The authors, Neil Postman and Camielle Paglia argue the advantages between print and television. Postman states, “Television lacks emotion.” In television you view the emotion the character is feeling while books describe the emotion. I think it is easier to interpret how a person is feeling by reading it rather than watching it on television. The book describes how the character is feeling in explicit detail. Postman states that reading teaches us to reason. Reading, unlike television, gives the reader the opportunity to use their imagination and re-read a section in order to get a full understanding of what the author is trying to describe.
Postman states that reading teaches children to sit still. In other words, since people aren’t born with the ability to read, it must be taught and once it is taught, it has the power to educate. Paglia and Postman agree that literate people, such as teachers and writers are not as physically active as others. Even though the two authors agree, in order to be fully engaged, both television and reading requires you to sit. Postman argues that the written word is a symbol system. Even though the written word lacks images, a scenario explained in a book is often imagined in one’s mind. The negative images people see on television often causes them to misunderstand what is actually happening. Reading a text can easily be understood by simply re-reading it. I agree with postman that entertainment images should be replaced with important written content.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I understand where you are coming from when you favor Postman's views about literacy and the written word. However, I think that Postman is too rigid and needs to open his mind up to the television more. He makes it seem as if television is a confusing entity and the images do not make sense. This is partly because he comes from a generation that is much older than the generation Paglia is from. She sees television as something of substance and can be used toward education or learning. She does agree with Postman that the written word is necessary to teach in education, but that it is not the only way and that the television should not be taken for granted. I think that Postman's arguments are valid because writing make you use your imagination, but as Paglia says, the television relates to real life and imagination is not needed and thats the main reason I favor Paglia's views.
I disagree with your statement about being able to better interpret how a person is feeling by reading a book as opposed to watching it on television. On television you can see the persons face and watch their body language. By reading you just get their thoughts and a description of what going on, but you don’t actually see it. Watching someone’s body language is a very important aspect of being able to understand what’s going on in their head and being able to relate to them. I also don’t see how a negative image on television will lead to a misinterpretation of the facts being viewed any more than a negative image in a book will. Also, just because you re-read something does not mean you will understand it.
I agree completely about what you say in reference to a book being the better way to interpret emotion. When we watch images and scenarios on television, we are in a way told how to react. When we see surprise in someone's face, we are then surprised as well; when we see fear in someone's face, we are also fearful. When we read of such situations, we are then able to come up with our own reaction rather than have one spoon fed to us. I am definitely pro-television but this probably means I am pro-laziness. I am used to being spoon fed things because thats the generation I was born into. Previous generations had to do more work to get things done than we do now. Back then, the typewriter made newspapers and books rather tedious, creating situations where more effort was needed; now-a-days, everything seems to be much easier making it easy to put fourth close to no effort.
You bring up the point about how reading better interprets a person’s emotion and I feel this argument is not valid because it could go both ways – the same could be said for television, its just and opinion. Watching someone could give you a better understanding whereas reading it could easily lead to misinterpretations or being left out. The same thing could be said about the other point you bring up and that is re-reading – the same could be done for TV. Things can be recorded, rewound, and seen over and over again. For nearly every point Postman makes, the same point he uses to strengthen his argument, could be turned around and used against him just as effectively.
I agree that learning to read has the power to educate. I also agree that reading can provide readers the opportunity to use their imagination. Along with that, the use of imagination can enhance one's learning.
You also say that television can cause misinterpretation. Although that is true, reading can also cause misinterpretation. I should know, because I've read many books, plays and other types of documents in which, what I interpreted was completely different from friends', and even the author's interpretations. In addition to that, re-reading does not always help, because people have different, dominant ways of learning. For instance, pictures and images can represent visual learning, which may be the dominant way of learning for those who have a hard time taking in a load of text. Instead of reading words that describes an event, watching an event occur can be a helpful way for people to learn. Therefore, although reading is a helpful tool for learning, I feel that television is just as helpful.
I agree with you Mallory that a true benefit of reading is the fact that you can simply re-ead something if you missed it or for whatever reason. However, I think this can be a pitfall. How many times has this happened to you? I know that it happens to me almost every time I sit down to read something! Our mind wanders when we're not stimulated enough or when we lose interest. What does that say about books? Perhaps what we read is more important than the simple fact we are reading? That's a tough call.
I disagree with the fact that TV lacks emotion. In a book, you have two options: Being blunt and telling the reader what is going on or describing it. Being blunt is no fun - "John was truly depresseed." And, describing it is tedious and the reader can lose interest. TV makes things much simpler by SHOWING you. If TV lacks emotion, then, we as a people, do, too. Why you ask? Because TV portrays human life almost to a T. We can sympathize with the actors because we know what certain feelings look like.
I understand that it is very important for kids to read books, but the fact of the matter is they respond better to television and moving images. Kids would much rather listen to SpongeBob read them their favorite books than read it themselves. Take movies that are made from novels. They take 2 or 3 hours and they cut through the details. With the way technology is going today, people don't have time to read books.
I firmly believe that we are blamed as being a technologically savvy generation and it has gotten a bit out of hand. Postman was raised on books so is he pro-books. Paglia was raised on books and television so she is pro-television (as it focuses on her generation), but she is articulate enough to not be one-sided on the issue as she clearly supports aspects of both sides. Each future generation is going to have more and more options of learning and gathering information, and they can't be blamed for attempting to learn from each method.
Post a Comment