Honestly, why is reading so encouraged by adults and teachers?

>>7942747
> equivocates between "reading" and "reading novels"
> obviously 'learned' logic from a film strip

Probably bait but reading enhances your mental and emotional development more than movies and games do. It's not just about telling a story, its about reading closely, comprehending and feeling all that the author is imparting. His soul is literally on that paper.

With games and movies its much too easy to get distracted by all the fluff and spectacle, not so much with books. Its you and the text.

>>7942747
>frustatate

>>7942747
Because empathy.

inb4
>"it's the same in books as in 'vidya' and muh anime flicks xD"

No. Now go back to /r9k/.

Because it involved thinking and processing information instead of just storing it. Same reason biology attracts the least competent practitioners in science.

>>7942747
>Honestly, why is reading so encouraged by adults and teachers?
Society hasn't yet created beings who can reach the intellectual heights that are currently reached through books, without books. Some day it might, hopefully, but right now, books still hold a depth of knowledge that even the wisest non-readers only manage to scrape the surface of in their lives.

daily reminder that an inability to appreciate proper literature is literal autism

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/novel-finding-reading-literary-fiction-improves-empathy/

>>7942765
What is the evidence of this claim? And "their souls is literally on the page?" If reading is suppose to make you such a more intelligent person then you should be past superstition by now.

>>7942789
*tips fedora*

>>7942756
My intention wasn't to mislead anyone. I just didn't put a lot of thought into my post. But what is objectively better than a book than a movie? All any of you have done is show how elitist you are.

>>7942789
Kill yourself.

>>>/r9k/
>>>/vg/
>>>/v/
>>>/a/
>>>/pol/
>>>/gif/
>>>/lgbt/

beito desu

>>7942772
Couldn't film bring more empathy than literature because you can literally see someone suffering instead of just saying words in your head that describe it? I'm not saying literature is an inferior medium but I don't see how it is any superior than a film. Just because it has more in it does not make it better. And contrary to what your teaches probably taught you, intelligence is inherited to a degree and not just earned through hard work. And literacy does not equate to intelligence.

>>7942747
>moral lessons
>art

>>7942812
You'd be surprised at the amount of people who can read but are still illiterate.

>>7942747
>>7942756
>>7942805
>>7942785


you only need to read and internalize a couple good books, and then the whole hobby becomes redundant.

But things like movies and video games don't have this problem

>>7942812
>Couldn't film bring more empathy than literature because you can literally see someone suffering instead of just saying words

It probably could. But it doesn't.

>I don't see how it is any superior than a film
Are you being unironic?

>intelligence
You brought that up, I didn't. Do you feel threatened?

>>7942747
Then don't fucking read. I'm sure you're aware that nobody gives a shit what you do.

>>7942798

A large part of what makes fictional literature so great is the rapidity and depth of character development that you can see in just a couple pages. Even the very best movies are only able to touch upon the psychology of their characters to a relatively small degree when compared with a novel. There's also the added bonus that novels almost always tend to require much more time to read through than to watch a movie, which certainly grants you greater time to bond with the characters. Because there aren't really any time constraints in a book you get to see characters in many more situations as well, which is good for exploring their reactions to things (their character) as well as seeing all just seeing all those sorts of different situations they can be in. Don Quixote, for example, is probably somewhere around a 30 hour time investment, but if you were to attempt to compress that down into 1 1/2 or even 3 hours like movie adaptations of it have been you're going to miss out on so much of what makes the novel great.

People are becoming so lazy that they don't even watch television.

I agree that watching TV is often a lot better for you intellectually than people used to make it out to be. You can learn a lot and be exposed to a lot of art. But be careful, because it's no substitute for the written word. They're just not functionally equivalent.

Also I made an desciscion to choose happiness over knowledge which is a more intelligent desciscion. Anyone with any critical think skills should be able to figure out that pleasure is objectively better than pain and that knowledge has no intrinsic value. I'm not going to go into any very explanation because 1. I'm too lazy and dumb 2. Countless pages of literature have already been written on it so if you care so much for reading read those, and 3. You're all too arrogant and stubborn to accept this anyways. Again, what makes literature OBJECTIVELY better than film (as a format, not the body of material that is out there). All you have provided is subjective answers.

>>7942826
>But things like movies and video games don't have this problem

>what are AAA games that literally all play the same
>what are the sheer amount of trash films that are pushed by the season

Vidya and movies also have to contend with obscene production costs so they have to cut corners and also water down their writing for the pleb masses, literature does not have this problem in any great capacity.

Shit writing will come and go, but the literary tradition will continue to thrive and does to this day.

>>7942785
Is it still autism if I lose empathy when reading literary fiction?

>>7942842
Yes

>>7942798
Movies can only tell stories. How do you make a movie version of Critique of Pure Reason?

>>7942827
Yes I am being unironic. And I guess I have the pre conceived notion that everyone on 4chan is an elitist because of my friend who showed me the sight.

>>7942855
>the sight.

>>7942855
Stop projecting and start reading, moron.

it's nice if you like words. you can do things which only show up in words.
plus the censors are more liberal and there's only so much porn a live action or animated can physically do.
this is a bit like asking /tv/ why they don't just watch anime because it would lower production costs and insisting they're just snobs if they don't agree. you might get more responses for that too.

>>7942849
I still appreciate literary fiction, though. When I was reading Ethan Frome, I was rooting for his wife to beat Ethan and the floozy with the pickle dish because they were a bunch of retards. Am I doing it wrong?

>>7942747
Well obviously you have gotten the wrong the impression. If you had read enough books, you would know morality is a spook.

>>7942858
this. start with the greeks

>>7942860
>reading for plot

>>7942765
>His soul is literally on that paper.

This is a Romantic spook. Never forget that literature never presents minds or souls, it just uses words to give the illusion that it does.

>>7942747
Read nonfiction.

To be honest, some movies REALLY fail to portray a novel. I'm not talking about shitty literature, like Harry Potter, which fans only go crazy because of changes in the setting or scenes not shown on screen.

Take The Metamorphosis for example. A film can show a family killing a bug. But a book will describe the pain. Yes, you may know that the bug is feeling pain, but you won't know what kind of pain it was, while words will actually tell the difference.

Or at least that's my opinion, and that's how I could say it while on a hurry on my phone.

>>7942860
Not really, even if someone may tell you so.

Feeling your way through a story is honestly one of the best ways to do it, its conceptually pure and you're not shoving preconceived bullshit on the text.

>>7942870
I read the dictionary, too. Cosset has a nice ring to it.

>>7942872
Its a platform for peering into it. Just peering.

>>7942747

There are no video game adaptations of classic literature that do justice to the source material.

There are film adaptations of classic literature that do justice to the source material, but it is still a different medium and therefore you get a fundamentally different experience. You do not get the same experience watching Gone with the Wind as you do reading Gone with the Wind.

If you don't want to read, that's fine. Just don't pretend that watching a film adaptation means you are getting the "same thing."

>>7942836
I'm sure reading is a much more engrossing for people who gifted at the act of reading but most people song have that talent. I guess I get frustrated out envy for people who seem to have a great appreciation for literature. But I am quite confident in my observation that there is a great amount of pretentiousness among many intellectual and academic circles, but not all of course. I am not an anti intellectual. I very do believe that science and technology have very important positive role in our world. But as far as literature goes, I don't see how it is any better than a film. Most people do have trouble reading it seems and this is probably due to a genetic disposition and not a lack of effort.

>>7942881
>There are no video game adaptations of classic literature that do justice to the source material.

>what is dante's inferno by electronic arts

File: 1430224981798.jpg (28KB, 332x299px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 332x299px

>>7942893

>>7942872
>O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
>A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
>Matthew 12:43-35

>>7942901
34-35*

File: dantes-inferno-900x638.jpg (324KB, 900x638px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 900x638px

>>7942893

>>7942858
I have tried many times to get into reading and all it does is frustrate me. I can't visualize very well and it is much too difficult for me to retain the information that was given to me the previous page. And it really angers me when people call me an idiot for this when there is evidence to support that this is due to a genes and not just a lack of effort. And the only response and I ever get from this is that I'm just and idiot and need to read more. It would be more dumb of me to continue to read in my case tha it would be to continue.

>>7942910
Just feel it. Don't try to mince words as you read. Flow it through.

>>7942910
what have you tried reading?

>>7942887

Pretentiousness is a construct of your own mind that you made to justify your own position. You are making a conscious effort to hate reading, and so you hate reading. Big surprise! If you decide to like reading, you will like reading.

>>7942910
Let's compromise and stipulate that you have a low IQ due to your inferior genetic stock.

>>7942910
hm....try harry potter, if thats too hard maybe stick to the picture books. sorry but it sounds like youre really stupid

>>7942861
I am aware of moral nihilism and I didn't need to read a book to figure it out.

>>7942920
I hate reading but I still love reading.

>>7942910
>It would be more dumb of me to continue to read in my case tha it would be to continue.

why are you here then?
if you're going to be this defeatest go watch some anime

>>7942887
>Most people do have trouble reading it seems and this is probably due to a genetic disposition and not a lack of effort.
Not really. Most people's difficulties with reading aren't dyslexia or genetic disposition. It's a learned skill, and, like with guitar, most people give up when the first few chords don't get them the girl. It's a hobby which needs someone willing to put in the effort, and people do not like effort.

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/10/the_dumbest_generation_is_only.html

File: 1373501385688.jpg (14KB, 226x219px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 226x219px

>>7942887
>But as far as literature goes, I don't see how it is any better than a film
Better in what sense ? Dude you sound like haven't read even one serious book. Most people don't read because reading is 'hard', people this days are so lazy they can't even concentrate for a couple of hours, they just want constant stimulus (movies, music, videogames).
Books (literature)are more intellecually rewarding, 'hard' books feel a lot of times like a puzzle, that require commitment and concentration to get through.
>>7942910
You just sound dumb son, maybe books just ain't your thing, do some manual labor or something.

>>7942887

Well, I think you're a bit mistaken when you say that you need to be talented or gifted to read well, or to imply that reading is difficult. Watching movies is easy much like reading a book is easy, but to do either on a less superficial level where you're actually analyzing and looking for certain things rewards you quite a lot, but to do this you need to practice and hone the skill like any other.
It's of course true that there's a lot of pretentiousness in those circles, and you'll find an abundance of that on this board, but it doesn't make literature (or film) any less great than it is, that's just a people problem, and it doesn't follow that if you were to get into literature you would become like them.

Reading great literature, especially poetry, is like having a succession of intellectual orgasms.

>>7942765

>with movies it's much too easy to get distracted by all the fluff and spectacle
>director's soul is not in the film

OP is an idiot, but auteur theory disagrees with you.

>>7942941
This

A few lines of good poetry can be deeper and more fulfilling than a hundred novels.

>>7942928
We have enough of those retards over there. Please don't send them there and I won't send them here. I usually send them to /tv/.

>>7942941
>poetry
>intellectual
It's the lowest form of writing. Any tard can vocalize and call themselves a poet.

>>7942942
I can agree, but there is such thing as actors improvising as well as fortunate accidents. The film is more than just the actions of the director.

See scenes like DiCaprio's bloody hand in Django, or Viggo cutting the knife in Fellowship of the ring.

With books you more often get a more singular and "pure" experience, that dosent make it better, but it is a different type of thing.

>>7942951
>this tard thinks he's homer

>>7942951
>anyone can make a 4chan greentext and call it literature

>>7942934
good article. that guy should be publishing op-eds in newspapers instead of a random blog on the internet

>>7943075
It wouldn't work out. It's not financially sound to bite the hand that feeds outside of niche publications.

>>7943075
>publishing op-eds in newspapers

Read him more, you'll know why he doesn't do that.

>>7942887
One thing that people here didn't comment on and I think it's really important is how it is that you "absorb" the knowledge, lessons and empathy from a book. When you're reading a piece of literary fiction, it's almost always not done in a day or even in a week. Carrying your book around and progressing through it at your own pace is a personal experience that is sometimes almost a religious experience in todays times. When you feel something from a book or learn a lesson from it, it's not because the book told you (if it's a good book). The book and the story made you use your own skills and empathy to connect with a reader and his own thought process, and you end up absorbing the knowledge without even noticing it. Some books are able to touch you deep into your emotions and you don't even realize until you stop to think about it, some books are literally life changers because of the experience you had when you were reading (like reading a book through though times, when you remember the book you remember it accompanying you through these days). And to add to that, literature is also very, very old, and allows you to access the deepest feelings of people that are dead since the ancient times. Just that timelessness alone should elevate literature above other media.

>>7943137
Connect with the writer*

>>7942821
I don't think most literate people would find it surprising.

>>7942940
This:

>>7942910
It's a skill like any other. Natural ability accounts for some, but time-investment determines how good you'll end up being. Posters are moderately right to chastise you as stupid -- reading is after all simply one word after another -- but they're forgetting that they too had to learn to read. Anyone literate can surely remember the first time reading a book like Moby Dick and feeling though they hadn't read anything.

>>7943137
And this. It's one thing to be told what Kant's Critique of Pure reason says and quite another to have actually engaged with the thing. Saying you got the lesson of a book by being told is like saying you've seen the Mona Lisa because you've heard it's a painting of a woman smiling.

Another point not yet mentioned: reading uses your voice to express the thoughts of another. Other media add a level of externalization.

>>7942765
Distraction argument is somewhat true, but by the same token its altogether too easy to read Don Quixote as nothing more than a slapstick comedy at the expense of an idiot. Reading still requires active engagement.

Grasp of language is one of the most powerful tools a person can posses in the modern world, and reading is the most effective way of developing that grasp.

>>7943179

Also, by literally displaying the thought processes of other people on a page, reading helps develop a strong sense of the way others think, and this analytical empathy is a significant social advantage.

>>7942934
Coming to the right conclusions but engaging in the very style he's criticizing. I'd also love to blame the Atlantic -- a publication that blurs the line between blog-post and article, that contains frequent grammatical, typographical and lexical errors (most recently saw an egregious misuse of "detriment"). But then this writer confuses "then" and "than" and writes in bite-sized bits on a blog.

I don't find DFW to be a profound writer, but he was correct to dismiss out of hand essays with those sorts of errors. Like Orwell he thought linguistic rigor was the measure of intellectual rigor. It's one thing to write sloppily on 4chan (often for effect), but quite another to do so in published media -- even if published online.

---------------------------------------------------bullshit line of this thread----------------------------------------------------------bullshit stops here-----------------------------------------this is the bullshit line------------------------------------------------------------
Now, OP (>>7942747) here asked a very simple question (albeit in a baity way): Why do adults (read: grown-ups) and teachers keep telling children/themselves that reading is good for them?

And the answer is, probably, none of the reasons that you guys mentioned. The above indeed are the real reasons why anyone should read books, but are they necessarily the reasons why the majority of adults themselves keep thinking that reading books so important? (The same majority, one could argue, that actually doesn't have a reading habit in their adult lives)
Or why children are on a mass scale, through the education system and by the majority of adults, forced to *read* books whether they want to or not?

If it would so happen that the majority of adults didn't have the right attitudes towards literature themselves, wouldn't that make the enforcement of their attitudes even dangerous towards young persons and the development of their actual literary capacities?

File: 1439955987045.jpg (36KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 480x480px

>>7943295
>bullshit line
Fuck, that is some cringe-y shit there.

Cargo cult mentality

>>7942812
Why write a story when you can act out a play
Why paint a portrait when you can take a selfie
Why have animation when you can do live action

You're literally trying to tier artforms when they all have their own strengths and weaknesses. They are composed differently by varying amounts of people and requiring drastically different skill sets.

If you don't understand how an amazing photo differs from a poem written about the same subject, then you haven't lived enough.

>>7942910
There's different kinds of intelligences. Being literate does not equate to being a skilled athlete does not equate to being a chess master does not equate to being a charismatic public speaker. Just because you're bad at one thing, that doesn't mean you're worthless.

That said, yeah, you're fucking hopeless when it comes to reading, but who gives a shit? I bet you're good at other things. I can read for months on end, but I can't manage money worth a shit.

>>7943295
>OP asks why is reading important.

If nothing else, to avoid turning out like him.

>>7942775
>biology attracts the least competent practitioners in science
kek

>>7942821
so true, so sad

>>7942910
>this is due to a genes
so you're an idiot due to the genes, yet you're still an idiot. It'd be dumb of you continue reading, just as dumb as not killing yourself.

>>7943363
lol

>>7942747
brain workout man, movies dont require anything of you besides to watch, video games do at least require you to make decisions, but reading requires your brain to paint a visual picture

>>7942910
Stop annihilating your attention span by sitting on the computer day in and day out, and your phone when you're not on the computer.

It's all about be able to focus, but our culture is absolutely fixated on the idea of instant gratification, that reading a book seems tedious, but you should just start small(i.e, read a couple of pages at a time), and stop spending so goddamn much time on the computer.

>>7942747
Reading is one of the most (if not thee most) difficult art form to intake. It requires a certain amount of work done by the reader in order to get pleasure from it. Thus, adults encourage reading because it exercises the brain. I think the moral aspects are secondary in their view.

I once told my dad, a hardcore catholic, that I was reading Portrait of The Artist. He was proud. Somehow the irony makes sense.

>>7942838
>Also I made an desciscion to choose happiness over knowledge which is a more intelligent desciscion. Anyone with any critical think skills should be able to figure out that pleasure is objectively better than pain and that knowledge has no intrinsic value.
You are a dumb hedonist and should grow up before any further discussion. I considered giving you a real reply but now I just give up.

>>7942838
read the picture of dorian gray

oh wait, you're too pleb for that

>>7943520
You sound upset. Pleasure rules, Pain drools. Deal with it, faggot.

>>7943527
dude weed lmao