Mokoto Rich of the The New York Times debates the mystery of why people read (as well as some of the bad news as to why people don’t). He questions, “Is all hope gone, or will people still be drawn to the literary landscape? And what is it, exactly, that turns someone into a book lover who keeps coming back for more?” He also looks at some ideas as to why:
There is no empirical answer. If there were, more books would sell as well as the Harry Potter series or The Da Vinci Code. The gestation of a true, committed reader is in some ways a magical process, shaped in part by external forces but also by a spark within the imagination. Having parents who read a lot helps, but is no guarantee. Devoted teachers and librarians can also be influential. But despite the proliferation of book groups and literary blogs, reading is ultimately a private act. “Why people read what they read is a great unknown and personal thing,” said Sara Nelson, editor in chief of the trade magazine Publishers Weekly.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
It’s interesting because at the end of the article, that guy says that books have to compete unfairly with electronic gadgets among other things; Amazon, a few days ago, launched an e-book reader called the Amazon Kindle, and they were touting it as the next step for books. It seems kind of gimmicky and I sort of doubt that many people would turn to gadgets for reading books, regardless of what form it’s in.
I have my doubts about the new e-reader as well. These have never performed well, and I find it hard to imagine anyone deciding to spend $400 on one. It seems like people who like to read actually like physical books (see my Vonnegut quote on the side for a nice description of the reading process), but I guess the same used to hold true for newspapers. I never thought I would read a paper on my computer, and now I do it daily–and it’s free. I guess we’ll see . . .
One thing I would say is that Diaz (the man Kamran mentioned at the article’s end) is making a point that many literary experts have made before him. I actually just started reading Eats, Shoots, and Leaves by international stickler and grammar Nazi Lynne Truss, the main theme of which is the death and overall degradation of literature by the electronic age. I’ve definitely thought about this sort of thing, too. The internet is an invention of monumental usefulness and convenience not at all unlike television, and cell phones. But in an age compiled entirely of instant gratification, I see people’s attention spans getting shorter and shorter, my own included. I stopped reading for quite a long period of time last year, and since I’ve come back to it, I always find myself reluctant to start on anything new that I haven’t read before. I find myself always asking myself inane questions, trying to talk myself out of it: how long before I get to the climax? How much of the protagonist’s drawl will I have to sit through before it gets exciting? How do I know it’s going to be worth my time?
And, I mean, I love reading. I suppose that, nowadays, we’ve become so used to every second being steeped in suspense, action-packed and full of excitement. What I see is television getting way better and books getting way worse. It feels like authors are starting to run out of original material, and with technology being as innovative as it is, tv executives seem to be running off with it. I don’t like it, but I understand where most kids are coming from, and I think that the internet might be something books will have to adapt to, rather than just try to survive.
Personally, I think I would much rather carry around a $15 dollar book rather than a $400 device I wouldn’t want dropped or stolen. Besides, the pages are part of the experience. Newspapers on the other hand are more informational, so I don’t know if they count.
Antoher thing though, I really like reading books that have been read by other people, almost like hand-me-down books, but not abused ones, because they feel like they have more character. Almost like the person who read them before left impressions, similar to “Papa Joes Pipe” and how the guy was able to go back through experiences through the pipe. I don’t know, but books will always have a place on my shelf.
I think out of the entire article, the part that really caught my eye was the comment about how people can relate to the characters of a book. I guess it’s the same thing that happens with movies, too. When people feel a connection to something in particular (like Michael pretty much in love with Lost in Translation), they want to find more of those connections and look through books or movies to find it. I personally have never been able to find that in books OR movies, which is maybe why I don’t read or watch movies/TV all that much, or maybe because I just don’t have the time.
Anyways, for some reason I connected this article to writing, not just reading, an example being people who just have a knack for writing anything from books to exposes to pretty much anything. I find it hard to read sometimes, and even for school I have to force myself to read, but when it comes to writing (errr…typing), I typically type for 1.5 hours straight and come up with like 7 pages of single-spaced ranting, usually posted on Facebook *ahem*. Easy for me. But I think I do that because of the feeling that I get when I write. It might be the same for readers and movie-watchers. When a bookworm (such as Kamran) reads a book and just enjoys it so much, he would probably keep reading, just as I would keep writing.
On a different note, I wouldn’t spend that much either. I agree with Alisa. I’d rather go to a library or a bookstore (YAY BORDERS!) than stay at home and just…read off my computer. Besides, you can take a book anywhere. It’s just….uncomfortable to lay on a couch and read off your laptop all the time.
For me, nothing can replace the book, and I think it’s sad that so many people are losing that love of reading. Books contain memories, and each book is different, whereas a computer is just a computer. Books are much more personal, and part of their charm is that they can get ripped, trampled on, lost, found, coffee-stained, and dog-eared. Each time you read a book it is slightly different, and so are you. Each book on my shelf reminds me of everything else I was doing the last time I read it, and each time I reread a book I find something new. For example, I’ve probably read To Kill A Mockingbird about 10 times since I was 6, but when I was 6 I couldn’t understand nearly as much of the book as I do now. My copy is probably 40 years old, and each time I read it, another piece of the cover falls off. I suppose a movie or some other form of media might have the same effect, but books are the most tangible, and therefore the most real. There’s this great quote from Fahrenheit 451 where one of the characters says, “Do you know why books such as this are so important? Because they have quality. And what does the word quality mean? To me it means texture. This book has pores. It has features…That’s my definition, anyway. Telling detail. Fresh detail.” Fahrenheit 451 is a great book about the value of books and the dangers of a society based on immediate gratification. Parts of it eerily relate to the subject of this article.
I agree with Rachel, and yes I remember that quote from Fahrenheit 451!! Maybe Ray Bradbury foreshadowed the coming age of computers dominating over books. Oh, and this brings up a related topic, actually. (Or I think it’s related.) Well first of all, I love libraries. I’m typically not much of a reader, but I love spending time in libraries, whether to study or to read. I find the atmosphere in itself so calming because if I’m reading a book, it’s just me and the book. No distractions, no annoying little brothers, no phone calls or emails, no nagging parents, and well, you get the point. These days, at least on my trips to the library, there’s hardly anyone there anymore. Errr…not as many people as there used to be, I mean. Recently, a good amount of library floor space has been used up by computers. I remember when computers at libraries were only used for searching for books, nothing more. Back in Pennsylvania, I remember going to the library where everything was searched for by cataloging (or whatever it is). Now, people go to the libraries, not to check out books, but to surf the Internet. Teens have their earphones on, checking their Myspace and Facebook and Xanga, etc. Pretty much the only people I see really checking out books are little kids and adults, and the VERY occasional teenager writing a research paper. It doesn’t feel the same anymore. I’m sure we’ve all seen this generational change happen as we’ve grown up, and it’s just a little sad to me that this has to be one of those changes.
I think one of the reasons we read is to escape. There’s something about learning about other people’s lives that somehow appeals to us as humans. It’s kind of like gossip, where everyone gets involved in everyone else’s lives. People like being involved with stuff outside of themselves.
Well assuming what Jillian said is true, and taking into consideration the fact that much less people read books today, does that mean that people today face their problems more than they did before? Do we need less of a reason to escape? Or do we find other ways as means of escape?
Rachel, your comment reminds me of how Lightman describes his time-traveling experience in “Time-travel and Papa Joe’s Pipe,” which Alisa also mentions as something that is valuable. Memories are somehow included on those pages that a computer screen will never be able to capture or preserve. It also reminds me of the quote of the moment that I put up (and is still there) by Vonnegut: “By accident, not by cunning calculation, books, because of their weight and texture, and because of their sweetly token resistance to manipulation, involve our hands and eyes, and then our minds and souls, in a spiritual adventure I would be very sorry for my grandchildren not to know about.” The idea of books having a “resistance to manipulation” is one thing that electronic media is lacking. If there is a problem, a poorly written sentence, or an untruth, it can always be “taken down” or deleted. I like the finality of a book; Bradbury’s quote also echoes Vonnegut’s idea of “texture,” which I think is a good way to describe it.