The Oscars were on last night, so it’s the perfect time to ask the question of whether it’s better to read a novel or watch a movie? I have watched the film “Drive My Car” and I also read the story, which was written by Haruki Murakami. In that case, the movie was better, more interesting and heart-felt, but I think that is an unusual case. The story as written was tender and somewhat ironic as Murakami tends to be, but the film was devastating in its poignancy and profound wisdom. Hands down the film was superior.

But I still hold that the printed word is superior to the electronic version. Let’s take “Les Miserable” by Victor Hugo. Are you better off reading the entire 832-page novel or instead just renting the wonderful movie version starring Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe and Anne Hathaway? The book version will take you about 43 hours to complete if you read about 3 minutes per page rate. The movie will only cost you 2 hours and 38 minutes and the music simply cannot be beat.

You can’t help but shed a few tears when you hear the rousing lyrics sung by Anne Hathaway when she sings “I dream a dream of times gone by, when hope was high and life worth living. I dreamt that love would never die” The film version is strong emotion and pure pleasure.

Yet we all know in our heart of hearts that reading is in some way better for you. I am not sure why. It is hard to find much written on this sticky question. The Jesuit priest Walter Ong wrote the classic essay “The Writer’s Audience is Always a Fiction” and attempted to differentiate between the spoken word and the written one but from the writer’s perspective and not the readers.

And there was always Marshal McLuhan, the oracle of the 1970s who predicted that the world was about to be transformed by media, the electronic and the information revolution. He coined the phrase “the medium is the message,” suggesting that the electronic world will now take over from the printed world. He reasoned that the first big change occurred back in the 15th century when the printing press was invented and the moment a tribal member became literate he was emancipated from the tribal lore and customs.

And this has allowed the world to enjoy writers like Marcel Proust, Balzac, Flaubert, Victor Hugo, Thomas Hardy, Herman Melville, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Jack London and John Steinbeck. There seems to be a powerful connection between freedom, liberty and independence, thanks to worldwide literacy and the printed word.

But times change and technology keeps on producing wonderment through invention. This is an unstoppable force. Welcome to the world of Microsoft, TikTok and Facebook. Just as McLuhan prophesized, we are in a global village, an electronic world with fast-paced and compelling information presented and available at the speed of light. And we all love it, we crave it and we need it.

So the Academy Awards have come and gone and I’m not sure who won for best picture or best actor or best actress in a supporting role. But I do know I will watch these movies over the next few weeks. I did love “Drive My Car,” the film that grappled with the anguish of losing a child and of having the misfortune to marry and to love a beautiful wife who has trouble being faithful. The movie version actually included film segments of the play “Waiting for Godot” by Beckett and “Uncle Vanya” by Chekov. It also confronted the unconscious competition between great acting vs. great writing. The writer may have all the great ideas, but the actor gets the girl in the end.

Television always trumps the printed word. This is the way of the world. When I first started publishing in magazines, I would send my father copies of my latest columns and when I visited him, I’d ask what he thought of my writing and he would say “I don’t want to see that crap, just send me your TV work.” My dad was a true modern American, addicted to television. And I could not blame him.

Last night I watched “Once Upon a time in Hollywood,” directed by Quentin Tarantino and starring Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio and some cute hippie girls. The film was set in the late ’60s where flower power reigned. The acting was superb, the plot was fast and entertaining, there was a scene at the famous Hugh Hefner Playboy Mansion. The movie had a better ending than in real life in that Charlie Mansion’s gang got killed instead of Sharon Tate.

Movies are easier to watch and are more entertaining and relaxing, but I can’t help but think one is made more human and more edified and more educated by spending 40 hours reading “Les Miserable.” You learn about Paris, how the sewer system works, the causes of the French Revolution and you see what redemption means. A great masterpiece in literature will educate, elevate and finally strengthen the human. On the other hand, a great film will enthrall, entertain, inspire and inflame, but I think it does not strengthen the soul.

I suspect it matters not whether I can defend the printed word because if there is one thing for certain, it’s here to stay. Marshall McLuhan was right when he said the electronic world is coming and it will dominate us all. And it sure was fun to watch the Oscars. Or at least I think it was. I was too busy writing this column to watch it all unfold. “And the winner for Best Picture is….???”