Americans Read Fewer Books

DesScorp writes "The National Endowment for the Arts has released a study that shows a decline in the reading of fiction, poetry, and short stories. The study began in 1982, but shows a particularly steep decline from 1992-2002, the first decade of the Age of the Internet. They never seem to draw the conclusion that the Net may have accelerated our turn from this kind of reading, but the timing seems suspicious to me. I know I don't read for pleasure as much as I did years ago because of the time spent on the Net (and in technical books). NPR has a good audio link here for you non-readers; the Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a nice article as well." You could also - assuming you read - see the study itself.

Comments

Prices, etc...

[Joe U]

Book prices have gone thru the roof in the past 10 years.

Combine that with more Internet use and a 500 channel cable TV system (with a DVR, of course) and it's no wonder I hardly read anymore.

Drop softcover prices down to a sane $4 and hardcover to $12 and we'll see an increase in reading again.

Re:Prices, etc...

[EinarH]

Book prices in USA are lower than in many European countries. And in some of the countries where people read much more than what Americans do, like in Scandinavia, France, Germany, UK and Japan they have to pay more for their books than the average american reader.
If you compare newspaper readership statistics which is somewhat linked to reading of books you will see that you can't blame it on the recent economic downturn either. During the financial crisis in Japan in the ninthies people continued to read newspapers. (and book readership remained more or less frozen AFAIK).
So I don't think price is the problem.

I would rather think that it has something to do with culture. There is a term called "cultural capital", coined by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. The term makes a distinction between the traditional capital value of material wealth and of the cultural "assets" or capabilities of a particular class. Just as traditional capital(money) cultural capital can be aquiered, ignored and converted. Cultural capital again can be divided into several sub-classes just as traditional capital. Some of the sub-classes helps define the person based on the fact that they are "thought into the person" and therefore they can't be changed easily.
For example if your parents are "white trash" you don't read Bourdieu, or any other written text/newspaper, because no one told you about him and you are busy watching the latest news about Lacy Peterson and Kobe Bryant.
On a related case consumers will decide what they want to consume based on their cultural capital. (10 bucks and a beer on continued decline in US book readership...)

The term really makes sense if one belive that people in the USA are more or less to some extent seperated into different classes both economical/social and cultural (regardless of whether you think that this is a good/natural/bad thing). If one say that these differences have increased in the 1992-2002 period it matches the teory that increased differences will lead to a larger gap between peoples cultural capital and also inderectly to a larger gap between those that read more and those that read less.

So even if people in the USA do have the money to buy tons of books some of you don't because the more cable TV you watch the more you are prone to continue subscribing.

Is this really a big surprise??

[the_rajah]

I've got several books stacked up to read, but I just don't seem to get around to them as interesting as they are. It's not that I don't read a LOT, but the majority of it is on this little screen that I'm looking at now. The immediacy and interactivity of the Internet much more easily grabs my attention. The times when I do get some significant reading done are those times when I don't have easy Internet access, like sometimes when I'm traveling or if I'm stuck in waiting rooms like the doctor's office.

"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

Reading is poor...

[edashofy]

For the time invested, reading is a very poor way of getting information, especially with regards to fiction. Yes, there are advantages (ability to use imagination, etc.) but really, reading at 50 pages an hour I might spend 10 hours reading a new Tom Clancy book.

At the end, the total amount of recall I have of specific aspects of the book will be about equivalent to the recall I'd have after seeing a movie, only the movie gives me the information passively and in a fifth the time. Do you really remember significantly more detail about a story from reading a book than from seeing a movie?

Also, (and I think this is hugely important) reading has very limited memetic aspects. When I've read a new book, the first thing I want to do is discuss it with other people. However, since relatively few people have read the same book. The meme hasn't propagated. I can explain the experience of reading the book to others, but most of the time they really don't care because I'm unable to convey enough to start discussion. With a movie that millions have seen, or a webpage with a quick read that I could blog about or send the link around in email, the memetic aspects are much greater.

Why discard the internet?

[NightWulf]

Why must people equate reading and literature to paper books. I spend a good amount of time on the internet for both work and pleasure. I would estimate the amount I must read on my computer would be a novel a week worth of words. Yes I would agree that "IM Speak" and such SMS shorthand may hinder the vocabulary of future employees but my hope is that is just a phase. I just hate being regarded as less intellectual or less well read because I choose not to read a novel on the way home. I read enough on the screen to equal 10 novels.

In the end, doesn't it do the same thing? Instead of reading sonnets by Shakespeare, people read some girls poems on her webpage, and instead of reading the editiorials from The Times, you read some guys opinions on his blog. If it intrests you and is valid for you, go with it.

Do not neglect the rise of "Infotainment"

[SetupWeasel]

Along with the internet, a separate beast arose: News Entertainment. Between the OJ Simpson trial, the Bill Clinton scandal, and all the rest of the yellow journalism of the 1990 the need for harlequin romances has diminished.

Here you have things that appear pressing, dramatic, and interesting that also are kind of real as well. Why read fake dirt about fake people when you can have real dirt on a public figure?

I'm sure the internet has had something to do with the reduced book reading, because everyone who uses the internet reads and writes a hell of a lot more than they used to. That cuts into the desire to "read for fun," as they say. But for my money the rise of programming for every demographic possible and the horrible yellow journalism of today have satisfied our need for fiction.

Re:Not the Net

[Sycraft-fu]

Well I think part of the problem there is that high schools have trouble teaching good novels. I appreciate that kids do need some exposure to classic literature, but in my high school that's like ALL it was. We read book after book after book of "great" literature which more or less meant old, and hard to read. Anything new was crap, anything kids might enjoy was crap. I mean there was like NO sci fi. Well I must ask why that is the case. There is GREAT sci fi. Ender's Game ought to be required reading. It is interesting, easy to read, and speaks to adolescents. This is the kind of book that will make kids want to read, not Great Expectations or Jane Eyre.

Thus you find that kids don't do well at reading novels, they get bored and don't finish them and don't perform well. You find they do better with magazines since they are shorter (thus easier to force your way through bored), usually easier to read, and usually more interesting.

Now before you go on about reading skills, the thing you have to remember is that not everyone is bound for university. What I generally find when people argue for these dense novels is that they expect all kids should perform at university level. Hell, some seem to think that they should all perfom at unviersity level IN HIGHSCHOOL. That's just not a valid assumption. The majority of kids will not go to university. They need good English skills, of course, including reading, but good to common literature, not good at decoding Dickens overly verbose and arcane style.

So I don't see a problem with allowing magazines and the Internet in more, and I do think that when novels are tought, they need to be ones kids can actually enjoy. Sure you do harder stuff for honours/AP classes, but not for all kids.

Also the net really is increasing the amount people read overall. IT may not be for pleasure, but no one said you must read for pleasure. People get more and more information from the Internet instead of books. This is not a bad thing, just a different way of doing it. The old way in education is NOT the best way, we revise educational theory all the time.

Former Bookworm...

[decipher_saint]

First off I'm Canadian and I used to read a lot when I was in my early teens (and I do mean a lot) I would rip through novels and be hungry for more then I'd get into history and politics and then switch back to novels. Through high school and college I was still reading fiction but only a few hours after going to bed, still a good flow of literature, but nothing like before. Once I got working though I found that I really didn't have the time or the juice to read every night, then that turned into every week and now I barely read at all. Personally I think it's sad and I often wonder why I can't get back into the groove. I went through a streak of some really bad (new) books and I started working more overtime and found that I was too fatigued to keep up even a rudimentary interest in reading consistantly.

Oddly though, I find myself reading a lot of humour content on the web (blogs, articles, etc), but it still doesen't compare to a good book. I guess I have a kind of reader's apathy, I would like to read more, but I never do...

From time to time it strikes me when I go searching through the cards in my wallet and find my old, expired, Library card and think to myself "oh yeah, I should renew that one day..."

Anyone else there in Slashdotland feel this way? Did you ever get back into reading on a regular basis (if so HOW)? ;-)

P.S. The last good book I read was "Goodbye, Mickey Mouse" by Len Deighton written in 1982 which I am convinced the 2001 film "Pearl Harbor" stole it's story from, but whatever...

Reading in my house

[phamNewan]

My children are required to read for 30 minutes every day. My son that just finished 1st grade is reading Harry Potter now. My daughter will be going into 1st grade and is reading Dr. Suess and equivalent.

Both of them enjoy reading and may whine a little initially when it is reading time, but then they oftern read longer because they get into it. At least once a week they end up going an hour. During the summer they have lots of time to read, so I have them make the most of it.

Learing to enjoy reading is an aquired enjoyment, and with all of the other forms of entertainment available people need to be encouraged to learn how to enjoy reading.

In fact, it is reading time now. See ya.

Re:Attention spans

[maskedbishounen]

My sister has a young child, two or thereabouts now. I've ended up watching many hours of childrens programming these days.

Dora the Explorer especially disturbs me when it comes to the whole lack-of-attention-span thing. In case you haven't seen it, here's how it works. Dora asks a question and then pauses for so of seconds. The pause is for the children to yell out at the screen the answer to the question. Dora then goes on to say how they got the answer right and did a good job.

Could it be that this program is creating loud, yelling, people in need of attention? No attention span because they'll soon expect instant gratification for everything they do?!

Oh, but how many more management-types do we need in this world? We's clearly rolling downhill, and quite out of control.

There are probably several reasons for this

[tuxlove]

Seems pretty obvious to me:

1. People are stupider. The education system in the US is rotting, and kids that can barely read and write are "graduating".
2. Video games are amazing. If I were a kid now, I might never emerge from the computer room. When I was a kid, games like pong were cool but couldn't hold your attention forever.
3. The web is here. There is a lot of stuff to read online, there's a lot of porn to surf, lots of music, software and movies to pirate, and a lot of chat to be chatted.
4. There are 150 TV channels now instead of 13.
5. Blockbuster and friends have an endless supply of DVDs to watch.

Add your list here ->

Re:Attention spans

[Nasarius]

Maybe not for you, but for a lot of people it does. Especially children. For adults, it should at least improve your vocabulary.

Re:television is the opium of the masses

[abulafia]

I agree with most of what you said. My experiences, exactly. Just a personal difference...

TV is also disruptive to anyone within earshot who wants to do something else (like read a book).

I actually don't have this problem. Tonight, for instance, the toob was on, my housemates watching it, me in the same room, and I had no problem with my book (I'm re-reading The Prince. It has been a while, and I haven't read the Adams translation before).
The reason for me writing this is that I think people are wired differently for dealing with background noise - I live in Brooklyn, and have spent all of my adult life in large cities. I grew up in extremely rural areas, and went nuts - I was constantly bored and edgy. In a city, I feel at home. I think it has to do with background stimulus. When my mother comes to visit, she goes nuts - there's too much noise (that I never conciously notice), too many people, too much going on.

A high tolerance for others' background radiation allows me to read a book with the TV on, code when people are talking, and sleep on the subway. (Although sometimes there are exceptions... the meth head who just moved in above me will soon learn to eat his techno CDs... I can only deal with thumpa-thumpa-diva-shriek for about 14 hours out of the day.)

No real point, just highlighting what seems to me to be an interesting differentiator in people.

Re:Not the Net

[cooldev]

You both have a point; it's all about balance. Both classic and contemporary authors should be read in school, and in my opinion students should be able to pick at least 25% of the books they read for class (from a reasonable list).

After taking many honors, AP, and college english classes, it took years before I could get back into reading for enjoyment.

To make matters worse, most English teachers are female, and at least in the classes I took there was a definite skew toward books that are torture for normal teenage males (eg. Emma).

Poetry disgusts me to this day, having had to survive though the bizarre, biased interpretations that make astrology and dream interpretation seem like science. And remember kids, you get graded on having the same interpretation as the teacher!

Luckily I was able to BS my way through, always getting at least a B.

Re:Not the Net

[Sycraft-fu]

That's fine, but I can name even more, and even older writings that are even MORE influencial to our culture. How about the Lord of the Rings? This is the very basis for almost all modren fantasy. It was what D&D took it's basis on, and because of that and its formalized rules, many, many games base on that. LOTR and it's counterpart D&D form an immensly strong basis for the fantasy world. Horrible novels, if you asked me, but they are where most of the fantasy came form.

Or let's go more modern: Neuromancer. That is what started cyberpunk. It is the DIRECT influence of The Matrix (to the point the named a song "The Mona Lisa Overdrive" in Reloaded). The dark, syber-techno universe that is so popular in many movies, games, shows, etc started here.

How about we go way back, to one of the most influencial of all: The Bible. Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not Christian, I think the Bible is a bunch of fiction and nothing more, but it is probably the sole most influencial book in western society. Yet, I've never seen it read in public schools (believe it or not, you can look at the Bible from a secular standpoint).

Or how about philosphy? Why no Descart, Locke, Searle, Nagel, Popper, Harnish, Berkley, Bach, Kant, Plato, Frege, etc. All these people helped to shape modren western thought on at least one important issue (and yes, I have read at least some of each of their works). They didn't just write stories, they contemplated important issues and shaped thinking.

Face it, the "part of our culture" argument doesn't hold water. Most of what I read in high school is not at all or a very minor part (Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights stand out in my mind). Even that which is a larger part, pales in comparison to other things I can easily think of.

And Yes, Dickens IS hard to read. I fucking HATED Tale of Two Cities. It was hard to read, irrelivant, and boring. Personally, I find it harder than Shakespeare, but that might be because Shakespeare knew how to write about something worth reading.

Either way, my point stands. The point of English class is to teach kids English first and foremost. For that you must get them to read and write and to do that you need things they want to read and write about. I'm not saying you can't find a way to expose them to some classic literature, but saying it has to be all classics because of culture is a load of crap. I can design a much better curriculm of more influencial readings than what is normally taught if you want, but I won't claim it will hold their attention any better.

Re:I read fewer books because

[Daetrin]

I'll throw in my two cents as well. Besides George R. R. Martin and Robin Hobb (who was mentioned later in the thread) i'd also suggest taking a look at Jane Lindskold (who does good urban fantasy,) Kate Elliott, Sara Douglass (somewhat generic, but some orginality too, and strong female characters,) Guy Gavriel Kay (OTHER than for his "Fionovar Tapestry" trilogy, which was generic shlock,) and Steven Brust. And to promote a couple lesser known authors who are just getting started, but i think have some promise, Naomi Kritzer and Joanne Bertin.

If we move on into science fiction, there's S.M. Stirling, James Alan Gardner, Vernor Vinger, (who as just posted on slashdot, is coming out with a new book soon) Sheri S. Tepper (if you don't mind a strong feminist slant in your fiction) and Steven Barnes.

I'm sure there are more out there, quite possibly even on my bookshelves, but that's what i can remember at the moment.