Reading is for Suckers

Books are the quietest and most constant of friends:
they are the most accessible and wisest of counsellors,
and the most patient of teachers.
Charles W. Eliot

Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.
Thomas Jefferson

From the Associated Press:
One in four adults say they read no books at all in the past year, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday. Of those who did read, women and seniors were most avid, and religious works and popular fiction were the top choices.

So, even the people that ARE reading are falling into the sad latter category of the following quote:

I divide all readers into two classes: Those who read to remember and those who read to forget.
William Phelps

Great, great news America. We wonder why China's going to make us our slaves in a few years.

Other depressing points from the study:

People from the South read a bit more than those from other regions...

Holy shit, really? But wait...

...mostly religious books and romance novels.

Oh okay, that makes more sense.

What else can you tell me to brighten my day, oh most depressing poll of polls?

The Bible and religious works were read by two-thirds in the survey, more than all other categories. Popular fiction, histories, biographies and mysteries were all cited by about half, while one in five read romance novels. Every other genre -- including politics, poetry and classical literature -- were named by fewer than five percent of readers.

But wait, television can pretty much tell me all I need to know about those three boring genres, right? Right? I can understand the concept of blowback by watching two pundits, one extremely left and one extremely right, given two minutes to yell over one another on Fox News, right? Right?

(personal side note - at least one, maybe two of the Hastings stores in Lubbock no longer have poetry sections. However, they do have a fairly large subgenre of religious fiction that is called, Religious Romance. I have yet to put my mind back together after thinking about this concept, nor did I have the courage to explore this abomination.)

(2nd personal side note - I was in Barnes and Noble yesterday and overheard an older couple, probably mid-60s, with the wife obviously wanting to be in the store and the husband looking dragged-along, provide the following gem:

Husband, after seeing the title of the section of books to which he was headed: "Religious Fiction, huh? That's a pretty good name for it. That's what most of it is.")

Back to the story, and the final point of interest:

There was even some political variety evident, with Democrats and liberals typically reading slightly more books than Republicans and conservatives.

That's really too good. Immediately I wanted to jump on an "I told you so" bandwagon, but making a partisan issue of this probably isn't the best thing to do. We really all need to be reading more.

That being said, the head of the book publishing company's trade group has a pretty awesome response:

The Karl Roves of the world have built a generation that just wants a couple slogans: "No, don't raise my taxes, no new taxes," Pat Schroeder, president of the American Association of Publishers, said in a recent interview. "It's pretty hard to write a book saying, 'No new taxes, no new taxes, no new taxes' on every page."

Not to be outwitted, White House spokesman Tony Fratto actually had a response. Personally, I can only venture to guess that this study ruffled conservatives' feathers, otherwise why would the White House even comment?
Either way, he said this:

Obfuscation usually requires a lot more words than if you simply focus on fundamental principles, so I'm not at all surprised by the loquaciousness of liberals.

Obfuscation? Loquaciousness? Boy, thems some mighty big ol' words aint they? (Maybe he's just a fan of alliteration?)

It seems spokesman Fratto briefly forgot to pander to his base. Doesn't he know their vocabulary level? The way I see it, those two words in that quote reveal an insecurity covered over by a brief foray into vocabulary above a fifth-grade reading level.


Overall the poll reveals that we are a nation dependent on new forms of media to provide us information about the world. Television and the Internet are the dominant forms, and while the latter has managed to at least provide a bit of democracy to news dissemination, it is still not the best medium for gaining true knowledge. Access to this information superhighway in no way assumes it is accompanied by depth.

Without going on too far of a tangent, I'll say that the Internet is a horizontally-based medium. Instead of moving deeper and deeper into the logic, reason or weaving together of an argument or story, Internet users tend to skim things, leaping instantly to tangents or outright changes of subject via hyperlinks, banner ads, etc. It's almost like a side-scrolling video game, for lack of a better metaphor.

Books meanwhile engage you much more deeply. This I would describe as a vertical medium, allowing for a more complex and nuanced form of knowledge acquisition. A reader is able to follow longer explanations that, in contrast to Fratto's charge of "loquaciousness," do provide much more context and explanation than any other medium. Let's face it, shit's complicated, and books are the only way to go.


Maybe the following quotes give ideas better than my own:

We are drowning in information but starved for knowledge.
John Naisbitt

That says it quite well, but let's add this depressing one from George Bernard Shaw:
Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.

Indeed, I think we truly are getting what we deserve. A nation of fools will only elect fools as their leaders.

But let's finish with something fun, shall we?

The more that you read,
the more things you will know.
The more that you learn,
the more places you'll go.
Dr. Seuss