← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · PaleoBear
Thread ID: 20409 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2005-09-26
2005-09-26 05:35 | User Profile
02 August 2004
Dana Gioia
Broadcast: August 2, 2004
(MUSIC)
VOICE ONE:
Welcome to THIS IS AMERICA in VOA Special English. Iââ¬â¢m Steve Ember.
VOICE TWO:
And Iââ¬â¢m Gwen Outen. This week our program examines reading in the United States.
(MUSIC)
VOICE ONE:
Americans have read a lot in recent weeks about a study. It shows that for the first time in modern history, fewer than half the adults in the country read literature.
A federal agency that gives money to the arts announced the findings. The National Endowment for the Arts is the official arts organization of the United States government.
The report says forty-seven percent of American adults read novels, short stories, plays or poetry in two-thousand-two. That was down ten percentage points from twenty years earlier.
The study is called ââ¬ÅReading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America.ââ¬Â The Census Bureau, the agency that collects facts about the population, did the study.
VOICE TWO:
Researchers asked seventeen-thousand people about their reading. The people could define literature however they wanted. It could be any kind of fiction, poetry or play. It could include works like love stories, mysteries or science fiction. The researchers compared the results with findings from nineteen-eighty-two and nineteen-ninety-two.
Women read more literature than men. But the research shows that men and women are both reading less and less.
Twenty years ago, people between the ages of eighteen and forty-four read more literature than any other age groups. But the new study shows an increasingly sharp loss of interest in reading among young adults. Researchers say the only people who read less literature in two-thousand-two were those age sixty-five and older.
VOICE ONE:
The poet Dana Gioia is chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts. Mister Gioia says all groups in America are reading less, and not just less literature. In nineteen-ninety-two, sixty-one percent of adults read a book. In two-thousand-two, it was fifty-seven percent. The average number of books read was eighteen. But some people read a lot more than others.
Among readers of literature, almost half read novels or short stories in two-thousand-two. Twelve percent read poetry. Four percent read a play.
(MUSIC)
VOICE TWO:
ââ¬ÅReading at Riskââ¬Â notes that the book industry in the United States now sells three times as many books as it did twenty-five years ago. In two-thousand the industry sold more than two thousand million books. Book sales are up. But the report shows that people are reading less for pleasure. And it says one reason is competition from technology.
The report lists how Americans divide their spending on things like entertainment. In nineteen-ninety, they spent six percent on audio and video recordings and on computers and software. They spent almost as much, five-point-seven percent, on books.
By two-thousand-two, five-point-six percent went to book buying. Twenty-four percent went to electronics.
But some people do use technology to listen to recordings of books or read electronic versions.
VOICE ONE:
In the words of Dana Gioia, the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts: "This report documents a national crisis."
Yet there are some who say Americans should not read too much into the importance of the warnings. Charles McGrath is former editor of the Book Review at The New York Times. The newspaper published a commentary in which Mister McGrath noted that the study dealt only with literature.
He said he regrets that the research did not include works of non-fiction. After all, he says, some books about facts and events are very important for the information they provide. For example, he says recent books about the war in Iraq are shaping national debate.
Also, Mister McGrath noted that the report did not consider magazines, newspapers or the Internet. And this literary critic criticized the fact that the people in the study could define literature any way they wished. They were told they did not have to include ââ¬Åjust what literary critics might consider literature.ââ¬Â
VOICE TWO:
While Americans are reading less literature, more are trying to write it. ââ¬ÅReading at Riskââ¬Â says creative writing is one of the few literary activities that have increased.
And editors like David Green are trying to help people get their work printed. For many years, he has published a small magazine of short stories called Green's Magazine. Mister Green says it is costly to produce and mail four times a year. A few thousand Americans and Canadians buy it. But he says one reason he started the publication was to help beginning writers. He says it has always been difficult for new writers to find a publisher.
Today, though, writers who cannot get their work published by a traditional publishing company can place their work on the Internet. That way, people can read it online or print out a copy.
Some people who publish on the Internet are far from unknown. The writer Stephen King published ââ¬ÅRiding the Bulletââ¬Â online. It cost only a little money to read. But he suspended publication of his next online book, ââ¬ÅThe Plant.ââ¬Â He did that because people were printing the book without paying.
(MUSIC)
VOICE ONE:
"Reading at Risk" says more than ninety percent of people said they like television better than reading. The average American family watches television more than three hours a day. The report says television has reduced interest in books.
We talked to a professor who teaches literature in Maryland. She says many of her students do not want to read the books required in her classes. They try to read only notes and commentaries about the books instead. She says the problem is that college students these days grew up on television.
VOICE TWO:
Yet some television programs have influenced people to read. For example, Oprah Winfrey started a book club on her popular talk show. During the first Oprahââ¬â¢s Book Club, she chose a current book that she liked. She asked people to read the book and then write to her show with their thoughts and opinions.
Oprahââ¬â¢s Book Club had a big effect on the publishing industry. Publishers had to print more copies of books to satisfy demand. People who wanted to borrow copies from a library sometimes found several hundred others before them on the waiting list.
In two-thousand-two, Oprah Winfrey decided to drop the book club from her television show. Now, however, she is again suggesting books. This time, she chooses classics. Her choice of ââ¬ÅAnna Kareninaââ¬Â made this Russian classic an American best seller. Leo Tolstoy wrote it in the eighteen-seventies.
VOICE ONE:
Many Americans form their own book clubs. Members might be friends from work. Or they might live near each other. Most groups read the same book at the same time. Then they meet to discuss it. Some people discuss books over the Internet.
Some book groups read only literary novels by great writers. Or they might read the works of only one writer. Members of a book club in the state of Georgia choose books of special interest to African Americans. Members of another Georgia book club each read different books. Then they give a report to the others.
Children belong to reading clubs, too. In Illinois, for example, Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago has organized book clubs in schools.
Childrenââ¬â¢s book clubs can get help from the Great Books Foundation. This organization provides lists of books to read and also sells collected stories. It also trains people to lead discussions about the books.
VOICE TWO:
The National Endowment for the Arts says the move toward electronic media for entertainment and information is not good news for society. Its report, ââ¬ÅReading at Risk,ââ¬Â says readers are more active in their communities.
The research shows that people who read literature are far more likely than non-readers to give their time to help others. They are more likely to support the arts. They are also more likely to attend sporting events. In other words, reading influences peopleââ¬â¢s lives beyond just the pleasure that books provide.
(MUSIC)
VOICE ONE:
Our program was written by Jerilyn Watson and produced by Caty Weaver. Iââ¬â¢m Steve Ember.
VOICE TWO:
And Iââ¬â¢m Gwen Outen. Join us again next week for THIS IS AMERICA in VOA Special English.
2005-09-26 22:04 | User Profile
Neat article, but I sense from this transcript that the statistics are skewed, since so many people now "read stuff" on the internet. Is that better or worse than reading literature? The NEA is not what I would call someone whose opinion I value, what with their classifying urinating on religious icons as art. :thumbd:
They pay some comment to it, but the IT facet changes some base assumptions, IMO, on what the numbers mean in re literature. The other problem is that "literature" tends to be written for the literati, a rather small audience. Accessibility is key to being widely read.
I snipped a bit to keep my comments short. :flex:
[QUOTE=PaleoBear]02 August 2004 VOICE ONE: Welcome to THIS IS AMERICA in VOA Special English. Iââ¬â¢m Steve Ember. VOICE TWO: And Iââ¬â¢m Gwen Outen. This week our program examines reading in the United States. VOICE ONE: A federal agency that gives money to the arts announced the findings. The National Endowment for the Arts is the official arts organization of the United States government. (Yeah, and I for one am not impressed with it. AE)
VOICE ONE: Among readers of literature, almost half read novels or short stories in two-thousand-two. Twelve percent read poetry. Four percent read a play. VOICE TWO: ââ¬ÅReading at Riskââ¬Â notes that the book industry in the United States now sells three times as many books as it did twenty-five years ago. In two-thousand the industry sold more than two thousand million books. [u]Book sales are up[/u].
The report lists how Americans divide their spending on things like entertainment. In nineteen-ninety, they spent six percent on audio and video recordings and on computers and software. They spent almost as much, five-point-seven percent, on books.
By two-thousand-two, five-point-six percent went to book buying. Twenty-four percent went to electronics. But some people do use technology to listen to recordings of books or read electronic versions. VOICE ONE: In the words of Dana Gioia, the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts: "This report documents a national crisis." **(Right, for libs, everything is a bloody crisis. :thumbd: AE **
[u]He said he regrets that the research did not include works of non-fiction. After all, he says, some books about facts and events are very important for the information they provide. For example, he says recent books about the war in Iraq are shaping national debate. [/u]
*Also, Mister McGrath noted that the report did not consider magazines, newspapers or the Internet. And this literary critic criticized the fact that the people in the study could define literature any way they wished. They were told they did not have to include ââ¬Åjust what literary critics might consider literature.ââ¬Â * VOICE TWO: Some people who publish on the Internet are far from unknown. The writer Stephen King published ââ¬ÅRiding the Bulletââ¬Â online. It cost only a little money to read. But he suspended publication of his next online book.
VOICE ONE:
*"Reading at Risk" says more than ninety percent of people said they like television better than reading. The average American family watches television more than three hours a day. The report says television has reduced interest in books. *
(Yeah, since about 1950! AE)
[u]The National Endowment for the Arts says the move toward electronic media for entertainment and information is not good news for society[/u]. Its report, ââ¬ÅReading at Risk,ââ¬Â says readers are more active in their communities. [/QUOTE] AE
2005-09-26 23:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angeleyes]Neat article, but I sense from this transcript that the statistics are skewed, since so many people now "read stuff" on the internet. Is that better or worse than reading literature? The NEA is not what I would call someone whose opinion I value, what with their classifying urinating on religious icons as art. :thumbd:
They pay some comment to it, but the IT facet changes some base assumptions, IMO, on what the numbers mean in re literature. The other problem is that "literature" tends to be written for the literati, a rather small audience. Accessibility is key to being widely read.
I snipped a bit to keep my comments short. :flex:
AE[/QUOTE] You think enough people are reading eBooks on their PDA's to account for this? Damn near everything I read online I read cursorily. And I think the dirty little secret among the elite class is that they are reading less and less, largely as a result of the busy lifestyle of the 21st-century professional (commuting and scheduled physical exercise take up a good portion of the day, and lifestyles are getting more complex). With the two to four hours of free time in the evening, few will have the desire to shake off exhaustion and sleepiness and read-- all the while with the boob-tube in the background beckoning.
2005-09-27 04:03 | User Profile
The process of reading escapes many.
Some buy a book of learning suggested by another, but do not read it, and neither has the suggested advocate of the title.
I do not refer to textbooks but to written literature. You need only read the works of Friedrich Nietzsche, Artur Schopenhauer, Aristotle, Carl Jung and William James to understand the meaning of life. And the means to confront it and deal with it.
But their works are numerous and require almost daily study. Not for everyone. For most like mindless television soaps with ugly women and queer boys or the occasional cheap novel of romance.
And not for the middle-manager that is an idiot and fool. For the collective manager is a fool and most fools are simple managers. For they are verbal rather than intellectual. All pretence and no substance or determinate function. And how they struggle - those little men and women. It is shameful that humans are reduced to dog-like animals. They are told to bark and then attempt to bite - but they are toothless little mongrels. They lack the breeding and natural ability.
I find it amusing - the trail of death, mental debility and false belief. And, of course, failure.
Mentzer
2005-09-27 08:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The other problem is that "literature" tends to be written for the literati, a rather small audience. Accessibility is key to being widely read.[/QUOTE]
That's why 'literature' is here defined as fiction or poetry of [I]any [/I] sort. Even popular trash serves a function: it acclimates one to reading (which is an entire order above [I]watching,[/I] even if what you're reading is junk)....and even the most lurid penny-dreadful usually acts as a 'gateway drug' to more serious works. Most of us start off with Big Little Books or comics or Dick-and-Jane readers as children, after all, and move on from there.
The true significance of The Death of Reading would be more readily apparent had this study compared figures from a fifty or seventy-five year spread rather than a mere twenty (when tv was already a social institution dumbing down the populace), but I have a feeling the NEA merely wanted to alarm people, [I]not [/I] sink them into abject depression.
However - if you want to both depress yourself [I]and [/I] gauge the actual decline of literacy in this country, merely take note of the instances of ungrammatical English and/or wrongly-spelled words you encounter in your daily life over any 24-hour period, from signs in store-windows to your daily newspaper and all points between. It's now such a commonly-occurring phenomenon that it's almost [I]normal[/I]: it no longer shocks us. The way it no longer alarms us when illiteracy is championed, encouraged and even institutionalized (lest we be found guilty of 'racism' by insisting blacks adhere to proper English).
Speaking of blacks....good luck to the NEA types on their fruitless crusade to raise literacy standards while simultaneously insisting rhyming Negro gangbangers are 'street poets' every bit as intellectually valid as Kipling and Emily Dickinson. You can't confer legitimacy upon morons via cultural gunpoint....and then cry in your beer because nobody's buying the Great Books any longer.
2005-09-27 17:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno] Speaking of blacks....good luck to the NEA types on their fruitless crusade to raise literacy standards while simultaneously insisting rhyming Negro gangbangers are 'street poets' every bit as intellectually valid as Kipling and Emily Dickinson. [u]You can't confer legitimacy upon morons via cultural gunpoint....and then cry in your beer because nobody's buying the Great Books any longer.[/u][/QUOTE] Your last bit gave me a grin, but in defense of the street poets, it is a form of art. I don't have a taste for it, but rhythmic cant is one of the oldest oral art forms on the planet.
Poetry is a tricky art to enjoy, and personal taste excludes a lot of poets from my reading list. Kipling I'll keep, and Sandberg.
And my book of 1700 Limericks. :rolleyes:
AE
2005-09-27 17:27 | User Profile
All the great literary writers and poets and artists existed before electricity. (with a few exceptions)
Same for readers who can understand them. (with a few execptions)
2005-09-27 18:44 | User Profile
You come off as a rather cranky reactionary, xmetalhead...
Petr
2005-10-06 05:05 | User Profile
With people being forced to read stuff like Toni Morrison books in School I can understand why people may not want to read as much. I had to read this trash it is sick.
Toni Morrison [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toni_Morrison[/url]
2005-10-08 07:50 | User Profile
I would say this news is good for those who read and bad for those who do not.
xmetalhead makes a good point a few posts above
2005-10-10 05:07 | User Profile
...and this is probably increasingly true for our brothers and sisters across the pond as well - although my anecdotal experience has taught me that most Russians still enjoy reading quite a bit. I have yet to meet a Russian who didn't want to talk about Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita" after I mentioned it.
44% of Americans do not read a book in a year (old ref - probably greater by now [url="http://www.efmoody.com/miscellaneous/illiteracy.html"]http://www.efmoody.com/miscellaneous/illiteracy.html[/url]). My guess is that this figure is even higher now, as that link was from the early 90's. There was a "Salon" article a while back called "Confessions of a Mid-List Author" which detaile the death of the mid-list novel. Even ten or fifteen years ago, it was perfectly possible to make a somewhat decent living as a mid-list author - cranking out a novel every three years or so that might sell 20,000 or 30,000 copies. That market has all but evaporated now. Blame the Internet, general stupidity, general Spenglerian decline, etc. but people just ain't interested.
Should we bemoan this fact? I'm a huge reader (I've loved it ever since I was a young one) but I've come to accept the fact that people just don't care. My interests in Carl Jung and military history - I just can't make anyone else care, so why bother. The depressing thing about that 44% statistic, though, is that "reading a book" means anything at all. My intelligence is only slightly above average, so any erudition that I exude is due to massive amounts of autodidactic learning - about once a year I'll punish myself with something like "Decline of the West" and come out smarter for it. But why, rationally, would most people do that? It's too hard. "Reading" and "writing" are not valuable in our hypercommodified society any more in that they provide a way for people to write interoffice memos to one another. Dostoyevsky, and any eternal human lessons that he might have to offer, is "pointless" in light of new developments in interactive cable television.
All of this used to bother me a lot more than it does now. Dunno, but I've just accepted the fact that there's going to be a very small vanguard of individuals who carry things through to the next cycle. I do not buy maudlin notions that "reading is great." To invoke Jacques Ellul(), most of the sentimentality associated with the decline of reading is really pointless. But all cynicism aside, it still does bother me. I can't help but think that at one time (not in America, admittedly) there was a time when people really cared about writers and "serious" literature(*) - perhaps the masses were still asses, but there still seemed to be a bit more importance attached to the deep, eternal lessons that serious literature has to teach us.
(*) "People used to think that learning to read evidenced human progress; they still celebrate the decline of illiteracy as a great victory; they condemn countries with a large proportion of illiterates; they think that reading is a road to freedom. All this is debatable, for the important thing is not to be able to read, but to understand what one reads, to reflect on and judge what one reads. Outside of that, reading has no meaning (and even destroys certain automatic qualities of memory and observation). But to talk about critical faculties and discernment is to talk about something far above primary education and to consider a very small minority. The vast majority of people, perhaps 90% percent, know how to read, but do not exercise their intelligence beyond this."
(**) Here, I am thinking of Dostoyevsky's funeral, which was attended by some 30,000 "normal" Russians.
2005-10-10 05:10 | User Profile
By "not in America", I meant my specific example, not overall.
I sometimes frequent fervently anti-American European New Right forums, and while I am sympathetic to their critiques, what I always say is that Europeans cannot discuss the malaise emanating from America without looking in the mirror to at least a small degree. Materialism is not confined to the North American continent.
2005-10-11 00:01 | User Profile
Last_Chance_Armada,
You are very Right! [QUOTE=Last_Chance_Armada]I sometimes frequent fervently anti-American European New Right forums, and while I am sympathetic to their critiques, what I always say is that Europeans cannot discuss the malaise emanating from America without looking in the mirror to at least a small degree. Materialism is not confined to the North American continent.[/QUOTE]