In a message dated 97-12-04 15:43:44 EST, nschaadt@TXCC.NET writes:
> Would it be overstating the obvious to say that it takes less time to watch
> a film than to read a book? Perhaps the popularity of such texts
> (including magazines--which reproduce faster than rabbits) is fed by time
> constraints.
Time constraints seem to be the popular explanation. I've been told numerous
times, "You read books? Gosh, I wish I had the time to read a book."
But it sometimes seems that the people who say this have pride in their
voices. It's as if they are saying that they are too busy with meaningful
activities to do something frivolous like read.
I believe that people generally find the time to do what they want to do. I
read books, but I don't watch much TV, and I very rarely watch TV sports.
Plenty of people in the US spend five or six hours on Sunday watching
(American) football. Even a fairly slow reader can read half of a good-sized
novel in that time.
Anny
AnnyMiddon@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:39 PDT