Liel Liebovitz, on Tablet Magazine this week, argues that TV is for Dummies.
Photo of Sanyo TV courtesy of Kevin Simpson via Flickr
Like most titles, this one exaggerates Mr. Liebovitz statement: that even if TV has achieved more creative sophistication than ever before, it still fails to reach the majesty of the written word (or something to that effect). In his mind, books are still king. He bases his argument, as I understand it, on the inability of a visual art form to capture the interior life of characters, using a passage written by Henry James as evidence. In the first hour online, Mr. Liebovitz has received 19 comments on his article.
Well, I haven’t had a TV set in my home since 2000, so I can’t really attest to the increase quality of television programming in the last few years. But Mr. Liebovitz’s viewpoint has me thinking about something I read earlier this week: how writing differs from visual storytelling (movies and television) primarily because of its ability to capture what is going on inside character’s heads.
While I certainly don’t promote watching television (because it has so many ill effects on viewers whereas books increase a reader’s health), I wonder if the very characteristic that Mr. Liebovitz identifies as making books superior is what really makes comparing TV and literature like comparing apples to oranges. We’re talking about two different media. Is dance better than literature? Or television better than music?
Look, like Liel Liebovitz, I love to get into a main character’s head. But isn’t that just a preference?
If you’re looking for reasons to disdain TV, there are plenty: it negatively affects children’s school performance, contributes to the obesity epidemic, and stimulates an unhealthy inability to distinguish between wants and needs (due to commercials, for example). I just don’t necessarily buy Mr. Liebovitz’s argument.
How do you feel about the TV vs. books debate?
