Dean's World

Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

Illiterate, Stupid Americans--Not

Gallup has an interesting report on reading patterns in America. Among their conclusions:

About half of Americans are currently in the middle of reading a book. The median number of books read per year is around 5, and 83% of Americans report reading at least one book in the last year.

The frequency of reading books is up substantially from 1990, and reading books is massively more popular than it was back in the 1940s and 1950s.

Details of the survey and historical record here.

Yet another myth of the stupid, dumbed-down, illiterate American populace addicted to "the boob tube" and "moronic popular culture" blown to crap. (I can already hear the objection: "But the books were so much better back then!" Feh. Feh I say!)

Posted by Dean | Permalink | Technorati Trackbacks
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
Feh indeed. I'm generally in the middle of reading, or rather re-reading, half a dozen books. I leave them lying around with junk mail by way of a bookmark, one in every room, so that if I need something to read I always have it. Of course I'm generally on my fourth or fifth go-round with everything; even in a house crammed with books you're reduced to re-reading, absent an unlimited budget.

You know that crazy woman who's always walking down the street reading a book? Me.
6.3.2005 9:15pm
Solomon Mason (mail) (www):
I'm in the middle of reading Swan Song by Robert McCammon. Damn good book so far. And I'm a stupid ex-con! :-)
6.3.2005 9:47pm
Dean Esmay:
Black people read books? Who'da thunk?
6.3.2005 10:00pm
Owen Strawn (mail):
Just got the new Stross and Niven books, but I want to finish my umpteenth pass through the Hornblower series before I start anything new.
6.3.2005 11:13pm
Jerry Kindall (www):
"One book in the past year" is setting the bar pretty damn low.
6.4.2005 12:08am
Steven Malcolm Anderson (www):
I'm continuing to re-read the first and greatest warblogger of all, a man who was warblogging before blogs or computers were invented, i.e., G. K. Chesterton, on the First World War, of which the Second was a continuation. Right now, I'm re-reading his The Crimes of England, i.e., aiding and abetting the crimes of Prussia.

Of Frederick the Great, he writes:
"....Whether he was a Protestant hero or not can be decided best by those who have read the correspondence of a writer calling himself Voltaire, who was quite shocked at Frederick's utter lack of religion of any kind...."
6.4.2005 1:46am
Martin (a.k.a. UML Guy) (www):
But the books were better then, Dean! The 1950s were when Lord of the Rings came out. For my tastes, that alone made the decade the best in literature, period.

And who cares? If the books were better then, then we'll still read them now. I know I'll reread Lord of the Rings every couple of years. But the quality of books then and now is completely irrelevant to the question of the literacy of the public then and now. A literate public reads books from across the ages, not just books of the moment.
6.4.2005 2:34am
Kevin D:

But the books were better then, Dean! The 1950s were when Lord of the Rings came out. For my tastes, that alone made the decade the best in literature, period.


We got the LOTR movies... now when can we expect those Flash Gordon flicks?

Every generation that produces a diamond has more than a few bushels of broken coal to go along with it.
6.4.2005 4:40am
Andrew Cory (mail) (www):
Everyone I work with is in the middle of a book-- usually right there at the cashwrap. Of course, since I work at a bookstore, this may be a biased sample...
6.4.2005 4:59am
Martin (a.k.a. UML Guy) (www):
Kevin,

The coal is always with us, so I prefer to judge by the diamonds. And for my tastes, they don't get any bigger or shinier than Lord of the Rings. I've read a lot of good new books lately, but none that I expect to reread over two dozen times.
6.4.2005 10:41am
Dawn_Braun:
Where is Joe Merchant by Jimmy Buffett.

Reason why books are better:
The books places you within the story - something that movies are unable to capture.

Not to mention that movies are an interpretation - to reach the visual expectations of book characters is nearly impossible. When directors use known actors for movie interpretations - like LOTR and Star Wars - it changes the dynamics of the storyline. You're not watching Obi-Wan, you're watching Ewan McGregor pretending to be Obi-Wan.

I would love to see The Assassins Apprentice trilogy by Robin Hobb made into a movie, but only if it were done by completely unknown actors for the reasons I listed above.

Anyone have a book they'd like to see as a movie?
6.4.2005 12:51pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
Steven Malcolm Anderson,

Oh man, Chesterton's WWI writings. Not recommended to the faint-hearted, but yes, "warblogging" avant-la-lettre, with a style and a measure of venom that haven't been equalled since. I suppose you know the volumes of "Illustrated London News" columns from 1914-16 and 1917-19? I don't think better propaganda has been written in the history of the world since the Gospels. And I mean by "propaganda" the word in its original sense, as anything meant to spread a point of view and a message.
6.4.2005 5:27pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
Dawn_Braun,

Anyone have a book they'd like to see as a movie?

I would like to see C. S. Lewis's Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra as Miyazaki anime. Not very likely, I know.
6.4.2005 5:30pm
Dawn_Braun:
Michelle -
It's been awhile since I read CS Lewis - but The Screwtape Letters could have an interesting interpretation.

About Miyazaki - what an impressive storyteller!
Although I cannot visualize Miyazaki doing a Christian themed movie, I can appreciate the spirit of retelling a CS Lewis book in such an imaginative way.

If you haven't picked up any of Robin Hobb's books - you're missing out on a character driven story that, in my opinion, is better than any Dragonlance story-hands down (no offense meant towards lovers of that series)
6.4.2005 8:02pm
Scott Harris (mail) (www):
I have already read about 40 books this year alone - a little above my average of about 60 books per year, but maybe I'll only read another 20 between now and December 31st. My 3 children have read another 40 books between them, and my wife about 2 books. My son is so well known at his school library that the high school librarian gave him 10 books that she ordered and didn't enter them into the system until AFTER he had read them and returned them to her at his leisure.

During the summer, the kids will visit the library every other week during the summer and at least once a month during the school year. And this is in addition to their schoolwork, their piano lessons, their violin lessons, their oboe lessons, volleyball, basketball, track, cross-country, soccer, junior ROTC, wrestling, and drama extra-curricular activities - not to mention church twice a week, season passes to Six Flags over Texas, and going to 10 Texas Rangers baseball games. And yeah, my son plays way too much play-station, my kids watch too much TV, and have way too many friends demanding their time and attention.

Only lazy people have an excuse not to read. And Americans, by world standards, are not very lazy.
6.4.2005 8:38pm
Foobarista:
Personally, I'm always reading two books: one will always be a "junk food for the mind" book that I read to put me to sleep (or to read on airplanes) and another will be something more interesting to read during the day - when I'm not reading blogs or other internet. I also watch movies, but little TV except when I'm working out, when I always have my trusty _Economist_ handy; it fits nicely on the tray in the elliptical.
6.5.2005 4:27am