Your editorial is concerned about the effect of too much of certain cerebral activities on the development of young minds and certain activities are singled for criticism, particularly those involving computer or TV screens (May 22).
Is concentration on a particular activity necessarily harmful? We have always had enthusiasts but I do not recall concentration on chess or bridge attracting opprobrium.
One of the differences is that modern technology enables intellectual addiction by making it easy to get a fix but whether such concern is justified is far from clear. Our civilisation owes a great deal to intellectual addicts. I can with little effort think of several, mainly in mathematics and physics, whose preferred mental activities has greatly advanced our lot. When I studied science and maths at university, the teachers with high reputations had real passion for their disciplines and some of that has brushed off on me.
Why is curling up with a good book considered better than curling up with a good TV programme? Along with others I was made to read classical novels but I doubt whether I got much out of them. I got bored with William Thackeray's Vanity Fair in book form but not with the TV version. Unless I wanted to specialise on the written word rather than the author's ideas, the screen rendering is far more rewarding because the presentation is clearer.
From TV I have a good idea what Marshalsea debtor's prison was like, but if I am dependent on the words in a Charles Dickens novel I miss a great deal. I have neither time nor facilities to research such concepts but it is the job of a TV producer to make them clear, and pictorial images go in so much more easily than words. One exception is Shakespeare whose words as well as ideas fascinate, so I read Shakespeare at two levels, for his words and for the plot. At school I was made to concentrate on his words and not his drama.
Chris Parton, 40 Bellshill Road, Uddingston.
