Lately I have been thinking a lot about books and reading them. I haven't been reading books lately, instead I've been listening to them on my iPhone after buying them from Audible which is a pretty legit website, they have a good selection and customer service. I would get my audio books from the library but my phone is too old to use their app. It seems strange to me that a government agency is using technology too advanced for me, but it's true.
Anyway, I've been burning through audio books pretty fast, "reading" things from Mary Roach's cleverly titled books to books about that dude I'm always talking about to a series of novels about a poor man's John Constantine (not that the current one is that great, moving old John from Vertigo to DC proper was a bad idea, but that's a very different blog post.) Basically anything I can find that looks even remotely interesting I'll get. It's how I used to read maybe three years ago, before I hit some rather rough patches in life that took me away from reading. It's been great to get back into the swing of reading, even if someone else is doing it for me, and I've gotten back into reading printed books as well, which I still prefer, but are much less practical.
Listening to books that I purchased and downloaded from the internet got me thinking about books in general though, as did being able to sit at work at four in the morning and watch very internet things on my pocket computer device that we're still calling a phone for some reason. It made me wonder--were books only ever popular because there was no other alternative? In this day, when anything and everything can play a YouTube video or stream music or let you update your friends on how that bulge on your left nipple is doing, do people have time for books? And more poignantly, should they?
I struggled with that question. Especially when I was in the depths of my interlibrum. I spent the time I'd normally spend reading watching Netflix or YouTube or whatever. The ease of pulling out my little glass window to the internet was infinitely better than needing to crack open that paper book and reading it. Was my love of books something that was born only out of my being born before the ease of watching cats do cute shit in my hands? And if so, who was I to encourage people to read? Why should I tell you to read Catch-22 when you can watch the movie on Netflix without getting out of bed?
After a lot of thought, and getting back into books with a vengeance thanks to the very same device that brought those doubts down on me in the first place, I've decided that none of the above is true. I love books as much now, if not more, as I did when I was ten and reading Stephen King books that weighed as much as I did. The ease of watching videos or tweeting or whatever doesn't make them better than books, it only makes them easier.
During my lapse in reading I was having a tough time in life on multiple fronts. The details are unimportant, what is important is that I was looking for escape. Books are, of course, excellent means of escape--but I needed something easier. I needed to be able to tap my phone a few times and have someone else do everything for me, the explaining, the acting, the thinking. I needed to be the guy from the cartoon who's staring into the television with a slack face and whirlpool eyes. I didn't want to engage my brain for anything at all. I just wanted to stare into bright, flashy entertainment and not think.
Books require thought. Not just a running visual of what's happening based on the descriptions, but remembering what has happened, who's speaking, what a comma means. They require much more engagement from their audience than videos of someone playing a videogame. I think this is one of the greatest things about books, if they're fiction, they pull you into the story not just via good descriptions or characters or plot or whatever, but because you are involved intimately with the author in creating the scenes. The author has sent his thoughts out into the world in the form of text and you are connecting with him or her and translating his or her thoughts into your own. It's really a pretty remarkable experience when you think about it--a shockingly intense and close connection between two people who may never have even met.
I sure hope you're now thinking about how you totally let me into your head.
So is this a good thing? Should people bother? I think so. Obviously I'm biased, I like to read. And obviously there are connections to be made with creators through things other than books. Movies, videos, paintings, songs--all of them can provide that connection. Some are even more intense and personal than a book's can be, although I'd argue that a novel's connection is the most intimate. The one where you have to maintain that connection with the author for the longest time. There's more to books than the connection, though. All the thought I was talking about wanting to avoid when I was sad is a good thing. Your brain is strengthened by those thoughts, you become more adept at thinking around corners. I'm not shockingly intelligent, but I'm not stupid. Any intelligence I have I attribute entirely to reading voraciously. There's a reason that we refer to smart people as "bookish". The effort one puts into reading a book pays out in dividends of knowledge and understanding.
So, read. Don't just read news blogs or tweets or email blasts (do people really say that?) Read things that stimulate your mind. Remember that even today with all the money and CG and shit that the Avengers or The Hobbit deploy you can still see much better effects in a good book and you'll be smarter after experiencing them as well. I'm not saying you have to stop watching the Epic Fail of the Week videos, but maybe cut them with some good books?
And if you do, let me know, I love talking about them.
No comments:
Post a Comment