September 18, 2026
On occasion I run into a particularly nihilistic argument that all forms of media consumption are equivalent. While I do have a specific diatribe against short form video, I would first like to offer an affirmative argument in favor of the written word, particularly in the form of books. They are commonplace now, but we forget their relatively recent proliferation via the printing press.
A person may only speak for so long. While I trust oral accounts highly, they do suffer from inevitable change such that small details may blend together over time; the written word allowed us to tie stories and facts in amber. Furthermore, we may go back to the same source repeatedly as to check its accuracy and learn it better. The same is not true when simply listening to a lecture. Furthermore, the act of reading requires a longer attention span than other acts. As this exists as a transferable skill (particularly in the acts of creation) this is beneficial in itself. If I were more easily distractible, my output would be far less. Attention is also exercised well in conversation, both in being able to attend to a topic better and in future memories of recall. Books act as an exercise for these skills.
The above does not imply that all books are created equal. The prose in one may require a closer reading than that of another; the act of interpretation varies between books such that it is impossible to pretend that the average BookTok book is similar to classical literature. This skill too informs the reader in daily life; much of deep conversation requires an understanding of implications of the spoken word. Books may exercise this skill by being able to take in many more examples of the nuances of interaction. And as much conversation involves the discussion of past experiences, books may expand one’s vocabulary for doing so such that the speaker’s descriptions become that much more enthralling. Too, in daily life, books provide a material benefit.
This also differs from web content. The act of scrolling is suited well for scanning a page, picking up facts here and there as if one were taking a brisk survey of a field, but different from the forager which takes a closer look at the earth around them. This need not be the case - there are online readers who exercise diligence - but the act of turning pages in the real world places a physical limitation on analysis that the digital does not. Here it is not that the physical is always better, but it serves a different purpose than other forms of consumption.
The lack of speed and attention to fidelity are reading physical books’ greatest assets. In considering the information we choose to take in, the medium matters as does the message.