3 ms·
They were for the most part not reading fine literature, they were reading low quality trash fiction adventure stories while their wives read trash fiction roma
by dsfyu404ed 6y ago
They were for the most part not reading fine literature, they were reading low quality trash fiction adventure stories while their wives read trash fiction romance novels. It was the Netflix/Youtube of it's day. Of course some people read "good" things or consume "high culture" but most people consume whatever the mass market media of their day is (hence why it's called "mass market").
- dang 6y agoPostman describes it otherwise.
- partyboat1586 6y agoThe difference is they were free to read any book by any independent author if they chose to. Netflix and Hollywood are much more centrally controlled and homogeneous than literature. YouTube is censored short form and many content producers make content that is more shallow than the most shallow adventure story because it gets more views and it is advertiser friendly. The other difference is that Plato's Republic sits not too far away from 'The Crocodile Whisperer' in the book shop and library. YouTube and Netflix feeds on the other hand are tailored to what the user already watches and what they will most likely get them to click next, stuck in a loop never broken by serendipity. The immediate availability of entertainment in the form of TV and movies on Netflix makes the idea of finding, picking up and reading a book less appetising and harder. The more someone reads (even if it is trash) the faster they can read and the wider their vocabulary becomes. This makes it easier for them to pick up more substantive books later on. Instead we see a generation of young people glued to their phones reading text written by their peers, watching the same trash they would read but without any of the benefits of reading. The need for entertainment drove many young people to read in the past and that is a good thing!