Reading is generally considered a good hobby. Watching TV, on the other hand, is supposed to be a waste of time. Ok, who am I kidding with this third person narration? I've been guilty of making this distinction myself. But now that I think of it, what is the basis?
Is it because TV has “objectionable content”? But then, so do books. Remember, books don't go through a censorship process, are more easily accessible and are more “private” compared TV viewing. So books are guiltier than TV of corrupting minds with such content.
Is it because TV is not good for one's eyesight? But books don't score very well on that count either (especially if you are like me – reading in moving vehicles, in less-then-ideal lighting conditions … and .. you get the point).
Is it because TV “distracts” people, particularly children? Books do too, don't they? I remember reading Alfred Hitchcock's “Three Investigators” series even during exam season in my pre-high school days.
So, why the prejudice against TV?
I have come to the conclusion that TV can be not only an entertainer, it can also be a great quencher of the thirst for knowledge. It can be as effective a companion for the inquisitive soul as books. It is all a matter of what one chooses to watch; just as it is a matter of what one opts to read.
My fav Go-to book during exams used to be Harry potter. My bro still does it, so i hide all of them during his exams. but then he goes to Dan Brown... so i know wht u're saying! :)
Wait .. Harry Potter? During exams? Whoa! I used to read 3 investigators or Hardy Boys because they were .. "small" books - 2 hour reads. But HP? :D
I have read all sorts of books during exams. Even now I need to read else I dont get sleep. My all time fav is Sherlock Holmes. I prefer reading to TV any time.