Media for distraction
I think a lot of people read books and watch television or movies for distraction, and I can’t really get my head around that. It’s not that my own perspective on such things is better than theirs; it’s just that I have a hard time understanding where they’re coming from. I get really angry when I watch a movie that’s just two hours of things blowing up, whereas I’m quite sure that that’s the reason why a lot of people go to see such movies; they like the explosions, and they like taking their minds off their cares for a couple hours. I can’t fault them for this, but I also don’t really know where they’re coming from.
I particularly can’t understand this perspective with books, which are like blood for me (except that they don’t deliver nutrients to my extremities). There are a lot of authors out there who produce books that are basically just a few hours of distraction. It just seems like a waste of paper. I read a book like Memoirs of a Geisha, and every time I turn the page I wonder, “Why am I reading this? What is this buying me that watching a soap opera right now wouldn’t?” And when a book can’t provide any clear benefits over a soap opera, I realize that I should be doing something else with my time. Others may get more value out of such things than I do, but for me it’s a dead-weight loss.
It’s the rare book that’s worth reading, and the rare song that’s worth listening to. I say this not to disparage the authors who fail to produce the Great American Novel, but to elevate those who succeed. The David Foster Wallaces, Arundhati Roys and Philip Roths of the world are doing something that very few people can do. But over the last 500 years, the English language has produced its share of masters. I don’t see the point in reading the rest. There’s just not enough time.