• Vupware@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I’m 14 and this is so deep fr

    E: I agree though that when a book clicks it paints a picture far more vivid than a screen ever could.

    • Fizz@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      I used to get so mad when I’d see a book get made into a movie or picture book and it was always a very realistic interpretations of the world and in my head it was far more extreme and colorful. I remember seeing the drawings for ‘a far away tree’ and thinking wtf it’s not just a regular tree it’s supposed to be magical.

  • HikingVet@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    2 months ago

    Dunno man. TV just seems like plays in the magic frame.

    Also things you watch spark the imagination if it’s a good piece of art

    • ddplf@szmer.info
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ah, a relic of the late stage of this meme format where hardly anyone remembered what the “POV” stands for.

      Good thing it effectively died soon after

    • NotSteve_@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ll admit I didn’t know what the shadow from the TV was until I read the comments. I went back to change my downvote to an upvote

    • mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Its actually so much funnier watching people compare the “blandness” of the TV to the book lmao.

  • Glytch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    “How I spend my leisure time is superior to how you spend your leisure time.”

    As though trash books and thought-provoking television don’t exist.

    Edit: oh wait… I see the actual joke. Thought-provoking television indeed.

      • Glytch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        My original point is that either can engage the imagination, but that point is overshadowed by the jar.

      • the_grass_trainer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Both kinda do though because at first i couldn’t imagine what the boy is watching, but after i saw that video for myself not a day goes by without imagining it.

        • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          Well that’s definitely a whole other level to the image. Kinda gross, kinda inspiring. I think I hate-love it now.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    2 months ago

    Tv can lead to imagination and books can leave no lasting impression.

    However in recent years I’ve taken more to books because video programmes seem to be getting dumber.

  • ExLisperA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    Missing another kid farther to the left watching Andrew Tate on his phone.

    • cheers_queers@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      having synesthesia, descriptive text has a whole other layer i cant fully explain. words are pretty. lol

      • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        That’s the thing where your brain overlaps sensory information with areas for processing of other senses, no?

        • cheers_queers@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          yes! the strongest overlap i have is music and colors/patterns. theres some cool synesthesia art people have made that depict it pretty well. this artist for example!

    • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      As someone without aphantasia, I don’t always quite get it either. Reading is often a last resort medium for me, but it does have it’s place. Plain text primarily engages my narrative imagination (where is the story going) and only a little bit of visual imagination (since it’s kind of hard to convey certain things like body language in text without being very boring), while for example a video might invoke narrative, visual, and auditory imagination. Video games are even better to me, as they engage narrative, visual, auditory, and decision making imagination. It’s about stimulation to me, the more coherent the better, and books just don’t seem to stimulate enough for my imagination to kick off to where it’s enjoyable to read.

    • marzhall@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      As a person with aphantasia, I’ve enjoyed it since I was a child. But my parents read to me every night before bed for a long time, and so my hunch is that I latched onto it because of that positive association.

      • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        For me. Reading something myself vs. Having someone read to me are completely different.

        I enjoy audio books way more than reading myself because it doesn’t pull as much of my focus.

        When I read, I have to read, understand, process.

        When I hear it, it’s just understand and process.

        It would be the equivalent of having to read subtitles for an in person conversation rather than hearing their voice.

        I can listen and process. I cannot process as well while reading because I’m focused on processing words

    • owsei@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      For me I rarely actively try to visualize what’s going on. Perhaps you haven’t found something that really sparks your interest in reading, I’ve only started reading a couple of years back.

      Although, of course, I may be completely wrong and visualizing is a big part of reading that I simply haven’t realized

      • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        From what I understand is that people can read without subvocalizing because their brain can just simply pick up the meaning of groups of words together.

        I cannot read without subvocalizing. Like I can skim and read only words that stand out to me and I’d get the gist of it. But to full comprehend everything I’d basically have to subvocalize every word.

        To me there’s no difference between reading a chemistry text book or a romance novel. Just words I have to read to comprehend.

        I’m sure I’d enjoy reading some things more than others. Like a story with a compelling plot and not a lot of visual word fluff.

        But reading pages and pages of words just so I can know what happens next in the story when a simple sentence would suffice doesn’t sound enjoyable to me.

        Kind of like how instead of reading the book you could read the cliff notes. At best I’m only going to remember the cliff note facts after reading the book. “How the author tells the story” is lost on me because I’d rather them just get to the point. All the word fluff of setting up a scene are just facts that I’m not going to commit to memory.

  • ekZepp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    For a second my ingenuous mind suggest me he was watching soccer. Then internet clicked in.