[thisoneisreal]

I'm an avid reader (several dozens of books per year at least), and one of the things that bums me out is all of the morality around my hobby. 3 or 4 times out of 5 when I talk to people about it the reaction is "oh man I'm such a bad person because I don't read enough books."

It's fine! The number of books you read is not a reflection on your quality as a person.

Reading absolutely has positive benefits, but really it's exactly what you said. It's just more interesting than other options out there. The tradeoff is yes, it can require some effort, but that's the same as any other effortful activity. You have to get past the cost, but there's a really nice reward on the other side.

And for what it's worth, there ARE television shows, movies, etc. that have more value than many books. ("The Wire" is a prime example, probably better than 70-80% of the books out there.) The point is just generally that more cognitively demanding avocations can have a higher cost-benefit ratio than cheaper ones like TV. On average, books fall more into this category than other media, but that's just on average.

Anyway this is a long way of saying that feeling bad about the media you consume is counterproductive. The message should be that there is potentially a more rewarding experience out there, but whether you pursue it or not is totally up to you and doesn't make you a good or bad person either way.

[Desafinado]

Yes to all of that. My biggest pet peeve is the Goodreads reading challenge, I cringe at it every year. Imagine that but a 'TV show challenge', it would be absurd. This is the way people think about books.

Read what you want, how you want. Pick up the same book five times. Do whatever. Forget arbitrary challenges.

[AuthAuth]

I always laugh when people say something like oh wow you must be so smart reading all those books. Nah I'm reading about Goblins, Gnomes and vampires in space its really not ground breaking intellectual stuff. I enjoy reading but its similar to sitting down and watching a movie or TV show in my eyes.

[eudamoniac]

I agree. Books have a higher intellectual ceiling than most things, but there is as always a mountain of slop, too. I'd rather someone spend a year interrogating Plato or Moby Dick than read 300 Agatha Christie or Steven King type novels. There is nothing virtuous about reading in itself.

I echo the sentiment of the sibling comment: book count challenges are foolish and missing the point.