Skip to main content

A bee in my bonnet

On Reading

Yesterday I finished reading a most riveting book (more of that another time). And it got me thinking. Not the content of the book itself. But the whole thing about reading. And why it's considered such a superior thing to do. We talk of bookworms in such warm and affectionate terms. Like somehow reading a Danielle Steele is a noble thing to do. Whereas those addicted to telly are reviled in the most derogatory terms. Why is one a better hobby than the other?

So often I come across people who love to show off how much they've read. A person's worth is judged by the books that line his bookshelf - even if half of them have never been thumbed past the first few pages. Then there's the more dangerous association we regularly make. Between reading and intelligence. Is one because of the other? Is one due to the other? If so, how? Is there any tangible evidence to show that reading makes a better person? That devouring fiction will somehow endow the reader with wisdom (I use the term very loosely here, but you get the drift)? So why this snobbery when it comes to books? Your thoughts in the comment box please!


Anonymous said…
You have been referred by your friend(s) to list in BLOGKUT. Feel free to read the 100's of blogs in BLOGKUT at any time.
Kamini said…
You raise some interesting points here. The reason most often given to "prove" reading's superiority over TV watching is that it is a more "active" process, requiring more mental effort than what is required by watching TV. That said, I don't know if it has anything to do with a person's intelligence. I have two children, both intelligent in their own way (here speaks a fond mother!). One loves reading, the other does it only on sufferance. Who am I to judge which one is the better? Which is why the theory of "multiple intelligences" is so appealing, and so necessary to put some of the intellectual snobs in their place.
I don't know the answer, and I suspect nobody really does either.
Anonymous said…
Well, the assumption is that, a well read person is a well rounded person. Agreed that the content is to be taken into account. But a person who generally loves reading, is bound to read a variety of books and such people are usually open and filled with new ideas. I agree exceptions exist...but for most part, I do observe that. The more we read, don't we question what we read? Don't we have book clubs and such where we discuss ideas? Isn't discussion of new thoughts and ideas a good thing?

TV is a much more powerful media and it provides a clear pic into the world. But for most part aren't we watching entertainment programs/soaps? I frankly think a few serials that my aunts watch have totally skewed their views in life.
Anand said…
I suppose that humans have been consuming the written word for quite a while now. The printed word for a few hundred years. Television is barely 50 years old. So, the assumption is as they say in Tamil, "innum uram erala". This could possibly account for the snobbery.
I don't think reading is a superior thing to do, (I think it's worthwhile). I love the world it takes me to & many times want to share that world with people, especially ones that don't read.

While I have read quite a few Danielle Steele novels back in the day (her day), I refuse to read her later ones (I find them so blah). Definitely nothing noble about it.

And while no snobbery is intended with the preceding comment, I will say yes! Reading does make an individual interesting - especially with what he/she has to say. I cannot begin to tell you the many things I (like many others, including yourself I'm sure) have gleamed from reading & I am thankful for it.

And finally, sharing/listing what someone has read is not necessarily showing off, unless those annoying few have snobby attitudes about it. :o)
Premalatha said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
Premalatha said…
I do not like reading books, particularly if they are fiction types. I like watching TV.

There are three types of people. 1) learn from listening.
2) learn from reading.
3) learn from watching.

Indian "intelligence" does not understand these. :-)

In teaching methods, the audio visual and graphic display methods are encouraged to include all three types of learners. In fact the "learn from visual display" are more effective than the "learn from listening" and "learn from reading" is the least effective of them all.

Books or TV, it is about the content that matters. people reading story books (fiction, if you want to call it with a fancy word) are NOT intelligent types, IMO. Well, same thing can be said about people watching movies. But in movies at least you get to observe many things other than the plot. Not that the plot is any inferior thing to be observed. in books, there are only two factors available for observation: 1. plot, 2. style of writing. IMO, books are inferior than TV. Not accurately/well made movie or not, I prefer watching it with Matt Damon's smile, rather than reading Robert Ludlum's book. Secondly, it (TV) provides me an opportunity to share it while watching, whereas reading renders me to do it alone. I prefer sharing. I prefer sharing every moment of my experience as I experience.
A4ISMS said…
I suppose books make you think, visualize, imagine... TV just make you soak up what you see...
I loved reading J.K Rowling till I saw the first movie...Then the charcters had too much of star presence for my liking... I heard Anne Hathaway had acted in A Devil Wears Prada... and while reading the book I kept imagining the Pricess girl...
Premalatha said…
//I suppose books make you think, visualize, imagine... TV just make you soak up what you see...///

As Ammani's post is one of my favourite topics of discussion, May I Ammani?

Thinking is offered in both the media. In TV, it is up to you, depending on what you are observing. I guess it is upto what is being observed in reading too.

Reading offers you too much for imagination (as there is nothing on the display) which renders some dreamers, in some cases delusionals.
prakash said…
reading is the cheapest way to widen your experiences. I think what can be had by traveling extensively and talked to a lot of people and may be comparable to virtual reality but a lot cheaper!

TV doesn't shut up to let you think, well there's news and there's news analysis and more analysis and leaves you with nothing to think. but yes, there are programs that have made me think, but I had to turn it off once I was done watching it...

But, yet it always feels better to talk to persons who have 'lived' their lives well than to the person who has only read a lot of books, so...
Falstaff said…
Is there a snobbery with books? I don't think so. Plenty of other activities - listening to music, watching movies, even playing sport - are things people are proud of. It's just TV that has a lower status. And are there really people who are snobbish about reading Danielle Steele? Really?!

I suspect TV gets short shrift for three reasons: a) it is genuinely more idiotic - with books / movies there's at least the possibility that you may be reading / watching something truly engaging and intelligent, but there's almost nothing on TV that provides that kind of stimulation (you could be reading Faulkner, or Camus, or Dante - what's the TV equivalent?) b) TV is, in the true sense of the word, an addiction - it creates dependency without necessarily providing joy (see my post on TV here) and c) TV has been, until recently, more ephemeral, so that you can't really build collections of it - which, of course, is a big part of what makes other activities pride-worthy. Books and music are available across time and space, in the pre-TiVo, pre-DVD world, you had to live in the same country, and be watching the same channel at the same time to share in someone else's enthusiasm for a TV program.
Shirsha said…
The first thing that strikes me about a person reading lots, and genuinely reading lots and having a passion for reading, is his perseverance/patience. And why is that a big thing? Thats just a quality to possess!
If a story you're curious about is available in book format and movie format, which'd you dive for? A person who jumps for the movie format comes across as someone taking a shortcut, somehow like in several cases getting an MBA is(a shortcut to more visibility in a company)! :) A shortcut to the destination(is thr one!?)...
Oh yes in the end both'd know the story, the person who resisted the movie and took to the book and the person who watched the movie, but I'd merely attribute qualities of patience and imagination to the guy who did the book first... is that wrong?
You have the choice to read what you want to. Unfortunately, most of the times, we keep flipping channels and end up not watching anything useful. Maybe, that's why the prejudice against TV.

A voracious reader could be considered showing off, in front of a crowd that doesn't read. To him/her, it is just his/her way of life, which the crowd miscontrues for vanity. Likewise, a person interested in music, might be humming a tune to himself/herself, and the "non-musical" crowd could again consider it a case of showing-off.

Lastly, I would consider justifying one's interests by denigrating other forms - a heavy sign of insecurity. And as Feynman used to say, "Why do you care as to what people think". It doesn't take long for the people to make a + a - and vice versa.

And importantly, there might be those few, like-minded people, who would understand us; and importantly, relate too.
S m i t h a said…
books are considered better than, say tv, bcos it leaves much room for the imagination of the reader. words are the basic form of communication and anything added over it is a restriction on the creativity interpretation allowed to the reader.
mumbaigirl said…
I admit I am a book snob. I look down on people who don't read.

I read "pulp" fiction myself but look down on people who only read Danielle Steele or Sidney Sheldon.

I agree with Falstaff. There is nothing that Tv offers that compares to some great books-cinema does.
Jaisudha said…
I wouldnt completely write off TV, esp. after having seen all of "Six Feet Under" ..
Reading is essentially a mental activity aided by sight (or did I just get that mixed up?). As such, the mind swings into action every time we pick up something to read. In the case of magazines, tabloids and the like, we read mostly for entertainment. I mean, there's really no intellectual benefit to be had from knowing how much your favourite actress exposes, is there?

When you read a riveting book, that's entertainment too, but you travel an imaginary world with imaginary people (with whom you may or may not be able to relate), and that in itself is a rich experience worth having, if you ask me.

When you read truly stirring works like, say Kant's "A Critique of Pure Reason" (which I have read only in pieces), or Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance", there's real intellectual stimulation that has the potential to make you a better person. Note that it doesn't necessarily make you a better person, but it has the potential to do so, all the same. When you know what could make you better, you are, I think, halfway through getting there.

The snobbery associated with reading is, I conjecture, a remnant of our childishness - my toy is bigger than yours; I'm richer than you; I played tennis with a Wilson Staff Pro racquet, etc. - and isn't limited to reading.
umm oviya said…
some people sing, some people dance, some people write, some people are into gaming, others into the telly. and then there are those who read (probably they suck at all the other things, like me). but you've got to give -- little else compares to a real great book.
IdeaSmith said…
Books may not be a direct sign of intelligence. Certainly not for blanket assumptions like the ones you point out (Danielle Steele! Mills & Boons!).

However, as one of those aforementioned snobs, I hasten to defend my stand. The thing about a book is that it leaves room for the reader to imagine the picture unfold in his/her head. TV doesn't do that.

Books have been around longer and perhaps that's why there's a lot more quality available there than on TV. While I'm not denying that there are crappy books, we've had real masterpieces being turned out for ages and ages now while TV can't make the same boast. When I say masterpiece, I mean a book that really makes its readers think, that can shape perceptions, even change them...a book that can change lives. There have certainly been some. I can't think of anything on TV that does the same.

I don't know that this makes a bookworm more intelligent than a couch potato but it seems to me like the former is far more interested in enriching his/her life than someone who just gets impressions and images fed second-hand into their conscious.


You Might Also Like

Voicing Silence 1

There is no nice way of saying this so I will say it as brutally and as unvarnished as it needs to be said. I was sexually assaulted when I was ten and a half years old. While I recall the precise details of what happened that night, much of what happened in the immediate aftermath, I have little memory of. In the days and months that followed, I became increasingly angry. I would smash things, kick people, yell, scream and throw a tantrum at the drop of a hat. I was labelled difficult and called names. Rakshasi was a regular epithet and it clung to me like an dirty scent.

There were so many incidents of rage from those years and most involved destruction of some sort. I once lost a card game and went about meticulously ripping up an entire pack of cards much to the amusement of the gathered extended family. There was some other minor provocation which ended in a lovely red dress which was a gift from abroad being shredded to pieces, again to a mute audience

Word got around that I wa…

Voicing Silence 7

(To get a background on this series, I suggest you start with the first post here and then scroll up)

Headphones recommended

(Click on image for link or click here)
Written and narrated by  Abhi Arumbakkam
Animation and edit  Lucy Lee
Sound Louise Brown
Music Nefeli Stammatogianopoulu & Stelios Koupetoris

Sivaji, Jayalaitha And Us

I first noticed it when Sivaji Ganesan passed away. As someone born in the 70s, much of my growing years was marked by the rituals of Sunday evening Tamizh cinema and Friday night Oliyum Oliyum. And Sivaji Ganesan was a permanent fixture in them. Anyone who was melodramatic was a 'Sivaji' and rhymes like 'Sivaji vayile jilebi' were very much part of our book of nonsense rhymes.

So much so, I remember being fourteen and being part of the school drama team enacting a popular scene from Sivaji's Thiruvilayadal. It was a plum role that we all vied to play. Sivaji played Lord Shiva in the movie and in our minds, he might as well have been immortal. So years later, when news broke that he had died, I was in utter shock. Heck, I was not even a fan. Apart from Motor Sundaram Pillai and more recently, Thevar Magan, in every one of his movies, I felt Sivaji had outacted the entire cast. As if to tell the producers, you've paid me a lot, so let me give you your money'…

Tide - 17

Part - 17 “Are you waiting for me, Kamakshi?”, asked Padmaja a little breathless from climbing the stair case. She had never been particularly slim. But lately, she had noticed a tightening of her blouses, particularly around her upper arm that she taken to using the stairs over the lift.
“Hmm? Everything okay? Why do you want me to keep quiet? What is the matter, Kamakshi?”, Padmaja reeled off questions with mounting alarm.
“It's nothing”, hissed Kamakshi between gritted teeth guiding her neighbour by the arm away from her own door. “Come in to my house. I need to tell you something, Padmaja”.
And once inside, Kamakshi's behaviour was even more erratic. She said something about a letter and answering and now meeting someone and the man waiting for her at home.
“Where?”, demanded Padmaja.
Kamakshi silently pointed her finger at her neighhour.
“Where? In my house?”
Kamakshi nodded.
“Have you gone mad, Kamakshi? I gave you the keys in case you don't see me for days a…

What Would You Do?

This afternoon, I went to our local leisure centre to use their steam room and sauna. I had an hour to kill before it was time to collect my son and the leisure centre is across the road and I couldn't think of a better way to spend a tenner and so I went. No sooner had I settled into a corner of the steam room than I heard a voice ask me, 'are you from India?'. Yes, I nodded before it struck me that if I couldn't see the person clearly neither could he. Yes, I said. To this he (by now I could make out a dim outline of a man) volunteered in a very heavy accent 'My country Bangladesh' and then went on to ask me if I lived locally and if I was living with my family (yes and yes, I answered) and told me that he worked in a local Indian restaurant as a chef and that I should visit them if I hadn't already.

Having exhausted his arsenal of polite questions to ask a rank stranger, he fell silent. Shortly, I left the steam room to take a shower before dipping into…

Tide - 7

Part 7

Dear Mrs,
With regards to your advertisement in last Sunday's Hindu. My name is Mr.S.G.Santhanam. I am 65 years old. I retired in 2007 after 40 years of service in the Indian Railways. My daughter and my son are both married and settled abroad. I am in good health except for slightly high blood pressure. Last year I have undergone an operation for a growth in my retina and now my eyesight is better than it has ever been. I follow a strict vegetarian diet (no oinions no garlic) and I have managed to bring down my cholestrol levels also. Recently I have suffered from pain in my hips and my doctor has adviced me to go for a hip replacement operation which I am due to have some time in the next month. So if you reply to my letter, I can arrange to meet you before I check in to the hospital as I will have to be in bed rest for 6 weeks after my operation. I have also attached a photo of myself with this letter. This was taken before I had my new set of teeth.
Your's sincere…

Voicing Silence 4

(To get a background to this series of posts, I suggest you read the first one here, the second one here and the third one here)

Some years ago, my mother mentioned to me that she had attended my sexual assaulter's Sashtiabdapoorthy and I was appalled. This filthy beast was a pillar of the society and had had the temerity to invite my parents to its (no human pronoun for it) birthday celebration. Suffice to say I was apoplectic.

It was also around this time that the whole sordid episode of Jimmy Savile came to light and I had a thought. I began to wonder if I could take my abuser to court on historic sex abuse charges.

For days I fantasised about dragging the filthy piece of shit to court and have it look me in the eye as I would recall in graphic detail what it had done to me. Then, I would watch with glee as it lost its house, its job, its status in the society and delight in the gradual unravelling of its life.

I would have my perfect revenge. I would be able to show it that i…

Voicing Silence 3

(To get a background to this series of posts, I suggest you read the first one here and the second one here.)

In the intervening years since my assault, the whispers grew ubiquitous. Hushed conversations from scarred friends who all talked in coded language about what had happened to them. I should have stopped becoming angry but I just couldn't. Instead I channeled all my rage into the blows I rained on the random stranger who once groped me as I was walking past him one evening when I was in my early twenties. The nonchalance with which another pervert thought he could get away with pinching my breasts made me chase after him faster. But I could rarely sustain the rage which would blaze fiercely and frequently but never long enough for anything positive to emerge. There were no planned course of action to follow through, it was largely fire fighting on a daily basis.

And then something happened a decade ago which reminded me of what triggered my anger all those years ago. I won…

Voicing Silence 2

(To get a background to this series of posts, I suggest you read the first one here)

I realised, almost instinctively that what had happened to me was not a one-off. A casual conversation with a cousin revealed that she too had been touched by the same person. She didn't give me details but all she said was, "that one, him, you know...he's a devil" and gave me an almost imperceptible nod. A secret code that meant that she knew about what had happened to me too. It was our shared language of shame, wrapped in silence and consigned to the deep recess of our minds.

Every now and then the incident would get an airing but I would almost dismiss it by making light of it. During joint studies with classmates from the 11th and 12th standard, two of them talked about the improper touching that had happened to them as children with an almost casual aloofness that I added my incident (for it was now entombed and labelled as Exhibit A in my mind) to the mix. Being abused was so…

Voicing Silence 5

(To get a background to this series of posts, I suggest you read the first one here, the second one here, the third one here and the fourth here)

For years I had been wondering how to articulate my trauma. And then, a little while after I'd moved to the UK, I'd done courses in documentary film-making and had started telling factual stories. Could there be a possibility there? What purpose would retelling a personal story in all its gory detail serve? And is this what I wanted?

In 2013 I watched Yael Farber's Nirbhaya in Edinburgh to an auditorium full of sobbing men and women. I found its portrayal in all its attendant specifics and bit too real. Even the actors playing it had each suffered horrific abuse and it was their own story that was being told. It was discomfiting and I knew I didn't want to go down that route.

A year or so later, I met with Leslie Udwin, director of the documentary India's Daughter, the day
after it had been banned in India. Leslie was de…