Is reading passive or active?

[ladderandbucket]

Is reading a passive or active occupation?

Clearly reading is more engaging than sitting in front of the TV with a beer, but would you put it in the same category as playing a sport or learning a language?

Or is it just another way of killing dead time?

[Ashbe Maeur]

I definitely don't read to kill time.

I read because I enjoy it, as one would a sport - I suppose. And, with the right literature, you grow, you look at certain situations differently, and you get a nice vocabulary boost.

[PeterL]

Definitely, it is either active or passive. It depends on how one defines which.

[MSDGreen]

Definately not a waste of time, IMO. Whether it is active or passive would matter on the persons view of what being actively engaged is, or what passive would mean to someone. I believe I am active while reading, because I feel as if I am bettering myself with it. By that argument I can say that watching films can be an active occupation. Maybe, it would depend on the person and the material in question.

[kiki1982]

It is definitely active! You know the brain uses at least 40% of all energy your body uses! :D

Seriously, it depends on how you read: you only want to have read the text, or you look up everything about it.

At least it is, for me, more interesting than sport because sport does not satisfy me in my head where books can do that.

[Janine]

I think it's active. It stimulates your brain cells so it must be active, even if you are enjoying it. Those brain cells are getting exercise!

[Virgil]

I am a very active reader.

[Janine]

I am a very active reader.

In other words, your brain is physically fit? :lol:

[Lacra]

I am an active reader.

[kiki1982]

Me too. Every now and again I lift my finger to flip over the page. :lol:

[Brad Coelho]

The exercise moves up and down the active-passive pendulum, the more depth that the literature or cinema has, the more active the process and vice versa. More broadly speaking, level of engagement dictates how active or passive the activity.

[Virgil]

In other words, your brain is physically fit? :lol:

I don't know about the brain, but I'm reading while doing a handstand. Really builds the upper body. I owe it all to reading Lawrence. :p

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ptr0080l.jpg

[Scheherazade]

I don't know about the brain, but I'm reading while doing a handstand. Really builds the upper body. I owe it all to reading Lawrence. :pProbably the only way to read and enjoy Lawrence.

:p

[Virgil]

Probably the only way to read and enjoy Lawrence.

:p

:lol: :lol: That was a good return. :D

[L.M. The Third]

I think the answer to the original question depends on what we are reading, how we read, and our reaction to what we read. I would consider most popular fiction something that supports the habit of passive reading. We understand its words and ideas without much thought, and learn very little. On the other hand, some of the lit. we value here on litnet requires thought, research, evaluation. That's what makes it worth rereading, perhaps hundreds of years after it is written.

As far as I'm concerned, all our reading effects us. Sometimes it stirs us to life changing action, sometimes it simply makes us more passive and stupid, sometimes it introduces new ideas. The most important thing is if we are learning to actively evaluate all we read.

[Katy North]

There are several reasons to read.

One is to learn about yourself. As you read you relate to characters even more intimately than you would relate to other people (IMO). Because of this you can have thoughts you've never had before and learn something significant about yourself. This is active reading.

You can read to learn more about the past and the world around you. Fiction can teach about history, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and so on. Non-fiction can teach about all the rest. Reading is learning, and learning, in my opinion, is something that must be done actively.

I honestly think that, even if you're reading for enjoyment, you cannont just read to "kill time". Even if you're reading trashy romance novels you're learning more about how you would react to certain situations. It's hard for me to even consider that reading could be a passive act.

[Heathcliff]

I thinkage.

Depends what you are reading. An epic, suspense building, action. Eh, perhaps a bit active. Anything that gets your blood pumping.

Picture books, generally exciting.

Although if you were to go through... Say... The life story of someone who did nothing, you'll fall asleep before you open the front page. ;)

[Janine]

I don't know about the brain, but I'm reading while doing a handstand. Really builds the upper body. I owe it all to reading Lawrence. :p

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/ptr0080l.jpg

Right...sure thing....am I to really believe this? :lol:

[Heathcliff]

Virgil. You are absolutely hilarious. Is that passive for you?

Reading while doing situps is active.

[Akeldama]

I like to take books jogging and on bike rides. I would call that active reading, yes?

[mal4mac]

Is anything a passive occupation? If you do something passively you are not willing yourself to do anything, or exerting any energy. But even in deciding to watch the soapiest TV serial you exert some will power and energy of concentration.

Watching the TV might be more engaging than reading, for instance, if you are watching Hamlet v. reading Dan Brown.

[ladderandbucket]

Thanks for the replies.


Is anything a passive occupation? If you do something passively you are not willing yourself to do anything, or exerting any energy. But even in deciding to watch the soapiest TV serial you exert some will power and energy of concentration.


You are right, of course. All activities could be placed on a passive-active scale with sleeping at one end and, I don't know, rodeo riding at the other. I am just wondering where reading would come on the scale. I guess it depends on what you are reading and the way you go about it.

It seems people here get very involved in their reading, which is as I should have expected. I must confess, I am not a very active reader. I do try to read intelligently and feel I am a better person for it, but, to make an analogy, it feels more as though I am listening to a knowledgeable speaker than being part of a conversation. I don't see this is all that much different from watching a movie or looking at some art. It may be aesthetically pleasing or intellectually stimulating but it still seems distinctly passive.

I don't know why this is troubling me so much, lol. I expect my brain is telling me to go outside and get some fresh air :D

[kiki1982]

Go and read outside. :D

[Virgil]

Right...sure thing....am I to really believe this? :lol:
Of course. :p


Virgil. You are absolutely hilarious. Is that passive for you?


Thank you. Must be. :wink5:

[Katy North]

It seems people here get very involved in their reading, which is as I should have expected. I must confess, I am not a very active reader. I do try to read intelligently and feel I am a better person for it, but, to make an analogy, it feels more as though I am listening to a knowledgeable speaker than being part of a conversation. I don't see this is all that much different from watching a movie or looking at some art. It may be aesthetically pleasing or intellectually stimulating but it still seems distinctly passive.


You don't have to say anything to be part of a conversation. It makes it more fun, sometimes, but every speaker needs an audience, and an appreciative, learning audiance is the best kind.

[JBI]

Depends what you are reading - certain genres seem more engaging than others - for instance, bad theatre is more passive, whereas good poetry very much involves the reader/listener. The more interpretive capability a text has without loosing its own sense of meaning generally the more involved the reader is, and in that sense, if you read even something like Pound's "In the Station of the Metro" and try to understand it, it becomes an active form of activity, whereas if you just read it and make no effort, and expect the meaning to come to you, you a) aren't reading it, and b) are passive. In that sense, I don't see much of a difference between Dumas and King of Queens, only that Dumas physically requires more, in that one must actually read, as apposed to just listen and watch.

[mal4mac]

Activities like rodeo riding, are less *mentally* active than reading. When I ride dangerously quickly down a hill on my bike, as close as I get to rodeo riding, my reasoning faculty isn't as strongly engaged as it is when reading Schopenhauer. Though I guess the fear & reaction circuits are more active! So I don't think you can put sleeping, reading, and riding on a one dimensional scale.

When reading Shakespeare it feels more as though I am listening to a knowledgeable (wise, beautiful,...) speaker than being part of a conversation. Why should I speak when the bard is singing? You have to concentrate hard to understand Shakespeare, and make active use of a dictionary, so it is a challenging activity requiring a lot of mental activity.

When reading most philosophers I'm often actively angry and involved in a rather unhappy conversation. But I'm not less active than when reading Shakespeare, just the happy circuits are more active when I'm reading the bard, as is every other positive circuit (including the useful philosophy circuits...)

You can't read all the time or you will feel rather stale, and might (wrongly!) surmise that reading is the problem. It isn't. In reading, you are being as usefully mentally active as you can be. The cures for 'reading too much' include fresh air, a brisk walk, more sleep, listening to music... but careful not to do many of these activities or they will interfere with your reading :)

[Ashbe Maeur]

I like to take books jogging and on bike rides. I would call that active reading, yes?

That doesn't sound safe... unless you're speaking of stationary bike rides and running. :P

[kiki1982]

He probably audio books ;)