Are you better than the screen watchers? – Sails and Commas

Skip to content

My bookshelf<br>" data-large-file="https://sailsandcommas.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/img_9757.jpg?w=739" />

I have recently revisited a post by Michael Inzlicht, aptly named "You are not better than the screen watchers" (targeted towards readers) so I immediately decided to write a post that actually, I am.

I jest, I jest. If you spend any time with people who read a lot, whether on their own volition or because they were forced to as part of their study, you will soon find out that people who read a lot are not necessarily smarter than the general population. Try to have a nuanced conversation on Substack and in many cases self proclaimed readers and writers will show that reading alone does not teach anyone to extend their empathy towards a person who doesn’t completely share their opinion. Well-read people can be narrow-minded idiots just like the rest of us except sometimes they are more pretentious in the process. From time to time I see claims online that reading can completely change a life; usually the author means reading self help books. I am yet to see a person whose life was completely changed for the better as a result of a book. I have had a conversation once where the other person claimed that he devoured an inordinate amount of self help books to distill all their wisdom into one phrase: "If you think you can do something, you can!" I thought that conviction damaging and deranged and his consequent attempts to bend reality to his will only confirmed it (as far as I know he did not manage to do what he thought he could do).

While I have read my fair share of non-fiction books, including some self help, I have always been a big fiction reader which brought me pleasure, satisfaction and some frustration throughout my life. Michael asks in his post:

"I can’t help but wonder: why do we treat reading for pleasure as inherently virtuous? Why do we look down on those who prefer Netflix to novels?"

And I will attempt to respond.

Reading is harder than watching and requires effort.

This first point was already covered by Michael in his article. For people who are not used to reading much, reading will always feel harder than watching a screen. And to answer Michael’s question ("So, do we value reading because it’s harder than the alternatives?") I will say yes, we inherently see more value in something that is harder to do. That’s probably one of the reasons AI writing, even when somewhat tuned and stripped of the obvious signs of being written by AI, will never feel as valuable as something written by a good writer – it will always be perceived as low effort. That’s also why marathon runners, as much of a stereotype they became lately, will always command more respect than someone staring at the wall. A reader cannot be completely passive, they have to do at least some decoding and if they decide to use their phone while reading, the book will automatically be on hold and you have to consciously return to it to resume reading while a movie or a TV show will happily run along in the background.

There are levels of difficulty of course; many books are easy to read which dilutes this argument somewhat and of course it is easier for habitual readers like Michael; and yet even the silliest of books requires some degree of concentration that is not, strictly speaking, necessary while watching a screen. You can absolutely choose to watch something sophisticated and do it with the same quality of attention people read great books but let’s admit that not many people do it. I would also argue that

2. Books are more likely to encourage thinking

You can absolutely use reading as a means to numb or distract yourself (and I have done so many times in my life) but books force you to stay in their universe for extended periods and that in itself changes you a little. You can binge watch a show while barely paying attention but reading that way is actually harder: you will lose track of what is happening. A self help book can be more valuable than an article on the same topic purely due to the amount of time you spend with it. You can come across a clever saying that will make you chuckle momentarily; you will move on within minutes. A book forces you to stay with it.

Genre fiction often brings you into its world for longer periods, giving you access to more interiority of the characters. Literary fiction, especially modern one, is obsessed with not explaining anything so you will spend time trying to decipher what the author actually means when the character scratches their head or climbs the stairs (there’s probably some symbolism there). Again, some of these things are possible in movies, too, yet they are far more common in books. And while TV shows / movies are mostly forced to show interiority through outward action, books can give you direct access to the character’s thoughts. That leads me to the next point.

3....