I had a conversation yesterday that dealt with the fact that when you put a bunch of (literary) academics in a room with each other, and perhaps some beer, they're (we're) much more likely to get into a heated conversation about movies or TV than about books. A couple of explanations were proffered, in ascending order of interest:
a) books are work, movies aren't;
b) we're more likely to have watched the same movies/TV shows recently than we are to have read the same books; which leads to
c) an important component of the viewing experience of visual media is our memory of having watched--where, when, how--and our misremembering of details of plot, character, etc. (with a nod to Stanley Cavell here). Watching a movie is always an event; it's Poe's ideal of the medium you consume in one sitting (Poe suggests 100 lines as the perfect length for a poem for this reason--more than that, your butt gets tired and your mind starts to wander). The amount of time you spend thinking about a movie can be much longer than the movie itself. Books, you can carry around with you, flip through the pages to find the part you don't quite remember. We're much less accustomed to relying on our memories of novels (poetry would be a different matter, I think, associated much more with a tradition of memorization).
Internets: what say you? Do you agree with the premise? What about TV shows, especially novelistic ones whose plot continues over many episodes/seasons (The Wire)?