Books require focus and self-control. Non-fiction are obviously not fantasy, but even much of fiction is soundly rooted in reality or science (fiction).
"This course of reading exacted no effort from the mind, and the more I indulged in it the more averse I became to the drudgery of business, and the more incapable of that accurate thinking and careful analysis required in the practice of the law."
"My fondness for romance, now become my ruling passion, not only impaired my powers of reasoning and investigation, but destroyed the balance of my mind by giving an undue preponderance to the imagination. The unnatural activity of that faculty, by presenting false and exaggerated views of persons and events, was frequently a serious disadvantage to me in my profession. Often when I was wrought into a fever of excitement by an ideal state of facts, the reality has so differed from my preconceived hypothesis, as to produce a sudden syncope of all my faculties."
"The excitement of novel reading is akin to intoxication. When it subsides, it leaves the mind collapsed and imbecile, without the capacity or the inclination for active exertion."
Wow, awesome find. People have been worried about this problem forever it seems, not just in our modern world. But look how far we've fallen. If he thought novels were bad, I can't imagine what he'd think of our amusements and distractions today.
He wrote that in 1839, just 12 years before Moby Dick was published. Wonder what he thought of that fiction book, generally considered to be one of, if not the, best English language novels written.
I dispute this statement. For one, more people alive now can read than could read back then.
Also, we no longer engage in the sport of bear-baiting.
> Wonder what he thought of that fiction book [Moby Dick], generally considered to be one of, if not the, best English language novels written.
He likely thought it was crap, because the British reviewers thought it was crap, because they got a mutilated copy to review. It wasn't until Melville was dead that the book actually got a fair shake.
What I meant is that I'm pretty sure that reading even a salacious fiction book today is better for your mind than most movies. Active vs passive engagement, etc.
No. People knew novels were degrading and debilitating long before TV even existed:
http://www.merrycoz.org/books/CONFESSN.HTM
"This course of reading exacted no effort from the mind, and the more I indulged in it the more averse I became to the drudgery of business, and the more incapable of that accurate thinking and careful analysis required in the practice of the law."
"My fondness for romance, now become my ruling passion, not only impaired my powers of reasoning and investigation, but destroyed the balance of my mind by giving an undue preponderance to the imagination. The unnatural activity of that faculty, by presenting false and exaggerated views of persons and events, was frequently a serious disadvantage to me in my profession. Often when I was wrought into a fever of excitement by an ideal state of facts, the reality has so differed from my preconceived hypothesis, as to produce a sudden syncope of all my faculties."
"The excitement of novel reading is akin to intoxication. When it subsides, it leaves the mind collapsed and imbecile, without the capacity or the inclination for active exertion."