Someone has to defend the snobs, and if no one intelligent will, then the duty falls to me. This is way too wordy, but I am not as good a writer as you are (yet!), so bear with me.
I share your skepticism for claims about reading uniquely fostering empathy/other dubious claims you discuss (I would extend that skepticism to all of art). The issue is more a moral one. I (and many people, including you) believe it is simply better to consume great works of art to lesser ones, because a) appreciating and basking in the wonder of great beauty is good, and b) since knowing and considering more is always better, and literature raises difficult intellectual and philosophical problems. You should love what is good
First there are attention spans. As someone in his 20s, if my friends don't read, they can't read. I don't mean they are illiterate (I've read online that many college students struggle with basic literacy/grammar now, but it feels a little hyperbolic to me, and doesn't reflect my (non-representative) milieu). Rather, their (and often my) attention spans are too short to be able to properly consume a novel, even if you read it in 30 minute chunks.
Like everyone else in my generation, my ability to read will come and go with practice, but if you can't sit still and pay attention to a novel, you aren't focussing on watching a movie, or a TV show. You definitely are not getting any of the thought-provoking ideas in the TV show. Reading is a signal of your ability to pay attention to works of art. Paying attention is good because it improves your ability to do things a) and b) above
Second, effort can be meaningful. You claim that we think that something is worth more if we spend effort on it. I don't disagree with this, but in the context of reading, if you spend more time with something, spend more effort with it, you will understand the words, the sentences, the flow, the characters, the dialogue better. These first two points account for the suspicion of e-book listeners. Good taste is just a lot of knowledge and experience, and putting in effort will improve your experience and knowledge.
In case you still harbour any doubts as to whether or not I am a prick, let me settle it right now. I learned Chaucerian Middle English in high school (yes this was on my lunch breaks, and yes, the girls went crazy for it). Even now, I go WAY slower when I read him than basically anything else. I also notice and learn the most about his rhythm, rhyme, and other assorted audible effects he has created with it. I would not learn anything from a movie using his dialogue, because I would just get all my cues from the visual effects, and I would miss out on an important and obvious element of the film.
Effort may not lead to a sturdier cabinet compared to a pre-built one, but you will understand the object better and know the craft better if you build it yourself. When it comes to art, that is what makes it meaningful, and makes you appreciate it.
Third, many forms of art are still pretty young, and I doubt the longevity of many of the top works. For example, I am far from convinced that many "classic" TV shows will be watched 2500 years from now. The filtering between something meaningful, and sound and fury signifying nothing takes time. I would exempt older movies, obviously. consuming a novel from two centuries ago means you are definitely consuming something of the highest caliber, but that is not obviously true of something from the past 40 years.
I don't want to get dragged into a debate about classics, but I also (surprise!) am a hypocritical snob about learning the classics. More books are classics than movies, and virtually no TV shows have been around long enough to earn the title of eternal classic yet. If someone reads, they are much more likely to be consuming a classic than if they watch TV or Movies. Since something with more depth is better than something with less depth, reading is more likely to lead to better moral outcomes.
It is absolutely possible for a full-on movie snob to be as fulfilling of a moral obligation to appreciate art as a literature nerd, but that is not what is implied when someone says "I don't really have time to read.", and we all know it. It is also possible to be too snobby; if someone spends a lot of time volunteering at a food bank, and unwinds with a mindless sitcom late at night, they are more moral than a person who reads Shakespeare and Dante all day. But when I see someone reading on the bus while I scroll twitter and ignore my book, I know my place, and so should the rest of you heathens. You should love what is good, and every day is an opportunity for all of us to get a little bit better at it.
Yes! Finally, someone defending us book snobs! I love it. I'm not sure I buy all your arguments, but I find your first argument--that reading can encourage the development of a longer attention span--compelling. I don't know of any evidence to support this, but anecdotally, it feels right.
I don't think it's as much a case of "reading encouraging the dev of a longer attention span" as it is a case of those with robust attention span being able to survive the often lonesome and tiresome terrain of written works. Good attention span is one of the indispensable resources needed to fully court a book. When you lack it, the romance with books might never pick up in the first place.
I'm curious about whether, in your research on reading for this post, you found anything meaningful about its connection to writing skills? I've never done a deep dive on this, but have wondered whether exposure to good writing, regardless of genre, helps people to internalize general rules of grammar and word choice that would help them to better articulate themselves in writing.
I really appreciated this piece. I share your biases. One angle I’d love to see developed more is the idea of reading as a technology for cultural understanding that's *highly generalized.* I don't know whether that extends to building empathy skills (looks like it doesn't), but it certainly is true of knowledge. I'm sympathetic to the idea that reading isn't a moral virtue, but that doesn't mean it isn't a virtue. If I were to push back at all it would be simply to point out that reading makes reading easier. It sounds flippant, but I don't mean it to. When reading gets easier, that fluency can provide access to a broader (and deeper) level of cultural and intellectual participation. So the value of reading maybe isn’t moral so much as infrastructural, increasing access not only across topics but also across generations. I do think it's uniquely valuable from that perspective.
This was a really interesting read, Michael. As a book lover, it made me reflect on my own attitude toward non-readers. I don’t judge them or look down on them, but I suppose there are times I feel like they’re missing out on something special. Then again, maybe the things I find in books, they find through other mediums—I’m not sure. I guess I just enjoy reading so much that I assume everyone would, if they gave it a chance. Anyway, thanks for the thought-provoking piece.
Historically, we primarily value reading more because of the costs associated with publishing and the effort a writer takes to get good enough at his craft to be published, rather than the effort it takes to read the book.
But also... reading itself is an inherently useful skill requiring development, even if relatively common. It is kind of like comparing fixing up a car as a hobby to playing video games, because they are both hobbies. We value the mechanic more, even if he is doing it as a hobby, because it requires learned skill.
Reading is a result of some of amount of virtue development, while netflix, tv, films, are not. (although being able to articulate their value is, but that is not the same as watching them).
Your candor is refreshing, and your honesty about the limits of your attention span speaks to a cultural condition - ours - that’s as common as it is under-examined. But your piece, even charming as it is in tone, ultimately defends a position that deserves a more rigorous cross-examination.
Without touching the “elite vs. the people” issue, which is by now so tired that it’s not worth examining any further, your article seems to conflate the act of reading books with the accumulation of information, and therein lies the core misunderstanding.
Books - at least the kind worth reading - I’m not talking here about a series of “protocols” and “hacks” - do not exist only to transfer data. They are not content delivery systems. They are cognitive scaffolds that alter the architecture of perception.
What’s missing in your defense is the recognition that reading - especially literary reading - is not primarily about utility. It’s about having the luxury of looking at life through’s somebody’s else mind. And therefore, it’s about growing. When Tolstoy, Chekhov, Hemingway or Fitzgerald open a door into a human soul one would never otherwise encounter, we are not passively absorbing their perspective; we are inhabiting it. I am “only” 55, so I could not have been in Moscow with Natasha Rostova, in Pamplona with Brett and on the French Riviera with Dick and Nicole. And yet I was. Tolstoy himself called this process “infectious feeling”, which is more generally the core of any artistic purpose.
As the great Vladimir Nabokov insisted, “a good reader is a re-reader,” not because one missed the facts the first time, but because literature is not made of facts. It is made of patterns, perception, and emotional textures that unfold recursively.
There is nothing wrong with watching and reading for mere entertainment only, we all do it. But not much an insight or emotional texture can come from watching “desperate housewives” screaming at each other through deformed lips, however compelling someone might find it.
Your essay presumes that life is full enough, vivid enough, without this intrusion. But that presumption only holds if one is content with the Self one already is (or, more accurately, imagines to be). The point of reading is to interrupt that contentment. To see through other eyes not because it’s fun, but because it’s hard and necessary. And most importantly worth it.
To link to your own writing, in a world increasingly tailored to reinforce our existing beliefs, reading literature is among the last remaining acts of radical cognitive empathy. And if we understand empathy as both a reflection of our character and a response to our circumstances, then great literature becomes a portal that dismantles our certainties and patiently reconstructs our inner world, one perspective at a time. And this is a moral consideration.
Thanks for such an engaging response, Federico. As a reader myself, I tend to agree of course. But...there's always a but isn't there?...are you not conflating medium and content? Can't the exact same time- and place-travel happen with a high quality film, movie, or even (shudder) video game? Can't I immerse myself in someone's completely foreign experience through other media?
Of all the pushback I have received from this post, the one that resonated most with me is a point about effort. Becasue reading is effortful, it requires you to struggle through willingly and maybe it is this struggle that allows us to remember, really think, and internalize the experience. Other media are less effortful and thus they do not demand the same struggle with all its attendant benefits.
Michael, life would be unbearably dull without “buts”. I’m with you on the film - but not on video games. They may entertain, occasionally impress, but definitely not illuminate. Of course, the high-brow/low-brow divide applies to film, too. We were all in Vietnam with Colonel Kurtz, whispering “the horror, the horror.” But we’ve also lost entire afternoons watching yet another car chase unfold and waiting, mostly, for it to end.
My focus on literature wasn’t just about the struggle, though I agree with you there. It’s also because literature offers a much wider imaginative canvas. Al Pacino will always be Michael Corleone. Peter O’Toole, always Lawrence of Arabia. But there are endless versions of Pierre and Natasha. They remain open, unfinished, in the best sense, precisely because they live in language.
Nothing too esoteric. I obviously love George R. R. Martin; also Patrick Rothfiss. I recently got into Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight series, but I'm also losing steam with those. I'm also a fan of Joe Abercombie's The First Law series.
How do you feel about the lack of Rothfuss and Martin sequels? Intellectually, I understand one cannot force an artist to make (good) art, yet I still feel like screaming “you bloody owe us to finish the story, motherfucker”, and it seems I am not alone. Funny thing.
Although total conjecture, greater effort probably leads to greater retention. I'd wager that those who read a novel remember more than those who listen to the audiobook—which as you suggest, would be brought about via increased attention.
As another aside, I think the medium partially determines the content (I'd mention McLuhan, but I could never understand that book). A longform article (or book) provides detail and nuance that a podcast or TV adaptation cannot. Of course this is anecdotal, but I find the views of those who only get their 'news' from podcasts and social media snippets to be bereft; especially relative to someone who actually bothered to read an article or two about the subject. I'd much rather be seated next to the FT Dad than a podcast bro at a dinner part...
My argument is really about leisure reading of *books* vs other media. It's less about those who read articles vs podcasts/explainers. I agree there that a good article is simply superior because it covers far more ground than what the typical podcast covers, though in theory it needn't be this way. So my argument is about our culture's belief that reading books is a morally virtuous pursuit; though I like your point that we recall books better, perhaps because of the effort. So one point for team books!
Yeah, I got a bit sidetracked from the main argument and vented about podcast bros instead—my primary bugbear.
While I too hold snobbish views towards reading, you're right, the evidence that reading books is any better for you (cognitively, morally, etc.) than watching a soap opera is unfortunately* non-existent.
*I wish it were true, that way I'd have something to rebut with when my wife calls me a wanker for reading on the plane.
I'm with you, Jake. I love reading on flights. No internet, no distractions, so books are even easier to consume...though I love writing a good journal review for the same reason--no distractions!
It's not about morality at all, it's about the joy of reading and connecting with humanity across years, decades, centuries. I don't "look down on" people who don't read, I feel bad for them because they're missing out. Reading is good for your brain and soul like no other pastime, and we are right to champion it.
Thanks for writing! I like your hot takes. It sounds like you set out to refute the panic of not reading at college? As a professor, I’d like to see this demonstrated.
IMHO, we may be the end of college for all. It’s not that the average student can’t read, they don’t see the point. They don’t value the reward of doing the mental labor. Which is their choice.
But if you feel ‘real housewives” is morally the same as reading, aren’t you effectively stealing their tuition money?
My argument is less about books as medium to learn/teach and more about what we do with our leisure. I also tried to draw a distinction between media (books vs film) and quality (Sopranos vs Real Housewives). That said, on principle, I don't think we need to rely on books to learn or teach; though perhaps book help with retention more than other media, as another commenter said...
Nice read! Pondering on the same, recently put my thoughts into a post, this time highlighting the harmful effects of reading books (espcially Illusion of Knowing), and how to get out getting stuck consuming books.
Still looking for better answers. Here is my question.
Reading non-fiction books especially philsophy, psychology feels like consumption after few years. In computer science, first reading, understanding a concept, followed by implementing the theory using a programming language. Both theory followed by implementation are inter-related.
I was not able to find something similar to "implementation" when it comes to philosophy/psychology. Any ideas?
Great post, Mickey! I used to be firmly in the snobbish camp myself. I thought academics reading Stephen King instead of Paul Auster couldn't be taken seriously. But honestly, I don’t read books all that much anymore (certainly not high literature). These days, I mostly listen to audiobooks, usually to help me fall asleep.
That said, when I reflect on my most rewarding fiction experiences in the past decade, both were literary family sagas by German authors: Der Turm by Uwe Tellkamp and Buddenbrooks: Verfall einer Familie by Thomas Mann. So maybe there is something unique and long-term about the literary experience—something that other forms of reading (or listening) don’t quite deliver.
As an interesting side note: we were once quite skeptical about the idea that literature influences theory of mind. But, somewhat to our surprise, we actually replicated the original effect. Still, taken together with the broader body of results at the time, we concluded that the effect is small and statistically non-significant. https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/4/1/7/112955/The-Effect-of-Reading-a-Short-Passage-of-Literary
Reading schlocky page turners or YA fiction books is no more virtuous than watching a romance show like love island. I never understood why reading fiction was seen as some grand virtuous practice, if it’s contemporary fiction.
I am a retired librarian, and there is a serious problem with philosophical diversity in all forms of literature, whether academic, popular nonfiction, literature, or fiction. The number of major publishers has fallen in the US to five; most agents who sell books to these houses are still DEI-invested. Many will not represent authors who present ideas that contradict the Leftist tenets. As humanities and social sciences are also strongly left-wing, the text (either a paper or a book) will not be published, and the academic will still most likely be hounded from their position. I don't think that current publishing actually produces quality material; ideologues endanger our culture, and the books are promoting a single worldview that denies the importance of alternative viewpoints.
S knihou se spolupracuje, upevňuje představivost a paměť,poukazuje na naší nepoučitelnost a stupiditu,knihy jsou jako život pomíjivé virtuální příběhy a pravdy ukradené přírodě.
Someone has to defend the snobs, and if no one intelligent will, then the duty falls to me. This is way too wordy, but I am not as good a writer as you are (yet!), so bear with me.
I share your skepticism for claims about reading uniquely fostering empathy/other dubious claims you discuss (I would extend that skepticism to all of art). The issue is more a moral one. I (and many people, including you) believe it is simply better to consume great works of art to lesser ones, because a) appreciating and basking in the wonder of great beauty is good, and b) since knowing and considering more is always better, and literature raises difficult intellectual and philosophical problems. You should love what is good
First there are attention spans. As someone in his 20s, if my friends don't read, they can't read. I don't mean they are illiterate (I've read online that many college students struggle with basic literacy/grammar now, but it feels a little hyperbolic to me, and doesn't reflect my (non-representative) milieu). Rather, their (and often my) attention spans are too short to be able to properly consume a novel, even if you read it in 30 minute chunks.
Like everyone else in my generation, my ability to read will come and go with practice, but if you can't sit still and pay attention to a novel, you aren't focussing on watching a movie, or a TV show. You definitely are not getting any of the thought-provoking ideas in the TV show. Reading is a signal of your ability to pay attention to works of art. Paying attention is good because it improves your ability to do things a) and b) above
Second, effort can be meaningful. You claim that we think that something is worth more if we spend effort on it. I don't disagree with this, but in the context of reading, if you spend more time with something, spend more effort with it, you will understand the words, the sentences, the flow, the characters, the dialogue better. These first two points account for the suspicion of e-book listeners. Good taste is just a lot of knowledge and experience, and putting in effort will improve your experience and knowledge.
In case you still harbour any doubts as to whether or not I am a prick, let me settle it right now. I learned Chaucerian Middle English in high school (yes this was on my lunch breaks, and yes, the girls went crazy for it). Even now, I go WAY slower when I read him than basically anything else. I also notice and learn the most about his rhythm, rhyme, and other assorted audible effects he has created with it. I would not learn anything from a movie using his dialogue, because I would just get all my cues from the visual effects, and I would miss out on an important and obvious element of the film.
Effort may not lead to a sturdier cabinet compared to a pre-built one, but you will understand the object better and know the craft better if you build it yourself. When it comes to art, that is what makes it meaningful, and makes you appreciate it.
Third, many forms of art are still pretty young, and I doubt the longevity of many of the top works. For example, I am far from convinced that many "classic" TV shows will be watched 2500 years from now. The filtering between something meaningful, and sound and fury signifying nothing takes time. I would exempt older movies, obviously. consuming a novel from two centuries ago means you are definitely consuming something of the highest caliber, but that is not obviously true of something from the past 40 years.
I don't want to get dragged into a debate about classics, but I also (surprise!) am a hypocritical snob about learning the classics. More books are classics than movies, and virtually no TV shows have been around long enough to earn the title of eternal classic yet. If someone reads, they are much more likely to be consuming a classic than if they watch TV or Movies. Since something with more depth is better than something with less depth, reading is more likely to lead to better moral outcomes.
It is absolutely possible for a full-on movie snob to be as fulfilling of a moral obligation to appreciate art as a literature nerd, but that is not what is implied when someone says "I don't really have time to read.", and we all know it. It is also possible to be too snobby; if someone spends a lot of time volunteering at a food bank, and unwinds with a mindless sitcom late at night, they are more moral than a person who reads Shakespeare and Dante all day. But when I see someone reading on the bus while I scroll twitter and ignore my book, I know my place, and so should the rest of you heathens. You should love what is good, and every day is an opportunity for all of us to get a little bit better at it.
Yes! Finally, someone defending us book snobs! I love it. I'm not sure I buy all your arguments, but I find your first argument--that reading can encourage the development of a longer attention span--compelling. I don't know of any evidence to support this, but anecdotally, it feels right.
I don't think it's as much a case of "reading encouraging the dev of a longer attention span" as it is a case of those with robust attention span being able to survive the often lonesome and tiresome terrain of written works. Good attention span is one of the indispensable resources needed to fully court a book. When you lack it, the romance with books might never pick up in the first place.
I'm curious about whether, in your research on reading for this post, you found anything meaningful about its connection to writing skills? I've never done a deep dive on this, but have wondered whether exposure to good writing, regardless of genre, helps people to internalize general rules of grammar and word choice that would help them to better articulate themselves in writing.
I really appreciated this piece. I share your biases. One angle I’d love to see developed more is the idea of reading as a technology for cultural understanding that's *highly generalized.* I don't know whether that extends to building empathy skills (looks like it doesn't), but it certainly is true of knowledge. I'm sympathetic to the idea that reading isn't a moral virtue, but that doesn't mean it isn't a virtue. If I were to push back at all it would be simply to point out that reading makes reading easier. It sounds flippant, but I don't mean it to. When reading gets easier, that fluency can provide access to a broader (and deeper) level of cultural and intellectual participation. So the value of reading maybe isn’t moral so much as infrastructural, increasing access not only across topics but also across generations. I do think it's uniquely valuable from that perspective.
This was a really interesting read, Michael. As a book lover, it made me reflect on my own attitude toward non-readers. I don’t judge them or look down on them, but I suppose there are times I feel like they’re missing out on something special. Then again, maybe the things I find in books, they find through other mediums—I’m not sure. I guess I just enjoy reading so much that I assume everyone would, if they gave it a chance. Anyway, thanks for the thought-provoking piece.
Historically, we primarily value reading more because of the costs associated with publishing and the effort a writer takes to get good enough at his craft to be published, rather than the effort it takes to read the book.
But also... reading itself is an inherently useful skill requiring development, even if relatively common. It is kind of like comparing fixing up a car as a hobby to playing video games, because they are both hobbies. We value the mechanic more, even if he is doing it as a hobby, because it requires learned skill.
Reading is a result of some of amount of virtue development, while netflix, tv, films, are not. (although being able to articulate their value is, but that is not the same as watching them).
Dear Michael,
Your candor is refreshing, and your honesty about the limits of your attention span speaks to a cultural condition - ours - that’s as common as it is under-examined. But your piece, even charming as it is in tone, ultimately defends a position that deserves a more rigorous cross-examination.
Without touching the “elite vs. the people” issue, which is by now so tired that it’s not worth examining any further, your article seems to conflate the act of reading books with the accumulation of information, and therein lies the core misunderstanding.
Books - at least the kind worth reading - I’m not talking here about a series of “protocols” and “hacks” - do not exist only to transfer data. They are not content delivery systems. They are cognitive scaffolds that alter the architecture of perception.
When I read your very good article on empathy (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/550b09eae4b0147d03eda40d/t/683dbd8925a8346ac006179c/1748876687947/State-trait-empathy.pdf), I learn something. Facts, data, interpretation. The same happens with a good podcast. Nothing wrong with that. But I don’t get to see the world the way you do.
What’s missing in your defense is the recognition that reading - especially literary reading - is not primarily about utility. It’s about having the luxury of looking at life through’s somebody’s else mind. And therefore, it’s about growing. When Tolstoy, Chekhov, Hemingway or Fitzgerald open a door into a human soul one would never otherwise encounter, we are not passively absorbing their perspective; we are inhabiting it. I am “only” 55, so I could not have been in Moscow with Natasha Rostova, in Pamplona with Brett and on the French Riviera with Dick and Nicole. And yet I was. Tolstoy himself called this process “infectious feeling”, which is more generally the core of any artistic purpose.
As the great Vladimir Nabokov insisted, “a good reader is a re-reader,” not because one missed the facts the first time, but because literature is not made of facts. It is made of patterns, perception, and emotional textures that unfold recursively.
There is nothing wrong with watching and reading for mere entertainment only, we all do it. But not much an insight or emotional texture can come from watching “desperate housewives” screaming at each other through deformed lips, however compelling someone might find it.
Your essay presumes that life is full enough, vivid enough, without this intrusion. But that presumption only holds if one is content with the Self one already is (or, more accurately, imagines to be). The point of reading is to interrupt that contentment. To see through other eyes not because it’s fun, but because it’s hard and necessary. And most importantly worth it.
To link to your own writing, in a world increasingly tailored to reinforce our existing beliefs, reading literature is among the last remaining acts of radical cognitive empathy. And if we understand empathy as both a reflection of our character and a response to our circumstances, then great literature becomes a portal that dismantles our certainties and patiently reconstructs our inner world, one perspective at a time. And this is a moral consideration.
Respectfully,
Federico
[A reader who still re-reads books slowly]
Thanks for such an engaging response, Federico. As a reader myself, I tend to agree of course. But...there's always a but isn't there?...are you not conflating medium and content? Can't the exact same time- and place-travel happen with a high quality film, movie, or even (shudder) video game? Can't I immerse myself in someone's completely foreign experience through other media?
Of all the pushback I have received from this post, the one that resonated most with me is a point about effort. Becasue reading is effortful, it requires you to struggle through willingly and maybe it is this struggle that allows us to remember, really think, and internalize the experience. Other media are less effortful and thus they do not demand the same struggle with all its attendant benefits.
Michael, life would be unbearably dull without “buts”. I’m with you on the film - but not on video games. They may entertain, occasionally impress, but definitely not illuminate. Of course, the high-brow/low-brow divide applies to film, too. We were all in Vietnam with Colonel Kurtz, whispering “the horror, the horror.” But we’ve also lost entire afternoons watching yet another car chase unfold and waiting, mostly, for it to end.
My focus on literature wasn’t just about the struggle, though I agree with you there. It’s also because literature offers a much wider imaginative canvas. Al Pacino will always be Michael Corleone. Peter O’Toole, always Lawrence of Arabia. But there are endless versions of Pierre and Natasha. They remain open, unfinished, in the best sense, precisely because they live in language.
Don't go spoiling my status markers for me, Michael!
Would love to read more about your love of epic fantasy! What are some of your favorites?
Nothing too esoteric. I obviously love George R. R. Martin; also Patrick Rothfiss. I recently got into Brandon Sanderson's Stormlight series, but I'm also losing steam with those. I'm also a fan of Joe Abercombie's The First Law series.
The First Law series is the best!
How do you feel about the lack of Rothfuss and Martin sequels? Intellectually, I understand one cannot force an artist to make (good) art, yet I still feel like screaming “you bloody owe us to finish the story, motherfucker”, and it seems I am not alone. Funny thing.
Although total conjecture, greater effort probably leads to greater retention. I'd wager that those who read a novel remember more than those who listen to the audiobook—which as you suggest, would be brought about via increased attention.
As another aside, I think the medium partially determines the content (I'd mention McLuhan, but I could never understand that book). A longform article (or book) provides detail and nuance that a podcast or TV adaptation cannot. Of course this is anecdotal, but I find the views of those who only get their 'news' from podcasts and social media snippets to be bereft; especially relative to someone who actually bothered to read an article or two about the subject. I'd much rather be seated next to the FT Dad than a podcast bro at a dinner part...
My argument is really about leisure reading of *books* vs other media. It's less about those who read articles vs podcasts/explainers. I agree there that a good article is simply superior because it covers far more ground than what the typical podcast covers, though in theory it needn't be this way. So my argument is about our culture's belief that reading books is a morally virtuous pursuit; though I like your point that we recall books better, perhaps because of the effort. So one point for team books!
Yeah, I got a bit sidetracked from the main argument and vented about podcast bros instead—my primary bugbear.
While I too hold snobbish views towards reading, you're right, the evidence that reading books is any better for you (cognitively, morally, etc.) than watching a soap opera is unfortunately* non-existent.
*I wish it were true, that way I'd have something to rebut with when my wife calls me a wanker for reading on the plane.
I'm with you, Jake. I love reading on flights. No internet, no distractions, so books are even easier to consume...though I love writing a good journal review for the same reason--no distractions!
It's not about morality at all, it's about the joy of reading and connecting with humanity across years, decades, centuries. I don't "look down on" people who don't read, I feel bad for them because they're missing out. Reading is good for your brain and soul like no other pastime, and we are right to champion it.
Thanks for writing! I like your hot takes. It sounds like you set out to refute the panic of not reading at college? As a professor, I’d like to see this demonstrated.
IMHO, we may be the end of college for all. It’s not that the average student can’t read, they don’t see the point. They don’t value the reward of doing the mental labor. Which is their choice.
But if you feel ‘real housewives” is morally the same as reading, aren’t you effectively stealing their tuition money?
My argument is less about books as medium to learn/teach and more about what we do with our leisure. I also tried to draw a distinction between media (books vs film) and quality (Sopranos vs Real Housewives). That said, on principle, I don't think we need to rely on books to learn or teach; though perhaps book help with retention more than other media, as another commenter said...
Nice read! Pondering on the same, recently put my thoughts into a post, this time highlighting the harmful effects of reading books (espcially Illusion of Knowing), and how to get out getting stuck consuming books.
https://chinmaybhat99.substack.com/p/why-reading-books-feels-like-consumption
Still looking for better answers. Here is my question.
Reading non-fiction books especially philsophy, psychology feels like consumption after few years. In computer science, first reading, understanding a concept, followed by implementing the theory using a programming language. Both theory followed by implementation are inter-related.
I was not able to find something similar to "implementation" when it comes to philosophy/psychology. Any ideas?
Great post, Mickey! I used to be firmly in the snobbish camp myself. I thought academics reading Stephen King instead of Paul Auster couldn't be taken seriously. But honestly, I don’t read books all that much anymore (certainly not high literature). These days, I mostly listen to audiobooks, usually to help me fall asleep.
That said, when I reflect on my most rewarding fiction experiences in the past decade, both were literary family sagas by German authors: Der Turm by Uwe Tellkamp and Buddenbrooks: Verfall einer Familie by Thomas Mann. So maybe there is something unique and long-term about the literary experience—something that other forms of reading (or listening) don’t quite deliver.
As an interesting side note: we were once quite skeptical about the idea that literature influences theory of mind. But, somewhat to our surprise, we actually replicated the original effect. Still, taken together with the broader body of results at the time, we concluded that the effect is small and statistically non-significant. https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/4/1/7/112955/The-Effect-of-Reading-a-Short-Passage-of-Literary
Reading schlocky page turners or YA fiction books is no more virtuous than watching a romance show like love island. I never understood why reading fiction was seen as some grand virtuous practice, if it’s contemporary fiction.
I am a retired librarian, and there is a serious problem with philosophical diversity in all forms of literature, whether academic, popular nonfiction, literature, or fiction. The number of major publishers has fallen in the US to five; most agents who sell books to these houses are still DEI-invested. Many will not represent authors who present ideas that contradict the Leftist tenets. As humanities and social sciences are also strongly left-wing, the text (either a paper or a book) will not be published, and the academic will still most likely be hounded from their position. I don't think that current publishing actually produces quality material; ideologues endanger our culture, and the books are promoting a single worldview that denies the importance of alternative viewpoints.
S knihou se spolupracuje, upevňuje představivost a paměť,poukazuje na naší nepoučitelnost a stupiditu,knihy jsou jako život pomíjivé virtuální příběhy a pravdy ukradené přírodě.