In defense of books

This one's for Ben. Why read the book when you can watch the movie?

The usual response when one has seen a movie based on a book is, "The book was better." I do not think this is coincidence. Authors of books are not, like movie-makers, restricted by time and audience to compress complex plots and thoughts into a relatively short time. The author of a novel can fully develop and provide direct access to thoughts, emotions, and arguments of the characters. In a way, their thoughts become your thoughts for a time, and you must confront or
react to what you read internally. Because you are exposed to greater psychological depth in books, you have a greater chance to become deeper yourself. Relatedly, reading provides more mental exercise. Not only must you visualize what takes place yourself, and therefore
exercise the imagination, but to read well, everything must actively run through your mind. And
books give you the opportunity to take advantage of that experience, because books place you in control. You are given time to question, to consider, to go back and to reflect. Movies must convert and condense everything into faster-paced words and actions that often do not have the penetrating power of words on the page. Watching a movie you are pushed along with the action. It takes less time and less concentration; it is less conducive to rigorous thought. Ultimately, I think, that is the issue. You simply think more and better when reading.

P.S. I love movies. Great movies do make you think (though often after the fact) and can entertain in ways that books often can't. Images provide emotional immediacy, and are often worth a thousand words, as the saying goes. But I simply disagree that movies can provide everything that books can, or that movies can replace books without losing something vital.