I just finished an article in the New Yorker Magazine (Dec. 24 and 31, 2007) by Caleb Crain called Twilight of the Books. The article is an examination of the declining population of book readers and ever growing population of TV viewers. Book readers, says the author, quoting Maryanne Wolf’s book about the neurobiology of the brain called Proust And The Squid, over time develop specialized paths in their brains as they become fluent readers. Reading, at first, is an unnatural activity for the brain, but the brain does adapt and creates streamlined routes leaving space for the reader to think and react to what is being read. TV viewers, who greatly outnumber readers, according to the article, don’t get the added brain benefits.
Here a few of the things the author lists about TV viewing and reading
• Readers are better able to think abstractly. TV viewing encourages, as it did in early oral cultures, people to think in images.
• TV is a solitary medium, which is controlled by the viewer. The viewer is likely to watch only that which supports his point of view. That means that questioning is diminished.
• Because the images are fleeting on TV and because it’s hard to revisit what was seen, it is hard to do comparisons of varying opinions. Viewers are likely to fall back on what they intuit or experience as a basis for opinions.
• Proficient readers are more likely to engage in the world around them than their TV counterparts. “Perhaps reading is a prototype of independence,” says Mr. Crain. He goes on to say, “such a habit might be quite dangerous for a democracy to lose.”
I wonder about oral storytelling in relation to the two mediums. Storytelling is not reading. It feeds on the natural brain paths already laid down from the beginning of human communication. Storytelling, as in TV viewing, does make good use of images. When I learn a story, I often make a map of the images in a story so that I can remember what I what to say. I can only remember the story through its images. Storytelling, like TV, deals in stereotypes – that’s what all folk and fairytales are about. Storytelling, however, is told from living person to living person. It is not a solitary activity. No channels can be switched and listeners are exposed to many experiences. Because storytelling is done in a group, it is possible to go back and share reactions and understandings. Storytelling relies, like reading and unlike TV, where everything is exposed, on imagination. With imagination, comes the same active participation a reader must use to understand and be involved with the text. Possibly, imagination is reading and storytelling’s closest and most important connection.
The audience of storytellers is small compared to that of readers and miniscule compared to that of TV viewers. I have performed in a good number of venues where people have expected me to read from a book, but what, I wonder, would happen if there was a steady diet of storytelling and reading. What if every night people spent the three to four hours they use to watch TV, listening and telling stories and reading books? What would our brains look like? What would our towns and cities look like? How would our work day and self image change? How would our country change?