… much better than movies, and why I don’t like TV at all.
But the problem with readers, the idea we’re given of reading is that the model of a reader is the person watching a film, or watching television. So the greatest principle is, “I should sit here and I should be entertained.” And the more classical model, which has been completely taken away, is the idea of a reader as an amateur musician. An amateur musician who sits at the piano, has a piece of music, which is the work, made by somebody they don’t know, who they probably couldn’t comprehend entirely, and they have to use their skills to play this piece of music. The greater the skill, the greater the gift that you give the artist and that the artist gives you. That’s the incredibly unfashionable idea of reading. And yet when you practice reading, and you work at a text, it can only give you what you put into it. It’s an old moral, but it’s completely true.
(Zadie Smith quoted at Orange Crate Art, found via BoingBoing.)
A book requires attention, and you have as much time as you want, to give it that attention.
A movie or a TV programme goes on in its own pace, and all you can do is try to absorb as much as possible. You cannot easily re-read a paragraph or compare two sections side by side. Well, technically you can, but in practice it doesn’t work.
You may be on to something there. However, I might add a couple of observations.
A favourite film of mine is Gosford Park. I enjoy it because of its richness in detail and the quality of the acting. And because it is a favourite film of mine, I have watched it repeatedly. By now I must have seen it at least ten times, and the pleasure of viewing it has not diminished. I suppose this supports your argument of giving things time, but it also suggests that this can be achieved to some degree for films as well: pause and contemplation can be substituted for repetition.
My other observation is that my father, who used to be an avid reader, has for some time had such impaired vision that he can no longer read a book page. He can, however, listen to book recordings, which he enjoys tremendously. In fact, this way he “reads” much more than he used to. Of course, while listening to recordings it is as difficult to scroll back and forth in a text as when viewing a film. The tempo is set. But this does not seem to have reduced his pleasure in reading. — I might add that he, too, enjoys re-reding favourite works.
You may be on to something there. However, I might add a couple of observations.
A favourite film of mine is Gosford Park. I enjoy it because of its richness in detail and the quality of the acting. And because it is a favourite film of mine, I have watched it repeatedly. By now I must have seen it at least ten times, and the pleasure of viewing it has not diminished. I suppose this supports your argument of giving things time, but it also suggests that this can be achieved to some degree for films as well: pause and contemplation can be substituted for repetition.
My other observation is that my father, who used to be an avid reader, has for some time had such impaired vision that he can no longer read a book page. He can, however, listen to book recordings, which he enjoys tremendously. In fact, this way he “reads” much more than he used to. Of course, while listening to recordings it is as difficult to scroll back and forth in a text as when viewing a film. The tempo is set. But this does not seem to have reduced his pleasure in reading. — I might add that he, too, enjoys re-reding favourite works.
Hmm, thinking some more… I guess it would be fairer to say that I enjoy books a lot more than movies when the main value of the work is its content / ideas / story.
I enjoy movies for other, very different reasons: they may, for example, be simply beautiful (Sin City comes to mind, or Princess Mononoke). Movies can also provide a more immediate, visceral emotional experience than books, and therefore also be more laugh-out-loud entertaining.