Reading
Last night on NewsHour someone from the NEA (the Arts one) discussed a report that shows literary book reading in the U.S. is down. But they define literary book reading as novels, short stories, plays, or poetry.
They did ask about people who read books of any kind, but didn't use that much in their analysis. They did not ask about people who read non-books, such as magazines and online. The even included Internet use in their analysis, astonishingly, as a non-reading activity.
Why is this interesting, you ask? Well, it isn't. And that's my point. I know people who read only romance novels, which is included in literary reading. I read political and historical books, which are not included. And somehow their romance novels is good whereas my reading is not? It's ridiculous.
Look, people are reading fewer novels because people care less about them. They are reading more online and reading more non-fiction because it is more accessible and more interesting. This trend is positive IMO, not negative. Most novels/plays/short stories/poetry are inane and a waste of time.
They did ask about people who read books of any kind, but didn't use that much in their analysis. They did not ask about people who read non-books, such as magazines and online. The even included Internet use in their analysis, astonishingly, as a non-reading activity.
Why is this interesting, you ask? Well, it isn't. And that's my point. I know people who read only romance novels, which is included in literary reading. I read political and historical books, which are not included. And somehow their romance novels is good whereas my reading is not? It's ridiculous.
Look, people are reading fewer novels because people care less about them. They are reading more online and reading more non-fiction because it is more accessible and more interesting. This trend is positive IMO, not negative. Most novels/plays/short stories/poetry are inane and a waste of time.
Leave a comment