Book Addict

Poor benighted souls, their minds empty of original thought, their one burning desire to get home for another chapter or two.

Not to be confused with WikiAddicts.

Does a book or a wiki induce passivity? Do they physically inhibit their audience's ability to think for themselves? Do they detrimentally affect the ability to learn? Do they increase propensities toward depression, violence, and complacency? Do they hamper creativity and the ability to communicate with others? Are either suitable vehicles for hypnotic marketing techniques?

A book or wiki fan is not benighted, and their minds race with original thought. Their burning desire is to express, explore, and create, not to sleep with eyes open. There's really no comparison, is there?

Books, TV, and, yes, even Wiki, are tools. If the people using those tools want to become mind-numbed robots, they will. Personally, I don't watch a lot of TV; I'd rather read -- with the level of addiction mentioned above, BTW. But I don't get a sense of superiority out of not watching much TV; it doesn't make me a better person, just different, and I don't find that the TV I do watch has the properties you mention. It doesn't make me depressed, violent, or impede my ability to learn.

The same effects (depression, violence, complacency, learning problems) have been connected to books, movies, theater, RockMusic?, CountryMusic, CowboyMusic, ClassicalMusic?, alcohol, and the Internet. Generally, the link is made by people who don't like the medium in order to turn their personal preferences into a moral imperative.

-- RobCrawford

In music -- JazzMusic seems to have the opposite effect.

The physiological effects of chronic TV are well documented. Check http://www.sover.net/~gmws/untv/research.htm for a summary, and the links on VideoAddiction for some references to refereed studies. Alcohol is certainly at least as bad if taken regularly, probably worse. The rest of your list can be indulged to excess, like anything, but there's no evidence that they produce physiological effects any worse than tinnitus and line-dancer's toe. -- PeterMerel

A book or wiki fan is not benighted, and their minds race with original thought. Their burning desire is to express, explore, and create, not to sleep with eyes open. There's really no comparison, is there?

Oh yes, book readers minds are racing with original thoughts, such as "That new PatriciaCornwell? novel is pretty good." Or "That new TomClancy novel is pretty good." Or "Yeah, the first six books of the Dune series are kinda boring, but it gets interesting after that." Or "I just finished reading LordOfTheRings for the tenth time." Or "Dianetics has changed my life."

In exactly what way is book-reading an original, impassive, creative activity?

Maybe you should read a few to find out for yourself. It doesn't sound like you are a very sophisticated reader, so it might take you a while.

Thanks for the patronizing insult, so typical of a BookAddict. I read a lot, and I enjoy it and think it is valuable. But I don't believe in the superiority of books to other forms of entertainment, nor do I believe that readers are more creative or active than those who favor other media. But perhaps my tastes just aren't "sophisticated" enough--I invite you to visit my home page and offer suggestions for books that I should read. -- KrisJohnson

If you're going to dish out insults, like "minds empty of original thought", you ought to be prepared to take them too. Certainly many books are insipid, such as (arguably perhaps) those you've named. But few, if any, TV shows are as stimulating as even much of the crappy fare available in an airport bookshop. As for reading suggestions, start with "HowToReadaBook" by Mortimer Adler for some indication why reading (when practiced well) is active.

For the record, I'm not the one who said "minds empty of original thought". My point is that being a reader does not automatically make one an intellectual or a creative genius. -- KrisJohnson

On the other hand, why should one wish to be an intellectual, or a creative genius ? On the gripping hand, from the list on your namepage, Kris, I would have pegged you as a BookAddict, one ripe for BookShelved. Perhaps "addict" isn't an appropriate word for the distinction you are thinking of? Or perhaps the word is fine, but I need you to make the distinction clearer? I think of myself as a BookAddict, but then if I was truly an addict I wouldn't spend so much time writing and reading on other media, such as this Wiki or the XP list. -- LaurentBossavit

Wow! Have I missed the point of this page or what? Literate people read. It's how information is conveyed in its most compact form. This page had just got to be a troll. My eyes get all squinty just trying to get my head around why this would ever be an argument amongst such obviously literate folk. Surely this entire discussion was in jest?? -- GarryHamilton

Well, you've put your finger on the main reason we sometimes have to trade compactness for other quality attributes of conversations. ;)

Or "I just finished reading LordOfTheRings for the tenth time."

So what? It's great literature. It's like listening to a Beethoven symphony or piano concerto. You don't stop just because you've heard it a dozen times already. You might not do it again soon, but sooner or later you'll want to hear a specific passage again, so you put it on, and then realize you'd like to hear the whole thing again. Often I've picked up Tolkien just to enjoy a specific passage, and then can't put it down again until I've finished it off. Great art has that effect. It also has the effect of stimulating your mind much more than lesser forms of entertainment, simply because full appreciation takes more effort. -- MarkTilley (addicted to books and music)

How big is your ReadingDebt? ReadingDeficit?