- PREVIOUS POST
- « SF Tidbits for 11/20/07
- NEXT POST
- REVIEW: The Dragon's Nine Sons by Chris Roberson »
A New York Times article (Study Links Drop in Test Scores to a Decline in Time Spent Reading) says there is an association between young people reading less and a decline in test scores. It's based on the report To Read or Not to Read [PDF link] by the National Endowment for the Arts, whose chairman is Dana Gioia. Here's an excerpt from the NYT piece:
Americans -- particularly young Americans -- appear to be reading less for fun, and as that happens, their reading test scores are declining. At the same time, performance in other academic disciplines like math and science is dipping for students whose access to books is limited, and employers are rating workers deficient in basic writing skills.
...
In an interview Mr. Gioia said that the statistics could not explain why reading had declined, but he pointed to several commonly accepted culprits, including the proliferation of digital diversions on the Internet and other gadgets, and the failure of schools and colleges to develop a culture of daily reading habits. In addition, Mr. Gioia said, "we live in a society where the media does not recognize, celebrate or discuss reading, literature and authors."
So, what I'm wondering - and this is partly based on past discussions - is what people are really doing instead of "reading for fun". Surfing the web? Watching TV?
There is an widely-accepted (or at least often stated) assumption that reading is a "smart" activity and is better for you than, say, watching TV or web surfing. I suppose that all depends on what you're watching and where you're surfing. I was told time and again while growing up (by teachers, parents, and TV commercials probably sponsored by NEFTA) that reading makes you smarter. This recent NEFTA report seems like some sort of proof. (I'm sure other proof exists out there -- I haven't gone looking. I also suspect there might be contrary evidence as well. Feel free to Google...)
Is reading better for you than watching TV? Does it matter what you watch, or is all casual reading a better activity?
Comments (17)
| PermaLink
| Category: Books, TV
Posted by John DeNardo at Tuesday November 20, 2007 at 12:50 AM
© Tuesday November 20, 2007 at 12:50 AM SF Signal
I think reading can help you be better at spelling and writing. Just from frequently looking at words and sentence structure, some of it is bound to stick in your memory. Even though you have to read on the internet, grammar and spelling is often held to a much looser standard than a published book would be. Just my opinion, though.
Posted by Cheryl on Tuesday November 20, 2007 at 7:52 AM at 7:52 AM
90 percent of most things are crap. I'd rather watch a TV show in the top 10 percent than read a book in the bottom 90 percent. Is it really better for your mind to read Tom Clancy than to watch The Wire or play a Nintendo game?
Posted by Michael on Tuesday November 20, 2007 at 8:19 AM at 8:19 AM
Reading expands your lexicon. I would not know half the words I know if TV were my only entertainment source. Now actually "spelling" these new words in my lexicon? Thats a completely different story, one of failure and loss. 
Posted by tditto on Tuesday November 20, 2007 at 9:48 AM at 9:48 AM
As humans add intelligence to their environment they need to carry less.
Posted by Walt on Tuesday November 20, 2007 at 10:57 AM at 10:57 AM
Well, instead of reading im playing games in my PC, my Wii, and my DS 
but seriously, i think that when you read, your brain has to develop the characters, imagine the voices, invent the costumes, etc, so i think when you read your brain work more
Posted by Vladimir on Tuesday November 20, 2007 at 1:53 PM at 1:53 PM
Reading has better special effects, sexier women, studlier guys (sometimes vice versa on those last two), more exciting action, better costumes, more realistic sets, than any movie, TV show or game! Because it's all in the imagination and there's no limits, not one! How can any multimillion dollar budget beat that? I mean, c'mon.
Reading is the best for telepathy and psi powers!
Plus, reading is much more graceful and flexible when filling in backstory, internal dialog, character motive, omniscient POV, and all the rest of the awesome storytelling devices that have been created around the campfire in the past 50,000 years.
You can tell any movie or TV story in written form, but you can't tell every written story in visual form. How would you make a movie of "The Persistence of Vision" (1979 Hugo winner)? Not going to happen, not without narrating all of the core action.
Posted by Matte Lozenge on Tuesday November 20, 2007 at 4:40 PM at 4:40 PM
I think Cheryl has a good point: watching TV doesn't help spelling at all. Grammar maybe. Creativity hardly.
In our school district, we urge (as well as require) students to read more and test scores do improve. Whether this improves test question comprehension or improves the students' understanding of the world around them is not clearly defined.
Listening to dialog (TV) and reading dialog (reading) involves entirely different parts of the brain. So it would seem self-evident that reading would cause the reader to learn how dialog "looks", as opposed to "sounds". We don't talk like we write; anyone who does sounds stilted.
As far as Matta's comment: he's right. But more impressive to me is that he reads Varley! One of my favorite unsane authors! Anyway, Shakespeare had a similar problem in his plays, Hamlet in particular. He resolved this by using a lot of soliloquies; movies and TV use voice overs (captain's log on Star Trek) or flashbacks (Sybil comes to mind).
And the answer to the question John asked originally: my youngest son spends possible reading time playing video games; mine is spent surfing the web (and posting to blogs).
Posted by Old Bogus on Tuesday November 20, 2007 at 7:32 PM at 7:32 PM
Sending your children to public schools is child abuse...why these people don't see the brain damage associated with such abuse is beyond me.
Posted by joshua corning on Tuesday November 20, 2007 at 9:28 PM at 9:28 PM
Of course reading is better for you than watching TV. Reading is active. Television viewing is passive.
The NEA report was interesting, but gives few solutions to the problem. Here's a powerful essay on one way to turn students back into readers:
http://darkpartyreview.blogspot.com/2007/11/essay-fixing-our-reading-problem.html
Posted by GFS3 on Thursday November 29, 2007 at 8:29 PM at 8:29 PM
hmm.. we dont really know about this..
we are having problems in doing our general paper essay.
the topic is `a day spent without reading is a day wasted. what is your view?'
so we are trying to compare any activity such as watching tv, which is better..
we are a bit confused now...
the topic looks simple..but...need to think more on to it..
wish us luck..
thanx..bye!!
Posted by myzah and naz on Monday May 19, 2008 at 11:01 PM at 11:01 PM
I think that reading is a much better way of expanding your imagination, vocabulary and grammer. I'm sorry old bogus i must disagree with you. How can television improve your grammer sufficiently enough to comment on, it's like saying speaking to people can be helpfull for your grammer. A bit of a rant i know but it's not my day sorry.
Also how many people do you know that when watching adaptations of books as films or television programs can honestly say that that film/program was better than the original text. if they have already read it of course.
Reading is the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by liam on Tuesday November 11, 2008 at 7:21 AM at 7:21 AM
I LOVE READING SOME MUCH!!!!!
There is so much to read about but I am wondering what does T.V. do to you?
Posted by Sienna L Sandberg on Tuesday January 27, 2009 at 12:11 PM at 12:11 PM
I think reading is better then watching t.v., because most of the time reading a book is better then watching the movie of the book.
Posted by Pennie on Friday March 20, 2009 at 12:53 PM at 12:53 PM
i think watching television is more better than reading book because even a blind man can't see but a blind man still can hear the sound
Posted by heo tae hyun on Tuesday April 07, 2009 at 7:32 AM at 7:32 AM
I think that reading books is better form of entertainment because when I read a story I can imagine the characters, the places and even I can put myself in the character of the story.On the other hand, watching TV has also its own advantages. For instance, big concerts broadcasts or sport events.However, I personally prefer reading book in my free time than watching TV.
Posted by Agnes on Sunday May 03, 2009 at 8:17 AM at 8:17 AM
I think its hilarious how half of these people who say that reading is better than watching television can't even spell or display proper grammar in their comments. What is even more hilarious to me is the people who think that watching television is better. Look at their spelling and grammar mistakes. If you can't spell simple words or construct a simple sentence how are you going to get a job and if you already have one, who the heck hired you?! I am definitely going to encourage my children to read books when I have them, its so important in the development of the brain. Reading came long before television ever did and the great thinkers of our past. . . they didn't have TV. I haven't heard of anyone coming even remotely close to the intelligence level of these men and women in our past. JUST THINK ABOUT IT!
Posted by camille on Sunday May 10, 2009 at 6:49 PM at 6:49 PM
Camille, I think instead of: "What is even more hilarious to me is the people..."
…you mean: "What is even more hilarious to me are the people..."
And also: "...it's so important..."
Posted by John D. on Sunday May 10, 2009 at 7:13 PM at 7:13 PM