Reading versus Watching

[rolanni]

I am what you'd call a naive viewer of television; we haven't had television service at all since we relocated to the Confusion Factory, back in the year nineteen-aught-ninety-two, and I'd hardly been a reliable viewer for eight or ten years prior to that.

To put this in perspective, I have never watched a complete episode of Buffy, though I have seen partials on pass-by at conventions; I did, at the end of MilPhil, stumble onto an episode of Angel on the hotel TV, which provided background noise while I packed up, though I never could figure out who those people were.

Yes, I am a Barbarian.

I do, however, watch movies, with a strong inclination toward romances, comedies, costume drama, and caper flicks; and I am a sophisticated reader of fiction.

All of the above being said, I had read numerous Good Things about a show called The Riches, and from people whose opinion I respect, so I called in the first disk from Netflix.

I want to say upfront that I found the set-up fascinating and the characters believable and interesting. I am burning to know how they resolve themselves into this life they've chanced upon, and I really wonder if any one of them understands how very much this is going to change them -- even if they don't get caught.

Despite all of this, I watched only the first half-or-a-little-more of the pilot, and I'll be sending the disk back without finishing it, or viewing any of the episodes.

Had The Riches been a novel, you betcha I'd've had it read by now, and had the sequels on order, too.

I wonder if the problem is simply a time-thing. In order to get the Rest of the Story via the tube, I'm going to have to make a significant commitment of time, and my time's kinda stretched right now. A novel, on the other hand, can be nommed down in five-minute-bites, whenever.

I also wonder if it's the inherent differences between two storytelling techniques; if, despite my questions and worries about the characters, there's something still "missing" from the visual narrative that makes The Riches not as compelling as I imagine its novel would be.

Or, being TV, I'm just convinced that "They" are going to screw it up, and I'd rather quit while I'm ahead.

So, how do you prefer your stories to be presented: visually or written? Why?

Inquiring minds...

Comments

[jelazakazone.livejournal.com]

Could it also be a difference like exists between short stories and novels? I know that for the most part, I vastly prefer novels (and good long ones are usually preferred to short ones) over a short story.

It seems to me (also being a barbarian) that tv shows are such small bites, that maybe it doesn't satisfy the way a whole movie does?

We've never had a tv and my family only got a tv when I was 14, so I really haven't lived with much tv. Last year, we did get a computer that could finally play DVDs and I have started watching movies on the computer. One thing I like is that I can pay bills and do assorted other things while the movie is playing (and certainly fill up the screen and only watch the movie if I desire) and it doesn't feel like quite the waste of time it would otherwise. If I could manage to fold laundry while watching, it would be that much better:)

I love movies, but if I had to choose, I would choose books every time. Note that I've not seen a movie in the theater for 2 years now and for the last ten years or so, I've only averaged 3 movies a year anyway, so I may not be your average Jane:)

be warned: thinking before full quota of morning caffeine follows...

[lagilman]

I watch a decent but still below-average amount of television, and have discovered that [except for a very few well-written shows] I watch with half my brain while doing other things [web-surfing, playing with the cats, flipping through magazines]. Television is giving me too much, in a way -- visual and voice, soundtrack and direction - and it makes it too easy to follow.

When I read, unless the book is horribly boring, it has my full attention because I'm supplying the visuals and the voices off the writer's cues. I have to work for the story, and that's more effort -- and [to me] more satisfying.

For the datapoint, I grew up in a household with televsion (cable, even, when it first came in!) but there were limits on how much we could watch, etc, and it was often as not a family thing.

[gilraen2.livejournal.com]

Part of the difference is that while a novel is a story arc that creates and resolves a conflict within the scope of the book, a TV show - while it may have a story arc - has to do the create and solve cycle within a 45 minute episode. The episode story is primary and must be resolved (or furthered) while the overall story arc just gets added to bit by bit.

I watched the first couple of episodes of the riches with my sister (because I was staying with her) and TIVO'd the next couple at home - but found that although I started one a couple of times, I just didn't have the interest (by myself at home) to sit through the program. I'd like to find out how the story ended - but I'm not willing to invest that much time in finding out.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I love to read, but a visual story can grab me... if the dialog is good.

Here's a thing I was thinking about the other day: I might be disappointed with a movie or TV version of a beloved book, but later on, when I read the book again, I find some of the visuals mixing in. I can edit them out if I don't like them, but otherwise they make the experience the more enjoyable. Like Viggo has now become my inner vision of Aragorn. Yummy!

[drammar.livejournal.com]

I much prefer stories in written form. I like to (from the comfort of my own mind) supply voices for the dialogue and the look of the "set," not to mention the appearance of the characters.

So I don't watch movies of many books that I've read, and TV is only background noise.

written vs visual

[cumi653.livejournal.com]

would rather read any old day. can read anywhere, chair, bed, beach, backyard with the birds, etc.

don't stop paper writing--holding a book and imaging what the writer is doing is amazing.

a fan

I'd Rather Read!

[(Anonymous)]

I do watch a few shows on television ("House" and "Bones" for drama and "Dancing with the Stars" just because I wish I could dance and like seeing the stars trying to do so) but mostly I read. I watch very few movies. I think it is the time commitment. Two hours for a movie seems a lot longer to me than 2 hours reading. Apparently, I don't feel as engaged with something when I am just watching and listening.

[pbray.livejournal.com]

It depends. In general I prefer books, but in any given year, I'll have a couple of TV shows that are must-see TV for me.

The Dexter series on Showtime was one of those, and, more recently, The Sarah Connor Chronicles on Fox TV. The British car show TopGear is currently a must see, though that isn't fiction, it's far more hilarious than any comedy.

Criminal Minds is also on the list, and I'm looking forward to its return this week. And if I'm paying bills or filing and want something on in the background, one of the endless CSI reruns that are alwasy on fills the gap nicely.

[gingerwood.livejournal.com]

I like having a long term relationship (for lack of a better term) with my stories, so I prefer arced tv shows and book series over both stand alone novels and movies. I rarely bother with either short stories (unless they're tie-ins) or episodic tv.

Both mediums do something different for me. I can easily lose myself in a book in a way that rarely happens with the screen, but oddly tv gives me more extream emotional highs and lows.

[kalimeg.livejournal.com]

Like you, it's been a long time since I watched TV -- something like 14 or 15 years since I last turned one on, and that was cartoons when I was babysitting.

Video doesn't really do character development that well -- it's just not really possible in the span of an hour or two. Also, the imagination builds sets that are beyond most budgets. Probably Lucas has been one of the best at making worlds to fit his story.

So I do quite well without it.

:)

reading vs. watching

[(Anonymous)]

Absolutely both...Just last year watched all of Buffy again, am addicted to The Wire, Bones, Boston Legal. A slew, actually, fo fairly good stuff. Anything by Joss Whedon. And then, all of your stuff, and a host of other authors, though it has dwindled with the decades.
I do find great characters in tv, if they are allowed the time to incrementally develop. And with DVD I can actually watch in a sane manner. I hate trying to catch on schedule. But books are hauled pillar to post and trip to trip and never fail me. I guess I am just ambidextrous.
Sorry about the anonymous, can NOT figure this stuff out...
Nanette Furman

[noiseinmyhead.livejournal.com]

Slings and Arrows has an arc for each season and wonderful characters.

[scaleslea.livejournal.com]

To me the story has always been more important than the medium. All the medium really has to do is be able to convey the actions and emotions.

That said, I'd probably not watch a lot of TV if I didn't have the DVRs to time shift the shows to those moments when I have sufficient time.

Doc

[readinggeek451]

As a general rule, I greatly prefer written stories, especially if they have a strong emotional component. I think it's because movies/TV/plays are all taking place out there somewhere, to other people, but written stories are happening inside my head, which makes them much more immediate. Action-adventure type stories are generally the only ones that work okay for me as movies/TV.

But there are exceptions (there are *always* exceptions with me); there are a few movies and a handful of TV series that I simply adore.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

It was said about radio versus TV that "the pictures are better on radio". For books, not only are the pictures better but so are the voices and the incidental music. A lot of the time I am disappointed by TV because the actors aren't the characters and the effects aren't real, no matter how good they are, and I'm left thinking "I can imagine that much better than they showed it".

That said, there are a couple of series I have followed and still follow. They all have believable characters and ones I care about, and the characters grow and change and events have consequences. And those are essential characteristics for books I like as well.

[janni.livejournal.com]

I'm a text person (even though I've done some web design), which means that our societal tendency to present as much as possible visually drives me nuts.

Especially, say, every time I install or upgrade a new bit of software, and have to scurry to find some way to make the jumble of large icons disappear and get the lists of text back. (Just did this with Windows Media Player, in fact.)

We do netflix (on the one-at-a-time plan), but I can't remember the last time I've turned the TV on and tuned into a network. And after 15 years living here, I'm still not entirely clear on which network is where.

[alfreda89.livejournal.com]

I have this problem, too -- I don't want a picture, I want the date, the size, the format used for storing it -- and I hate it when I am in there and it keeps going back to pic each time!

There is a way to fix this, but when the brain is working well enough I simply bop back and forth -- no time to screw with cosmetics.

(Trying to do some catch-up...)

Boy, it's been over a month since I surfed. Entire governments have fallen. Things just move too fast right now.

Especially, say, every time I install or upgrade a new bit of software, and have to scurry to find some way to make the jumble of large icons disappear and get the lists of text back. (Just did this with Windows Media Player, in fact.)

[amm-me.livejournal.com]

It would seem that your fans who read this blog fall pretty far to one side of the American norm for TV watching. Me, too. I got rid of my TV ten years ago, though I had to go buy a little one two years later for the Olympics. That's just about the only time it gets used. Weather on the computer, news in local newspaper or computer or All Things Considered, maybe one movie a year, lots and lots and lots of books.

During my mother's terminal illness, I had to get used to TV as aural wallpaper in hospitals and for home caregivers. I HATED it! And so would my mother have said, if she could, but I had to practically jump up and down and scream to get the caregivers to keep it low in another room. (Yes, I know, I employed them, but they knew they were a rare and valuable resource.) Even my smart, literate cousin keeps the TV on most of the time while she does other stuff. I don't get it.

However, I do like audiobooks. Now that's multitasking. I can cook, or do chores, or make a bracelet (as long as I'm not hammering metal) while "reading" a book. I have been very happy with the quality of the reader in all but one of the many books I have read this way. And often I get more out of it, because while reading I may skim some beautiful passages because I am to eager to find out "what happens next." Can't skim an audiobook very easily.

Sorry for the rant. This question pushed one of my buttons.

Abigail

Worth their weight in

[bookmobiler.livejournal.com]

I know you can get movies downloaded to you cell phone these days. But why would you want to? Other wise TV and DVD players are to bulky to lug around.
Give me a book, or at worst a palm pilot to read an ebook any day.
Haven't owned a TV in years and don't miss it.
There's a logical reason I chose the name bookmobiler. Over the years I've probably moved tens of thousands of books from place to place. One at a time. :)

Time Management and Visuals

[wjb3-reads.livejournal.com]

I prefer novels for character/plot and movies for eye candy.

Data point, I grew up in a house with a timer connected to the TV to limit our viewing time. Several walls were devoted to books.

I was late for work today because of "the paperback edition of ALL TOGETHER DEAD, Ace. The seventh Sookie Stackhouse" (http://www.charlaineharris.com/) ran a little long. I had a hard time putting it down to hop in my car. I just kept turning the page.

With a movie I can hit a command on my DVD player and know the remaining time (1 to 3 hours). If it is too long for my schedule, I do not even start it.

In a pinch, short stories (Jim Baen's Universe) and newspaper/ magazine articles are short enough I am not late for appointments.

With a book I supply the visuals. With _The Matrix_ I found cool and fascinating costumes. Some of which my friends and family now own.

I exercise at home and watch DVDs. My DVD player remembers the stopping point. Books pages tend to get soggy and tear.

With the exception of quirkly, quickly canceled shows (_Wonderfalls_, _Firefly_), I only watch broadcast TV with my spouse. I could not even tell you what we watched last week. However, We were incredibly catty.
=

re:reading vs watching

[(Anonymous)]

I prefer written because visual rarely comes up to my expectation of what I see in my brain. That being said, I have discovered that I love to listen to books:particularly older books with lots of ... verbiage, I guess. Such as Dickens, Scott, Fennimore Cooper. I find those much more fun to listen to on Books on Tape, especially if I am freeway driving. Can't do it at home, I always fall asleep. Go figure. Maybe it's because at home I am Fair Game for perching on by Maine Coon Cats. Oh, that seductive purr!
Jenny from WA

[kk1raven.livejournal.com]

I like both. I read huge numbers of books and love reading. I went for most of 15 years without a functioning TV mainly because I made the mistake of believing the people who said it wasn't possible to get TV over the airwaves here and there wasn't anything on TV that I though worth paying Comcast for. Then I discovered DVDs and in the process of hooking up a DVD player to the TV that had been doing nothing, discovered that I could actually watch a number of stations without paying for cable TV. I still don't watch a lot of TV. Most of what's on bores me. I do watch some TV shows on DVD though. I like them a lot better when I can watch them at the time of my choice without ads. Mostly I like shows with some science fiction or fantasy elements where the characters have an ongoing story from episode to episode. I watch some movies, but not a lot. I tend to lose interest before the end of most of them.

Reading vs TV/movies

[alfreda89.livejournal.com]

I would have to say I fall down on the side of books, even though there are classics I haven't gotten around to yet. TV was fascinating as a child, but I watched mainly to get ideas about writing TV. Then I found out how the television game was played and didn't want idiots messing with my characters.

So -- write or become a director. Directing seemed far away from the Midwest, so I started writing a book.

I've missed entire bodies of work -- like, I probably saw less than a dozen ALL IN THE FAMILY, and it's probably closer to six episodes. Never saw a complete SEINFIELD -- there was no character I wanted to invite into my brain. I sat on a rainy day one summer and watched my sister's DVDs of CHARMED, but I didn't keep up when I got home. I actually taped seasons 2 & 3 of BUFFY, after enjoying the first season, because I was in school that night. I gave up and erased it, because I was either reading or writing -- the show didn't claim my time.

I did go and borrow B5 from friends, to catch up -- but I was trying to pitch for a tie-in book, so does that count?

Now? We discovered NUMB3RS in its third or fourth season, but never find the earlier episodes. We tape it and enjoy it. I taped the BLOOD TIES and am still watching, but the show may be gone. I taped Jim Butcher's show, too, although it was pretty depressing. The book didn't feel that heavy to me.

Got behind and gave up on HEROES, MOONLIGHT -- EUREKA is a favorite, but it's disappeared. I tape TORCHWOOD (don't say a word, I've left the last two to get me through the famine times) which I love, because they are all very good and John Barrowman is not only gorgeous, he's a very good actor.

But I always go for words, even when I have the choice of other things. I read while not moving around much today -- and I have Lion,Witch & Wardrobe and the last Harry Potter movie yet to see.

I like to give my own visuals to the story. That is a sad thing about the POTTER movies or the LOTR -- some people will have those characters set from the actors, they will never build them up on their own.

Although like sartorias, I think Viggo makes a fine Aragorn... ;^)