# data[].attributes.body
I enjoyed reading about some of my favorite tv shows and what makes them so special.  I also realized that I don't really watch movies that often.  Lastly, I thought about reading and how I should make more of an effort to read more books for pleasure - tv shows give us more of an immediate response and take less effort....but the idea of engaging with a good book is a far more rewarding experience.  I have plenty of books I've been meaning to get to and maybe now is the time!

# data[].attributes.body
After reading about tv and movies I wanted to read about they compare to reading traditional books.  This article offers many interesting ideas about viewing tv comapred to reading books.  One study showed that watching tv in young kids lowered their verbal reasoning skills.  In another study college students were aksed to read a novel and later it showed they had an increase in brain connectivity.  I liked how the author also gave suggestions on how to break tv habits and to read more engaging, impactful books.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This post may contain affiliate links, meaning I get a get a commission if you decide to make a purchase through my links, at no cost to you. Please see my disclosure for more info.

There's a perception that books are good, while TV is bad. Spend a day curled up with a book and you're an intellectual, but spend a day watching your favorite show and you become a couch potato.

Similar to how candy gives you cavities and sun tanning is bad for our skin, it's common knowledge that reading books is good for you. It increases your knowledge and makes you think. Watching television on the other hand kills off brain cells.

But why is that? Why can't watching TV be just as educational as reading a book? For example, does watching the show Game of Thrones lower your intelligence, while reading the books does the exact opposite?

After all, there are all sorts of books. Some good, some poorly written. The same applies to shows as well. Is the situation as simple as categorizing books as good and TV as bad?

What Science Says About Books and Television

In 2013, a study was performed at Tohoku University in Japan. A team led by Hiraku Takeuchi examined the effects of television on the brains of 276 children, along with amount of time spent watching TV and its long-term effects.

Researcher Takeuchi found that the more TV the kids watched, parts of their brain associated with higher arousal and aggression levels became thicker. The frontal lobe also thickened, which is known to lower verbal reasoning ability.

The more hours of television the kids watched, the lower their verbal test results became. These negative effects in the brain happened regardless of the child's age, gender, and economic background.

In the same year, a study was done on how reading a novel affected the brain. Gregory Burns and his colleagues at Emory University wanted to see the before and after effects of reading based on fMRI readings.

College students were asked to read Pompeii by Robert Harriss, a thriller based on the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in Italy. The book was chosen due to its strong narration and a dramatic plot based on true events.

After reading the novel, the students had increased connectivity in parts of the brain that were related to language. There was also increased activity in the sensory motor region of the brain, suggesting that readers experienced similar sensations to the characters in the book.

There are also long-term effects from reading books. Reading keeps your mind alert and delays cognitive decline in elders. Research even found that Alzheimer's is 2.5 times less likely to appear in elderly people who read regularly, while TV was presented as a risk factor.

Six minutes of reading can reduce stress levels by 68 percent, according to researchers at the University of Sussex. Reading beat out other relaxing activities, including listening to music (61 percent), drinking tea or coffee (54 percent), and taking a walk (42 percent).

Why These Activities Have Opposite Effects on Us

So far, reading's looking pretty good compared to television. We can see that it calms the nerves, increases language and reasoning, and can even keep you mentally alert as you age. TV, on the other hand, has the opposite effect.

But we still haven't gotten to why that's the case.

Let's look first at a study on how preschoolers and toddlers interact with their mothers during TV viewing versus reading a book.

The results found that watching TV resulted in lower amounts and quality of communication between the mother and child. During an educational TV program, mothers made few comments to their children, and if they did, it was unrelated to what their children said.

On the other hand, reading books together increased the amount and level of communication. Mothers were more likely to ask their child questions, respond to their child's statements and questions, and explain concepts in greater detail.

Beyond mothers and their children, it's not just an issue of the quality of the TV program or the book. It seems that the nature of the activities themselves is what's causing the differences.

Television is designed to be passive. After switching to the show you like, you can just sit back and watch everything unfold without effort on your part. You're less likely to pause to reflect on what's happening.

TV also presents ideas and characters on a surface level. Shows don't have the luxury of describing or explaining situations in great detail, since they need to keep viewers visually entertained. TV programs are fast-paced in order to keep people from switching.

Books, on the other hand, are a more proactive form of entertainment and learning. The reader has to concentrate on what's being said and to think through concepts in the book. When we read, we're forced to use our imaginations to fill in the gaps.

Books also have the advantage of being able to describe everything in greater depth. While television is mostly composed of dialogue between characters, books can walk readers through scenes, characters' thoughts, and provide lengthier commentary.

So now that we've seen the benefits of reading, how can we fit more of it into our lives?

Break Away From Your Environment

If you're glued to the television set constantly, it's largely because of the environment that that you're in. Surround yourself with people who talk about TV shows, and you'll be more likely to watch them yourself. Place yourself within arm's reach of a remote, and it becomes easier to watch TV. Flip on the switch as soon as you get home, then it becomes a habit.

So how can you go from watching TV to reading something that will help you grow as a person?

The first thing you can do to break the habit is to change your environment. Being in the same environment for a long time encourages you to keep doing the same things. But go to a completely new place, and you immediately drop your habits.

For instance, if you travel somewhere, you immediately have to adapt and create different habits. You're exposed to a different way of life, and your everyday activities change drastically. Your TV watching habit can easily go from 5 hours a day to zero when you're in a new environment.

While it might not be feasible to move somewhere new, you can take a brief vacation from your routine. Taking a break and traveling gives you a different perspective on everyday life, and it also forces you to develop new routines. When you return home, you can start fresh on your habits.

You can also break away from your environment by re-arranging your current space. Using the concept of environmental cues, I recommend setting up your office and entertainment space so that it's easier to pick up productive activities.

Choose the Right Books

The next thing you can do is pick the books that will give you the most value out of your time. If you have a choice between an e-book and a paper book, choose the latter.

Here are a few reasons why paper books are better:

1. Readers who use paper books have an easier time remembering the content than tablet readers. Traditional books provide a sense of progress as readers flip through the pages, along with greater immersion (i.e. you can't click away from your book), which is key to absorbing information.

2. Light from e-readers interferes with sleeping patterns, while paper books actually help you sleep better. *UPDATE: The newer e-readers, such as the Kindle Paperwhite, now have a glare-free display so that it reads like regular paper.*

3. Using electronic devices such as e-readers is linked to higher stress and depression levels. Traditional books, on the other hand, help reduce stress. *Note: Newer e-readers have been getting rid of this issue with their glare-free display.*

If you're not sure when to fit in some reading, try setting aside time in the morning or evenings.

For myself, I like to dedicate half an hour before bed to read a book. It's not a big chunk of time, and it also helps me wind down before it's time to sleep.

During the day, I often bring a book with me when I head out in case I need to wait or have a moment to spare.

If you're stuck on what to read, you can try going through my book list and seeing what interests you. I have found that reading a good book helps me to de-stress and gives me new ideas for improving myself.

If books bring back dreary memories of mandatory reading in school, try picking a book on a topic that interests you. I think you'll find that reading rewards your personal growth in ways that television can't replace.

Reading resource mentioned: Kindle Paperwhite - Pack lighter and carry your favorite books and audiobooks anywhere you go.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Books Superior to TV? How They Affect Our Minds in Different Ways

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This post may contain affiliate links, meaning I get a get a commission if you decide to make a purchase through my links, at no cost to you. Please see my disclosure for more info. There's a perception that books are good, while TV is bad.

# data[].attributes.body
After learning about what makes a good tv show, I was curious about how tv shows compare to movies.  In this article two authors present their sides about which is better.  Maerz explains that the length of tv shows is better for character development, nuance, and emotional connections - something a movie can't really do in two hours.  Tv shows also seem to promote more discussion than movies on social media.  Nashawaty then argues  that movies are better because there's a great deal of "fluffy" junk on tv now, and it keeps getting renewed for some reason.  The best tv shows are cinematic and play like movies.  Overall, I enjoy tv shows better than movies, because, as Maerz mentions, there's more character development over seasons that a show can do and I enjoy getting to know and relating to characters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Question Everything" opens the floor for debate of pop culture topics-serious to whimsical, sublime to ridiculous-that have no right or wrong answers but certainly elicit a wide spectrum of intense opinions. Hopefully reading these different perspectives will open minds, challenge thinking and maybe even provoke a change in what you believe. Let's discuss!
EW's Critics Make Their Cases

Do we really have to argue that television is better than film? Can't we just agree that this is a golden age for both? The gap is closing between the two. Both are driven by at-home, on-demand viewing on an actual television set or online. Some of the best filmmakers are directing episodes of prestige cable dramas. Some of the best TV writers go on to draft screenplays for major franchise films. Even run-time is an increasingly irrelevant distinction between media. You want to watch a broad comedy that's less than a half-hour long? Try a Pixar short. You want a suspenseful 90-minute drama? Watch BBC's Sherlock pilot. Creatively, though, television still enjoys a few advantages over movies. Long-form narratives offer more nuanced storytelling, allowing viewers to get to know characters on an emotional level that your average feature-length movie can't sustain. With people like Matt Weiner, Jenji Kohan, Vince Gilligan, and Jill Soloway steering the TV industry, showrunners are the real stars, not directors, which means that unlike the film industry, strong writing is just as important as the spectacle of how things look on screen.

TV series can afford to take more risks, too, since one experimental episode won't ruin a network like one failed blockbuster can ruin a studio. And it's easier for TV to stay relevant: Whereas movies take at least a year or two to hit theaters after production wraps, television has a relatively quick turnaround, so when something happens in real life that might affect how a story is received, a series can adapt with a timeliness that movies can't. Most important, movies just aren't provoking the same level of passionate discourse that TV shows do every single night of the week on social media, where conversations start with niggling disagreements over plot points and grow into epic discussions about morality and diversity and other big questions that deal less with entertainment than with life itself. Still not convinced that TV is better? Consider that we live in the age of what FX President John Landgraf called "peak TV," with more than 370 scripted series appearing on television last year, and more than 400 expected by the end of 2015. If the show you're watching isn't better than a movie, well, there's always something else on.

I know everyone is all whipped into a tizzy about how we're living in The Golden Age of Television what with The Americans and Game of Thrones and Mr. Robot. Yes, these truly are miraculous times to be alive. Or at least as miraculous as the last time someone declared that we were living in The Golden Age of Television, which was what, three years ago? And three years before that? This 24-karat superlative seems to get pronounced from the recap-culture hilltop so frequently that the phrase "The Golden Age of Television" has almost lost whatever currency it once had. Plus, any era in which bread-and-circus junk like America's Got Talent and wheezy sitcoms like The Exes can not only exist, but get renewed over and over again just because some programming executive needs to fill out their weekly bingo card, forfeits its right to be called anything better than Bronze.

I agree that there are some great shows on TV right now. I watch a bunch of them. But I also look around and I don't see a lot of Breaking Bads or Mad Men or Sopranos. To me, the closest thing was Netflix's Bloodline. And what made that show so compelling and addictive (aside from Ben Mendelsohn) is how cinematic it is in both its look and in its storytelling. But there's the problem: when folks try to explain what they love about a particular show that they're hooked on, what they inevitably say is how cinematic it is. In other words, how much like a movie it is. But you know what's exactly as cinematic as a movie? A movie! Check out Mad Max: Fury Road, or Inside Out, or Denis Villeneuve's upcoming drug-world thriller Sicario, and tell me I'm wrong.

WANT MORE EW? Subscribe now to keep up with the latest in movies, television, music, and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Great Debates: Are TV shows better than movies right now?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Question Everything" opens the floor for debate of pop culture topics-serious to whimsical, sublime to ridiculous-that have no right or wrong answers but certainly elicit a wide spectrum of intense opinions. Hopefully reading these different perspectives will open minds, challenge thinking and maybe even provoke a change in what you believe.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading about The Office I wondered what makes a tv show so successful.  I found an article which discusses the essential elements of great tv shows.  Most classic tv shows are unique and original - viewers are seeing something they usually haven't seen before in other shows.  Great shows also present a fictional world that viewers buy into and believe in.  One more idea is that shows are both "timeless and nostalgic," which is true of some of my favorites: The Office, Breaking Bad,  Mad Men, and Rescue Me.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As viewers we are continually told that we are living in a golden age of TV. We have more, better shows than ever before - at least if you believe the critics. However, with so much quality on our screens how do we divide a 'classic' TV show from one that is merely good.

Italo Calvino famously did this when discussing classic literature but the modern mind is as likely to value The Sopranos as Sophocles. With this in mind, Hook decided to try and create a 10 point manifesto that helps define some of the key points underpinning classic TV content.

We feel these rules are broad enough to go beyond adult scripted drama and comedy, paying homage to programming including the best of kids skewing shows (Adventure Time anyone), and big, loved formats.

Of course, this is an emotive topic, and these points are intended to provoke discussion and debate. So please let us know what you think.

What makes a classic TV show?
1. Classic content invites the question 'what did you think of ...' not 'have you seen'
The best shows have a unique flavour, and significance that mean they are not just watched, they are dissected and discussed. Consequently, when discussing a show, a viewer will assume that a fellow watcher will have an opinion.
2. A classic TV show is a treasured and valued experience whenever it is watched, whether that be when it is initially aired or at a later date (when the viewer has the chance, or the mental space for it)
A great show lives outside of time. Watching should help shape our experiences and understanding of the world in several ways ranging from: models of behaviour, language and expression; to paradigms of beauty and style.
3. Classic shows have an influence. This can be either in the way they tangibly imprint themselves on the imagination (and are explicitly referenced); or the way they hide themselves in the layers of the individual or collective subconscious (and influence behaviour and thought by stealth)
It is easy to think of shows such as Friends that have endured and seeded their character archetypes and catchphrases across a range of generations. However, great shows aren't always so obvious - Adventure Time showcasing the power of subversion in kids TV; Tony Soprano demonstrating that tough guys need mindfulness too; Great British Bake Off reminding viewers that there is a nice side to life in the UK (even if festooned with Union Jack bunting)
4. A classic TV show is one that - when watching for the first time - still manages to give the viewer the sense they are re-watching something true and vital they have seen before
From Downton Abbey to Line of Duty, the most successful shows are instant classics. While referencing known themes and genres, they still deliver a captivating and exciting story that remains unpredictable yet ultimately familiar to audiences.
5. A classic has never exhausted all it has to say to viewers
These shows may not necessarily have the lengthiest run, but they do continue to offer us new perspectives each time we watch. Friends, though still tremendously popular with viewers, is now provoking debates around race, privilege and misogyny.
6. A classic TV show constantly generates a cloud of critical comment and column inches around it, but - through its quality - is bigger than the discourse around it
A truly classic show will create a buzz with audiences, causing both individuals and media titles to follow and discuss its key events. However, a classic will live beyond this initial commentary to create a lasting impression on viewers' lives.
7. Classic shows are ones which, the more we think we know hearsay and critical commentary about them, the more surprised we are by their originality and quality when watching for the first time
No matter how many times you hear a recommendation to watch a show, sometimes you will actively resist the hype and make up your own mind about it without even sampling an episode. But even after years of avoiding a show (one of our colleagues first watched Fleabag only last month, and loved it), a classic show can always take viewers by surprise.
8. A classic programme comes to represent an entire universe: whether broad, (such as Westeros) or enclosed (The First Dates restaurant) that we believe and invest in
Watching TV, if nothing else, is a great way to escape daily life and immerse yourself in a fictional world, similar to reading novels or playing video games. So any classic show needs to invite viewers into its world to ensure emotional involvement in the characters and events of the show.
9. A classic programme is something that you cannot remain indifferent to or impartial about - they lead viewers to define themselves either with or in opposition to the subject matter and protagonists
In order to create a conversation around a classic show, it needs to force viewers to have an opinion. Whether that be Game of Thrones or Gavin and Stacey, everyone who watches these shows has their own thoughts on the show, including favourite characters and storylines.
10. A classic is a piece of content that endures as a background noise, even when it is totally at odds with the reality of the time in which it is viewed.
A classic TV show needs to be simultaneously timeless and nostalgic, allowing viewers to watch over and over again. This can be a high-octane drama, but more often it's a sitcom/ dramedy that can play in the background. In what world will an eccentric yet distinctly typical family like The Simpsons or the trials and tribulations of twenty-somethings in Friends not resonate with audiences? These are the shows that remain true classics no matter when they were first shown.

What do you think?

So these are the 10 elements that I think are present in every classic TV show... but (to paraphrase Big Lebowski) that's just, like, my opinion, man.

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
If you liked this blog, why not take a look at our insights into The United Kingdom of Netflix for more. And while we've got you, sign up for our Media and Kids Newsletters and follow our updates on and too!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Every Classic TV Show Needs To Have These 10 Things

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As viewers we are continually told that we are living in a golden age of TV. We have more, better shows than ever before - at least if you believe the critics. However, with so much quality on our screens how do we divide a 'classic' TV show from one that is merely good.

# data[].attributes.body
I chose this first article because I loved The Office.  I'm usually not too interested in tv comedies, but once I saw a few episodes I was hooked!  The article was about the show's 15 year anniversary and what made it so memorable, including the mostly unknown (at the time) cast, its mockumentary style, its relatability, and its funny internet memes.  Even 15 years later, audiences can't get enough of the show.  Sadly, it was announced that it will be leaving Netflix and going to the NBC streaming service next year.  Even now, after seeing every episode several times, the show consistently makes me laugh out loud.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Can you remember when "The Office" wasn't "The Office"?

March 24 marks 15 years since a remake of a cringe-humor British comedy premiered on NBC to low ratings. But since then, "The Office" has become a phenomenon, continuing to draw such loyal viewership that multi-billion dollar corporations compete for the right to stream all nine seasons of the workplace sitcom (yes, even the ones without Michael Scott).

"The Office" offered a unique blend of the relatable and the fantastical. Its setting, "an American workplace," was distinctly unremarkable, a bland office park in the middle of Pennsylvania. But its antics - from staplers in a Jell-O mold to heart attack-inducing fire drills to fights and dinner parties - felt much bigger (and considerably less productive) than our own drab cubicles.
New book: 5 things we learned from 'The Office' oral history: The making of Michael, Jim and Pam's near breakup
The series' characters were borrowed from its British parent - the buffoonish boss, the over-the-top toady, the everyman prankster and the sweet receptionist - but the delightful journeys of Michael, Dwight, Jim and Pam belonged entirely to the talent and appeal of the American writers and actors behind them. The scant 14 episodes across the pond turned into nine seasons of ingenuity over here (well, except for a few near the end).

It's not hard to see the lasting appeal of "Office." And in the midst of a global pandemic that has much of the country stuck at home and streaming TV favorites for comfort, the series remains a perfect option to make us laugh and soothe us in such worrying times.

But beyond endlessly rewatching the series (which, admit it, you've done), there is so much in our current pop culture landscape that owes its existence to "The Office." From the movie star careers of some cast members to the sitcoms it inspired to all those Jim Halpert memes, the world just wouldn't be the same without Dunder Mifflin Scranton.

All those movie stars

Where would we be without Steve Carell as "The 40-Year-Old Virgin"? What would have happened if the little girl in "Inside Out" didn't have her Sadness (Phyllis Smith) or Disgust (Mindy Kaling) emotions? What would "The Hangover" have been without Stu (Ed Helms)? Who would have directed Emily Blunt in "A Quiet Place" if not her husband, John Krasinski?

The alumni of "Office" are an accomplished bunch, including Carell, Kaling, Krasinski, Craig Robinson, B.J. Novak, Helms and Rashida Jones.

Despite the popularity of the series, many of the actors moved on without being typecast. Krasinski, who embodies a smart-aleck straight man in Jim, became an action hero in Amazon's "Jack Ryan" and directed "Quiet," the acclaimed 2018 horror film. Carell has played his fair share of comedic doofuses, but he's no funny boss in Apple TV Plus' "The Morning Show," "The Big Short" or "Last Flag Flying." Helms (like Carell a former "Daily Show" correspondent) has carved out a stronger presence in raunchy comedies, including the "Hangover" films and "We're the Millers," than he ever had as rich kid Andy.

Pawnee, The Bad Place and the Nine-Nine!

There's a reason you may be drawn to "Parks and Recreation" or "Brooklyn Nine-Nine" if you love "The Office," and it's not just because they're all ensemble workplace sitcoms.

It's not just the actors from "The Office" who have gone on to celebrate careers beyond the halls of the paper company's Scranton office, but also many of the series' writers. Michael Schur has been among the most prolific, helping to create "Parks," "Brooklyn" and "The Good Place." Kaling, of course, went on to Fox's "The Mindy Project" and co-created "Never Have I Ever," a Netflix teen sitcom coming in April. "Office" creator Greg Daniels co-created "Parks" and is behind "Upload," a new Amazon series out this spring. He's also reteaming with Carell on Netflix's "Space Force," a comedy inspired by President Donald Trump's announcement about a Space Force for the USA.
More great TV: The 10 best TV shows this spring, from Ryan Murphy's 'Hollywood' to Cate Blanchett in 70s hair
The influence of "The Office," particularly the proliferation of its mockumentary style, arch characters and absurd and heightened plots, can be felt in "Workaholics," "Superstore," "Silicon Valley" and "Modern Family."

Becoming the 'Friends' of Peacock, NBCUniversal's new streaming service

We're not saying that "The Office" is the reason we'll all soon have another streaming service full of TV to watch, but the sitcom certainly will help one launch.

Much as HBO Max is leaning on the 236 episodes of "Friends" to attract viewers, Peacock is banking on "The Office." NBC Universal paid a reported $500 million for a five-year deal to move "The Office," which it owns, from Netflix to its upcoming Peacock streaming service in 2021. The series has consistently been a top performer for Netflix, and its most devoted fans might just migrate to keep their access to the sitcom, even if they can see it several times a day on Comedy Central.

Your very favorite memes (that's what she said)

Raise your hand if you have ever shared a reaction GIF of Krasinski's Jim Halpert: Any of the dozens of times the character turned toward the camera, with a look of sheepish exasperation as the lone sensible man in an office full of co-workers gone mad.

Although it debuted before the age of social media and memes, "The Office," with its deadpan comedy, ridiculous characters and everyday problems, has become one of the most bountiful sources of internet humor: "That's what she said." "Bears, Beets, Battlestar Galactica." "I'm not superstitious. But I'm a little stitious." If you want to say it online, chances are you can say it with a GIF, image, video or hastily photo-edited graphic from "The Office."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'The Office' turns 15: All the ways NBC's quirky sitcom changed pop culture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Can you remember when "The Office" wasn't "The Office"? March 24 marks 15 years since a remake of a cringe-humor British comedy premiered on NBC to low ratings. But since then, "The Office" has become a phenomenon, continuing to draw such loyal viewership that multi-billion dollar corporations compete for the right to stream all nine seasons of the workplace sitcom (yes, even the ones without Michael Scott).