Is this generation reading books less?

[Hides His Eyes]

Can we stop pointing out how much we read in the form of text messages, the internet, etc. now please? I thought the OT was about books. Even if not, I think the point has been made.

Also, reading texts and emails is not at all the same activity as reading books, except in the most immediate technical sense, so a discussion about it seems kind of arbitrary.

 

[Sylveria]

No. I don't think this generation is reading less. In fact I dare say this generation reads more than any one that has come before it. The difference is that we don't read "books." We read forums, game text, subtitles, blogs, news, ibooks, etc. People just like to claim that because we don't have a big bunch of dead trees in our hands, we don't read.

 

[Hides His Eyes]

People aren't reading less, they're just reading differently. Sure, people don't pick up a book, or a news paper nearly as often as they used to, but as a replacement for that, everyone is reading the internet.

Yeah, if that's the case then it's a shame because it's not a good enough replacement. Well, news websites instead of newspapers, sure, but... fan fiction in place of published novels? Not to be a snob or anything, I'm sure there's good fan fic out there, but that's a step down.

 

[SamBargeron]

I would say they are reading fewer books... but they may be reading more thanks to the interwebs. Wikipedia ftw...

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

People aren't reading less, they're just reading differently. Sure, people don't pick up a book, or a news paper nearly as often as they used to, but as a replacement for that, everyone is reading the internet.

Yeah, if that's the case then it's a shame because it's not a good enough replacement. Well, news websites instead of newspapers, sure, but... fan fiction in place of published novels? Not to be a snob or anything, I'm sure there's good fan fic out there, but that's a step down.

Well most kids who were reading in their own free time weren't reading Shakespeare. The majority were reading Dan Brown books and Twilight, in which case Fan Fiction would probably be a step up. Those who were reading real literature probably still are.

 

[Amphoteric]

I read a shit tonne every day. Its just that 100% of it is on the internet.

I'm reading blogs and forums for at least a third of every day.

 

[AlAaraaf74]

Most children of this generation don't read on a regular basis. They prefer movies.

I actually prefer reading: hours of entertainment and I get to imagine how the world looks, like directing my own film version of the novel.

 

[Sylveria]

People aren't reading less, they're just reading differently. Sure, people don't pick up a book, or a news paper nearly as often as they used to, but as a replacement for that, everyone is reading the internet.

Yeah, if that's the case then it's a shame because it's not a good enough replacement. Well, news websites instead of newspapers, sure, but... fan fiction in place of published novels? Not to be a snob or anything, I'm sure there's good fan fic out there, but that's a step down.

Well most kids who were reading in their own free time weren't reading Shakespeare. The majority were reading Dan Brown books and Twilight, in which case Fan Fiction would probably be a step up. Those who were reading real literature probably still are.

^^

Published books can be garbage to. You don't need to make quality to get published, you just need to show that your book will sell. There are in all likelihood fewer people reading books but that's really no loss. The people who don't read the old classics now never were going to, they were gonna read crap or didn't want to read at all and simply did so out of a lack of anything that was more appealing to them.

I never understood this holier-than-thou mentality of book readers. Books are not inherently more sophisticated than any other form of self entertainment. Isn't it important that you CAN read and that you find some fashion to mentally stimulate yourself that you enjoy, regardless of what it actually is?

 

[Hides His Eyes]

People aren't reading less, they're just reading differently. Sure, people don't pick up a book, or a news paper nearly as often as they used to, but as a replacement for that, everyone is reading the internet.

Yeah, if that's the case then it's a shame because it's not a good enough replacement. Well, news websites instead of newspapers, sure, but... fan fiction in place of published novels? Not to be a snob or anything, I'm sure there's good fan fic out there, but that's a step down.

Well most kids who were reading in their own free time weren't reading Shakespeare. The majority were reading Dan Brown books and Twilight, in which case Fan Fiction would probably be a step up. Those who were reading real literature probably still are.

Yeah that sounds about right actually.

Ok, this is getting kind of silly. I would really like the author of the thread to come back and clarify whether they meant reading in the strictest technical terms, as in the action of looking at text and interpreting it, or reading as in reading books as a leisure activity. There is no reason to even talk about reading a novel and reading a Facebook status in the same conversation.

 

[headbanger97]

I would say that reading BOOKS has gone down, i say that because it seems now a days there are just better methods of storytelling besides reading a book (not all cases!!! just some! LOTR would not be as good if it was just a game.)with tv and movies and games to use as a medium for storytelling, why would you write a book when you know it would be better reached through those mediums? and for certain stories, those mediums are just better to tell the story. As for reading in general, its gone up.

 

[Flac00]

Yes and no. Before, they didn't read for more physical limitations, like they were too poor to afford books, or books had not been invented yet, or they just couldn't read. I think now adays, we read just a bit more than the past, we just have bad reasons for not reading.

 

[Hides His Eyes]

People aren't reading less, they're just reading differently. Sure, people don't pick up a book, or a news paper nearly as often as they used to, but as a replacement for that, everyone is reading the internet.

Yeah, if that's the case then it's a shame because it's not a good enough replacement. Well, news websites instead of newspapers, sure, but... fan fiction in place of published novels? Not to be a snob or anything, I'm sure there's good fan fic out there, but that's a step down.

Well most kids who were reading in their own free time weren't reading Shakespeare. The majority were reading Dan Brown books and Twilight, in which case Fan Fiction would probably be a step up. Those who were reading real literature probably still are.

^^

Published books can be garbage to. You don't need to make quality to get published, you just need to show that your book will sell. There are in all likelihood fewer people reading books but that's really no loss. The people who don't read the old classics now never were going to, they were gonna read crap or didn't want to read at all and simply did so out of a lack of anything that was more appealing to them.

I never understood this holier-than-thou mentality of book readers. Books are not inherently more sophisticated than any other form of self entertainment. Isn't it important that you CAN read and that you find some fashion to mentally stimulate yourself that you enjoy, regardless of what it actually is?

It's not a holier-than-thou thing. Yes, lots of crappy fiction gets published because it sells, I'm not disputing that. And book publishing is changing with the times and the tech, of course. The point I was making was that reading the kind of thing you find in a published book - controlled, well-edited (if sometimes crappy) fiction, poetry, non-fiction of all kinds - is simply not the same activity as reading blogs, forums, text messages and social networking updates.

Oh, and I'd argue that books are inherently more sophisticated than certain forms of self entertainment. Eating one's bellybutton fluff springs to mind, along with playing Halo, but I'm probably just prejudiced

 

[BrassButtons]

If people are reading less, then how do you explain the popularity of ereaders?

 

[coolkirb]

They probably actually read more but read less actuall books

 

[Hides His Eyes]

If people are reading less, then how do you explain the popularity of ereaders?

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

Now reading a novel on an ereader IS the same activity as reading a novel in traditional book form.

 

[Nackl of Gilmed]

No one seems to have said that reading is a solitary activity. Just because you don't see crowds of people reading books at bus stops, doesn't mean they're not reading at home. Also, since the distinction has been made that we're talking about books, not magazines or cereal boxes, surely audiobooks and e-books count? Those are apparently selling pretty well, even if physical bookshops are shutting down.

EDIT: and I spent so long typing this that my exact point has just been made. Oh well.

 

[templargunman]

People read less than they used to, but this is only because there are now other forms of media that offer a story. People read more before tv, and people read more before video games. People aren't getting stupider or anything, it's just there are more mediums for getting a story than there used to be.

 

[Conza]

The title says it. This has been brough to my attention recently and I honestly can't tell. I don't see a whole lot of people read but then I can't judge based on that alone.

Do you think the current generation of kids/young adults read less?

EDIT: I guess I'm the dumb one here. I thought people would understand what I was saying with "reading", as in reading books. Normally people just say "reading" when they talk about someone reading a book. But I guess this doesn't apply everywhere.

Hi, firstly about your edit remark, no that would make others here the 'dumb ones' as reading is an obvious implication to reading books, if they were stupid enough to mean like 'wow, people actually can't read as much?' that's their stupidity, not yours.

On with the T. Honetly, I love video games and DVDs so much, books do get squished out more times than not, I'm currently beginning the 12 book series on Horatio Hornblower (one of the characters whom Captain Kirk is said to be based upon), and its quite good, reading it on an iPod, one of the things its actually useful for surprisingly, but yeah before that, I was reading Mathew Reily a bit, but his stuff got terrible around 'Seven Ancient Wonders' seriously dude, Matty boy, keep your main characters limited, 10 is just way too much.

I think the premise on the whole would be sound, there are many more forms of entertainment much more exciting than books, but I hope books still stick around.

 

[KidGalaxy]

What you guys are all forgetting is that this generation also has more free time than any generation that came before. We are not reading less books than before, because before not many people had the time to read books, they were too busy working. And this may come as surprise, but not very many people read books, and this has been true for as long as we've had them.

These sorts of threads are stupid. It's just a place for people to come and complain about how little everyone else reads, while they in fact read all the time and have a book with them always. I would say that the amount of people reading books is at an all-time high, and if you really want to get scientific about it, the population explosion would probably make up for any small decline in readership ratio-wise.