3 ms·
It's often said that book reading requires a lot of imagination, something that you don't employ that much when consuming other forms.
by josefrichter 2y ago
It's often said that book reading requires a lot of imagination, something that you don't employ that much when consuming other forms.
- card_zero 2y agoYes, often said - here's a quote from some guy (Sir John Lubbock) writing in 1894: There is a certain art in reading. Passive reading is of very little use. We must try to realise what we read. [...] we must endeavour to realise the scenes described, and the persons who are mentioned, to picture them in the "Gallery of the imagination." That's not set in contrast to the TV or computer games of 1894, of course, but in contrast to "reading listlessly or mechanically". So is it really true that the TV, with its greater bandwidth that uses all the senses*, prevents the viewers from imagining things? This is no more than a matter of taste, I think. If you watch The Walking Dead instead of reading it (I've never done either, this is only what I assume) you'll have certain things set in stone, like how a character looks, which might otherwise be flexible in your imagination. But so what? If you then have a daydream loosely based on the same theme then you have complete freedom to introduce whatever elements you like: therefore, don't read a book, take a siesta instead? *Several of the senses. It doesn't make smells or caress the viewer yet, but you know what I mean.