By-Two Kaapi in an oilfield

JP points out an article in the New Yorker. Let me quote a line or two:

It can be amusing to read a magazine whose principles you despise, but it is almost unbearable to watch such a television show. And so, in a culture of secondary orality, we may be less likely to spend time with ideas we disagree with.

This reminds me of one of those fascinating conversations I've had with a very close friend of mine. My friend has always preferred books to movies. And that was our point of discussion. Let's say, there's a brutally violent/gruesome scene to be described. Say pyschopathic murder or rape or an orgy. Would you rather read it in a book or watch it in a movie?

It is invariably true that a sensitive and observant individual would prefer reading about it than watching it on TV. A picture or a streaming media would leave a deeper impression. On the other hand, one could argue that a picture is a picture. Be it the one shown on TV or the one that your mind conjures as one reads.

I'm inclined to agree with the former. Or rather, a balance of both. Movies are good, but some are best not seen.

JP puts it best when he says:

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but an endless diet of pictures alone creates modern cavemen.