To think reading is overrated. Persuade me to become a reader pls

[Croissantsfordinner]

Something I would never admit IRL. I just never saw the point of reading if not for a bit of entertainment, which is nice, but why is it so much better than watching a film o listening to an audio story?

A good book is much better than a film as the depth of feeling/imagination etc is amazing.
But films and telly have their place too. A book is only entertainment, don't read if it's a chore.

Until very recently a book was the only portable entertainment. I read constantly, a lot of what I read is genre so I'm not setting myself up as an intellectual.

I have a huge love for reading and never watch tv or films etc. However it’s not for everyone, just do what makes you happy.

I also read books to set a good example to my DD and not be seen to be on a screen (phone/laptop/pad/tv) all the time for entertainment - I find it encourages DD to read and not ask for screen time so much

If you do want to give it a go, maybe try different genres to see if the reason why you’ve not enjoyed it previously is due to what books you’ve previously opted for

This! My 86 year old sister has never been a book reader, and the decline in her memory is frightening. Then there is my 91 year old neighbour who is a voracious reader, and as sharp as a tack.
I try to encourage my sister, buying her magazine's and jigsaw to try and keep her brain active but she is just not interested.

No, read the post.

I think people who believe that reading is better than watching TV or listening to audio books are snobs.

I did read. It wasn’t clear to me hence the question. That’s incredibly judgmental of you. Shouldn’t judge people like that it’s not nice nor constructive. And generalisations are dangerous. Many people on this thread have said they like reading more than watching tv and explaining the benefits of reading. It would be nice if you didn’t call them snobs but try to see their perspectives. Love tv but for me it isn’t better.

I think people who believe that reading is better than watching TV or listening to audio books are snobs..

I think reading is much better than watching TV. That's my preference, I don't particularly enjoy watching TV. Objectively, reading is better for developing cognitive skills and longer term cognitive function.

That doesn't make me a snob.
I can understand why people like TV over books, even if it's not my preference.

As an avid reader I am biased but, as previous posters have said, when you read a book whether fact or fiction, you decide how the characters look and sound. You decide what the landscape looks like, how the horse and cart sounds rattling along the muddy track. Watching films and TV this has been decided for you and, in my experience, is usually wrong! Except for Alan Ritchson as Jack Reacher who is uncannily similar to the character in the books!

I've never been able to listen to an audio book since my parents used tapes of James Herriot reading his books on long car journeys to get us four kids to sleep - I never went to sleep as I wanted to know how the story ended!

Reading opens the door to a million other worlds. It is the closest you will ever come to finding your way to Narnia, or Pemberley or the Tudor court or Nelson’s navy.

With a book it is your imagination conjuring up the world the author is unfolding for you, not filtered through someone else’s interpretation as it is on stage or screen.

You read at the pace that suits you with a book. Many years of being a bookworm have made me a very fast reader, so although audiobooks have a valued place when I am doing a mundane task they really are frustratingly slow at times.

Passing on a love of reading does an incalculable service to your children when it comes to their education. If they can read fluently every subject they study will be so much more accessible. If they enjoy reading they will never be at a loss for entertainment.

Reading keeps your brain active. I’ve seen the horrors of Alzheimers as it slowly erased a relation’s personality. Anything that can keep that prospect at bay is worth a try.

Books have been a huge part of my life and they have enriched it immeasurably. Quite simply, they make me happy.

One area where I think reading IS better, but especially for younger people (albeit not a deal breaker necessarily) is that even if you're just reading some trashy romance novel or urban fantasy or YA horror, there's a lot of subsidiary learning.

In a movie - you might see the protagonists moving through the field. Great. It's part ofthe narrative - the field is large and quiet and they're navigating it. In a book, you might learn that the field is wheat, that it's summer so the wheat is high as it's ready to harvest, how hard/tough the wheat is or how difficult it is to move through. Now, suddenly, I know something abotu wheat I didn't know before that I would be very unlikely to have learnt from a movie.

I am sometimes surprised at how I can recognise flowers and birds when out and about - I didn't grow up in England and the birds from my childhood are often different. But I realised a few years ago that I have, over many many years, internalised descriptions of common birds and flowers from the many English books I read (starting with Enid Blyton!).

The truth is that I can see this starting to separate DD (who reads) and DS (who doesn't). DS is an engaged young person - for example he watches a lot of TV news, mostly ITV and BBC. So he's not getting all his info from tiktok. So his current affairs knowledge is actually not bad. But, I can already see the gap in general knowledge widening between him and DD who is a couple of years younger.

I read twenty pages a day. A new year resolution!

Christ, that’s depressing.

I would say DD barely reads, but even she reads more than 3 books a year, which the average according to that. The other four of us are voracious readers, always have a book on the go.

The statistics on how many people organise their books (and how they do so) becomes moot when you look at the number of people with fewer than 50 books. Of course you don’t need a system if you only have a couple of shelves worth!

(By genre then by author, then in series order as appropriate, in case you were asking)

I like both reading and watching TV. It's different experiences.

Books:

• they are slower to go through than TV
• you make up how the characters look in your mind vs having the actors show them to you
• you learn new expressions and words vs a big proportion of TV using the same type of words
• every author writes in a different way vs a flatter offering on TV

TV:

• movies/shows go through the plot much faster so you get to finish them in one go
• all the facts come to you directly and they are more easily digestible
• there is way more in books than in TV

It's certainly better FOR you. I love a box set as much as the next person but comparing TV to reading is apples and oranges. TV is a passive activity, reading is active. The former almost seems to sedate the brain, the latter gets the neurons firing.

It stimulates your imagination and engages much more of your brain, strengthening neural pathways and helping to prevent cognitive decline. Screens also do tend to shorten your attention span and make you easily distracted. It also improves your vocabulary and your ability to store and recall information.

It seems not. Repeated studies have shown we retain less information from a screen than paper - even if it’s just a print out of the article or email. That’s been tested with university students and people in the working world, not just children.

That includes fiction, non fiction, remembering spelling of new terminology, communications like emails or letters and so on.

Weird but true.

"Better" is kind of irrelevant, it does make your own brain do more of the work though. So is "good for you," but who cares. I do it because I love it. I would count audiobooks as reading though I don't like them because I like to read faster than that.

If you think it's just "a bit of entertainment" I think you're a bit silly, but do what makes you happy.

@BeaAndBen yep.

I struggle reading modern fiction as it's seems a bit like a waste of time - if I wanted entertainment I'd just watch it, as you said.

But I read non-fiction all the time. Have several books (and audiobooks) on the go and many on my to-read list. So many things to learn, so much research on any topic summarised and written in an accessible language. I'm curious and excited by learning, by challenging my thinking, widening my mindset.
It's what I enjoy most.

Or as one of my friends said, "you know it's a good book when you take it to the toilet with you".

Authors can put so much more into a book / story than a film / TV.

The Harry Potter films completely lose Peeps, I loved Peeps. They also changed Harry's eye colour and got rid of Hermione's buck teeth.

The wizard of Oz is nothing like the book.

Film/TV presents the whole story fully formed - you just passively absorb it without using any of your own cognition

You're maybe watching the wrong films and TV.

there is no TV/movie equivalent of actual literature

Of course there is. What nonsense.

I've always enjoyed reading from childhood.

I love TV (less so films, which go on too long for me to keep concentration!) and watch a lot of TV series. But it doesn't hit the same as a book.

TV I use for entertainment solely. I enjoy watching TV, get engrossed in the show and its entertaining. However, a book is both entertaining and also relaxing for me. A cup of tea and snuggling with a book is just a different experience entirely and there has been countless research conducted that points to reading being an excellent relaxant - e.g., reading can reduce stress by up to 68% (more than going for a nice walk, cup of tea, glass of wine). Reading has been shown in studies to improve sleep, cognitive function (reading is more of an active mental process in comparison to watching TV), and help with symptoms of anxiety.

I watch a lot of TV and all different themes, genres etc. but I'd say I've learnt more about the world, historical events and different cultures through reading books. I think its probably to do with books being more mentally immersive (I need to use my imagination, so I kind of feel I'm living it) than TV, so I retain more information.

@AssCeiling - so much better than a tedious film. Overrated. Reading rocks

I would say it depends on what you’re reading, watching or listening to.

It’s just a different experience. When you read a book you have to focus on it fully whereas when you watch tv or a movie you don’t really have to do that. It’s much easier to get lost in a book than it is when you’re watching something as it’s much easier to get distracted by your phone or even doing something else at the same time whereas with a book you’re either looking at it and reading it or you’re not. You can’t read a book and check your phone or wash up simultaneously. It definitely depends what you want though and how much energy you have. If I’m tired I can’t focus on reading a book but I can watch tv (often rewinding it when I miss bits). I have to be able to focus a bit more on a movie though as it’s longer 🤷‍♀️ We also listen to an audiobook in bed every night (we regularly have to re-listen to parts as one of us generally falls asleep before it is over) but that tends to stick in my mind more than a tv show or movie as well 🤷‍♀️ I have no visual memory/ability to visualise though so that could play a part in it 🤔