Writing is a form of art, reading a form of consumption. To determine which is better, first, we must decide whether consumption is greater or lesser than creation. We will determine this using energy as our main factor. Certainly, it takes great effort to create, but does it take that same effort to consume? What are the standards for such a thing?
Writing is a form of creation, the process of making. Specifically, writing is creating a form of written text. Even with such vague descriptions, writing is broader than one might imagine. It could mean writing a novel, or an autobiography or finalizing a visual analysis essay or an informative essay outline. However, it stands to say that nonstandard forms of writing are considered and part of this conclusion. Methods like texting or data entry also count as a form of writing. The energy levels required for writing vastly depend on the content being produced. A scholarship essay easily takes more effort than texting your friend a “lol same.”
The same can be said about consumption. Yet, a distinction is necessary. We live in a highly interactive world where we frequently and directly communicate with our favorite medias. Comments, replies, likes, and all sorts of interactions are a major cog in the consumer machine. That said, these sorts of engagements are frequently also a form of writing.
This leads us to a predicament. If we are to judge writing and reading (which is a form of consumption), we must firmly distinguish between the two. Were we living in a time before the internet—and by some extent, the printing press—this might be easier to do, but we live in a society hinged on communication between these two forces. Indeed, the two are so thoroughly embedded that the notion of separation can only remain theoretical.
Let’s put it in a more subjective approach. What is the purpose of writing? Why do we do it? We are taught from a young age that all writing should encapsulate a theme or main idea, but why are we writing about that theme in the first place? All writing, down to its very roots, is meant to communicate. It is language given permanence.
Reading, when not incorporated with forms of reply, is a silent communicator. It’s one-sided, wherein the writer directly connects with the reader. The reader cannot connect back, but will often find other methods to do so. All of us wish to communicate and be heard, which drives so much of our lives. Journalism, books, theses, reviews—even live streams are an adjacent form of this, where watchers of videos can communicate directly with the streamers. All of these forms are a direct representation of the most basic concept of communication: initial vs reply.
To say that one is better is to take away from the very purpose that they exist. Books are written to be read. The process of writing requires the action of reading, and the action of reading sparks the desire for communication. This is highlighted in our modern world, but it has existed so long as writing and reading have been. The two are ultimately inseparable, and it’s an injustice to consider otherwise.
Essentially, writing is to speak as reading is to hear. We write to teach others of our thoughts. Alternatively, we read to learn different perspectives. Each process can require a great deal of effort, and frequently the two bleed into each other. They are impossible to judge objectively, and even a subjective view on these things often only addresses the task’s personal requirements, not the overarching impacts each has. Writing or reading: either way, it’s clear the two are unserviceable without the other.
