Television is better than books.

no....i dont think so.......television can nevr replace books.....on the contrary the very concept can wreck havoc in the education system....
 
i think books are any how better than tv. agree tv gives you power to visualize but how manny of us actually watch tv with a intension of learning.
talking about book when ever we start reading books our atitude is totally towords books only and we get deeper understanding. we also get an opportunity to brush up our skills while reading books.
in tv case it doesnot happen. whenever we start watching tv with an intension of learning and if by chance you open the channel which deals with serials only.
you easily get convinced by tv
which lead you in wrong direction
 
of course tv is better than books .there is no comparison between book and tv because in case of book u need 2 concentrate a much harder when compared with wit tv. secondly we can also say tat the impact which tv has on our memory is much more than tat a book has on our memory. tv helps to recollect things much easily than books which also is the example of its impact
 
While the TV bombards you with a sensorial experience, showing facts as they really were (or as imagined / mentally constructed by the director), books offer a conceptual description of beings and their universe. While reading we "process" the written information, so that it becomes intelligible, and so that we can relate to the characters and situations they experience. Thus, we are forced, or "invited", to perform a much more complex reasoning and mental constructions. We are, so to speak, exercising our brain while reading.















press thank if u like my post
 
rajanlove said:
While the TV bombards you with a sensorial experience, showing facts as they really were (or as imagined / mentally constructed by the director), books offer a conceptual description of beings and their universe. While reading we "process" the written information, so that it becomes intelligible, and so that we can relate to the characters and situations they experience. Thus, we are forced, or "invited", to perform a much more complex reasoning and mental constructions. We are, so to speak, exercising our brain while reading.
















press thank if u like my post
Click to expand...




Watching VS Reading? Benefit of watching television? Books are not better than television? Why books ar ebetter than television? Wats so good about books than television? Differences between television and reading? How can you get interested in reading books? Why is reading good for you than watching tv? Why is watching television beeter than books? What does watching too much television cause? Why is reding better than watching television? Does watching television affects peoples lifes? Why is tv watching more important than reading? What can reading achieve that television cannot? Watching TV is more preferable to reading books? Television is better than reading books-opposing? Beniits of learning through books than television? Is reading a book better than watching television? Is reading fiction more enjoyable than watching TV? Should there be more reading books than watching tv?




pls press thank or partcipate in topic
 
I realize that the standard conversation is running the other way, such as, "My god, that book is so incredible, and I just can't stand Brad Pitt." And usually running quite quickly. But there are those films that supersede the accomplishment of the text upon which they were based.

As an example I would offer the novel "Sueurs froides: d'entre les morts (Cold Sweat: From Among the Dead)," a 1954 French crime novel by Pierre Boileau and Pierre Ayraud, aka Thomas Narcejac, writing as Boileau-Narcejac. Oddly interesting in the fact that two mystery writers partnered together in writing it under a shared pseudonym it was the basis of Hitchcock's "Vertigo" and the film is far more well regarded and 'read' than the book upon which it was based.

Any other examples? Perhaps "There will be blood"?
 
A friend of mine and I saw "Atonement" a while ago. She argued that, while the book is great, she thought the movie was equally good but in a different way because of its unique ability to handle time (naturally), which is a crucial part of the narrative. I haven't read the book yet (but will soon!), but the question may be not when is the movie better than the book but rather when is the adaptation surprisingly different (in a good way) from the book? That is, when does it tell us something different than the text? I think "The Hours" is a good example of that, too. And, it is definitely worth reading the short story of "Brokeback Mountain" and seeing the movie-- very different in interesting ways.
 
One example that springs to mind for me is Little Children by Tom Perrotta. I heard a lot of buzz about this novel when it was being adapted into a movie, by Perrotta himself along with the director Todd Field, I believe.

Usually I can appreciate a book and a movie for different reasons, but this was truly an instance of when I really didn't like the book but was engaged by the film. A little trimming of sub-plots that hadn't engaged me, a tweak of a major plotline, some fine characterizations by the actors, and voila, an engaging film! This was really a case where I felt the author had improved upon their work for the screenplay.
 
This kind of comparison is less apples and oranges, in most cases, than raisins and watermelons, or, maybe closer, bluejays and bobcats--because inert black marks on paper are so qualitatively and experientially different from visual images in motion. Still, the question of whether one *enjoyed* the book or the movie more is perfectly sensible, so long as the one bears a reasonable narrative resemblance to the other. Of course, no one could ever have cinematically reproduced the sheer brilliance and pace of Daniel Menaker's novel "The Treatment," but the movie version did a pretty good job. (Seriously, I admired and appreciated many things about the film version of my own book but never felt very close to it. It was strange--almost an out-of-body experience--to see the movie, whose plot differed quite a bit from the book's. But most sophisticated readers/moviegoers forgive such liberties so long as the results are more worthy than cheesy.)
"Atonement": like Mr. Goodwood's friend above, I found it in some ways better than the book, especially in its chronological clarity. Should have won Best Picture over "No Country"--another truly brilliant adaptation but without a thought in its head. Well, maybe half a thought--about the endurance and inevitability of evil. "The Devil Wears Prada" also seemed to me very good, in its way, as a movie and a book. I think the best modern novel adaptation to screen was "The English Patient," which produced, for me, the same powerful insights and emotions in both media. And the recent film version of Alice Munro's story "Away from Her" was very strong--maybe "better" than the written version.
Other possible b-t-bs: "Thank you for Smoking," "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly," "The War of the Worlds" (Spielberg). No question far better than the book: "The Last of the Mohicans"--a seriously underrated movie. Surprisingly good and somewhat underrated: "Catch-22." Two best TV adaptations of novels ever: "The Glittering Prizes" (much better than the book) and "Brideshead Revisited"--remarkably close to the novel in feeling and subtlety.
Movies and books are always fairly safe topics of conversation, though too many disagreements about books and movies--and books-into-movies--can place a real strain on friendship, I've founf.
 
yup!!! in a way television is better than books, as it is a faster means to information... but books can be detailed means as compared to television. so both are useful in a way!!!
 
it can be, because information in video format is faster to understand than book

but i think youtube is better then tv now, because we can get what we want to see excatly
 
Depeds on what u use TV for... some one did say u rember better what u see & hear vs what u read. Basically more sense u involve in learning the more u retain
 
It could be a way to learn things from TV but unfortunately it is not possible to completely to avoid or replace TV by books. If you take a look at the education programs offered through the TV they are meant for the smaller kids.. and their is a level till which things can be explained on TV. It could be a nice experience for one person to learn through Tv but at the same thing it could be a stress on another one to learn through TV as it could simply effects his or her eyes... hmm eyes sight.. problem.....

For boys if the host on the TV is a beautiful girl then....... we cannot study looking at the TV.. and same for the girls in case of some .. smarty.. speaking.. instead of the chapter more interest will be in the way the person is speaking and clothes.. so on..

So, i think its better to study from books rather than TV becuz we already have a internet to study .. if we want..
 
on a personal note i would say they r both sides of the same coin; tv makes understanding faster and the info on tv can easily be recalled, where as book require a good sense of reasoning n understanding.
to me if there was a way to provide every info needed for say management of marketing in videos will be so awesome; but hey... might be to costly . all thesame both books n tv play their own role to the society.
my vote; tv
 
I think Both help you in many ways.... television although makes you aware of whts happening around you....Books do come in handy when you travel or getting too bored....
 
Yeah,Television is better than books in this fast moving 21st century life. It is providing current up to date information to us with visual effect which is stored by our mind easily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top