Interesting stance. I, for one, don't usually read books for "getting information." And I don't read exclusively to have learnt something at the end. In fact, if I spend 10 hours reading a new Tom Clancy book, then that's 8 hours more pleasure than I would have received watching. The longer I'm involved the better.
Besides, your view of information is too narrow. Spending 10 hours reading is spending 10 hours thinking, and throughout thought you are developing ideas. After 2 hours you may be able to recall as much information, but you wouldn't have entrenched your mind as deeply in the topic and have thought about it as much.
You point out that you receive information passively from movies - which is indeed part of their limitations. There is a lack of involvement, of thought on the part of the responder, who, while possibly being able to recall presented ideas, has not been encouraged to think for themselves. Essentially, film exercises a lot more control over its responders than literature - dominating their vision, ears, spelling almost everything out.
Further, film is austere. The average viewer has no means to express themselves in the medium. They lack the tools - no equipment, no SFX lab. If you read a book, your only limit to personal expression, and creation, is your ability. You watch a film, you're trapped as a responder.
No expression is pointless. Film's alleged ability to deliver information more efficiently hardly makes it a better vehicle for human experience. Basically, both are valid and provocative to different senses. It is arrogant to call a means of expression worthless.
Slashdot Mirror
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/07/08/156224.shtml ?tid=100&tid=137&tid=215
Interesting stance. I, for one, don't usually read books for "getting information." And I don't read exclusively to have learnt something at the end. In fact, if I spend 10 hours reading a new Tom Clancy book, then that's 8 hours more pleasure than I would have received watching. The longer I'm involved the better.
Besides, your view of information is too narrow. Spending 10 hours reading is spending 10 hours thinking, and throughout thought you are developing ideas. After 2 hours you may be able to recall as much information, but you wouldn't have entrenched your mind as deeply in the topic and have thought about it as much.
You point out that you receive information passively from movies - which is indeed part of their limitations. There is a lack of involvement, of thought on the part of the responder, who, while possibly being able to recall presented ideas, has not been encouraged to think for themselves. Essentially, film exercises a lot more control over its responders than literature - dominating their vision, ears, spelling almost everything out.
Further, film is austere. The average viewer has no means to express themselves in the medium. They lack the tools - no equipment, no SFX lab. If you read a book, your only limit to personal expression, and creation, is your ability. You watch a film, you're trapped as a responder.
No expression is pointless. Film's alleged ability to deliver information more efficiently hardly makes it a better vehicle for human experience. Basically, both are valid and provocative to different senses. It is arrogant to call a means of expression worthless.