Almost everyone considers reading to be a valuable hobby. Specifically, I am talking about reading fiction. There is a subsection that looks down on fiction and only values self-help books. However, besides them, everyone else thinks that fiction reading doesn’t waste one's time, and they think it is a signature trait of a smart person. Also, another merit of novels is that they are deeply moving pieces of art—ones that could alter the trajectory of your life, soften the toughest of hearts, and make you care about things you had never thought about before.

I have no problem with that perception, as I myself am an avid novel reader, and it’s nice that people think I’m smart for having that hobby. Why would I complain?

Well, there is a problem when people don’t hold TV shows and movies to the same standard. People often dismiss TV shows and movies as a giant waste of time, while having the opposite view about novels. I disagree with this because novels and movies are, inherently, the same thing when it comes to the story they tell, just presented in a different medium. Heck, a lot of the best movies of all time were adapted from a novel. For example, Shawshank Redemption, the movie with the highest ranking on IMDb, was adapted from a novel written by Stephen King.

However, I understand this double standard to a certain degree. Reading requires an active investment of patience and attention, significantly more than the passive consumption of most movies or the instantaneous gratification of scrolling on TikTok. It is human nature to place a higher value on achievements that demand greater effort; hence, people value reading. It makes sense, doesn’t it?

Still, what we actually derive from novels and movies and TV shows is largely the same. That being said, the story. We read novels for the story, and we also watch movies for the story. I concede that the experience might be different for someone who reads the Shawshank Redemption novel and one who watches the movie version. 

Therefore, it could be that someone is more moved by watching a movie. There can be a myriad of reasons for this. Perhaps seeing the story come to life in front of you, and not relying on just your imagination, can be a much more visceral experience. The reason doesn’t matter; what matters is that in some instances, a movie can inspire a greater change than a novel. 

The same is also true vice versa. If someone prefers letting themselves imagine a scene, a character, or a setting and they don’t want all of it given to them on a silver platter, then novels are the obvious choice.

Let’s look at another example. Novels as a medium facilitate internal monologues because a reader is literally in the character’s head. Movies don’t always have this luxury. So, movies have to rely on showing the characters’ feelings and thoughts through their behaviors. People who like to be privy to a person’s internal thoughts would obviously pick a novel. On the other side of the coin, if someone prefers dissecting a character’s behaviors and linking them to their psyche and thoughts, then he is more likely to enjoy a movie.
What I want to say is that movies and novels have different merits and demerits. Sometimes a story is better suited in one format and not the other. It also heavily depends on a person’s subjective preferences.

Suffice to say, this social stigma regarding movies and TV shows needs to change, as for me, some movies have inspired more change than some novels, and vice versa. I think those people who think movies are a “waste of time” just haven't found a movie that will move them to places they didn’t even know existed.