| Product: |
A literate generation? |
| Date: |
05/12/00 (37 review reads) |
| Rating: |
 |
Advantages: n/a
Disadvantages: n/a
If I may, I would like to start with a story. Short, boring, but relevant.
I walked today (this is true) with a good friend of mine, who led us briefly in our local bookshop. As this particular friend is know to be more likely to pick up a joy-pad then a novel, I question his notions instinctively. He was looking for a book by Bret Easton Ellis - 'American Psycho'. Why? "I saw the film" he said "It was cool".
This, I think, it's a fairly accurate display of the typical teenage mentality when it comes to literature. Asked to engage in some 'quiet reading' once in school, a third of the class pulled from their bags a copy of 'The Beach'. Every copy displaying the face of that blonde American actor, rather then the original cover from before the films release.
These two small examples actually represent a much wider spread situation. It seems that with the arrival of television and film, books have become to exist purely in association. Ask most kids today their book of choice, I suspect a fairly large amount will select some kind of TV spin-off, maybe a Dawson’s Creek script book or a Simpson’s Guide To Life. Either that, or a glossy magazine.
But is this a bad thing? Well I would have to say, and here comes the opinion, yes. In most part, defiantly.
One positive way of looking at it is that without TV shows and Films producing a minor interest in books on which they are based or articles based around them, some teenagers today simply would not read at all. Maybe it does seem a little sadly ironic that my friend only knew about American Psycho because he saw the film based upon it, but at least he came to read a book he would otherwise never touch.
But... I'm sorry, our generation, MY generation, we have to read more. I enjoy books, I admit that, but I also admit to not really believing people who claim they aren't 'cut out' for rea
ding, or it 'isn't their thing'. That's just lazy, and laziness is the root of the problem.
We (by the term we, I refer to the teenagers I am soon leaving) watch television because we are bored. Personally, I'm anti-television overall - mainly because 80% of programmes are just poor. If we all actually thought about what it is we watch sometimes, chat-shows and game-shows, soap operas and (some) documentaries, most of us should feel our intelligence being insulted. But, TV has a one huge advantage. It's easy. Teenagers have become spoiled by this 'instant stimulation', and as a generation we have cheated ourselves of the ability to tell quality from crap. If Home & Away was presented in a readable script, teenagers would cast it aside as 'boring' in seconds. We've been brought up in this society of TV, and all of the attributes one needs to gain from reading a book have been broken down - patience, tolerance, dedication. Because we live in this environment of easy entertainment, a lot of kids are incapable of reading.
But why is that a bad thing? What do we stand to earn from reading a novel? This is a good question, but sadly a question most teenagers don't even get far enough to ponder. The fact is though, reading books is better for you then watching a television programme, and a lot more fun (yes kids, it's true!). To read a book is healthy - it forces the brain to flex it's imaginative muscles, and improves people overall discipline and concentration. TV, much like film, does the opposite. Everything is presented to the user on a plate - the image, the sound - everything. Thus, no one is 'stimulated' by watching a game-show, they are only occupied for a short while.
Let's make something clear - I watch TV, and I watch films, but I also read books. Books, and I'm not saying this in some stupid rant but only because it is true, are much better en
tertainment. It is of more benefit to the audience, and I defy anyone who claims reaching the end of a good novel had less of an impact then witnessing the end of an episode of a television programme. The trap people fall into, particularly the young who are spoiled with the choice of television, is that finding the motivation to read is too hard. I do it too! I crawl into to bed, full of intentions to read for an hour, what do I do? I press the remote and stare at The 11 O Clock Show for 50 minutes instead. Not because it's better, not because I enjoy it as much, but because I'm lazy.
Now lets look on the positive - lazy entertainment is a good thing too. The best most thought-provoking or educational films/TV are to be picked over a copy of a Mills and Boons novel any day. Sometimes, we simply need to turn off and stare mindlessly, and TV is perfect. I'm not naive enough to suggest we all read 24/7 - our brains would overload (unlike the generations before TV, who were 'trained' to read more often). My argument though, and the whole argument, is that we chose to do it too much of the time. We pick the easy way. Think about it - I know that reading a classic novel will be an ultimately more full-filling activity then watching 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?', but even I will often make the debatably 'wrong' decision the majority of the time. So, what chance do other teenagers have?
Because books are used in school almost as a punishment, and because so many parents will use television as baby-sitter, many teenagers just simply would not dream of choosing between a book or television - the choice is made for them already. In school, kids are expecting to painfully dissect books and explore the implications of every speech in a play - where is the fun? Imagine Media Studies as a compulsory subject - kids would have to look at every scene of a Soap Opera (I've done it, believe me) in ridiculous d
etail. Wouldn't that go some way to zap the appeal of them? I think so. The whole education system preachers to kids that books and school are bound together inseparably - no wonder it's not 'cool' like films are.
So we've established books should be read, just as TV should be watched. The only problem is the balance, which goes way in the favour of television. So, what is to be done?
No, we don't ban television. I admit that there are certain things about television that escape books. For example, a child will learn much better from seeing things presented in a appealing way on a screen then they will from reading a book. Evidence? How many kids can repeat the names of all the Pokemon characters, but struggle to know their times tables - a lot I suspect. Television is not the devil, it has it's advantages. I suspect we all have learnt the 'lessons of life' better from watching television dramas and such like then we have from reading 'The Rachel Papers'. Yes, tele has it's good points, just not enough to justify the ratio it has over books in terms of audience among the young. I think the answer is simply to change the way books are seen.
For a start, parents should keep the television their kids watch to a minimum. Reading can't be forced onto a young person, they have to grow up with it so that it is not a chore. Instead of watching cartoons on Cartoon Network, kids should be reading Harry Potter or, my preferred choice, a Rohal Dahl book. I grew up reading 'The BFG' AND watching Tom & Jerry - now I'm an adult and I can make the choice.
I also think books should be studied in school in a more 'light-hearted way'. We are taught that we must understand the book, but never that we should appreciate it. If I were to teach English, my number one priority when reading a class book would be to ensure my pupil are enjoying what they read, and they
understand that books are written firstly to be read, not studied. So many teenagers will shudder if you say 'Shakespeare' - why? Because they associate it with a constant stream of boring essays and over-analyisation. The education system really can suck books dry of any appeal - why should a teenager choose to read outside school when in school it's such a chore? No reason at all. It's no good complaining kids today don't read if all we do is make it into a negative thing when they finally do.
Another good step towards having the younger generation read more would be to change the whole image. Television stars are interviewed and made 'cool', jut like film stars - why not authors? Literature will never lose it's anti-youth image and become accessible unless the industry loosens it's tie and bit and relaxes. Writers are not 'gods', but they have the aurora of being 'mysterious'. People like Denise Wilson should be cropping up all over the shop, plugging her books on popular shows just like pop singers and movie stars. I realise public attitude towards literature will never change over night, but we have to start somewhere and work towards losing the 'stuffy' image, and the idea that reading is only for intellectuals or 'swots' within the playground.
Some many factors work against books, when in reality a good book can and should be enjoyable for anyone. Is our generation too ignorant of literature? Yes, but it is now ones fault but our own. Teenagers who actually accept reading can be worthwhile have a hard enough time themselves battling with the allure of television - the rest who are brought up to believe it is reserved for other people stand no chance.
Books, TV, film, music - all these forms of entertainment have their own qualities. But one stands out a being different, and that is the book. People should read, just like people should watch a reasonable
amount of television and film, but as it stands the balance is not right.
My friend bought the book, and informs me of his surprise of how good it really is. Not so surprisingly, he wishes he had read it before he watched the film. But society renders that unlikely - things have to change.
Summary:
|
|
