A number of years ago at a family reunion, I remember a rather raucous aunt of mine who sat at the table gloating that she reads “so many books.” After she thoroughly disparaged society for its...
A number of years ago at a family reunion, I remember a rather raucous aunt of mine who sat at the table gloating that she reads “so many books.” After she thoroughly disparaged society for its preference of films, television, and video games, etc., it was revealed that the entire corpus of what she reads is harlequin romance novels.
Being the shy and tepid fellow that I was, I didn’t call her out on her somewhat vapid achievement. But, the thought that crossed my mind was, “Two hours spent watching ‘A Clockwork Orange’ or ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ would be a much more rewarding and mentally invigorating experience than spending six hours filling my head with the risqué adventures of Fabio.”
To which, this (kind of) opens up a question about the worth of the medium that we use for storytelling. Is there intrinsic value in written stories versus audio/visual ones? Often enough, a film will be adapted from a book. The sentiment that frequently seems to follow is, “the book is better than the movie.” Is this because we value books as a format more? Is it the greater degree of detail? Perhaps our “mind’s eye” creates a more appealing interpretation than a film director ever could? Or maybe it just makes us feel good to say that we like to read.
I’m just using the books and movies dynamic as an example. The truth is that we can have this debate about all forms of artistic medium, whether it is live theater, television series, poems, music, radio plays; the list goes on. Marshall McLuhan famously coined the phrase, “The medium is the message.” How true is this, and how does it affect how we value each different kind of medium? What are your thoughts?