Essay Books Are Better Than Television Fanatic Review

  • Books are better than technology

    Why should we watch TV when there are so many interesting books . Why should we use technical things when there are river of books some say that TV is better and some say that books are better but I known that books are obviously better. I think that we all should say books are better

  • Yes it is

    Books are better than T.V because T.V can cause so many problems like wastage of time, electricity and health. It influences negative appraoch for children, when they saw such an imaginative scenes they do same in real life as well and they can also watch bad things so thats not good for them.While book reading is more informative and cannot immerse bad things in the mind of children.

  • Books are so much better than television.

    Television rots your mind. When you are watching television you are not utilizing your brain, you are just absorbing things fed to you. When you read a book, you have to envision the story in your mind and act out the figures in your head. You use your senses to "see" the story.

  • No producers searching for ratings

    While television offers more bang-for-your-buck, what are you really getting? Can you honestly sum up a 500 page book (Grapes of Wrath) into a 2 hour movie? You can, but the information is diluted.

    Not only that but you kill creativity, vocabulary, and problem solving skills by not encouraging reading.

  • Books are better than television

    Books are better than television because books make you a better author. In books, you can learn a lot of good words. You can take books anywhere but u can't take a TV with you. TV is quite boring because it gets in the way of studies books, however, don't.

  • Not having electricity

    Every time there is electricity?No.. Then what you will do?And one more thing books are of cheap cost if you buy one t.V in that budget book store can be open......T.V can effect on our eyes ,brain and in our studies and books gives you knowledge and t.V takes your time

  • Books are Better

    TV can have bad language or inappropriate content and smaller children could be flipping around channels and find a channel with bad language. On the other hand, books are more child-friendly because there is no way you can change your book with a TV remote. Books also help with vocabulary and grammar to help students in school.

  • Books are better

    We don't even have a TV, and we have survived just fine so far. Studies show that watching TV makes kids more aggressive and to have lower verbal reasoning ability. Staring at screens all day is not good for you. Same idea with the cell phone. Books are portable. You can bring them anywhere. Instant entertainment! TV, not so much. It is also fun. I love books. So many original stories. Much better then a Sponge Bob cartoon. Have you realized that most TV shows and movies are based off a book? And that most books are better that the movie? Take Lord of the Rings for instance, the real book is much better and has many more details then the movie. All in all, books are not only healther then TV, but also more amusing

  • Books are better

    We don't even have a TV, and we have survived just fine so far. Studies show that watching TV makes kids more aggressive and to have lower verbal reasoning ability. Staring at screens all day is not good for you. Same idea with the cell phone. Books are portable. You can bring them anywhere. Instant entertainment! TV, not so much. It is also fun. I love books. So many original stories. Much better then a Sponge Bob cartoon. Have you realized that most TV shows and movies are based off a book? And that most books are better that the movie? Take Lord of the Rings for instance, the real book is much better and has many more details then the movie. All in all, books are not only healther then TV, but also more amusing

  • Books are better

    We don't even have a TV, and we have survived just fine so far. Studies show that watching TV makes kids more aggressive and to have lower verbal reasoning ability. Staring at screens all day is not good for you. Same idea with the cell phone. Books are portable. You can bring them anywhere. Instant entertainment! TV, not so much. It is also fun. I love books. So many original stories. Much better then a Sponge Bob cartoon. Have you realized that most TV shows and movies are based off a book? And that most books are better that the movie? Take Lord of the Rings for instance, the real book is much better and has many more details then the movie. All in all, books are not only healther then TV, but also more amusing

  • Friend: What did you think?

    Moskowitz: . . . I liked it!

    The vacuousness of the conclusions, after all the windup, is breathtaking. The fact is Moskowitz has nothing whatever to say about the books he fondles in shot after lingering shot. It's not about the contents of the books. It's about their fetishization.

    It is easy to fetishize things that we imagine are on their way out. In the age of Comcast and America Online, books seem quaint, whimsical, imperiled and therefore virtuous. We assume that reading requires a formidable intellect. We forget that books were the television of previous years -- by which I mean they were the source of passive entertainment as well as occasional enlightenment, of social alienation as well as private joy, of idleness as well as inspiration. Books were a mixed bag, and they still are. Books could be used or misused, and they still can be.

    Writers themselves carried on about their danger. From Seneca in the first century to Montaigne in the 16th, Samuel Johnson in the 18th and William Hazlitt and Emerson in the 19th, writers have been at pains to remind their readers not to read too much. ''Our minds are swamped by too much study,'' Montaigne wrote, ''just as plants are swamped by too much water or lamps by too much oil.'' By filling yourself up with too much of other folks' thought, you can lose the capacity and incentive to think for yourself. We all know people who have read everything and have nothing to say. We all know people who use a text the way others use Muzak: to stave off the silence of their minds. These people may have a comic book in the bathroom, a newspaper on the breakfast table, a novel over lunch, a magazine in the dentist's office, a biography on the kitchen counter, a political exposé in bed, a paperback on every surface of their home and a weekly in their back pocket lest they ever have an empty moment. Some will be geniuses; others will be simple text grazers: always nibbling, never digesting -- ever consuming, never creating.

    ''You might as well ask the paralytic to leap from his chair and throw away his crutch,'' Hazlitt said, ''as expect the learned reader to throw down his book and think for himself. He clings to it for his intellectual support; and his dread of being left to himself is like the horror of a vacuum.'' Such a one is comparable to a person addicted to talk shows or sitcoms or CNN; no worse and no better, no dumber but no smarter either. It is not because something comes between two covers that it is inherently superior to what passes on a screen or arrives on the airwaves.

    There is, of course, a good way of reading -- a very good way, and the thinkers of old knew it. They were all readers, though none of them were smug readers: they did not expect compliments but rather offered excuses for their book consumption. ''Undoubtedly there is a right way of reading, so it be sternly subordinated,'' Emerson wrote. Thinking people ''must not be subdued'' by their ''instruments'' -- that is, by their library. They must be the master of it. They must measure a book's testimony against their own; they must alternate their attention to it with an even more passionate and scrupulous attention to the world around them. ''Books are for the scholar's idle times,'' Emerson said in a statement most academics today would find surprising, if not shocking.

    The point is this: There are two very different ways to use books. One is to provoke our own judgments, and the other, by far the more common, is to make such conclusions unnecessary. If we wish to embrace the first, we cannot afford to be adulatory of books in the manner of Moskowitz; we must be aggressive. Even a hint of idolatry disables the mind. ''Meek young men grow up in libraries, believing it their duty to accept the views which Cicero, which Locke, which Bacon have given; forgetful that Cicero, Locke and Bacon were only young men in libraries when they wrote these books,'' Emerson reminded us -- at a time when he was, admittedly, already a middle-aged man in a library.

    Perhaps the best lesson of books is not to venerate them -- or at least never to hold them in higher esteem than our own faculties, our own experience, our own peers, our own dialogues. Books are not the pure good that the festival crowds are sometimes told: you can learn anything from a book -- or nothing. You can learn to be a suicide bomber, a religious fanatic or, indeed, a Bush supporter as easily as you can learn to be tolerant, peace-loving and wise. You can acquire unrealistic expectations of love as readily as, probably more readily than, realistic ones. You can learn to be a sexist or a feminist, a romantic or a cynic, a utopian or a skeptic. Most disturbing, you can train yourself to be nothing at all; you can float forever like driftwood on the current of text; you can be as passive as a person in an all-day movie theater, as antisocial as a kid holed up with a video game, and at the same time more conceited than both.

    Those are the dangers. But there are riches. And we can find them, if only we disperse the pious fog that is gathering around book culture. At their best, books are invitations to fight, not calls to prayer. Consecration injures them. We do better to argue with them than to caress their spines. We do better to wrestle with our writers as Jacob with the angel than to worship them as saviors.

    Continue reading the main story

    0 Thoughts to “Essay Books Are Better Than Television Fanatic Review

    Leave a comment

    L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *