The Death, and Life, of Reading Have Been Greatly Exaggerated (2016)(lj.libraryjournal.com)
lj.libraryjournal.com
The Death, and Life, of Reading Have Been Greatly Exaggerated (2016)
http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2016/08/18/the-death-and-life-of-reading-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/
45 comments
That's a certain death too. I'm in the same boat. Reading a book has gone from guilty pleasure to the "I really need to do more reading" chore.
People still like Shakespeare. But, it's not a guilty pleasure anymore. Its something you do to "better yourself." You might call it a bourgeoisie pursuit.
A lot of art looks like this when it retires. It moves up the class ladder where it is maintained for posterity.
People still like Shakespeare. But, it's not a guilty pleasure anymore. Its something you do to "better yourself." You might call it a bourgeoisie pursuit.
A lot of art looks like this when it retires. It moves up the class ladder where it is maintained for posterity.
I don't understand why the number of books people read a year mean anything.
If someone read one book a year, but they were part of the "Art of Computer Programming" (including some exercises), it would be much more impressive than someone who read 50 books from Goosebumps series.
Reading is important, but contemplation and penetration of a subject should be the goal (e.g. doing exercises in back of a book, summarizing a book, critiquing a book). People who are trying to finish a book every week is missing the point, and will never read anything that is difficult or dense.
If someone read one book a year, but they were part of the "Art of Computer Programming" (including some exercises), it would be much more impressive than someone who read 50 books from Goosebumps series.
Reading is important, but contemplation and penetration of a subject should be the goal (e.g. doing exercises in back of a book, summarizing a book, critiquing a book). People who are trying to finish a book every week is missing the point, and will never read anything that is difficult or dense.
Why would reading the art of computer programming be more impressive than reading fifty goosebump books?
Who’s to say you can’t read a book a week and also contemplate on it?
What about the people who read a lot of books on the same subject? Like going deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole of machine learning by reading a new book on the subject each week?
Number of books per year is a useful method for measuring the over all trend though. If the number hasn’t really changed, despite the introduction of digital technology, then it’s fair to say that digital technology hasn’t massively impacted the amount of books being sold.
Who’s to say you can’t read a book a week and also contemplate on it?
What about the people who read a lot of books on the same subject? Like going deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole of machine learning by reading a new book on the subject each week?
Number of books per year is a useful method for measuring the over all trend though. If the number hasn’t really changed, despite the introduction of digital technology, then it’s fair to say that digital technology hasn’t massively impacted the amount of books being sold.
Because reading goosebump books is easy and relaxing while reading Art of Computer Programming and doing exercises takes a lot of effort. You can do dozens of pages per evening even if you are tired, Knuth can not be read by that speed unless you already know it all. It is difference between going for a walk and running 10km. You can contemplate fun adventure books if you like, but it is not the same as learning algorithms.
Likewise, you can read hundred of pages of fun page-turner detective stories or pop science easily, but going through algebra or philosophy or something like takes way more effort and proceeds much more slowly - sometimes you will move by 2 pages per evening because understanding it requires more effort.
Likewise, you can read hundred of pages of fun page-turner detective stories or pop science easily, but going through algebra or philosophy or something like takes way more effort and proceeds much more slowly - sometimes you will move by 2 pages per evening because understanding it requires more effort.
People are different though. I have a degree and I hire/manage people, and as such I’m eligible to work as an examiner in my country. Our universities want business to cooperate with education, so parts of the examination staff are outside managers.
Because of this I keep fairly up to date with the art of programming, and I can easily go through an average programming book and it’s exercises, much easier than if I were to read through a piece of Lovecraft fiction.
Someone familiar with Greek mythology and no programming knowledge would have it the other way around.
Which one of us deserve respect? Is it the effort bit? So that I’m only impressive when I challenge myself?
I think it’s narrow minded. To me effort and challenge isn’t impressive on their own. What is impressive is finding out what you want to do, and then doing it. And if that’s reading 50 goosebump books in a year, or, going through the art of programming, we’ll then that’s about equal in my book. On top of that there is the self-improvement bit, I’m all for it, but only when you actually want to do it. There is nothing sadder, to me, than people who slave away in the self-improvement hamster wheel, not because they really want to, but because they think they have to.
It still doesn’t really have anything to do with book sales statistics, but I don’t think you can really say much about people, even if you knew the statistics of what they were reading.
Because of this I keep fairly up to date with the art of programming, and I can easily go through an average programming book and it’s exercises, much easier than if I were to read through a piece of Lovecraft fiction.
Someone familiar with Greek mythology and no programming knowledge would have it the other way around.
Which one of us deserve respect? Is it the effort bit? So that I’m only impressive when I challenge myself?
I think it’s narrow minded. To me effort and challenge isn’t impressive on their own. What is impressive is finding out what you want to do, and then doing it. And if that’s reading 50 goosebump books in a year, or, going through the art of programming, we’ll then that’s about equal in my book. On top of that there is the self-improvement bit, I’m all for it, but only when you actually want to do it. There is nothing sadder, to me, than people who slave away in the self-improvement hamster wheel, not because they really want to, but because they think they have to.
It still doesn’t really have anything to do with book sales statistics, but I don’t think you can really say much about people, even if you knew the statistics of what they were reading.
Knuth (art of programming) is no average programming book. It is good book and worth effort, but it is no easy read.
You can read lovercraft or goosebump without any prerequisite knowledge. Greek or otherwise. Authors took care and effort to make it so. They succeeded. It was intentionally written to be pleasant and easy read, both their goal and skills were unlike those of Knuth. I used to read a lot of books like that, it is not that I would think bad of author of those books. I appreciate them for what they are.
Reading goosebump book and art of programming are not comparable actions. It is good argument for why counting books per year without context makes no sense.
You can read lovercraft or goosebump without any prerequisite knowledge. Greek or otherwise. Authors took care and effort to make it so. They succeeded. It was intentionally written to be pleasant and easy read, both their goal and skills were unlike those of Knuth. I used to read a lot of books like that, it is not that I would think bad of author of those books. I appreciate them for what they are.
Reading goosebump book and art of programming are not comparable actions. It is good argument for why counting books per year without context makes no sense.
I’ll assume that you haven’t read a whole lot of lovecraft, because he really does the reader no favors, using references to classic mythology to describe whole sets of scenery and moods. Making it pretty much impossible to read quite a few of the stories if you’re unfamiliar with some obscure Greek myth.
I have read Knuth though them being part of the CS curriculum, back when I took my degree. They are very revered too, and reasonable so, because they are hard to fault. I personally think they are a needlessly waste of your time though. There are much more approachable books, that’ll teach you the same content in a much friendlier way.
I don’t think we’ll agree though. Especially if you hold harder programming books in higher regard than harder fiction. It took me significantly more effort to go through Dostoyevsky than it did me to go through Knuth, for instance.
And you still haven’t pointed out who exactly the numbers are a useless metric. If book sales aren’t down, isn’t it fair to say, that people are still buying books?
I have read Knuth though them being part of the CS curriculum, back when I took my degree. They are very revered too, and reasonable so, because they are hard to fault. I personally think they are a needlessly waste of your time though. There are much more approachable books, that’ll teach you the same content in a much friendlier way.
I don’t think we’ll agree though. Especially if you hold harder programming books in higher regard than harder fiction. It took me significantly more effort to go through Dostoyevsky than it did me to go through Knuth, for instance.
And you still haven’t pointed out who exactly the numbers are a useless metric. If book sales aren’t down, isn’t it fair to say, that people are still buying books?
I just ignored those parts. When I read for pleasure, I happily not understand references like that and enjoy the rest. It is not like Lovercraft story mattered for literally anything, I rarely care about scenery anyway and Greek references even less. So, it is fine for me to skim those parts.
There are differently difficult books and trying to pretend that goosebump has anything to do with Dostoyevsky or whatever is odd. As for waste of time, if Knuth is waste of time, so are there adventures. They are literally meant for that.
I liked Dostoyevsky, dunno why that book I read would be difficult to read book. Maybe you read different book or worst translation.
I don't think original comments in thread we both joined had anything to do with sales.
There are differently difficult books and trying to pretend that goosebump has anything to do with Dostoyevsky or whatever is odd. As for waste of time, if Knuth is waste of time, so are there adventures. They are literally meant for that.
I liked Dostoyevsky, dunno why that book I read would be difficult to read book. Maybe you read different book or worst translation.
I don't think original comments in thread we both joined had anything to do with sales.
You can bring it to the trivial case where you compare reading one children's book with reading a single volume of the art of computer programming.
I probably really missing the point and I really don't see, the goal should be anything else than reading a book.
There is a difference between reading and learning. When I read, that's exactly what I am doing.
When I need to learn something, I might read, watch lectures, do tutorials. If I am reading "Art of Computer Programming" for fun, then I would say that I am reading. But if I am reading it for learning, then I would say I am working or studying.
When I need to learn something, I might read, watch lectures, do tutorials. If I am reading "Art of Computer Programming" for fun, then I would say that I am reading. But if I am reading it for learning, then I would say I am working or studying.
I agree. In particular, I don't think reading fiction is in any way better than watching TV. Either way, you're doing it for entertainment, and getting nothing more out of it. Not even shared cultural context, as these days the shared culture is mostly TV-oriented.
Even within fiction, there's wiggle room. Hell, I'd even say not all TV is just entertainment. There's a big difference between reading "Pachinko" and "50 Shades Freed".
But yeah, I notice a lot of people like to brag about quantity of books read and claim that makes them learned. It would be like going to McDonald's every day and saying you have a refined palate.
But yeah, I notice a lot of people like to brag about quantity of books read and claim that makes them learned. It would be like going to McDonald's every day and saying you have a refined palate.
> not all TV is just entertainment
Certainly, not all television is entertainment but in my experience the whole medium itself tends to get looked down upon and there's a lot of ridiculous virtue-signaling involved.
Compared to the people I interact with I read a fair bit, I'd say higher than average. However, I also watch the occasional documentary / tv show. In social settings I usually don't bring up what I'm reading as I find it's not a socially wise thing to do unless I'm certain the other party has similar reading habits to mine. In general I usually bring up what I've watched recently. What I find amusing are the subtle jabs I get for 'wasting my time watching tv' from people who I'm sure don't read as much as I do.
To me television is just another medium, nothing more, nothing less. It has its advantages and disadvantages, sure, but I've learned just as much if not more from extremely well done lectures / documentaries as I have from books. Even from watching regular 'tv shows' for entertainment purposes I've learned quite a bit as a lot of shows these days are extremely detailed (e.g. Mr. Robot) and there's quite a lot to learn or think about if you pay enough attention.
I don't play video games as much these days, but I also find the amount of disdain people hold for the entire medium is unwarranted IMHO.
For what I'm watching right now - I'm enjoying James Burke's Connections which was recommended here on HN a while back. I highly recommend others to watch it if they haven't!
Certainly, not all television is entertainment but in my experience the whole medium itself tends to get looked down upon and there's a lot of ridiculous virtue-signaling involved.
Compared to the people I interact with I read a fair bit, I'd say higher than average. However, I also watch the occasional documentary / tv show. In social settings I usually don't bring up what I'm reading as I find it's not a socially wise thing to do unless I'm certain the other party has similar reading habits to mine. In general I usually bring up what I've watched recently. What I find amusing are the subtle jabs I get for 'wasting my time watching tv' from people who I'm sure don't read as much as I do.
To me television is just another medium, nothing more, nothing less. It has its advantages and disadvantages, sure, but I've learned just as much if not more from extremely well done lectures / documentaries as I have from books. Even from watching regular 'tv shows' for entertainment purposes I've learned quite a bit as a lot of shows these days are extremely detailed (e.g. Mr. Robot) and there's quite a lot to learn or think about if you pay enough attention.
I don't play video games as much these days, but I also find the amount of disdain people hold for the entire medium is unwarranted IMHO.
For what I'm watching right now - I'm enjoying James Burke's Connections which was recommended here on HN a while back. I highly recommend others to watch it if they haven't!
> not all television is entertainment
This made me chuckle. I was trying to imply that things can be more than entertainment. Even things that are billed as straight up documentaries can hold some entertainment value.
And I agree with you, people like to look down on television even though it's just another medium. I've recently watched The Good Place, which is pretty much a sitcom, but they do introduce you to various philosophical concepts. Both directly and indirectly.
Penn Jillette said Mickey Dolenz has the best quote about video games he's ever heard: Video games are the new rock and roll. It's the thing the parents don't get. So Penn watches his kids play Minecraft and he doesn't get it, but he knows he doesn't get it so he just lets them discover their own world.
This made me chuckle. I was trying to imply that things can be more than entertainment. Even things that are billed as straight up documentaries can hold some entertainment value.
And I agree with you, people like to look down on television even though it's just another medium. I've recently watched The Good Place, which is pretty much a sitcom, but they do introduce you to various philosophical concepts. Both directly and indirectly.
Penn Jillette said Mickey Dolenz has the best quote about video games he's ever heard: Video games are the new rock and roll. It's the thing the parents don't get. So Penn watches his kids play Minecraft and he doesn't get it, but he knows he doesn't get it so he just lets them discover their own world.
Yes, this was my point. You expressed it better, thanks.
Advantages of written fiction over TV: Greater imagination, improved vocabulary, greater degree of escapism, lack of commercials, a more active degree of concentration required
(which leads to less 'binge-ing').
(which leads to less 'binge-ing').
> (which leads to less 'binge-ing')
Disagree in my personal case; I binge on novel series just as hard - and often harder - as I do on TV series.
Disagree in my personal case; I binge on novel series just as hard - and often harder - as I do on TV series.
My dad actually refuses to read anything good anymore because he doesn't think he has the self control to avoid binging on series. For most people though, they read slowly enough that instead of watching 15 episodes of a show in a row they work through one book, which feels like a slower pace.
There is a difference in the level of "fulfillment", the degree of satisfaction that one can only earn from active engagement. Binge-ing on Netflix series is easier, more passive, to the extent where it has to poke you after 3 episodes to make sure you're still conscious.
I wouldn't call reading fiction "active engagement". The only activity in that is turning pages and occasionally changing the way you sit.
(Or maybe it's just me. Either I don't know how to read books properly, or have all the necessary activities running as background processes in my head, not requiring conscious control.)
(Or maybe it's just me. Either I don't know how to read books properly, or have all the necessary activities running as background processes in my head, not requiring conscious control.)
Personal anecdote: Someone in my high school class nearly failed a course after she picked up a particularly engaging series.
It was interesting to hear her talk about how her parents punished her by prohibiting her from reading for the month.
It was interesting to hear her talk about how her parents punished her by prohibiting her from reading for the month.
Wow that's pretty much me. During high school I was always forbidden spending any allowance for books, so I would do it secretly.
Since I'm in eastern europe and books are expensive I very quickly turned to english editions, preferably paperback and as my interest in sci-fi and fantasy grew I was usually choosing the thickest bricks available in my local bookstore.
Getting a Kindle for my 18 birthday from my friends was a total revelation since at this point I was reading completely in english and all of a sudden got access to pretty much every book ever.
Getting a Kindle for my 18 birthday from my friends was a total revelation since at this point I was reading completely in english and all of a sudden got access to pretty much every book ever.
Fiction as in "Hunger Games," maybe. But I think that literary fiction can be more more demanding and more edifying than almost any non-fiction or technical writing. I tend to be suspicious of people whose reading lists just look like book club recommendations from Bill Gates and Elon Musk.
There is nothing to be gained from reading fiction? :/
> It is quite possible -- overwhelmingly probable, one might guess -- that we will always learn more about human life and personality from novels than from scientific psychology.
-- Noam Chomsky
-- Noam Chomsky
Exactly. I read a lot of Sci Fi novels and while some of them are pulpy and low brow many are mind expanding. If nothing else it makes one think, "What if?" and "What could be?"
> Either way, you're doing it for entertainment
God forbid.
God forbid.
Nothing wrong with that; I just take issue with people who read light fiction but go on talking how books are better on the mind than TV. That kind of reading isn't. Textbooks are.
Doesn’t reading fiction require more imagination and active work than watching TV?
Personally, I think both are great! TV is fun to watch and there are lots of great shows. There are plenty of books with fun stories and characters.
Personally, I think both are great! TV is fun to watch and there are lots of great shows. There are plenty of books with fun stories and characters.
> Doesn’t reading fiction require more imagination and active work than watching TV?
Theoretically, yes. But does this effort develop into skills useful in life? If not, then it's just entertainment.
> Personally, I think both are great! TV is fun to watch and there are lots of great shows. There are plenty of books with fun stories and characters.
I think so too! I love reading good fiction, and binding on good novel series just as much as I love binging on TV series! I just have issues with this popular notion that reading any book instead of watching TV makes you a smarter person, given that those books are usually light fiction, and not even something mind-expanding like e.g. some science fiction works.
Theoretically, yes. But does this effort develop into skills useful in life? If not, then it's just entertainment.
> Personally, I think both are great! TV is fun to watch and there are lots of great shows. There are plenty of books with fun stories and characters.
I think so too! I love reading good fiction, and binding on good novel series just as much as I love binging on TV series! I just have issues with this popular notion that reading any book instead of watching TV makes you a smarter person, given that those books are usually light fiction, and not even something mind-expanding like e.g. some science fiction works.
> But does this effort develop into skills useful in life?
If you don't think that having an active imagination and being able to visualize a concept is a useful skill in life, then I don't know what else to say.
If you don't think that having an active imagination and being able to visualize a concept is a useful skill in life, then I don't know what else to say.
There's imagination, and there's imagination. I doubt novels will help you develop imagination the way e.g. solving spatial puzzles in your head will.
In my experience, prose doesn't force, or even encourage you to improve your imagination; it merely exercises your current levels. Kind of like opting for stairs instead of elevator when going up one floor - it doesn't really improve anything in your health, unless you're barely fit to walk, and is not a substitute for exercise that makes you reach the limits of your muscles.
In my experience, prose doesn't force, or even encourage you to improve your imagination; it merely exercises your current levels. Kind of like opting for stairs instead of elevator when going up one floor - it doesn't really improve anything in your health, unless you're barely fit to walk, and is not a substitute for exercise that makes you reach the limits of your muscles.
Which fiction?
I know many people like to set goals on goodreads to read N number of books a year. I really wish there was a better metric used. Even number of words would be a massive improvement but you'd need that data for every (most) books. Which amazon could do rather easily...
I think this article would be better if it abstracts "deep reading" to longform content. The sort of reading the article is focusing on (novels, fiction) is only a small subset of the total amount of "dense" content available. The article calls itself a "frivolous" blog post, but many blogs are very insightful and intellectually stimulating. If in any given year you read zero books, but you read several articles from The Economist and Foreign Affairs each week, you're still reading a substantial amount of longform content.
Even in that (more generous) context, I think it's pretty difficult to say anything meaningful about how much reading the average person does. The best we can do is probably trade anecdotes because self-reported survey responses could be unreliable. That being said, in my opinion a lot of people (especially on websites such as this one) don't have a good awareness of how many people are either inadvertently or willfully uneducated because they simply don't want to read. It's very difficult to replace the information density of longform content when you're using a video medium, but videos are clearly far more popular. Consider how often you search for reviews or instructions and can find only videos on YouTube that say in 5 - 10 minutes what could have been written in a few paragraphs and read in maybe 2 minutes. Sometimes instead of videos it's weird infographics filled with gifs.
Note that I'm not talking about informational entertainment videos or visual walkthroughs - I'm talking about strictly inefficient videos designed to be a learning utility, like all those oddball ones where someone (poorly) narrates how to do something on their compute by recording themselves doing it and typing instructions. Likewise, if you read through the comment threads about a new movie in /r/movies, you'll come away with far more actionable insights about the film than if you watched any given video review about it online. The videos that do have a lot of information density are notable as exceptions that prove the rule: they're generally very long, by YouTube standards, and not (intentionally) funny. Consider 3Blue1Brown or AltShiftX, for example. The antithesis of this is local news or quick video snippets taking the place of longer articles in the NYT, WSJ or FT.
If you're reading this comment, you are probably a person who likes to read. You might not read fiction much, but you're spending your time on a forum specifically devoted to discussing thought provoking content. That means you might be in a professional and personal bubble where all or most of the people you talk to enjoy reading "interesting" things, for some definition of interesting. But most people are not scientists, entrepreneurs or software engineers debating the finer points of e.g. driving automation on Hacker News. Many people (especially below the poverty line) simply don't have the time to read anything nontrivial between taking care of their family and working one or more jobs. Worse still, many people have become so used to video content that they won't read anything. One friend of mine only keeps up with the news by having CNN on in the background at his computer. When I sent him an article about something I thought he'd find interesting (the article on here recently about Riot's anti-cheating systems), he simply said he wouldn't read it - not because he wasn't interested, but because, "meh, too long."
And this circles back to my original point - whether you consider only fiction or any intellectually stimulating longform content, it's clear that the vast amount of actionable information people consume is presented to them via a medium that is not designed for clarity and density. If all you consider is fiction you might miss this point, because entertainment-driven media can be substantially thought provoking whether it's read or watches. But non-fiction suffers dramatically when it leaves the written medium.
Even in that (more generous) context, I think it's pretty difficult to say anything meaningful about how much reading the average person does. The best we can do is probably trade anecdotes because self-reported survey responses could be unreliable. That being said, in my opinion a lot of people (especially on websites such as this one) don't have a good awareness of how many people are either inadvertently or willfully uneducated because they simply don't want to read. It's very difficult to replace the information density of longform content when you're using a video medium, but videos are clearly far more popular. Consider how often you search for reviews or instructions and can find only videos on YouTube that say in 5 - 10 minutes what could have been written in a few paragraphs and read in maybe 2 minutes. Sometimes instead of videos it's weird infographics filled with gifs.
Note that I'm not talking about informational entertainment videos or visual walkthroughs - I'm talking about strictly inefficient videos designed to be a learning utility, like all those oddball ones where someone (poorly) narrates how to do something on their compute by recording themselves doing it and typing instructions. Likewise, if you read through the comment threads about a new movie in /r/movies, you'll come away with far more actionable insights about the film than if you watched any given video review about it online. The videos that do have a lot of information density are notable as exceptions that prove the rule: they're generally very long, by YouTube standards, and not (intentionally) funny. Consider 3Blue1Brown or AltShiftX, for example. The antithesis of this is local news or quick video snippets taking the place of longer articles in the NYT, WSJ or FT.
If you're reading this comment, you are probably a person who likes to read. You might not read fiction much, but you're spending your time on a forum specifically devoted to discussing thought provoking content. That means you might be in a professional and personal bubble where all or most of the people you talk to enjoy reading "interesting" things, for some definition of interesting. But most people are not scientists, entrepreneurs or software engineers debating the finer points of e.g. driving automation on Hacker News. Many people (especially below the poverty line) simply don't have the time to read anything nontrivial between taking care of their family and working one or more jobs. Worse still, many people have become so used to video content that they won't read anything. One friend of mine only keeps up with the news by having CNN on in the background at his computer. When I sent him an article about something I thought he'd find interesting (the article on here recently about Riot's anti-cheating systems), he simply said he wouldn't read it - not because he wasn't interested, but because, "meh, too long."
And this circles back to my original point - whether you consider only fiction or any intellectually stimulating longform content, it's clear that the vast amount of actionable information people consume is presented to them via a medium that is not designed for clarity and density. If all you consider is fiction you might miss this point, because entertainment-driven media can be substantially thought provoking whether it's read or watches. But non-fiction suffers dramatically when it leaves the written medium.
The author is incorrect, at least according to polls. It looks like the majority of Americans read a book in 2015, with many of them reading more than one.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/27-percent-america...
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/27-percent-america...
I don't think this shows that the author is incorrect. As far as I can tell, the author is arguing that it does not make sense to wring our hands over the death or life of "deep reading" because it has always been an unpopular activity. Books were only genuinely popular when people had no other form of passive entertainment, but even then people were just reading the way most people watch TV now, as a way to pass time.
The fact that most people say they read at least one book tells us pretty much nothing about the state of deep reading, and therefore is not very relevant to the linked article. Granted, the linked article doesn't cite sources for its conclusions either, but based on the books I see read in public...I believe them.
The fact that most people say they read at least one book tells us pretty much nothing about the state of deep reading, and therefore is not very relevant to the linked article. Granted, the linked article doesn't cite sources for its conclusions either, but based on the books I see read in public...I believe them.
The median is apparently something like "4 or 5 books" a year.
A YEAR.
In a virtue-signalling survey that will illicit higher responses than we might otherwise expect (self reported rates of untested things seen as "good" tend to be over-report on such surveys, while rates of things seen as "bad" then to be under-reported), i think that actually supports the authors point.
Especially when he/she mentions people with a stack of books on their bedstand or whom pack their kindles with multiple books at a time for holidaying.
A YEAR.
In a virtue-signalling survey that will illicit higher responses than we might otherwise expect (self reported rates of untested things seen as "good" tend to be over-report on such surveys, while rates of things seen as "bad" then to be under-reported), i think that actually supports the authors point.
Especially when he/she mentions people with a stack of books on their bedstand or whom pack their kindles with multiple books at a time for holidaying.
> virtue-signalling survey
Oh, well in that case... I probably read an average of 4 to 5 books a day (to my young children) while drinking fair-trade coffee, on my American-made couch with vegan-friendly upholstery, lit by energy-efficient LED lighting that changes color temperature with my circadian rhythm.
Oh, well in that case... I probably read an average of 4 to 5 books a day (to my young children) while drinking fair-trade coffee, on my American-made couch with vegan-friendly upholstery, lit by energy-efficient LED lighting that changes color temperature with my circadian rhythm.
I'm confused. Do you think 4 or 5 books a year is a lot, or a little?
I think its appreciably close to nothing (including both the number of books many people will be made to read while at compulsory schooling and education, and I also think its close the kind of number of books a non-reader would respond to such a survey when making up an number given that they really don't read in any practical amount).
I think the real number is close to 0-1 books read a year for most people. 5-6 books read a year would be much more then the average person in my estimation.
I mostly just wish more people would read so that it'd be more likely that the 5 people I hang out the most were avid readers, so I could get some spillover wisdom.
I would read constantly. Fiction, nonfiction, books on science, books on history, books on literature, you name it. I read my older brother's honors English books sitting around.
These days the internet is far more attractive and interesting than anything else going on, and I can scratch my itch to read by skimming articles on news aggregators without really retaining anything.
Articles about the "death of reading" are about people like me who have trouble unplugging to read. There are still some people who do read books, so it's not completely dead. But it is kind of sad for people like me who miss reading.
(I'm actually doing much better these days, though, and at least right now I'm getting some good reading done as I'm hooked on a series.)