Letters to the Editor: If you binge watch TV, you have time to read a ‘long’ book

To the editor: Nicholas Goldberg’s column discussing the popularity of shorter novels simply illustrates the dumbing down of America. I suspect that people who complain they’re too busy to read a book of more than 200 pages have no problem binge watching TV, spending hours in front of a screen that does nothing healthy for the human brain.

Many excellent “long” books have time to develop fascinating and compelling stories with complex and interesting characters, which in turn stimulates the imagination, something actually healthy for the human brain. Imagination is the root of creativity, which is a key to success in any field. Imagination and creativity make people good problem solvers by allowing them to analyze situations that are not related to the existing order of things.

I also find that “long” book readers are far more interesting conversationalists.

Anthony Blake, Woodland Hills

..

To the editor: I laud Goldberg’s spirited defense of lengthy literary tomes.

Works of art can be expansive, like Pablo Picasso’s “Guernica” and Charles Dickens’ “David Copperfield.” Or they can be petite, like Leonardo da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa” and J.D. Salinger’s “The Catcher in the Rye,” to cite two pieces Goldberg alluded to.

You can enjoy both Grandma’s Thanksgiving dinner or a peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich. Why should anybody have to chose?

Terri Elders, Westminster

..

To the editor: As an eons-ago college English major, I relished reading Goldberg’s piece on the joys of reading long novels.

At least I think that’s what it was about. I didn’t have time to read his entire lengthy column.

Linda Shahinian, Culver City