4 ms·

No, it is not all just ‘content’ which is roughly the same and can be consumed like a snack. That’s a word used by people who think thoughts, feelings and stori

No, it is not all just ‘content’ which is roughly the same and can be consumed like a snack. That’s a word used by people who think thoughts, feelings and stories are just carriers for advertising and selling you things. Words matter, don’t take your word choice from ad factories instagram which popularised this term. Reading (I won’t say consuming) a good book can stay with you forever. People from 2000 years ago can speak to you in their own voice from behind the grave. And you have the audacity to call it content and compare it to cat videos and call it ‘overhyped’?

kccqzy 11d ago
Reading a book from 2000 years ago is not the same class as reading a recently published modern romance fiction. The latter is basically consumed like a snack. On days when I am too lazy to be productive or be “creating” something, I sometimes take out my old Harry Potter collection and read for two straight hours. I don’t really feel that’s meaningfully different from watching online videos for two straight hours. It is indeed just consumption. And Harry Potter series is in fact one of the better ones among contemporary literature.
- kurthr 11d ago
  Although I can't personally imagine re-reading YA lit, it still requires you to use huge amounts of grammar, vocabulary, and cultural knowledge in a seamless automatic way. To imagine an alternate world, people, and culture, while your eyes scan constantly across page after page invisible to your captured mind. Those are the same language tools you need to use to create and evaluate your own writing. You're using a mental tool at a high level, even if it's not Ulysses (or Homer's Odyssey). This is fundamentally different from passively viewing cat videos, or thirst traps, which may well not involve language at all. A 2 year old can be entertained by short form video, but can not even sound out a single word of a book.
- WalterBright 11d ago
  95% of books (and I'm being generous) are not worth the paper they are printed on, let alone the time spent reading them. And then, there are the gems: War of the Worlds, and Lord of the Rings.
- djtango 11d ago
  Reading is the least stimulating than other forms of "content" mediums. Reading about a spell duel is neurologically (and physically) going to be a very different experience than watching flashing colours on screen with loud blasts. The visualisation of the world printed in words is more active than having it painted on screen for you. I struggle to read, the last fiction I read was now 8 years ago but the value of it is not lost on me...
lend000 11d ago
I didn't say it was all roughly the same or that you shouldn't do it, but it's obviously still consumption. If nobody ever consumed, there would be less value in creating art. Like all things in life, it should be done in moderation and balanced with creative activities.
- grey-area 11d ago
  I find the words consumption and content problematic. They encourage you to look at the world in a certain way. What would happen to your world view if you step outside the confines of those words, defined by advertisers who don't care about quality but instead measure clicks, engagement and profits and have encouraged the worst sort of 'content' to thrive (short form videos with very little substance)? Most good art or writing requires engagement from the reader and something is created in engaging with it, something new that exists between the original work and the world of the reader. So I fundamentally disagree with the framing that reading is a passive activity and requires no creativity or engagement, or that creating is fundamentally different from engaging with the creations of others.
  - lend000 10d ago
    > Most good art or writing requires engagement from the reader and something is created in engaging with it This is an interesting point, and as I said before, reading a book >> than short form content (although you could also argue a 3Blue1Brown video watched intentionally could also provide some level of engagement, while still being categorically different than creating a video or novel in the first place). I would agree that the best forms of art, whether in novels or music or otherwise, invite some level of creative participation. But that is rare, and it's still (in my opinion) a fundamentally different and constrained form of creativity. > I find the words consumption and content problematic. They're just words, they're appropriate here, and they had meaning long before digital ads. That being said, your needless hostility suggests you attach a significant amount of ego to reading. Maybe you aren't aware of that, so I leave it as an observation here. If you like reading books, no one here is questioning your life decisions. If you use reading to signal superiority, well, that's a whole different issue.

kccqzy 11d ago

Reading a book from 2000 years ago is not the same class as reading a recently published modern romance fiction. The latter is basically consumed like a snack. On days when I am too lazy to be productive or be “creating” something, I sometimes take out my old Harry Potter collection and read for two straight hours. I don’t really feel that’s meaningfully different from watching online videos for two straight hours. It is indeed just consumption. And Harry Potter series is in fact one of the better ones among contemporary literature.

kurthr 11d ago
Although I can't personally imagine re-reading YA lit, it still requires you to use huge amounts of grammar, vocabulary, and cultural knowledge in a seamless automatic way. To imagine an alternate world, people, and culture, while your eyes scan constantly across page after page invisible to your captured mind. Those are the same language tools you need to use to create and evaluate your own writing. You're using a mental tool at a high level, even if it's not Ulysses (or Homer's Odyssey). This is fundamentally different from passively viewing cat videos, or thirst traps, which may well not involve language at all. A 2 year old can be entertained by short form video, but can not even sound out a single word of a book.
WalterBright 11d ago
95% of books (and I'm being generous) are not worth the paper they are printed on, let alone the time spent reading them. And then, there are the gems: War of the Worlds, and Lord of the Rings.
djtango 11d ago
Reading is the least stimulating than other forms of "content" mediums. Reading about a spell duel is neurologically (and physically) going to be a very different experience than watching flashing colours on screen with loud blasts. The visualisation of the world printed in words is more active than having it painted on screen for you. I struggle to read, the last fiction I read was now 8 years ago but the value of it is not lost on me...

lend000 11d ago

I didn't say it was all roughly the same or that you shouldn't do it, but it's obviously still consumption. If nobody ever consumed, there would be less value in creating art. Like all things in life, it should be done in moderation and balanced with creative activities.

grey-area 11d ago
I find the words consumption and content problematic. They encourage you to look at the world in a certain way. What would happen to your world view if you step outside the confines of those words, defined by advertisers who don't care about quality but instead measure clicks, engagement and profits and have encouraged the worst sort of 'content' to thrive (short form videos with very little substance)? Most good art or writing requires engagement from the reader and something is created in engaging with it, something new that exists between the original work and the world of the reader. So I fundamentally disagree with the framing that reading is a passive activity and requires no creativity or engagement, or that creating is fundamentally different from engaging with the creations of others.
- lend000 10d ago
  > Most good art or writing requires engagement from the reader and something is created in engaging with it This is an interesting point, and as I said before, reading a book >> than short form content (although you could also argue a 3Blue1Brown video watched intentionally could also provide some level of engagement, while still being categorically different than creating a video or novel in the first place). I would agree that the best forms of art, whether in novels or music or otherwise, invite some level of creative participation. But that is rare, and it's still (in my opinion) a fundamentally different and constrained form of creativity. > I find the words consumption and content problematic. They're just words, they're appropriate here, and they had meaning long before digital ads. That being said, your needless hostility suggests you attach a significant amount of ego to reading. Maybe you aren't aware of that, so I leave it as an observation here. If you like reading books, no one here is questioning your life decisions. If you use reading to signal superiority, well, that's a whole different issue.