A couple of days ago I was running on the treadmill at Gold's Gym, watching the Mets/Padres game on one of the five big-screen TVs while trying to zip off a couple of miles. (There wasn't much zip going on, though.) In between innings, I flipped my headphone control to Fox News where they were reporting on Reading in America.
The brief report stated that only 1 in 4 Americans reads (or finishes) at least one book a year. That statistic, the reporter said, includes students who are required to read something for school. Or it could be someone reading Harry Potter. To be honest, I was surprised the percentage was as high as 25%.
Then last night I started reading Washington Post writer Michael Dirda's 2005 book Bound to Please - An Extraordinary One-Volume Literary Education: Essays on Great Writers and Their Books. In the Introduction, Dirda cites a 2004 report from the National Endowment for the Arts called "Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America." According to the report (which can be downloaded from the bottom of this page), "one in six people reads 12 or more books in a year."
Of course, as Dirda points out, most of those people are probably reading the same 12 books including The Da Vinci Code, Harry Potter, the latest Oprah book, etc. Dirda also states that the NEA definition of "literary" reading includes anything NOT a textbook or business report, so the category is pretty much wide open.
It saddens Dirda (and me, too) that fewer and fewer Americans each year are reading "real" literature, however you choose to define it. The implications for our cultural future are not pretty at all, but I think you have to remember that some people are still reading something, even if it's not "literary" or challenging or whatever you want to call it.
Now I don't care what people read as long as they're reading something. Sure, it would be great if everyone read quality literature, classics, history, philosophy, science, and on down the list. But nobody's going to read any of that if they don't start with something, even if it's The Da Vinci Code.
Whether it involves listening to music, watching films, looking at art or any number of artistic endeavors, people have to start with something familiar and be led to appreciate works with more depth. You can take someone from Adam Sandler to Ingmar Bergman, but it takes time and patience. A transition from The Da Vinci Code to The Name of the Rose might be challenging, but it's not impossible.
First we have to get people reading something. Then we can't abandon them. Stick with them. Talk about books, make recommendations. Don't give up. And the next time you see somebody reading something you probably wouldn't pick up, at least be thankful they're reading something. Then go up to them and ask, "What are you planning on reading next? I've got a couple of suggestions..."
1 comment:
I think that part of the reason many people don't read, even though a far greater portion of the populace CAN read than at any time in the past, is that reading requires far more activity than watching TV. That is, when you watch popular TV or movies, most all of the story and character is handed to you in one visual swoop. When you read, not only do you have to be willing to ingest the same information in smaller doses, you have to be willing to fill in what the author leaves out: if Robert Parker says that Hawk is a large black man, does he mean like Kareem Abdul Jabbar or Michael Clarke Duncan? Our TV culture does not condition us to make such distinctions on our own.
Sorry. That's a complaint, not a solution. Here's one: the YA category is booming, and doubtlessly making a good bit of money. But there's no need to ghettoize it. Adults who read and liked The Da Vinci Code but are turned off by most any other mainstream fiction could find lots to like in smart YA fiction: Anderson, Westerfeld, etc. Good books are good books no matter where you find them in the bookstore.
Post a Comment