# Reading - A Dying Art?



## Nesacat (Aug 22, 2006)

In Carlos Ruiz Zafon's Shadow Of The Wind, the protagonist runs a bookshop and although sales lessen year by year, he can't imagine doing anything else. This is what his wife Bea has to say:

"...that the art of reading is slowly dying, that it's an intimate ritual, that a book is a mirror that offers us only what we already carry inside us, that when we read, we do it with all our heart and mind, and great readers are becoming more scarce by the day..."

What do you think?


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 22, 2006)

Sadly, I'm inclined to agree. I think that, for a brief period of a century or two, mass education tended to hide the fact that most people simply lack the imagination to enjoy reading... now that pop culture has created other things that can take its place that have the appearance of imaginative stimulus without truly calling in imagination, reading once more is becoming something which will appeal only to the few. Even the mass of what's been written during that time has been of relatively evanescent value. So I very much fear that, yes, as time goes on, we'll see fewer and fewer readers, and even out of those that remain, the majority will go more for unimaginative, repetitive, vapid, and poorly written pabulum rather than something with substance and integrity (just as is the case with so many films and television shows). Quality readers are, like quality in nearly everything: almost invariably the fewest in number.


----------



## Finnien (Aug 22, 2006)

Well, in the last few years, how's the industry doing?  Are there more books being printed, or less?  Are books making more money, or less?  Are authors being paid more for their book deals, or less?  

I've seen nothing to support reading dying.  I'm having no difficulty finding an increasing number of quality books to read, and have no shortage of friends looking for recommendations on what to read next.  I haven't heard of any English departments having a shortage of students or faculty.  In short, I've never seen novels so popular.

As time goes by, people always believe something good is declining, and something bad is rising.  I just don't see any evidence of people reading less, reading for different reasons, or getting less out of reading.  

I really think any arguments that reading is dying should be supported by sales or publication information.  I just haven't seen any evidence of it.


----------



## Loner (Aug 22, 2006)

Balderdash! (I've always wanted to say that)

I believe that literature and integrity have seldom had anything to do with each other. Society's reading is not lessening and the quality of literature is mostly a subjective decision. As is the term "quality readers" - does that mean people who read the classics and "literature"? (I have read Dickens, Nabokov and Austen, am I a quality reader? Ooh, I hope so! )
I recently worked in a major bookstore and frequently frequent (heh heh!) independent bookshops. When I have to travel on public transport I would much rather reach for a book than an ipod. If I really want to relax I will lie back with a book (possibly in a hammock...) not hunch and squint (sounds like a Dickensian legal firm) in front of a computer. Some genre sales go down and some go up, but books in general are not endangered. And I assume the people who bought books intended to read them...  
I have seen people on public transport (the best place to spot readers) reading everything, from the latest gossip rags to Beowulf.
I can become much more deeply immersed in a book than I ever could in a CD or game. I have been known to miss my station because I was so engrossed in my book  (Ah, _Stand on Zanzibar_, what a book). I have jumped out of my train seat at sudden noises when reading creepy scenes (in _Battlefield Earth_, don't laugh!) and laughed out loud when reading funny ones (_Surrender the Pink_). How is this possible? Because reading makes your mind go to other places. You leave your body behind and travel to new literary destinations. To quote Queen : It's a Kind of Magic. 
As long as there are public libraries (now *there* is an endangered species!) there will be people who read, especially as this is the only avenue of entertainment for those of us in low income brackets... 
Not everyone can afford computers and ipods and fancy gadgets and so we go to libraries... and while we are waiting to use the free internet facilities we think to ourselves "I might just look at some of these things called books..." and thus begins a lifelong addiction. 

Also a love of reading is definitely something passed on to children by parents. Definitely. So encourage any young ones around you to read!


----------



## Saltheart (Aug 22, 2006)

People want entertain themselves more than educate themselves, and now, with the technology to enable personalization of media, are finally able to fulfill that desire. Texts nowdays serve mainly to entertain than to provoke critical thinking, and people are able to select whatever media suits their taste buds. While this is all well and good, the outcomes of it are going to be disastrous.

Ever read Farenheit 451?

That's exactly the type of society we are slowly becoming day by day: the news serves to entertain and gain ratings, only cover interest stories and downright lie if neccesary; the premises of books and films are being dummed down to entertain, earn profits; censorship is rising as people just choose not to read books that "offend" them; pulishers cannot afford to publish "boring" books; education has adopted a "everybody is a winner, yay!" policy.

Because people only listen and see what media they want to, they are not exposed to thought-provoking ideas. They are under the control of propoganda and politicans. Further more, conservative ideals are on the rise since the whole "War on Terror"; people are giving away their freedoms for a false sense of security against a straw man engineered by the governing bodies of the world; people are losing the ability to think logically, and give way to appeals to emotions, out of fear. "Terrorist" is a label given to foes and traitors of a nation, even though the nations themselves use fear as a tool to control their own citizens.

People don't think critically because their are fewer and fewer thought-provoking texts to read; thought-provoking texts are becoming fewer and fewer because people refuse to read them: it is a nasty paradox that has resulted because of the personalization of media that technology offers these days.

So, to summarize, yes, reading is becoming a dying art, as well as critical thinking and rationalization; and Ray Bradbury is a genius.


----------



## j d worthington (Aug 22, 2006)

I'm afraid I'm in thorough agreement here. As I said earlier, the fact of mass-marketing has masked the true nature of things all too well. It isn't that people aren't reading (though that has indeed dropped over the last half-century, by a considerable amount; it's just that there are more people, so the percentages may have dropped, but the number may still be rising ... though the evidence is rather to the contrary: look at all the bookstores that have disappeared, even the chains have troubles with this), but it's also what they are reading. And the more the publishers shy away from taking risks, the more easy it is to go down this path. "Unpopular" opinions are being shied away from -- that is, opinions based on due consideration, not statements made to stir up artificial controversies -- and therefore genuine debate on important issues is being shunted into gamesplaying. Anything that promotes actual thought or deep questioning has always been rather shunned, but at present this is becoming even worse than what it was in the 1950s, in some ways -- I grew up with the last of that, and my siblings lived through the whole of it, and the fallout from it lasted for decades.

The more we become homogenized in our reading, the more we become readers of pap masquerading as meaningful art -- and I'm sorry, but the connection between literature and integrity is VERY strong; it's one of the most important we have -- then the less people will examine, the less empowered they feel, and the easier they are to manipulate and to control; divide and conquer works like a baleful charm, every time. And reason itself is fast becoming abandoned in favor of the worst sort of mystical, religious, and political obscurantism; and the less writers risk themselves the darker the picture becomes. There's nothing at all wrong with entertainment, with lightening the load a bit and making people smile, or moving them vicariously; but there is so much else that literature can do, and has done -- and that is being bowdlerized and emasculated for fear of offending this group or that; our history is being taken from us in favor of political correctness; our memory is slowly (and in some cases not-so-slowly) being drained away; and as that happens, our ability to reason and to express reasoned opinions is fading commensurately, as is our use of imagination for empathy and understanding, for extrapolation, which may very well be key to our survival as a species. By catering increasingly to that aspect of things, all concerned are becoming increasingly short-sighted.

We are stifling imagination and reason here in favor of trite, repetitive nonsense rather than exploring possibilities ... even the myriad possibilities inherent in language itself, where we more and more favor a simple, almost journalistic prose increasingly resembling elementary primers rather than mature literature. Because of all these things, I regretfully have come to the conclusion that reading, in any meaningful sense, is indeed becoming a dying art.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Aug 22, 2006)

The thought police are, indeed, alive and well and on the job, j. d.  You can see it everywhere.  Political correctness only makes things worse.  And you are absolutely correct about memory...our historical memory is being stolen in the name of ideology and revisionism.  Which is why I am working on the writing project that I am...and all of you will be seeing bits of it eventually.

But, I have to say, I see more people reading in public (gasp) than I ever have before, and because I am quite nosy I find ways of finding out what they are reading.  (It helps that I ususally have a book with me, myself, which seems to make more people willing to talk about what they are reading.)  It isn't all dreck.  So, while the way things are going in general as far as the sorts of literature - using the term loosely - that are most available tends to frighten me, I haven't completely lost hope that reading...real reading...will survive.


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Aug 22, 2006)

I can't judge whether reading is a dying art.  Perhaps texts are just changing:  certainly there are many people reading web pages.

But here's an anecdote:

My six-year-old nephew reads books, and reads them well.  He's never been allowed to watch television at home or play video games.  When his dad decided to show him a movie (_The March of the Penguins_) recently, he watched ten minutes of it and then asked if it could be turned off so that he could read.  

My nephew has an exceptionally long attention span:  he will sit for hours, doing art or making up games of his own.  Having a healthy attention span is a prerequisite for reading and understanding books.

Make of these facts what you will.


----------



## nixie (Aug 22, 2006)

Of my friends I'm the only one who reads anything other than a newspaper.Although a couple of my work colleagues have caught the fantasy bug through me.I don't really think reading is a dying art, I've noticed more children tend to read now.


----------



## Finnien (Aug 22, 2006)

Our parents were told that rock and roll would rot their brain.  Then we were told that TV would rot our brain.  Now its video games that will rot our brain.  With each generation, there's plenty of oppertunity to entertain yourself.  Yet I don't feel like my brain is pudding.  

You know, I'll imagine people said the exact same thing when the novel first came out.  Fiction?  My god!  Why waste your time with fantasy when you could be debating Plato and Aristotle?  

It doesn't seem to me that society has grown stupider since the invention of Nintendo, rock and roll, or the novel. 

I'd like to point to Tales of the Timetraveller's Wife, to Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, to Paradox or to the Malazan series.  Trite, repetitive nonsense?  Let's compare Melville's classic Confidence-Man to Steven Lynch's new Lies of Locke Lamora.  

It's always easy to say that society is growing fat, lazy and stupid.  But it never seems to actually _happen._


----------



## Cloud (Aug 23, 2006)

While Shadow of the Wind is a very good book, I don't support the premise that reading is a dying art. The creation and cultivation of "literature"--perhaps, but reading.  No. Historically only a small percentage of the world's population has ever enjoyed reading extensively, and I believe that percentage is greater today than it has ever been.  

At least, I can barely find a parking space at my local bookstore.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Aug 23, 2006)

We had the TV debate over in the how-to-get-your-kids-to-read thread (I forget the exact title) in the YA forum.  I said that the negative influence of television was greatly exaggerated.

However, I do know this concerning sales figures for books:  I read a newspaper article in the business section a couple of years ago, when the LOTR movies were still coming out, and there was a new Harry Potter that year, and it was mentioned that the only reason the big bookstores finished in the black that year was because of all the people buying books by Tolkien and Rowling.  The year before had not been good.

I also notice that bookstores, increasingly, carry a lot of things that are NOT books.  And not just music, movies, and calendars.  Borders sells toiletries around Christmas time, Barnes and Noble sells greeting cards, chocolates, etc.  Admittedly not a large amount of their stock, but it does look like they are experimenting with ways to keep afloat.  And look at amazon.com, and all the other merchandise they sell.  

On the other hand, if most adults only read one or two books a year, and only whatever happens to be the most hyped bestsellers when they do, it wasn't any different twenty or thirty years ago.  It probably wasn't any different before that, but I wouldn't have noticed before I was an adult myself.  The last time families regularly sat down and listened to somebody read out loud was probably before WWI.

And if people aren't buying books new, they may be buying more of them used, or borrowing them from friends. (Not a good thing for writers, particularly midlist authors.)  Libraries are cutting back on their hours, so I doubt they see any increase in the number of people borrowing, if only because it's getting less and less convenient to drop by.  (And if demand was high enough, cities might fund them better instead of building sports parks or whatever else they spend their money on.)  

So, is reading a dying art?  It may be, but the process is very gradual, and it's been going on for quite some while.  Or it may be cyclic.


----------



## Loner (Aug 23, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:
			
		

> Anything that promotes actual thought or deep questioning has always been rather shunned, but at present this is becoming even worse than what it was in the 1950s


 
You certainly make a convincing and very well articulated argument j.d.! You are starting to convince me of your doomsday reading scenario. I believe the lack of interpretation and thought in reading is due to changes in education. When I was a young terror we used to do something called "Reading and Comprehension" and later, in high school, we used to do something called "Cause & Effect : Logical Thought" in English class. I doubt they teach it any longer.



			
				j. d. worthington said:
			
		

> There's nothing at all wrong with entertainment, with lightening the load a bit and making people smile, or moving them vicariously; but there is so much else that literature can do


Even if thought-provoking literature were being produced, I doubt if any of today's youth would have the training or faculties to interpret it. I don't believe reading is a dying art, but _critical_ reading? You may be right about that. I certainly can't put together a well structured argument like you can, (I have the training but lack the practise) but those who went through the education system after me don't even have the desire, let alone the ability to read and think crtically. They think "Whatever" is a well structured argument! 
My greatest sorrow is the stripping of colourful and expressive words from the English language through the homogeneous effect of television. 
People _are_ reading, but _how_ they are reading may be much less satisfactory than yester year. I do agree that most people do not seem to be using their critical faculties when they read.


----------



## Nesacat (Aug 23, 2006)

My experience, at least in the workplace, is very much like Nixie's, despite the fact that we all have a monthly book allowance. Of the several hundred people in the office less than five read anything other than magazines. 

The bookstores here face the same predicament as Teresa elaborated. They sell books when there is a great deal of hype, otherwise they make a greater income from selling stationery, music and even chocolate. Books sell when there are movies as in the case of Lord of The Rings and Harry Potter. It was the same with the Chronicles of Narnia and most recently The Da Vinci Code. When the LOTR movies came out the bookstores had to scramble to handle the demand. They'd never had such a thing happen before apparently.

There are good books being written all over the world and the people I know who do read seem to be reading more than ever. However, in my experience at least, that pool is either not growing or growing very, very slowly indeed. None of my younger cousins read and neither do their children. The people in my office don't read and those who have children do not see reading as a priority unless said reading will help the child do well in school.

Reading for the sake of reading does seem to be almost forgotten. The art of reading for the love of words and the wonder within books; critical reading and the exploration of endless possibilities seems to be falling by the way to be replaced by variations of the same theme. 

I don't however think reading will ever totally die though perceptions towards it are changing. I do believe that there will always be people who will read without being afraid of actual thought or deep questioning; just as there will always be writers who will write such books.


----------



## Loner (Aug 23, 2006)

I really didn't see the kind of single-themed sales in the book store I worked in that you guys are referring to. ( Except for a run on Dan Brown, grrr.)
It was the flagship store in Melbourne, Australia. It is in the middle of the city and we had people buying all kinds of things ( we only sold books, no gewgaws and foofaraw). If we didn't have it we ordered it. We have been asked for all kinds of classics and our staff had expertise on all kinds of topics from (ptooey!) Harry Potter to the Beat Poets. One of our staff used to order his own books under the pseudonym "Hemingway Swift" just out of sheer whimsy and everyone understood the reference.
Customers loved to stand and chat about what they had read and we had a reasonable amount of demand for "Australian Literature", usually award winners or stories that had been made into independent films. 
What the award winners and film-inspiring books shared was that they _did_ make you think and question society and your own views. 
And while the writing of today may not have the mental heft of the writing of the past, at least the writings of the past are still available to those of us who want to stretch our minds.


----------



## carrie221 (Aug 23, 2006)

I do not believe that reading is a dying art. I think that it is just that there are always going to be people who do not like to read. Almost everyone know has the ability to read but that doesn't make it so that everyone is going to. I think that there are many more readers now then there were in the past.

About the quality I think that fifty years from now there will be books considered classics that are being written now. It is all a perspective of the socity that you are living in. Also I am all for people running in to read books after seeing the movie. It gets them to read.


----------



## Carolyn Hill (Aug 23, 2006)

Just a thought:  are we talking only about books written in English, read by people in the English-speaking countries? Or are we talking about a global phenomenon?


----------



## moonlit_walk (Jan 8, 2008)

Saltheart said:


> People want entertain themselves more than educate themselves, and now, with the technology to enable personalization of media, are finally able to fulfill that desire. Texts nowdays serve mainly to entertain than to provoke critical thinking, and people are able to select whatever media suits their taste buds. While this is all well and good, the outcomes of it are going to be disastrous.
> 
> Ever read Farenheit 451?
> 
> ...


I love what Saltheart was saying about our society becomeing like the society in Farenheit 451... except not to so much extreme...i don't think that we will get to the point were we are buring books, and the only point of firemen, is for them to burn books. That is a little extreme and i don't think it will go that far, because burning books won't ever be acceptable in America.


----------



## DreamsInDigital (Jan 8, 2008)

Literature, is in my opinion, is a thing very near death. I, however, am not here to blame technology or lack of imagination, or the readers themselves for its loss, rather to suggest that it may be the authors themselves who are destroying that which they hold dear. 
As is becoming glaringly apparent, any hack can be published now a days. Any human with a thesaurus seems to genuinely believe that they can vomit language onto a paper and create something great, something epic, something that will spark a revolution. However, more often than not , they fail to connect the dots in their own minds, and end up with a three hundred page rant that lacks any semblance of relevance.
With so much crap readily available, how is one to know what to read and what to burn? Rarely will someone take the time to distinguish what is great from what is not, and Is then willing to shove anything bound and written in small print down their throats in the name of intellectualism.
That’s why im not surprised that humans are now turning to MTV to do their thinking for them, and Hollywood to stage their emotions. It is easy, it is safe, it is generally accepted as right.


----------



## j d worthington (Jan 8, 2008)

moonlit_walk said:


> I love what Saltheart was saying about our society becomeing like the society in Farenheit 451... except not to so much extreme...i don't think that we will get to the point were we are buring books, and the only point of firemen, is for them to burn books. That is a little extreme and i don't think it will go that far, because burning books won't ever be acceptable in America.


 
That's a hopeful thought, but I'm afraid it's hardly quite accurate. America has more than accepted book burnings in the past, from as early as the Puritans on, and is quite likely to again. I myself have seen entire communities have no problem with such... a large chunk of my high-school's library was burnt, for example, the summer after I graduated, and no one seemed to think anything of it. "Good riddance to bad rubbish" was the general tenor concerning this, for instance.

America is no more immune to such things than any other country... unless _the people themselves are intelligent, aware, and vigilant in guarding against such...._


----------



## Urien (Jan 8, 2008)

Aye fink redding aynt dy-ying^ it neffer boffered me

In truth logically fewer books will be read by each individual. With the internet, games and TV on mobile devices the time to view all of this has to come from somewhere.

However increasing affluence and disposable income, along with rising populations mean that in total more books might be bought even if each individual reads less.

As to any hack being published (as above) I'm not sure of that. Even if this is the case then there is still plently of excellent literature coming out. Further there is the enormous stock of great works already in existence. 

Generally I do agree that more could be done to encourage reading, to me it is the bedrock of all other learning. Once one gains a love of reading and the entertainment and knowledge it brings, it becomes the gateway to knowledge on any subject.


----------



## Ramoth's Rider (Jan 8, 2008)

People will always read. there wll always be those who need to escape from the world into a place where they can use the most brilliant and wonderful tool that they own.......Imagination.


----------



## Pyan (Jan 8, 2008)

AVS said:
			
		

> Once one gains a love of reading and the entertainment and knowledge it brings, it becomes the gateway to knowledge on any subject.





			
				RR said:
			
		

> People will always read. there wll always be those who need to escape from the world into a place where they can use the most brilliant and wonderful tool that they own.......Imagination.


Exactly...I got into the habit very early, and the ability of a good book to let me escape from the trials and tribulations of life has always been a comfort.


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 8, 2008)

When, this christmas, I asked my grandnephew what he wanted as a present, I was informed "a book".
Well, he is a bit bigger than on my avatar (yes, he's the one without the beard), but as he's barely over two years old I suspect someone else will read it to him, but our family are still producing readers.
Even in Yorkshire.


----------



## Urien (Jan 8, 2008)

Hey I'm from Yorkshire.

I read a book.

They drove me out of Leeds with pitchforks and a box of cooks matches. 

Amazing what a business empire one can create with pitchforks and matches.


----------



## tangaloomababe (Jan 8, 2008)

I have mixed thoughts on this one.  From a personal level I love reading and whilst I can still read the bookstore will never go broke! However I find that my son, although once he used to read quite alot, has found other diversions and is lucky even to scan the newspaper.
Thats not to say he won't return to reading one day, I think that he will.  Many of my friends read, we swap books constantly.

Oringinally posted by Nesacat




> The bookstores here face the same predicament as Teresa elaborated. They sell books when there is a great deal of hype, otherwise they make a greater income from selling stationery, music and even chocolate. Books sell when there are movies as in the case of Lord of The Rings and Harry Potter. It was the same with the Chronicles of Narnia and most recently The Da Vinci Code. When the LOTR movies came out the bookstores had to scramble to handle the demand. They'd never had such a thing happen before apparently.


 
I agree completely with this comment Nesa. Bookstores would have loved the Harry Potter Books and other such movies which help bring these books to peoples attention. I supose its a good thing, because people might actually go back and find something else to read, rediscover the love of reading!!!!

PS: The Shadow in the Wind remains a firm favorite of mine, brilliant story and beautifully written.


----------



## Nesacat (Jan 21, 2008)

There's a new trend here and because I spend most of my weekends at Silverfish books, I've seen it growing. It started towards the end of last year and has been steadily picking up steam.

It would appear that reading is now 'trendy' and one ought to have books in one's home and if possible one needs to have a 'library' complete with shelves of books, leather chairs and a huge table. People are therefore paying interior decorators to buy books.

The more affluent come to the shop asking for matched leather-bound sets and glossy coffee table books. 

Others just tell us what their budget is and ask us how many books with 'different coloured spines and sizes' they can get. 

Okay we are selling a lot of books and that's good for Silverfish, which is an independent store and needs all the sales it can get but we also know that it's very likely that many if not all of these books will never be read.

What's a lot more disturbing is the fact that libraries are picking up this habit too. Apparently, the Ministry of Education is becoming a lot more strict about budgets allocated to public libraries and schools and want to see that books are actually being bought. So they do the same. Send us a letter saying how much they have and asking for books. 

They have no list or anything and they tell us that it does not matter what we give them so long as the numbers add up, which is crazy because some of the libraries are in primary (junior) schools and others are in high schools and even colleges and universities. You can't just dump books in a crate with a calculator in one hand.


So whatever else may be dying ... the buying of books per se seems to be growing.


----------



## Parson (Jan 21, 2008)

N-Cat,

What a cautionary tale! There will always be the snobs among us who have to have things to make them look the part they want to play, but "Libraries ordering any old book?!!!"  We hope that is just a fad as well, and not a long lived one!!

Interestingly, the last time, or nearly the last time, I was at a book store (An hour's travel one way, so it's not often), I discovered a new thing. I met a lady there taking pictures of SF books with her phone so that she could order them from her public library over interlibrary loan. I am not sure what to make of that. But some things are clear.

1. The public libraries that I frequent have almost no SF books. (Fantasy seems to have a bit more.) So interlibrary loan would be good.

2. It seems like cheating to the book store. --- Much like trying new golf clubs at the club house who has room for that sort of thing, but then buying them at a discounter or over the internet to get the best price. Not illegal, but perhaps not ethical either.

3. Authors and publishers are probably frustrated by this all the way around.


----------



## Lith (Jan 21, 2008)

I don't have a cell phone, so I haven't done that particular one, but I do write titles down from time to time to look up at the library.  Due to lack of space and money (these days, more to lack of space and tremendous guilt about getting rid of stuff I paid money for), I have a policy to only buy books I've already read or can't get ahold of at the library.  I don't see anything wrong with it- if you were to open it up and read a good chunk of it and then not buy it, that would be a different matter.  But if it's just titles and covers- it's more like shopping around to see who has what, and then going with the lowest price.  More like buying cereal on sale versus at full price (not that anyone's stupid enough to give it away).  You can look at it all you want, but you don't open it up and eat it without buying.

This is still arguably bad for the publishing industry, but libraries are nothing new, and the ability to make money off any form of art has always been problematic throughout all history.  And now that there's an internet, it'll only get worse.  And if you factor in the probability that if you can't handle the book in the store, you probably won't buy it, it gets kind of messy.  (I don't, for instance, buy magazines that are wrapped in plastic.  At $7-13 each, I'm just not doing it.  So they lose the money either way.)

The libraries buying piles of "just books" fits in well with the mentality that "I don't care what the kids are reading, as long as they are reading at all!"


----------



## chrispenycate (Jan 21, 2008)

My boss, when he bought his mediaeval château, discovered there was a room totally lined with bookshelves, and since he's not much of a reader, it looked a bit lost. I offered to fill it up, really I did, but he decided my garish covers did not suit the décore. I even spent time searching for mock-leather dust covers, without success.
So he got a man to get book by the metre, for purely aesthetic reasons, and when he sells the place, the books will doubtless stay there.
Easier than when I move with mine, anyway.


----------



## Lith (Jan 21, 2008)

You can lead the sheep to water, but you can't make them read.

(How's that for a mixed metaphor?)

I am beginning to see the benefits of a matched set of books, all the same size, such as the above.  But it's for practical reasons, rather than just to impress people.


----------



## Parson (Jan 22, 2008)

Lith said:


> I don't have a cell phone, so I haven't done that particular one, but I do write titles down from time to time to look up at the library.  Due to lack of space and money (these days, more to lack of space and tremendous guilt about getting rid of stuff I paid money for), I have a policy to only buy books I've already read or can't get ahold of at the library.  I don't see anything wrong with it- if you were to open it up and read a good chunk of it and then not buy it, that would be a different matter.  But if it's just titles and covers- it's more like shopping around to see who has what, and then going with the lowest price.  More like buying cereal on sale versus at full price (not that anyone's stupid enough to give it away).  You can look at it all you want, but you don't open it up and eat it without buying.
> 
> This is still arguably bad for the publishing industry, but libraries are nothing new, and the ability to make money off any form of art has always been problematic throughout all history.  And now that there's an internet, it'll only get worse.  And if you factor in the probability that if you can't handle the book in the store, you probably won't buy it, it gets kind of messy.  (I don't, for instance, buy magazines that are wrapped in plastic.  At $7-13 each, I'm just not doing it.  So they lose the money either way.)
> 
> The libraries buying piles of "just books" fits in well with the mentality that "I don't care what the kids are reading, as long as they are reading at all!"



Lith,

Your cereal analogy leaves me cold. A grocery is a mass marketer. They expect to make up the discounted price of cereal by the purchases you make of other things. With the price of gas Everyone should think twice (or more) about driving all over town to save $.25 or $.50. A book store, Borders and Barnes and Nobles not withstanding, is more on the order of a specialty shop. (Hence my golf club analogy.) One kind of store offers convenience, amenities, and service to go along with their higher prices, while the other kind of store offers "no frills" to go along with their lower prices. To use the specialty store to look at books you are going to buy, but not there still seems unethical to me. As you point out you are using their convenience and amenities, but you are trying to avoid paying for them as much as possible.


----------



## Parson (Jan 22, 2008)

chrispenycate said:


> My boss, when he bought his mediaeval château, discovered there was a room totally lined with bookshelves, and since he's not much of a reader, it looked a bit lost. I offered to fill it up, really I did, but he decided my garish covers did not suit the décore. I even spent time searching for mock-leather dust covers, without success.
> So he got a man to get book by the metre, for purely aesthetic reasons, and when he sells the place, the books will doubtless stay there.
> Easier than when I move with mine, anyway.



How terribly bourgeois of him. Obviously none of your sterling character has rubbed off.


----------



## Nesacat (Jan 27, 2008)

We had a decorator come in over the weekend. He had a list of authors he'd gotten off Google. He liked the covers. He wants 1,000 books to start with, preferably the same size thank you, and if he needs more he'll come back. 

He himself does not read by the way. He told us it was a waste of time especially since there were movies. However, he does like coffee table books as they make a place look 'classy'. Although he admits that a library filled with leather-bound first editions looks 'very classy'.

Now all we need is for the fashion industry to catch on to this latest trend in what is 'classy'. 

I think I have less of a problem with these people than I do with libraries that ought to be nurturing reading habits for goodness sake. Unless the definition of a library has changed terribly when I was not looking.


----------



## Pyan (Jan 27, 2008)

Nesacat said:


> Now all we need is for the fashion industry to catch on to this latest trend in what is 'classy'.



Not that so much of a latest trend, Nesa - the big country houses and villas that were built in the 18th-19th century in England all had libraries in them...and they were often filled with uniformly-bound books bought in by the yard to make the shelves look full.


----------



## Nesacat (Jan 27, 2008)

Oh my Pyan ... that's gorgeous. In my dreams I'd have a library like that. Wooden floors. Floor to ceiling shelves. Ladders on wheels. Being able to afford to bind my books. Big comfy chair. Only there'd be a lot more clutter. Maybe as Borges says ... heaven is some sort of library.

Here it is a new trend Pyan. Reading was never anything to fuss over until recently. In fact we did not even have many bookstores and the ones that existed sold almost everything else too. As a child I bought my books from a shop that also sold vegetables and just about everything else.

Reading per se is a new thing. It's now become fashionable to champion the cause of the written word and everyone wants to jump on the band-wagon. Bookstores have mushroomed only in the last 5 years. 

Bookstores here are now 'happening' places. It's somewhere to be seen at over the weekend. And of course Borders has Starbucks and we can then be part of the hip literati set by sipping our coffee while looking through a magazine.


----------



## brsrkrkomdy (Jan 28, 2008)

Nesacat said:


> There's a new trend here and because I spend most of my weekends at Silverfish books, I've seen it growing. It started towards the end of last year and has been steadily picking up steam.
> 
> It would appear that reading is now 'trendy' and one ought to have books in one's home and if possible one needs to have a 'library' complete with shelves of books, leather chairs and a huge table. People are therefore paying interior decorators to buy books.
> 
> ...


*That kind of reminds me of Ray Bradbury's Coda in the back of Fahrenheit 451 novel, where there's a chapter that was excised from the novel where the fire chief took Montag deep into the back of his room where the books were being kept on racks.  None of them in ashes.  The chief told him that he kept his books there to look at them but not to read them.  Coincidence?*


----------



## Nesacat (Jan 28, 2008)

I thought that was the most awful part of the book; not the burning of the books. It was so much more terrible to keep them carefully on shelves and to never read them. It might almost be better to just burn them and end the torture. It'd be like being alive without living.


----------



## LJonesy (Jan 31, 2008)

Nesacat said:


> In Carlos Ruiz Zafon's Shadow Of The Wind, the protagonist runs a bookshop and although sales lessen year by year, he can't imagine doing anything else. This is what his wife Bea has to say:
> 
> "...that the art of reading is slowly dying, that it's an intimate ritual, that a book is a mirror that offers us only what we already carry inside us, that when we read, we do it with all our heart and mind, and great readers are becoming more scarce by the day..."
> 
> What do you think?



I disagree. In a more specific sense i think she's touching on the 'no such thing as original' idea, which is true. But books offer so much more to a person. In no way are we ever looking into a mirror. Come on, if anyone who reads this walks into a bookshop and _does not_ see anything new _whatsoever_ then i will think differently. You'd have to be fairly old and fairly well read to prove me wrong there - Can you really go into a bookstore and see the same old all the time? (Excluding those with a sense of humour that tell me they work there) Can you really open _every book_ and just see everything you already know as deeply as that author makes it? I doubt it. Books are still one of the most powerful forces in the world. And that should never lessen.


----------



## Lith (Jan 31, 2008)

I took it to mean that books were useful in pointing out things we knew, but weren't really conscious of.  I don't know how many people have had the experience of opening a book, and feeling like the author has jumped inside their own mind, and is putting words to feelings they had felt, but had never thought to express.  It's reading on a whole 'nother level when an book can do that.


----------



## Montero (Feb 4, 2008)

Nesacat said:


> snip
> 
> It would appear that reading is now 'trendy' and one ought to have books in one's home and if possible one needs to have a 'library' complete with shelves of books, leather chairs and a huge table. People are therefore paying interior decorators to buy books.
> snip
> ...




Well, I can _really_ understand your frustration, but on the other hand there is an opportunity here   Just dreaming a bit but thinking how you could select an amazing thought provoking selection of books so that the offspring of the parents (poor, bored, neglected little souls living in a show home ) could become far better educated than their parents.  Or you could turn all the pupils in the schools that come shopping into super-critical, well informed, debaters who drive their teachers nuts 


At my father's funeral I was talking to one of my cousins (our fathers were brothers).  My father was a great reader, cousin's father wasn't and pooh-pooh'd books as a waste of time.  My father used to give said cousin books, don't know what they were, but the cousin said nothing like them, the ideas in them, had come into his life before.  He said my father changed his life.  (Said cousin went on to study English at Uni.)  So, can happen.


----------



## Xwing Mom (Feb 6, 2008)

ditto what J.D. said in his posts...have any of you read the children's books available in school libraries lately?  Cotton candy has more substance, not to mention better grammar and spelling.

If we want our young readers to keep reading and grow up to be great readers we've got to give them something more than pap.  Every time I hear a school librarian or teacher tell a child "that book isn't on your reading level (referring to one that above said level)" I cringe.  I understand why (some smaller schools are limited in their libraries and if they're going to have enough books for the older kids they've got to limit the younger ones); but as a child who always read above level and raised my own children to do so, I can't imagine starving a reader like that.

Even a "fun" type book (like the Star Wars Xwing series), needs to be well written.  We can say what we want about the influence of tv, movies, and video games; but if the book itself is technically awful, we're going to raise a generation of shallow thinkers.

And that, I think, is what is gradually eroding reading.


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 6, 2008)

Xwing Mom said:


> And that, I think, is what is gradually eroding reading.


 
Thanks for the kind comments....*blush*

I think, too, there's a big difference between being literate (being able to read), shallow reading, and genuinely reading something. The latter is taking a terrible beating these days, even from people who read a great deal. Perhaps that's just it -- they may "read" a lot, but they don't really _read_ what the read. It's like the verbal equivalent of a music video or an action picture -- a lot of flash and bang, but little or nothing one can return to and find much depth or substance. This, too, trains newer readers to think in terms of the shallowest approach to writing as well as reading, and it isn't only grammar, spelling, or semantics that suffer because of it. In general, I'm pretty convinced it's closely allied to the failing ability to demonstrate critical thinking in general....


----------



## Lith (Feb 7, 2008)

And I totally agree with you both.  There's reading, and then there's _reading_, and you can do an incredible amount of the former without having a clue of the latter.  Which is why I find the "I don't care what they read as long as they read" mentality rather frustrating.  Other than building familiarity with words, such reading doesn't necessarily do much for you.  It's the mind's equivalent of soda and potato chips.  

Not that every book has to be an attempted masterpiece, but it just isn't enough if it's all someone reads.


----------



## Ursa major (Feb 7, 2008)

Yesterday (the 6th), I heard someone on the radio claim that the set texts for her daughter's A level English course (17 & 18 year olds) were Black Beauty and Watership Down. (I can't help thinking that a bit of exaggeration was going on.)


As for having a library like the one in post#35, that's a dream most of us have to shelve.


----------



## Montero (Feb 7, 2008)

The reading vs _reading_ discussion - could you give some examples of each?  I'm not quite getting my head around the sorts of books you are referring to.


----------



## Parson (Feb 7, 2008)

Ursa major said:


> Yesterday (the 6th), I heard someone on the radio claim that the set texts for her daughter's A level English course (17 & 18 year olds) were Black Beauty and Watership Down. (I can't help thinking that a bit of exaggeration was going on.)



At least those are solid books, classics even. It beats a lot of trendy "hot" books which will fill those library shelves no one reads in years to come. One might want more from an A level English course, but with Black Beauty and especially with Watership Down, there are layers to the books which bare contemplating.


----------



## JadeTrickster (Feb 8, 2008)

Sadly, I have to agree with the reading is dying theory. Only 3 of my friends read(though those are all my friends), and when I read at school people mock me and try to take my books away! Even worse, no one in my class had ever heard of Fahrenheit 451 or LOTR before being forced to read them in class


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 8, 2008)

Montero said:


> The reading vs _reading_ discussion - could you give some examples of each? I'm not quite getting my head around the sorts of books you are referring to.


 
It has little to do (generally speaking) with the sort of book, but more the approach the reader takes. If you're reading to fill the time, or for a "rousing good adventure" as it were, chances are you are only reading at a very shallow, surface level. If, on the other hand, you are reading for that purpose, but also for what the writer may have to say about their worldview, their experiences on what it means to be human, the beauty of their use of the language, the various levels of symbolism, the dynamic contradictions inherent in nearly all texts, etc., etc., etc.... then you're reading at a much deeper level, and able to extract a great deal more from the experience, and leave (at least with a good book) feeling you've spent your time well, learned something both about life and about yourself, and had an intellectually and emotionally satisfying aesthetic experience. It's the difference between a switchback or ghost train and visiting some special site filled with history and beauty; or between candy floss and a steak with a truly rare and wonderful vintage to accent it....


----------



## Lith (Feb 8, 2008)

Or a quick (and fun!) example:

Book-A-Minute Classics: Animal Farm

Some books lend themselves more readily to multiple or "deeper" (to be a bit of a literary snob for a minute) readings, however few books are entirely without merit, if one reads them in the right way(s).  

This is, I think, why so many students find the literature they are made to read in schools so _boring_.  They are not picking up on the things the author is showing, and lacking more exciting action and dramatic elements, there's little to interest them.  I was one of them too, until I read the Scarlet Letter, and had a teacher that didn't just make us read it but made us understand the symbolism of it- no teacher before that had put in the effort, for whatever reason.  The result is I started reading again, knowing that books _could_ be more than just a few hour's entertainment.


----------



## Overread (Feb 8, 2008)

you raise an important point Lith - too many students are given "classics" and told to read them - so part of the fun is gone - and they are then not intoduced to the book in the correct way - the book is read to get grades and that is what the teacher teaches in many cases, a failing if you ask me. 
(I know I could not stand the "assinged" books - never any fantasy tales!!)


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 8, 2008)

Overread said:


> you raise an important point Lith - too many students are given "classics" and told to read them - so part of the fun is gone - and they are then not intoduced to the book in the correct way - the book is read to get grades and that is what the teacher teaches in many cases, a failing if you ask me.
> (I know I could not stand the "assinged" books - never any fantasy tales!!)


 
Oh, indeed. Lots of literature teachers out there have a great deal to answer for.... In the hands of a good one, such a course can be a joy and turn kids on to reading in droves. In the hands of the mediocre (let alone the rotten)... it poisons the well perhaps forever....


----------



## Montero (Feb 8, 2008)

JadeTrickster said:


> Sadly, I have to agree with the reading is dying theory. Only 3 of my friends read(though those are all my friends), and when I read at school people mock me and try to take my books away! Even worse, no one in my class had ever heard of Fahrenheit 451 or LOTR before being forced to read them in class



Sorry to hear that.  However, not quite sure it is data for reading is dying - purely because exactly the same used to happen to me at secondary school 20 years ago.  They eased off as we all got older - I think 14 is a bit of a turning point. 
Mind you, haven't forgotten sitting quietly reading in the 6th form common room, and someone sticking their face over my book to ask "Are you alright?"  Done nicely, but the implication....  They _had_ just been made a prefect and had delusions of grandeur.
I do know some people who were brought up to believe that it is rude to read when there is another person in the room, you should be making conversation.   I was brought up to respect that someone reading doesn't want to be interrupted.  (Amazing the variations in "good manners" in one culture - but that's for a different thread. )


----------



## JadeTrickster (Feb 9, 2008)

My dad had an ironic answer. "As long as Final Fantasy exists, people will read something with substance."


----------



## BladeOfFire (Feb 9, 2008)

Hehe. That is so funny, but true. There is so much text in the FF games.


----------



## LJonesy (Feb 10, 2008)

There is so much text but compared to other things out there it doesn't compare in quality.


----------



## Connavar (Feb 10, 2008)

j. d. worthington said:


> Oh, indeed. Lots of literature teachers out there have a great deal to answer for.... In the hands of a good one, such a course can be a joy and turn kids on to reading in droves. In the hands of the mediocre (let alone the rotten)... it poisons the well perhaps forever....




A good teacher is the reason i read so much and enjoy it these days.

I remember as a kid teachers forcing you on classics you didnt want to read *cause they were forced on you.

*I still cant read Jane Austen cause of that.  I dont even want to try her books.

I remember a teacher selling The Count Monte Cristo to me so well that i wanted to read it so much.  My first book and still a fav.

I see my youngest siblings being forced on books these days.  I give them my books.  I gave my little sister Strom Front by Jim Butcher.  She liked it so much that she did a report on it for school.


----------



## BladeOfFire (Feb 11, 2008)

LJonesy said:


> There is so much text but compared to other things out there it doesn't compare in quality.


 
Exactly my dear fruend


----------



## j d worthington (Feb 11, 2008)

Connavar of Rigante said:


> I still cant read Jane Austen cause of that. I dont even want to try her books.


 
And that is a great pity. I wasn't forced to read Austen but, when I finally did approach her books on my own, I was a bit trepidatious, due to the reputation. What I found was a wonderful writer with sparkling, barbed wit, an incisive insight, and a great deal of warm good humor....

Faugh! How many wonderful reading experiences have been spoiled for so many by either poor teaching or making what should be accessible books seem like these towering monuments to sterility and dullness.....


----------



## brsrkrkomdy (Feb 15, 2008)

JadeTrickster said:


> Sadly, I have to agree with the reading is dying theory. Only 3 of my friends read(though those are all my friends), and when I read at school people mock me and try to take my books away! Even worse, no one in my class had ever heard of Fahrenheit 451 or LOTR before being forced to read them in class


 
*In the adult world, if that were to happen when someone were to take any of them away from my hands, he's gonna be staring down the business end of a fist before it crashes.  Of course, I digress.  It has yet to happen.  I wouldn't tolerate those types of jerks trying that stunt. *


----------



## Sire Of Dragons (Feb 19, 2008)

Unfortunately in this day and age too many allow their lives to become too busy or overly dramatic to just sit and relax.

Its become too easy to turn the tv on or get lost in a video game. The invention of visualization in motion has changed who we are.

More people read the magazine articles telling them how they should be living their lives instead deciding for themselves. They wanna live up to the fantasies put into their minds from soap opera's and prime time.

This "example" could get me into trouble ... many women (not all) (notice I said "many") expect too much from relationships based on the romance novels, magazine horoscopes and the corrupt hollywood version of what love is. Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman were the start of a never ending domino effect.

People were not meant to live the way it is portrayed on television. Thats called imagination, not reality. For that matter reality tv is just disgusting.

Not everyone is at fault for problems that occur in their lives, but many bring it on themselves by being followers.

The expression used to be "relax and curl up with a good book" Like many things, we've lost touch with the simplicities.

As for myself I wish I could be living in an earlier time.


----------



## LJonesy (Feb 19, 2008)

All of us do, Sire

What i find that now reading is now taken over by certain "Intellectual" circles. When in the end they just appear as pompus fools who think they know they tolstoy and shakespeare. Not only has the common-person lost their touch with it, any hope of reestablishing it will be tainted with the current image of someone who reads. I guess i'm being general by that current image, but as long as you get my meaning...


----------



## Sire Of Dragons (Feb 19, 2008)

I could never be a part of those so called intellectual circles, I'm way too controversial. I can speak from both sides of a fence on issues where most people are cursed with tunnel vision.

Therefore they are unable to comprehend my words, or are just too closed minded to see other perspectives. Others just cannot deal with the fact that I look right thru them and see things they won't even acknowledge about themselves. Most simply are blind to logic.

Truth hurts, its scary. People find it easier to believe in something less impacting on their hearts or their small mindedness. Truth has become unacceptable. Hence the followers I mentioned.

What does all this have to do with reading? People don't like to read anything that might just put them in touch with themselves anymore.

They just shake their heads and turn away. Life's new has become "to each their own" Not enough people care anymore.

Ok I'm finished preaching.


----------



## Lith (Feb 20, 2008)

Reading has a long history of being "intellectual".  For most ages, only the rich and well-educated could read, since reading's a rather useless activity in terms of survival, and one difficult to make money at even in this day and age.  It's only been in recent centuries that reading's been valued by the general public, and that mostly in connection with science and the Industrial Revolution.  That in conjunction with cheaper means of acquiring books changed things.  But did it, could it change things permanently; are we settling back down into older patterns of civilization?  I dunno.


----------



## Sire Of Dragons (Feb 20, 2008)

> But did it, could it change things permanently; are we settling back down into older patterns of civilization?  I dunno.



HA! I wish. It is for to laugh


----------



## Montero (Feb 20, 2008)

Sire Of Dragons said:


> More people read the magazine articles telling them how they should be living their lives instead deciding for themselves. They wanna live up to the fantasies put into their minds from soap opera's and prime time.
> 
> This "example" could get me into trouble ... many women (not all) (notice I said "many") expect too much from relationships based on the romance novels, magazine horoscopes and the corrupt hollywood version of what love is. Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman were the start of a never ending domino effect.
> 
> ...



Well - (naughty grin ) romantic love originated in a MUCH earlier time - the medieval court of Eleanor of Acquitaine.  Courtly knights were something she tried to wish into being - with her as their central icon.  The whole poetic yearning, troubadour thing has been going on for centuries with those who have sufficient income to have the time to spare on it.
Now nearly all of us have time to spare, and cheap entertainment, so the myth spreads.  I think all unrealistic yearnings are dangerous - glamorous lifestyle as per Hollywood, magazines, adverts, just as much so.

You could argue that some infidelities are started by glamorous romance notions - folks are busy working on step 1 - getting together, that they forget to move onto step 2 - living together and just repeat step 1 and get together with a new person.

And now I'm off to curl up with a good book and my purring cat.


----------

