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?
I am a library assistant responsible for children's programs. Your blog is a wealth of information for me. This post in particular is enlightening. I think the main difference I notice between TV and storytelling - is that my whole self is actively engaged in storytelling, whether I'm the teller or part of the audience. It's a primal experience. A storyteller needs feedback, faces, expressions, participation, and the way the story is told will encourage and elicit that feedback. There is energy that passes back and forth, which is very exciting. Storytellers rarely tell the story all by themselves, the audience is part of the story.
But while watching TV, I can also read a book or crochet or work on a quilt - TV programs only require a tiny part of my brain's attention. TV is flat.It doesn't expect or elicit a response.
(Actually, I rarely watch TV anymore, since my eyesight has changed and I can no longer adjust focus back and forth. So now I just read, or I listen to books on CD as I do needlework.)
Interestingly, watching storytellers on TV or video doesn't nearly engage me as much as in person. Watching on a screen means I'm not part of the circle.
There are similar differences between seeing a movie and seeing a stage play (or watching a movie in a crowded theater and watching the DVD alone at home), live music and a recording.
The difference is human interaction and contact, I think. And that's coming from me, a terminally shy person!
Posted by: Brenda McDonald | January 11, 2008 at 01:46 PM
Thanks Brenda for your comment. I think we as humans are hardwired for stories, and TV is a poor substitute but so easy to accept. Although, I have to admit that I am personally addicted to The Wire. Maybe movies are a different category !?! I have Proust and the Squid on reserve at the library. I'm excited to read it.
Posted by: Sally Crandall | January 12, 2008 at 06:59 AM
I don't know. The daodejing passage you quote seems like pure spirituality to me. The relaxed immersion in whatever it is you face, no matter how horrific, exciting or yawn-inspiring. Water ebbing in all those places.
Posted by: viagra online | September 07, 2010 at 02:58 PM