Advantages of reading novels.

escapism

it's fun

increases your vocabulary

learn new things (some novels)

Not to mention you've already had a thread like this, in which most people made their opinions about reading known. That there is no good reason not to read.

Novels can transport you to other places and other times. But more importantly, they can provide you with insight into other people. Feelings. Motivation. Perception.

Novels do far more than tell a story. In fact, the story is of relatively little importance to me. It's the characters, the language, the emotions that are evoked.

The comparison between watching a long tv show and reading a novel is, to me, a strange and baffling one.

Yes - the advantage of novels - and I adore good ones - is that they are illuminating the condition of humans other than oneself - allowing us into other lives and experiences - and the beauty of their writing - or the sheer delight, excitement, or interest of their narratives.

I think reading good novels is a broadening, enriching and delightful thing to do.

The most sophisticated people I know are either widely read or widely travelled--or both.

The most empathetic people I know turn out either to have had hard lives or to be great readers.

Some novels allow you to gain experience in various subjects without having to live through them.

Think about the "lessons" from nursery stories:

Little Red Riding Hood: Don't talk to strangers.

The Three Little Pigs: Build in brick.

The Three Billy Goats Gruff: Let grownups handle big problems.

I'm not too crazy about Cinderella or Sleeping Beauty waiting for their princes instead of solving their own problems.

Rapunzel and Rumplestiltskin and The Yellow Rose are all powerful voices for honesty.

Its also something you can do by fire or candlelight late into the evening when the power is out and the batteries in the game boy are dead.

It can give you perspective. Reading will remain a lifelong passion for me. It is never too late to start for anyone.

I was going to come in with the empathy angle that's already been mentioned. I thought of starting a thread in politics about this, since my anecdotal observation of politics combatants is that those who mention their love of reading fiction in other contexts are also those who are most nimble with imagining various perspectives/ approaches to a political question.

Dlowan and Roberta have already said almost all I was going to say. Let me add this: if I had no computer, I would miss it. If I had no books to read, I would go stark raving crazy. I'd be forced to write a novel.

Lol!!!! Agreed....

Andy, You're right. When push comes to shove, I could do without almost anything but books.

It seems to me that the main advantage of a novel over a film (say) for " telling a story" is that the reader is in control of the pace. This means there is time to assimilate and re-evaluate the narrative in terms of all sorts of personal experiences and thereby enrich them.

A second advantage is that prose lends itself to various unique structural and stylistic art forms as in poetry. For example, the non-linear structure of Fowles "The Magus" or Thomas's "White Hotel" significantly transcend mere "story telling".

Fresco, IMO, the pace is the least of it. The reader creates the the "look" and the "sound." Our mind's eye is an essential element. We each "create" something unique. With a movie, we all see and hear the same thing.

We often hear people say after seeing a movie adapted from a book that the book was better. The book was ours. The movie belonged to the director. In some respects, the movie takes something away from what we read. It imposes uniformity, where great diversity existed before.

A book lives inside of us. A movie exists on the screen.

Sorry, I'm getting carried away.

Oh - please - keep it up!

I agree with the "unique creation" but I would argue that this is partially true for a movie. Essentially all perception is to some extent "active", but the activity is much less constrained in prose perception.

(Major philosophical problems surround the words "same" "perception" and even "we" to the extent that "we all see the same thing" could be vacuous)

Good point - AND it varies from book to book, too, very much - no?

Dlowan

.....and on re-reading the same book by the "same" person !