Why is it that someone who only watches movies or TV is often seen as lazy or unproductive, while someone who exclusively reads fiction is praised as more sophisticated or intelligent? Isn’t it essentially the same activity—engaging with stories—especially if the TV watcher uses subtitles? Of course, I understand that reading nonfiction, like self-help, history, or philosophy, is clearly more productive because it involves personal growth and gaining knowledge, but why the difference in perception when it comes to fiction?
submitted by /u/Fuegofergo
[link] [comments]
r/NoStupidQuestions Why is it that someone who only watches movies or TV is often seen as lazy or unproductive, while someone who exclusively reads fiction is praised as more sophisticated or intelligent? Isn’t it essentially the same activity—engaging with stories—especially if the TV watcher uses subtitles? Of course, I understand that reading nonfiction, like self-help, history, or philosophy, is clearly more productive because it involves personal growth and gaining knowledge, but why the difference in perception when it comes to fiction? submitted by /u/Fuegofergo [link] [comments]
Why is it that someone who only watches movies or TV is often seen as lazy or unproductive, while someone who exclusively reads fiction is praised as more sophisticated or intelligent? Isn’t it essentially the same activity—engaging with stories—especially if the TV watcher uses subtitles? Of course, I understand that reading nonfiction, like self-help, history, or philosophy, is clearly more productive because it involves personal growth and gaining knowledge, but why the difference in perception when it comes to fiction?
submitted by /u/Fuegofergo
[link] [comments]