Re: TV
catcher@memphisonline.com
Thu, 18 Sep 1997 18:49:24 -0500
Well there has been some good tv on . Take Northern Exposure for
example. I can still see Chris running around trying to find something
to fling in his giant catapult he constucted, after deciding against his
original choice, a live cow. When the catapult finally did fling a
piano, the expressions on the towns peoples faces as they watched it fly
through the air, were ones of people seeing something beautiful.
It reminded me of the end of " The Catcher in the Rye " when Holden and
his red hunting hat are getting drenched watching Phoebe go round and
round the carrousel. He saw something beautiful. Something so nice he
didnt care if he got wet. He just wished we could've of been there.
Paul
>
> i totally agree. my little brother is 10 years old. the first thing he does
> when he gets home from school is plop infront of the tv. and he's quite
> content to waste the afternoon that way. he's suppost to read for 20 minutes
> a day as a school assignment. my parents have to force him to read b/c he is
> just not interested. tv is much more entertaining and appealing to him.
> don't ask me to explain why, because i have no idea. i for one prefer a book.
>
> jenn
>
> >Well, that's the wrong approach, because violence is not the only reason
> >to be worried about television exposure to children. A greater concern to
> >me is the way it engenders passivity in children (or anyone who's watched
> >too much). Not all television does, but a lot of children's television
> >does. And adult television too. You don't have to think too much or too
> >hard, you don't have too reach out to it, decipher it, or seek levels of
> >meaning in it; it's easy and fast and it comes to you nice and quick and
> >then its gone.
> >
> >So who needs literature? Who needs Salinger? Can't figure out those damned
> >stories anyway. I'll just sit her and watch FOX all night. No, TV is
> >great for kids.
> >
> >RickL
> >
> >
> >