TV, Books, and Brains: The Oompa Loompas vs. Marilla Cuthbert

Oompa Loompa doo-ba-dee-doo, I’ve got another blog here for you…

“Don’t watch so much TV,” your parents might have told you. “You’ll lower your IQ.”

Many studies confirm television can have a negative effect on child development. Kids become more violent; their IQ scores are generally lower; their reading skills diminish. I may love sitcoms, but even I have to admit it’s smart to turn off the tube and get outside once in a while. Spending time with a friend, for instance, is far more stimulating to me than a Friends rerun.

But if the little green-haired, orange-faced men from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory taught us anything, it’s that children aren’t perfect. They can have a slew of problems even before they hit their teens. So sang the Oompa Loompas, “If you’re not greedy, you will go far,” and you would “live in happiness” if you took their advice.

Assuming you’re familiar with the 1971 musical, you’ll remember the unfortunate demises of Augustus, Violet, Veruca, and Mike, the four bratty kids who found Golden Tickets along with Charlie. Augustus was too fat, Violet too rude, and Veruca too spoiled. And then there was Mike Teevee, who was so glued to his set that, according to his proud mother, he never once came to the table for dinner. After Mike got himself shrunk and was carried off in his mom's purse, the Oompa Loompas sang:

What do you get from a glut of TV?

A pain in the neck and an IQ of three

Why don’t you try simply reading a book?

Or could you just not bear to look?

You’ll get no commercials

These lyrics reflect a common idea in our society: Books are better for your brain than television is. Now, I’m no psychologist, so I can’t be the one to judge if the claim is absolute truth (my personal belief, supported by these two articles, is that it depends on the content and how you choose to respond to it). But it is widely accepted that novels inherently trump sitcoms. The attitude is if your child is a reader, do not discourage him because nothing bad can come of incessant reading. TV, on the other hand, strains their eyes and inhibits brain development.

However, if the characters in Anne of Green Gables are any indication, the fears we have today about TV-watching are the same fears people at the turn of the century once held about book-reading. Consider this excerpt:

“This is my little girl Diana,” said Mrs. Barry. “Diana, you might take Anne out into the garden and show her your flowers. It will be better for you than straining your eyes over that book. She reads entirely too much—” this to Marilla as the little girls went out—“and I can't prevent her, for her father aids and abets her. She's always poring over a book. I'm glad she has the prospect of a playmate— perhaps it will take her more out-of-doors.”

Mrs. Barry didn’t want her daughter straining her eyes over a novel, and preferred that she go outside and play with a friend. Here is another example, spoken after Anne announced she had started a writing club:

“I think this story-writing business is the foolishest yet,” scoffed Marilla. “You'll get a pack of nonsense into your heads and waste time that should be put on your lessons. Reading stories is bad enough but writing them is worse.”

Thus, Marilla disliked Anne’s reading because it filled her head with “nonsense,” as did creative writing, apparently. To Marilla, fiction had no educational value, and Anne’s time was better spent on schoolwork where she would really be learning something. Books, it might be said, inhibited her brain development.

Isn’t that interesting? These days we tell kids, “Turn off the TV and go read.” But back in 1908, parents were saying, “Put down the book and go play,” or “go study.” What we think of as a stimulating activity today, back then was a waste of time.

But if we had to choose between them, are books better than TV, inherently?

Sorry, I don't have the answer, and I'm not sure it's even a testable question.

But what I do believe is that whether you're reading a novel, watching a sitcom, riding a bike, or talking to a friend, in many ways the constructiveness of the activity is up to you. It can be a waste of time, or it can be beneficial to your growth. It's your call.

That's what I think, anyway, and I certainly invite dissenting opinions.

What do you think?

Are We God's Soap Opera?

Have you ever considered deism?

If not, let me boil it down for you. It’s the idea that God created the world, then kicked his feet up on the coffee table and left it alone. His work is done; now he watches us like a TV show, silently, never intervening to change the storyline.

He’s a couch potato.

Sure, there’s a little more to deism than that, but those are the implications. God doesn’t get involved; he just watches.

What kind of a God is that? If the ups and downs of our lives can’t motivate him to interact with us, he must find us terribly boring. Think about fans of real TV shows. Think about how engrossed we get in the stories, the characters, the world they live in. What Gilmore Girls fan wouldn’t love to vacation in Stars Hollow? What LOST fan doesn’t wish they could go exploring on that treasure-filled island? If we could step through the screen and walk around inside their universe, we would. In a heartbeat.

And then there’s unscripted shows. Shows like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars. Their fans are thrilled to get involved because they know their votes make a difference in how the plot unfolds. It’s like a choose-your-own-adventure that the whole country can participate in. And judging by these series’ consistent spots in the top 10, most of the country does join in.

What about God? He’s got even more of a reason to want to be involved in our lives, because he didn’t just flip to the Earth channel and discover our world—he made it himself. What artist is apathetic toward his art? What parent is apathetic toward his children?

What God is apathetic toward the world?