Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Kill Your TV

I spent last evening as I spend nearly every evening before retiring, reading a book and communing with the dogs and cats. Click has become much saucier over the past couple of weeks, not spending all her time hiding in the loft and praying Butch doesn't come bother her. Yesterday evening she was draped over my arm, doing her level best to keep me from concentrating on my book when I could be doing more important things like paying attention to her. Magnus had gone into his nightly coma from which he would not emerge for more than twelve hours. Fritz and Ghost were keeping an eye on the windows for me, and Butch was nowhere to be seen.

All about us it was peaceful, and except that some might argue I'd have used my time more profitably with a non-fiction book there was nothing the least bit unhealthy in any part of the mix. I was thinking about that this sunrise, while making honey butter and planning my day. I grew up addicted to television, as I suppose many people in my generation did. When I was old enough to start making my own decisions I scheduled many and many an evening and weekend around the TV Guide. If I could have back all the hours I wasted on that idiot box, I'd probably be in my thirties now.

I cut back to movies and a few specific cable channels maybe ten years ago, but still spent the majority of my slack time in front of the box. The fare may have been a bit less unwholesome, but it was still time pissed away never to return. A few years ago I kicked the whole thing loose. Now I've got a DVD player and a collection of movies that, to be truthful, I rarely watch.

To say the very least this excision has not harmed me in any smallest way. I've a lot more time on my hands now and I find useful and interesting ways to fill it. It occurred to me just yesterday afternoon, in answer to an imagined question from an imaginary visitor, that I am never bored. I have no regular job, no visitors, no television, a limited supply of books - none of the things most people use to fill their time. And I...am...never...bored. Oh, sometimes I get tired of some particular activity. Then I go off and perform some other activity. There's no shortage of things to do, and I'm not just talking about dreary chores. There's all sorts of little construction projects (and one big one), there's canyons to be walked ... I've hiked these hills for years now, and they still surprise me around damned near every corner.

My own thoughts even fail to bore me. I remember once being almost terrified at the thought of being left with nothing whatever to do, because then I couldn't be distracted from my own thoughts, my own self. Well, with the exception of the boys my own self is the only company I've kept for the past eight months, and you know what? I'm not as bad as all that.

I wonder how many people spend all their disposable time on distraction. I wonder how many of them ever stop and ask themselves, distraction from what? What are we running from, that we need to bury our head in a box and blot out the world around us? If the world around us is that unbearable, the time has clearly come to either change it or move somewhere else. But that's not what we're trained to do. That's not what the TV has trained us to do. "I can't right now, Honey. Friends is on." Yeah - if we've ever heard or spoken a similar line, it should be a clear sign to us that there's a real problem.

Step one toward a more fulfilling and purposeful life, I think: Kill Your TV.

9 comments:

PintofStout said...

I repeatedly hear comments about the evils of television. In many cases I agree with the sentiments. But isn't the addiction to the tube that is the problem? When this passing activity becomes primary over other, perhaps more valuable, pursuits, is this when it becomes a problem? Is this any different than browsing the web, reading books, or even writing a blog?

Writing, I think, may fall into a different category simply because it is not a passive activity. But so far as non-productive passive activities go, I see very little difference between reading, watching movies, browsing the web, and watching television. The biggest differences are only content (programming, etc) and the compulsion-inducing potential of the medium (varies by personality).

If anything - regardless of what it is - dominates a person's time and decisions, then perhaps it is addiction, in general, that is the problem, whether that addiction is alcohol, mindless distraction, or even intelligent distraction.

Joel said...

It'll vary from person to person, I'd imagine. I've nothing against television as such, any more than against fictional books. Not in general.

And it's true that a person can damage himself through an unhealthy dependence on anything; food in moderation is essential for life, but too much will wreck your health no matter what you eat. From romance novels to heroin, anything can be healthful - or at least neutral - in moderation. Anything can hurt you in excess.

Television always struck me as a special case, though. As far as content goes, there's no there there. With the possible exception of an educational channel or two - and I question the value of a lot of that - it's all junk. It can only be indulged in passively; hell, on a modern television you can't even get up and change the channel.

Granted that a lot of what's on the internet falls into pretty much the same category, and I've seen people veg in front of a computer just as much as in front of a TV. I've done it myself. But at least with a computer there's a choice. There is content that's worth reading, worth responding to, and worth adding to.

Sure, it's all a choice. Addictive behavior is pretty much always bad for you, no matter what you're addicted to. What makes TV a special case is that it offers nothing beneficial at all, even in moderation. The best you can say is that some of it won't actually hurt you.

PintofStout said...

What makes TV a special case is that it offers nothing beneficial at all, even in moderation.

I don't see how you can judge what someone else deems beneficial in regards to television and still give romance novels a pass. The programming on television is the same deal. Some people will garner more from it than others, but your definitive statements smack of hypocrisy and prejudice against a single information medium. I don't really have a problem with this, since all value is subjective anyway, but I just thought I'd share my observation about this common prejudice. I suspect it speaks more about the holder than it does about the medium.

After all that, I do need to kill my television, or at least put it in its place!

Anonymous said...

Joel Simon...long-lost brother of Edward Abbey? Desert - check! Beardo - check! Gun - check! TV - check! :)

http://www.explorepahistory.com/displayimage.php?imgId=6628

Joel said...

:-)

What's wrong with that?

Anonymous said...

I liked Ed Abbey. Watch tv if you want. IMO it's a passive media that doesn't require engagement or thought. I ought to know I spent time in front of it with a glass of JD. But when I tried to read I couldn't. But I could watch tv. And when I didn't have the JD my attention span was not what it was.
I also found that even if I only watched bits of the news parasites, which I did (not the networks)some of that garbage would creep in. It is a wasteland fit only for servants and slaves.

Anonymous said...

This is so darn funny to me Joel, of all the things that you have blogged about, your unconventional lifestyle, your politics or lack of etc and the item that gets the most comments is the digity darn TV? Odd that isn't it?

Joel said...

Odd that isn't it?

:-)

Not really. TV is an important part of life for probably the majority of people in this country. It was for me. I didn't know I was going to be stepping on a toe or two with that post, but it's just an opinion. Others are entitled to theirs as well. "Hypocrisy" is a little strong: It's only an opinion, and they're like arseholes. Everybody's got one. But whatever. That's one of the things that makes life entertaining.

PintofStout said...

You're right Joel, "hypocrisy" may have been a little strong. How about cognitive dissonance?

So far as I can tell, the worst evil of television (over other mediums) seems to be the distribution and availability of it in combination with the limited sources of content, namely a precious few corporations. The same cannot be said of the internet and, to a limited degree, mainstream publishing.

I haven't been commenting simply to defend the honor of the boob tube, in fact I could care less about it. I was simply observing the self-righteous and prejudicial attitude toward one form of distraction over other equally distracting mediums, most of which I partake of pretty regularly (not exactly romance novels, but lots of Abbey :) ).