Difficult INformation

[Wisp]

The fact that television is much worse for you than reading is widely accepted. And even the "classic" literature is "better" than modern books, like, say, Harry Potter (which is great). The difference, as I view it, is that the information contained in a "classic" is more subtle, and less obvious, and thereby requires more work on the part of a reader to obtain the information, and forces them to draw their own conclusions. TV just blurts obvious facts out in your face, and you just kind of... inhale it.

I'm really losing my train of thought, so I'll listen to other people's replies, and then talk more, even though I know I was a bit vague.

 

[Ermine]

I think the real point is that literature and most TV has lost the art of subtlety. Also, unlike us, the general population doesn't have an insatiable craving for thinking in general entertainment like that. Not to say that there isn't good literature anymore, just not much popular good literature.

With literature such as Twilight and Harry Potter, everything is spoon-fed to the reader. It's all there, with no work involved. That's what most people prefer though. It's crazy. While I view Twilight (for an example) as mere eye candy, I've met others that treat it like totally valid, high quality literature.

It seems that these days, people are too hurried. Because of that, many recent authors don't seem to craft literature as much as they just spew literature.

 

[Aphasia]

How about: things are getting more and more simple, people choose things which require less effort, TV and pop books (if I have coined a new catchphrase, give me due credit) give it out quickly with no need for thinking, satire has been murdered by the slapstick, there is rejoicing by the people.

This summary may not be really fair or accurate, but whatever. I still don't quite understand the topic either.

 

[keanne32]

Ah...I despise watching TV, what with all the senseless shows they keep putting on. But I guess that's where the market is these days, on the typical boy-meets-girl, happily-ever-after plot. And I just hate it. T_T

As for modern literature, no, I don't think they're getting more mundane and trivial, but I guess that's subject to the books we're referring to. I think the fact that books like Harry Potter and Twilight [which I find really enjoyable, actually] have become literary phenomena has mostly to do with collective consciousness, a bulk of which appeals to the feel-good culture we have as of late. Not that I have anything against that...but I find myself wishing that thought-provoking, non-fiction books were just as widely acclaimed.

 

[October]

Firstly, please don't compare Harry Potter with Twlight, is just painful. Although I have to agree that Harry Potter is an easy read (well, but not as easy as other books) is still a good read whilst Twilight...I have no words for that.

Secondly, I have to agree about modern literature. I'm not a fan of it, read some books though and all of them each in less then a day, and I could say they were quite an easy read - very easy, in my opinion. I'm mostly referring to the writing style which in my opinion I think everybody can write such things - in most of the time is just story-telling; it seems so difficult to transpose some feelings into words nowadays without appealing to the usual "He was so angry...etc" and just giving the reader the piece of information on a plate.
And yes, the subtlety - in most thrillers nowadays, there is none. The usually Byronic-fake cop/detective who speaks like dirt tries to solve a murder or something of that sort, and the book is already packed with hints and clues that the reader already knows who the killer is and is only a matter of time till the cop will found him. This is just a mere example, mind you.

And also it seems that the plots resemble each other in various ways... it seems the term of 'original' no longer defines a good read. Which is a pity. Plots like "girl-meets-boy" like someone here already said, or "the good guy against the bad guy" or the "war between planets" one...
Plus, I've realized by a couple of modern books that I've read that 'seduction' no longer exists in this society - it's either fluff or rape - whilst in books like 'Dangerous Liaisons' the character is clever and knows his abilities.

It's not strange that I'm an avid reader of older literature.

 

[loveofreason]

Television is just auditory-visual stimulation, and the brain treats it as such. There is no requirement for comprehension.

By contrast reading requires interpretation and comprehension. The reader is in an active relationship with the text in an effort to construct meaning. There can be many levels of comprehension, unfortunately most people only ever achieve the lowest energy, shallow levels. It requires a lot of mental effort to go deeper, and most of us simply don't have the resources to attempt it. The market for shallow entertainment books consequently thrives.

 

[fullerene]

nah... that's one of those erroneous beliefs I consider the generation above us to have just because so much of it is just audio-visual stimulation and they didn't really give it a chance... the same goes for video games, honestly. My education pretty much consisted of video games before I was 13 or so.

TV and movies can require interpretation and comprehension too... just that thought-requiring shows and movies are harder to find amidst the crap than thought-requiring books are. My favorite example right now are my two favorite anime series', death note and elfen lied. Movies are getting consistently more thought-provoking too, with things like new batman one (which is good despite its popularity), Fearless, Requiem for a Dream and There Will Be Blood (I didn't like those two, but they did have themes).

The Talmud says that wherever you look, there's something to be learned. (That one came courtesy of Anger Management )... I don't think TV or movies are exceptions... it just takes a little conscious effort so that your brain doesn't slide into a stupor and assume there's nothing to be gained from it.

 

[EditorOne]

"the book is already packed with hints and clues that the reader already knows who the killer is and is only a matter of time till the cop will found him. This is just a mere example, mind you.

And also it seems that the plots resemble each other in various ways... "​

There's no mystery here, the books resemble each other because they are filtered by a publishing industry that has a narrow view of what will sell, namely something a lot like whatever is already selling. So they all tend to be the same. Clues for the reader: One school of thought holds that you feel good and/or more suspense if you know what's coming but watch the protagonist struggle to figure it out.

It's not about literature, it's about marketing. The publishing industry is quite small compared to what you'd probably expect, and not much into innovation. They know what they want, and if you don't give it to them they'll find a thousand other wannabe writers who will. It's a tight little world that's gradually shrinking, because more and more people are turning to, as noted, easier forms of mental engagement. I won't say mental stimulation. Engagement or diversion is about as far as I'd go.

Footnote: We are in our second month without television. I've read at least two dozen books in that time, despite a full work schedule and a need to keep plugging away at various essential home improvement projects that went with a recent move. I don't miss the television a bit. My teenage son does, but he's off to the university in two weeks. My wife misses just a couple of fun television shows like House, but has discovered she can view them, a week old, on her computer from the show's website.​

 

[October]

^ What you said is sad, but true, I have to agree. All comes down to money these days and apparently one cannot pursue his own ideas, but is "guided" by the editor/publisher to write a different thing or to change something from the book. But I'm also inclined to thing that originality is getting hard to get after all these books and movies made and original ideas are difficult too...this is my guess, besides the marketing thing.

And most of the modern books nowadays are quite easy, because, in my opinion I think most writers who begin to write nowadays are in their teenage years/twenties (take Eragon for example!) while perhaps having not much of an education about literature - because I do not find much symbolism or things related to that in these modern books... I couldn't analyse and make an essay out of the thriller that I've taken for example, because the characters are just plain and Mary Sue-like. I don't know how to express this in better words...

 

[severus]

Bella Swan=Mary Sue.
The Twilight books are horrid, but for some reason I still like them.

 

[headache]

Hello, everyone, this is my first note, so...goodday.
I feel lucky not to have TV reception where I live cos it is an easy meditation that can reel in too many hours! I think we get the same out of it as we did sitting around a fire in ages past. Agree with the view above about publishers, but it is us poor Joes that create the market(well not US specifically but you know what I mean)...there's not been much new since Plato after all! Can recommend TOM ROBBINS Jitterbug Perfume or any of his other stuff for some modern thought provoking, that will have you laughing your heads off aswell..
I've seen DEXTER on tv recently...thats a bit ot nibble on too!

 

[Jordan~]

Bella Swan=Mary Sue.
The Twilight books are horrid, but for some reason I still like them.

I suppose it's just mindless indulgence. I don't think all TV is dire - HBO and the BBC's Rome was excellent, I thought; and Arrested Development is brilliantly witty and clever. I don't have much time for it, generally I watch comedy and documentaries, both of which I enjoy easily as much as a book.
Not that I read heavy literature or anything - as I've said, my reading habits are mostly limited to the consumption of fantasy literature. For the heavy and important stuff, I look to poetry and music. They're much easier to absorb and beauty comes more naturally in both.

 

[Jesin]

Most TV shows are bad, yes, but that doesn't mean you can't do great things with it. Case in point: Monty Python's Flying Circus.

 

[Wisp]

Monty Python= Win.

ANyway, the interesting thing about the HP books is that you can read them again and draw details and connections out of it that you'd never have found. Every time I read it, I find something else. Well... the later ones that is.

 

[severus]

@Wisp
I know, I love HP. I have lost count of how many times I've read them. Wonderful.

 

[Perseus]

I have not watched television at home since 1987, but the landlord fitted an aerial and raised the rent, so I thought I would try watching TV. On British TV, there was Richard Dawkins on Charles Darwin, which was not a thing to watch twice.

I used to watch video films though. Not many though but it seems most of any decent films over the years.

I don't think it is the medium, but the producers and the writers not getting paid enough. The camera work is good, but lets say in the famous David Attenborough documentaries, the text is average and the rendition is pretty boring. It has not moved with the times. Bill Oddie is better at rendition and could do the script if the TV companies paid the writers enough for the extra work.

England

 

[Perseus]

Monty Python= Win.

I prefer the just audio records to the visual Monty Python.

See the other Fun thread for your favourite sketch question?

 

[Devercia]

This thread needs more George R. R. Martin.

I know I sound like a broken record and a fanboy but he is god's gift to mature fantasy readers. One can say there is a Mary Sue here and there, but when there are over a 1000 characters that fault looses its potency. I love how the characters can just die in ignoble and unexpected ways. Its like at 3/4 of the way through Sorceror's Stone if harry died... by broom accident. Its so refreshing to see the heroes actual fail from time to time rather than being immortal, or even going out with a blaze of glory; makes the cliffhangers exciting. The betrayals are also nice, because the treacherous characters actually have a moral reason for doing so instead of being the generic twist "I was a bad guy all along but hid it till the climax' BS.

(spoiler) I still wondering who killed Joffrey for sure, who Coldhands is, if R+L=J. Best of all I would not be surprised if those answers never come out.

 

[Jesin]

Wow. Sounds like something I should read.

 

[Taylored]

I do not have a problem with Television or Literature in general. I believe there is a lot more garbage than quality, but there are a lot more trash people than there are quality for companies to market to.

- On the Television end, I used to find a lot on Discovery, History, and Science Channels which I enjoyed, but it seems these stations are a lot less quality than they used to be. (that or perhaps I have outgrown them)

- as far as Literature goes. I have not been able to find many fiction books in my life which I actually enjoyed enough to finish. For this reason I never read an entire book until I was 18. This was about the time I started college. During my first week of college I started reading ahead in some of my classes and found myself engaged with my textbooks. I read all of my classes text books for the semester in my first month. Every since that time I have been able to find books which actually interest me... non-fiction, History and Science books.

 

[FusionKnight]

I think another aspect to this problem is the degradation of language itself. Even during my life I've seen a number of words be appropriated for political gain and their meanings warped and twisted until they mean to the average person the exact opposite of what they originally meant. I find the similarities to Orwell's "Newspeak" terrifying.

Add to that the aparent fact that descriptions are becoming more and more simplified until they basically become "good", "plusgood", "doubleplussgood", and the equivalent "bad's".

I like skiing. I like orange juice. I like Obama. I like my wife. I like my job.

Clearly the above sentences do not all mean the same thing by the word "like", but by using the same word, we meld the definitions together until we're incapable of expressing anything other than a bland sense of positivism or negativism.

This especially terrifying since our thought process is so heavily dependent on language for its basic concepts and options for reasoning and expressing.

 

[ElectricWizard]

And most of the modern books nowadays are quite easy, because, in my opinion I think most writers who begin to write nowadays are in their teenage years/twenties

Like Mary Shelley, you mean? (Though, of course, Percy Shelley is a better writer)

 

[Agent Intellect]

whats funny to me is that books by people like Charles Dickens and other "classic" writers would probably never be able to get published nowdays.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

CAUTION: minor rant ahead

And then there's flash fiction/sudden fiction/micro fiction, extremely shart narratives between 250 to 2,000 words. Attention span, anyone?
Where's the building of plot and character?
Whre's the complexity?
Where's the writing?
These are literature?

Compiltions of these are becoming popular, because one could read a couple of them while riding the subway or riding up the elevator to one's 135th floor cubicle or while one is eating a fast-food lunch in the mall food court.

To me, and I guess I could be biased because I love words, is not writing. These have been compared to poetry and prose poetry, both of which a poet will stress over sometimes for years until it is right. These are merely vignettes with little or no literary value.

...end rant.