents, and I was such an unnaturally good child that I was pretty old before I realized that it was PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to disobey my mother. Not that I'd get in trouble, just that it was possible at all. Anyway, I stayed up late and finished Wrinkle with a flashlight under the covers, which was wildly, astoundingly disobedient in my family. My mother caught me and was astonished, since I'd never done such a terrible thing before. I said, "Mom, you gotta read this book." And she did. And she said, "Well, having read it, I can see why you had to finish it. But DON'T DO IT AGAIN!" For a book to occasion such amazing disobedience on my part and such astonishing leniency on my mother's part, well, it had to be a heck of a book. And it IS, of course, as everybody knows. Everybody knows all the usual reasons why this book would make an impression on a child, but my family dynamics made it have an extra effect. :-)
to clarify my comment -- I think love of reading is changing, not disappearing. but I think reading on the Internet and even watching tv/movies are forms of reading.
Amazon came out with a new device that will let people read on a device. I don't know if that changes the experience of reading.
I don't think watching tv and movies is comparable to reading. Reading involves well, reading words on a page. TV & Movies are in the line of visual entertainment such as plays and operas. Video games are more like movies & tv, but I think they are their own genre because they are more like playing make-believe. But reading - reading means you imagine the story in your head, the words impart the story. Anything that visually represents the story brings the images directly to your head, not having the element of turning words into images. So it's different. In my opinion. I think it fires different parts of the brain and I'm sure studies back that up.
I'm worried that if too many people stop reading entirely, it will change the human brain. We've been reading for centuries.
It's not like we're changing from papyrus to scrolls to bound books. Going from reading to watching television is not just a transformation of medium.
My opinion only - don't mean to jump all over you. After all, you're a total stranger to me.
I've read about the anxiety that took place when storytelling changed from vocal narrating in a group setting -- where the reader would sit there and listen -- to reading privately words on a page. People thought it would change everything, ruin society. When I heard that, I thought: seriously, the more things change, the more they stay the same. We're always worried that some new form of storytelling is going to mean something hugely negative. And things changed a lot, when people began reading privately, but I don't think society became worse for it.
I also think it depends on your definition of reading. I think of reading as the process of making meaning from a text. If I'm watching TV and movies, I may be receiving the images already, but my brain still has to process the information and make sense of it and figure out a meaning. I have to understand character, plot, dialogue. I have to find significance and apply to it myself. Same things we do with reading books that we love so much. The presence of images doesn't make it brainless.
Sure, there are different parts of the brain that do different things -- I imagine there are different parts of the brain that process reading violent science fiction novels versus the parts of the brain that process reading a book about food. I don't think one's going to fundamentally change the human brain.
I think of reading as the process of making meaning from a text.
I agree with you that far, but I think we have different definitions of "text." For me, text has to be written. Even books on CD, to me, do not exactly count as "reading," because when you hear someone speaking, most of the meaning you get is not from the words that they use, but from their tone and inflection. (Scientific studies back this up - I can come up with a citation if desired.) When you add the dimension of being able to see someone's face and/or body on screen, that also changes the form and meaning of the piece signficantly.
I would agree that television and movies are (or can be) art and that it's possible to engage with them and make meaning, but I don't agree that watching them is reading. I don't think that looking at paintings or other visual art is reading either.
When I said it never occurred to me, that's not entirely accurate. I know that people do it, I just don't understand exactly why and it never seemed like something that would enhance my enjoyment, but I can see why others might want to do so.
I read Homer Price when I was in fourth grade, and my rebellious feelings were starting to coalesce. My mom had come to tuck me in and said something like, "You can keep reading for a little while but you need to stop when you feel sleepy." I was lost in the marvels of Homer and his donut machine until I woke up in the middle of the night with my light on and the book on my lap. I turned the light off so my parents wouldn't know, although they might have noticed I was very tired the next day.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 01:15 am (UTC). . . No, not a Bible . . .
no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 01:27 am (UTC)The book I remember reading vividly as a child is A Wrinkle in Time, for lots of different reasons. Probably the easiest one to explain is that I was raised by very strict parents, and I was such an unnaturally good child that I was pretty old before I realized that it was PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE to disobey my mother. Not that I'd get in trouble, just that it was possible at all. Anyway, I stayed up late and finished Wrinkle with a flashlight under the covers, which was wildly, astoundingly disobedient in my family. My mother caught me and was astonished, since I'd never done such a terrible thing before. I said, "Mom, you gotta read this book." And she did. And she said, "Well, having read it, I can see why you had to finish it. But DON'T DO IT AGAIN!" For a book to occasion such amazing disobedience on my part and such astonishing leniency on my mother's part, well, it had to be a heck of a book. And it IS, of course, as everybody knows. Everybody knows all the usual reasons why this book would make an impression on a child, but my family dynamics made it have an extra effect. :-)
no subject
Date: 2007-12-22 02:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 01:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 02:12 am (UTC)I don't think watching tv and movies is comparable to reading. Reading involves well, reading words on a page. TV & Movies are in the line of visual entertainment such as plays and operas. Video games are more like movies & tv, but I think they are their own genre because they are more like playing make-believe. But reading - reading means you imagine the story in your head, the words impart the story. Anything that visually represents the story brings the images directly to your head, not having the element of turning words into images. So it's different. In my opinion. I think it fires different parts of the brain and I'm sure studies back that up.
I'm worried that if too many people stop reading entirely, it will change the human brain. We've been reading for centuries.
It's not like we're changing from papyrus to scrolls to bound books. Going from reading to watching television is not just a transformation of medium.
My opinion only - don't mean to jump all over you. After all, you're a total stranger to me.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 02:47 am (UTC)I also think it depends on your definition of reading. I think of reading as the process of making meaning from a text. If I'm watching TV and movies, I may be receiving the images already, but my brain still has to process the information and make sense of it and figure out a meaning. I have to understand character, plot, dialogue. I have to find significance and apply to it myself. Same things we do with reading books that we love so much. The presence of images doesn't make it brainless.
Sure, there are different parts of the brain that do different things -- I imagine there are different parts of the brain that process reading violent science fiction novels versus the parts of the brain that process reading a book about food. I don't think one's going to fundamentally change the human brain.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-22 10:46 pm (UTC)I agree with you that far, but I think we have different definitions of "text." For me, text has to be written. Even books on CD, to me, do not exactly count as "reading," because when you hear someone speaking, most of the meaning you get is not from the words that they use, but from their tone and inflection. (Scientific studies back this up - I can come up with a citation if desired.) When you add the dimension of being able to see someone's face and/or body on screen, that also changes the form and meaning of the piece signficantly.
I would agree that television and movies are (or can be) art and that it's possible to engage with them and make meaning, but I don't agree that watching them is reading. I don't think that looking at paintings or other visual art is reading either.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 02:09 am (UTC)To receive...well, I would like to read "The Years of Rice and Salt".
no subject
Date: 2007-12-21 02:55 am (UTC)More specifically...
Date: 2007-12-22 02:42 pm (UTC)