Ever increasing horror

[Keith&Co.]

I can't even... i mean... aaaaagh!
I read. I have a book in the car at all times. I have one by the bed, one by each toilet, four by my desk.
When i was in high school, i babysat a 4year old. The only things to read in the entire house was one fabric book and the phone book. For three days after tgat, i was able to converse with authority on the relative density of people named Johnson in the towns of Jerome, Buhl, Filer, Wendell, and Twin Falls.

 

[Politesse]

No surprise here. My students, most of whom are in their first or second year of college, have often commented to me that they have never read a book outside the context of school, and/or that they have never had the experience of enjoying the reading of a book; it has always been an occasion for confusion and public ridicule in their experience rather than any sort of entertainment. So it isn't surprising that they do not pursue the habit after graduation.

 

[rousseau]

There are a few things going on.

For one, books cost money, time, and energy, things that most of us don't have. Second, they take reasonable literacy skills, which again takes out a chunk of people. And lastly, for many people reading is literally too unexciting for them to enjoy (think about people on the extroverted side of the spectrum).

Like sky-diving, clubbing, or any other hobby, reading is an activity that appeals to a specific segment of any population. And what's more, those who do read are almost universally reading fluffy fiction that's not much different from watching TV.

Don't ask me how I know this .

 

[Politesse]

There are a few things going on.

For one, books cost money, time, and energy, things that most of us don't have. Second, they take reasonable literacy skills, which again takes out a chunk of people. And lastly, for many people reading is literally too unexciting for them to enjoy (think about people on the extroverted side of the spectrum).

Like sky-diving, clubbing, or any other hobby, reading is an activity that appeals to a specific segment of any population. And what's more, those who do read are almost universally reading fluffy fiction that's not much different from watching TV.

Don't ask me how I know this .

Haha, that too. This former librarian can attest that between serious academic studies of important issues, and smutty romance novels, there is no contest whatsoever.

 

[rousseau]

There are a few things going on.

For one, books cost money, time, and energy, things that most of us don't have. Second, they take reasonable literacy skills, which again takes out a chunk of people. And lastly, for many people reading is literally too unexciting for them to enjoy (think about people on the extroverted side of the spectrum).

Like sky-diving, clubbing, or any other hobby, reading is an activity that appeals to a specific segment of any population. And what's more, those who do read are almost universally reading fluffy fiction that's not much different from watching TV.

Don't ask me how I know this .

Haha, that too. This former librarian can attest that between serious academic studies of important issues, and smutty romance novels, there is no contest whatsoever.

I don't read too much fiction, but was getting at that it took me reading an enormous amount of non-fiction to understand why people don't read.

I recall a few years ago when I was really getting into topical books at a quick pace, I thought I was unlocking the secrets of the universe, and I couldn't wait to share with people. On Goodreads I'd review book after book, so others could find and read about the same books. Then over time I realized - absolutely nobody I knew cared about any of that, and their eyes probably glazed over just reading the titles of books I read.

And honestly? That's fine. In my opinion there's a pernicious idea that if we suddenly just have the right education system, expose people to the right things, or what have you, then all will be right in the world and we won't end up with people like Trump in power. But that's fundamentally not how people work - for most people their primary concern is making enough money to feed/house themselves, raise children, and not starve to death before they die. Which is why reading is pretty much the purview of wealthy, educated introverts.

 

[Politesse]

Which is why reading is pretty much the purview of wealthy, educated introverts.

Actually, I don't think that's true either. There may be access issues, but literacy is not the exclusive province of the wealthy. I mean speaking of the library, a lot of people hated the unhomed population that often spent their days there. But I found in conversation that they tended to be extremely intelligent and well-informed. When you live part-time in a library, reading presents itself as a logical hobby.

 

[rousseau]

Which is why reading is pretty much the purview of wealthy, educated introverts.

Actually, I don't think that's trrue either. There may be access issues, but literacy is not the exclusive province of the wealthy. I mean speaking of the library, a lot of people hated the unhomed population that often spent their days there. But I found in conversation that they tended to be extremely intelligent and well-informed. When you live part-time in a library, reading presents itself as a logical hobby.

Oh I agree with you there - I was mainly referring to access. Those who read the most are typically people who can afford books and have leisure time, but the hobby as a whole is definitely much more widespread than it once was.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree on the last one. Reading alone isn't going to make you an expert, period.

And what counts as a "bookstore"? I haven't set foot in a brick-and-mortar bookstore in the last 5 years, in that time everything new has been electronic. That doesn't mean I don't read, it just means I don't read dead-tree anymore.

 

[bigfield]

According to Robert Brewer, the author of the infographic, the figures are not trustworthy:

http://www.robertbrewer.org/surprising-book-facts-infographic/

Here's Brewer's revised infographic, which tells a different story.



This one is more sad than horrifying.

 

[Politesse]

Speaking as an "expert" in an uncommon field, it's not that hard to put yourself in the top one hundred, as long as your chosen field isn't one of the five or six things your undergraduate advisor suggested as marketable degrees. I mean, I probably know more about the very specific topic I did my Master's Thesis on than anyone now living, not that anyone besides me particularly cares.

I also don't think reading alone will get you there, though, especially if all you read is books.

 

[Angry Floof]

That graphic is depressing. I've seen it before and it's depressing every time.

I do most of my reading online or through Kindle these days, but I can't imagine not reading anything all day. I suppose I've had days in my life where I went the whole day without reading something, as in anything other than everyday signs or lists or whatever and not actual books or articles.

 

[DrZoidberg]

View attachment 29655
I can't even... i mean... aaaaagh!
I read. I have a book in the car at all times. I have one by the bed, one by each toilet, four by my desk.
When i was in high school, i babysat a 4year old. The only things to read in the entire house was one fabric book and the phone book. For three days after tgat, i was able to converse with authority on the relative density of people named Johnson in the towns of Jerome, Buhl, Filer, Wendell, and Twin Falls.

It means nothing. We have access to more text than ever before. We are reading more than ever before. We're just not reading books like we used to. New research that I've read suggests that young people, not only, read and write more than ever, they also read and write better than ever. On average.

Because of how much people write, the mean quality of writing is worse. But when tested on skill kids are better.

So I'm not worried.

Authors are horrified because it means the obvious revenue model for them is threatened. They'll need to be more creative in how they make money, and nobody likes having to be creative. Because the average writing skill has gone up authors are less special today. Which means there's more good books being produced. Nobody likes competition.

I love this new world of multi media and interactive communication. Like this forum for example. So I think you do to.

 

[James Brown]

Because of how much people write, the mean quality of writing is worse. But when tested on skill kids are better.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I do find libraries interesting. The book is becoming less and less the chosen media from which to read text. The libraries are wed to this one way of reading books. They're starting to become more creative. They've expanded to audiobooks. Some are hosting Maker Spaces. But overall they've becoming state financed ghostly and empty shells devoid of function. I think that's a shame. When I was a kid I did not have peace and quiet at home. I came from a very chaotic home. Libraries was a refuge for me.

I think we should convert libraries to a sort of temples of reading. Contemplative calm spaces in an urban environment, where people can read whatever they bring.

Because libraries do NOT need to provide books anymore. Nobody needs a library for that. They should be spaces for reading. Not finding books.

 

[rousseau]

I do find libraries interesting. The book is becoming less and less the chosen media from which to read text. The libraries are wed to this one way of reading books. They're starting to become more creative. They've expanded to audiobooks. Some are hosting Maker Spaces. But overall they've becoming state financed ghostly and empty shells devoid of function. I think that's a shame. When I was a kid I did not have peace and quiet at home. I came from a very chaotic home. Libraries was a refuge for me.

I think we should convert libraries to a sort of temples of reading. Contemplative calm spaces in an urban environment, where people can read whatever they bring.

Because libraries do NOT need to provide books anymore. Nobody needs a library for that. They should be spaces for reading. Not finding books.

I don't know. I agree that the value proposition of the book has definitely changed since the rise of the internet, but there is a lot of information in paper books. And in that way libraries act as a centralized collection that really can't be acquired any other way. Fewer people are making use of those collections, but really - was there ever a massive market for libraries? It's definitely shrunk, but I don't think there's ever been groups of 19 year olds headed to the library on a Saturday night.

I'm a good case in point - I've been making use of the libraries at the University of Western Ontario for three years. Their collection is among the best in the world, and I'm literally a different person because of my access to it. Does the lack of a high quantity of people making use of it negate it's value for the few people who do? When we no longer have access to the great books of the last century something major will be lost.

And the thing is - new academic scholarship is now being created at a faster pace than it ever was before. Without these books on a library shelf, they'll be entirely inaccessible.

To me the library isn't something we do because of some scientific formula with some type of impact on society for the good, it's something we do because books are fantastic, and it's great to make them available.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I do find libraries interesting. The book is becoming less and less the chosen media from which to read text. The libraries are wed to this one way of reading books. They're starting to become more creative. They've expanded to audiobooks. Some are hosting Maker Spaces. But overall they've becoming state financed ghostly and empty shells devoid of function. I think that's a shame. When I was a kid I did not have peace and quiet at home. I came from a very chaotic home. Libraries was a refuge for me.

I think we should convert libraries to a sort of temples of reading. Contemplative calm spaces in an urban environment, where people can read whatever they bring.

Because libraries do NOT need to provide books anymore. Nobody needs a library for that. They should be spaces for reading. Not finding books.

I don't know. I agree that the value proposition of the book has definitely changed since the rise of the internet, but there is a lot of information in paper books. And in that way libraries act as a centralized collection that really can't be acquired any other way. Fewer people are making use of those collections, but really - was there ever a massive market for libraries? It's definitely shrunk, but I don't think there's ever been groups of 19 year olds headed to the library on a Saturday night.

I'm a good case in point - I've been making use of the libraries at the University of Western Ontario for three years. Their collection is among the best in the world, and I'm literally a different person because of my access to it. Does the lack of a high quantity of people making use of it negate it's value for the few people who do? When we no longer have access to the great books of the last century something major will be lost.

And the thing is - new academic scholarship is now being created at a faster pace than it ever was before. Without these books on a library shelf, they'll be entirely inaccessible.

To me the library isn't something we do because of some scientific formula with some type of impact on society for the good, it's something we do because books are fantastic, and it's great to make them available.

I haven't opened a paper book since the Kindle came out. I read a lot. If I can't find a book in an e-book store I can find it on a pirate site. Project Gutenberg has every classic in the world.

This Christmas I spent a week inside of a lake in a volcano in Nicaragua. While sitting on my ass watching the view, I wanted to read a book. Three clicks later I had the book on my Kindle and I was reading it.

This development isn't going to unwind and stop. It's only an ever accelerating development.

 

[rousseau]

I do find libraries interesting. The book is becoming less and less the chosen media from which to read text. The libraries are wed to this one way of reading books. They're starting to become more creative. They've expanded to audiobooks. Some are hosting Maker Spaces. But overall they've becoming state financed ghostly and empty shells devoid of function. I think that's a shame. When I was a kid I did not have peace and quiet at home. I came from a very chaotic home. Libraries was a refuge for me.

I think we should convert libraries to a sort of temples of reading. Contemplative calm spaces in an urban environment, where people can read whatever they bring.

Because libraries do NOT need to provide books anymore. Nobody needs a library for that. They should be spaces for reading. Not finding books.

I don't know. I agree that the value proposition of the book has definitely changed since the rise of the internet, but there is a lot of information in paper books. And in that way libraries act as a centralized collection that really can't be acquired any other way. Fewer people are making use of those collections, but really - was there ever a massive market for libraries? It's definitely shrunk, but I don't think there's ever been groups of 19 year olds headed to the library on a Saturday night.

I'm a good case in point - I've been making use of the libraries at the University of Western Ontario for three years. Their collection is among the best in the world, and I'm literally a different person because of my access to it. Does the lack of a high quantity of people making use of it negate it's value for the few people who do? When we no longer have access to the great books of the last century something major will be lost.

And the thing is - new academic scholarship is now being created at a faster pace than it ever was before. Without these books on a library shelf, they'll be entirely inaccessible.

To me the library isn't something we do because of some scientific formula with some type of impact on society for the good, it's something we do because books are fantastic, and it's great to make them available.

I haven't opened a paper book since the Kindle came out. I read a lot. If I can't find a book in an e-book store I can find it on a pirate site. Project Gutenberg has every classic in the world.

This Christmas I spent a week inside of a lake in a volcano in Nicaragua. While sitting on my ass watching the view, I wanted to read a book. Three clicks later I had the book on my Kindle and I was reading it.

This development isn't going to unwind and stop. It's only an ever accelerating development.

I agree. Give it a few decades and the e-format will become more prominent, but I don't think we're ready to do away with paper yet. The amount of relevant scholarship that doesn't exist in e-format is still pretty enormous.

 

[Politesse]

I do find libraries interesting. The book is becoming less and less the chosen media from which to read text. The libraries are wed to this one way of reading books. They're starting to become more creative. They've expanded to audiobooks. Some are hosting Maker Spaces. But overall they've becoming state financed ghostly and empty shells devoid of function. I think that's a shame. When I was a kid I did not have peace and quiet at home. I came from a very chaotic home. Libraries was a refuge for me.

I think we should convert libraries to a sort of temples of reading. Contemplative calm spaces in an urban environment, where people can read whatever they bring.

Because libraries do NOT need to provide books anymore. Nobody needs a library for that. They should be spaces for reading. Not finding books.

That is very much the modern American novel; unless you're in a very poor neighborhood or a Republican state, most new libraries these days have the appearance of comfortable atria where people can come, mingle, use computers or wifi, take classes, and so forth.

 

[Politesse]

I agree. Give it a few decades and the e-format will become more prominent, but I don't think we're ready to do away with paper yet. The amount of relevant scholarship that doesn't exist in e-format is still pretty enormous.

Or is absurdly expensive for the average person to access that way, $50-60USD to download a journal article, equal pricing for paper/digital textbooks...

 

[WAB]

View attachment 29655
I can't even... i mean... aaaaagh!
I read. I have a book in the car at all times. I have one by the bed, one by each toilet, four by my desk.
When i was in high school, i babysat a 4year old. The only things to read in the entire house was one fabric book and the phone book. For three days after tgat, i was able to converse with authority on the relative density of people named Johnson in the towns of Jerome, Buhl, Filer, Wendell, and Twin Falls.

It means nothing. We have access to more text than ever before. We are reading more than ever before. We're just not reading books like we used to. New research that I've read suggests that young people, not only, read and write more than ever, they also read and write better than ever. On average.

Because of how much people write, the mean quality of writing is worse. But when tested on skill kids are better.

So I'm not worried.

Authors are horrified because it means the obvious revenue model for them is threatened. They'll need to be more creative in how they make money, and nobody likes having to be creative. Because the average writing skill has gone up authors are less special today. Which means there's more good books being produced. Nobody likes competition.

I love this new world of multi media and interactive communication. Like this forum for example. So I think you do to.

Great post.

I don't read paper books anymore. It's either my Kindle or Gutenberg. I don't even miss the 'real' book experience - except maybe the smell.