Hiromi_X

I've known so many people who moan and complain about how they don't know how to do certain things while watching me do them. Always asking how I learned. The reaction is almost comical when I tell them that most of what I've learned was by reading, for fun. Yet when I suggest a book or two to get them started they just tell me they don't like to read.

I must admit reading feels like a bit of a chore to me. But I love stories and learning new things. That's why I like audio books.

Illiteracy used to be a kind of dirty secret, adults could go to reading classes in the evenings to get up to speed. I wonder if that's even a thing now? The number of times I've heard someone announce *proudly* that they don't read actually scares me a little bit.

I know two people that read. One of those reads only science fiction. Another lost artifact: letter writing

No, they don't read. I fully blame starting kids reading in school by telling them they have to read 'literature' (and let's face it... to a 5 or 6 year old, literature isn't fun, isn't fair and isn't good) in class. It's probably the main reason my nephew doesn't read very often unless he can *really* get into it.
I first noticed this my first day of college English. The professor asked the class who read something that day. I raised my hand along with everyone else. Everyone else browsed a magazine or read street signs. I had: read the newspaper, finished a book, started another book and read X article in W magazine. That morning. The class was shocked. I *read*??? The prof was thrilled. I kinda figured then that the printed word was potentially doomed.

I do a ton of reading, most of it very diverse (although I have to admit I have read all of Agatha Christie's books at least 4 times). I spend about 2 hours a day on trains, so I have the time to read. The funny thing is I see people on the train with laptops playing games, Gameboy DS, watching portable DVD players, writing emails on their blackberry or talking nonsense on their cell phones. It's a great opportunity to get some reading in and for the most part, people just don't do it.

I'm not sure why I enjoy reading so much. I don't know if it was the books I read at an early age, or the teachers (although I had an awesome Shakespeare teacher in HS) or just my need to find things out for myself.

I am not a big fan of audio books. I think the reader's interpretation of the characters takes away somewhat from the enjoyment that I get from reading a book.

When I was in Japan this past summer, I saw a good number of people reading, although the majority of those reading were reading mangas. I can't say that reading a manga is much better than watching a DVD or playing a game, but I guess it's "reading". Hmmmm. Not sure about that one...

What the hell is good to read anyway? I've never found anything much. Moby Dick?

I personally read a lot, but this is getting a little narrow minded and even condescending. I have friends who don't read much, but they learn through doing. They don't read history or politics usually, but they can frame a house or repair a car. When they get curious, they don't pull out a book, they start monkeying with their hands and see what they can do. Are they leading less fulfilling lives? Perhaps from one perspective, but from their perspective, we might be introverts who can't really do anything practical or know anything truly useful. Different strokes for different folks. Nothing more, nothing less. And it takes all kinds to make the world work. I also think more people should read, but that's a value judgment on what's worthwhile.

Upper and middle class pretension or even intellectual elitism is one cynical way to put it. That's one reason so many people have so little use for intellectuals. They see intellectuals as having read a lot about the world, but having precious little experience in it.

I do a lot of reading I was being facetious.

i-i-i-i-i-i
off topic but...i just found it by reading this
http://members.aol.com/yahyam/coincidence.html

The Nephew, in the 2nd grade, was made to read Jack London (To Build a Fire) because they only give them class copies of short stories with pre-done discussion questions.
Public school education (in NM at least), instead of fixing what's wrong (not paying teachers what they're worth so you keep the good ones), they keep changing curriculum to make it more difficult. They add homework and paperwork and instead of actually teaching, they just make the teacher a paperpusher. When he was 11, they gave him 68 pounds of books and no locker. My mom got him luggage to take to school. He was missing sleep because he'd have 5-7 hours of homework a night.
No wonder the kid doesn't like to read, you know? It's work.

It is a society issue -- literacy. Reading is a chore for my students, for I teach in an urban setting in Houston. Unless it contains hyper violence or the engagement of a mindless film, it is almost impossible to have students to read. However, this is a view from the URBAN setting -- not private school or suburbia.

Furthermore, the Texas TAKS test and US AYP encourages teachers to push literacy skills without regard to content. Who cares if the students' like what they are reading for we teach skills not appreciation. Note sacrasm. It is a horrid state of affairs in the education realm and the chasm between the generation gap is the largest now than ever in the past.

In addition, adults slip on reading due to the various options we have with media. I can watch a dvd, watch a youtube clip, listen to a cd, learn with computer software, or use scores of other teaching materials that was once a literary exclusive in form of a book. Yet, in my opinion, reading is still the way to go for my learning. At least, it better be... I'm a High School English Teacher.

Nope. Just real 'labor intensive' homework. As an example, The Kid would copy into his "Agenda" from the board every day a list of what he would do in English class. This is just a sample day. I had his mom find it and read it to me:

Read chapter 6, answer discussion questions 1-25, write each spelling word three times. Use each in a sentence. Copy the definition. Snow cave model due Wednesday.
What that was is English class and it means read a story (Antigone!), answer the questions, each of which is a short essay question. Turn to the progress workbook, copy the spelling words labelled chapter 6. Do that 3 times. Then use each in a sentence. Then go back to the progress workbook, turn to the definition of the word in different chapter from the spelling list and copy the definition. The snow cave is what the school uses to get parents involved. Each kid in the class got to make a snow cave out of whatever they want. As long as it's white and you call it snow. Kid got glue and paper towels. He grabbed the encyclopedia and built an igloo around a balloon.

He was in the 6th grade at the time. Now he's failing English in the 8th. I don't have the guts to ask him what he's studying. I'm afraid he's going to say Elizabethan literature and we didn't really hit that until the 10th.

I think part of the reason that Americans don't read is willful ignorance, TV, video games and 1,000 things

Shamed you? Never my intention. I'm just pointing out that the viewpoint that you're better than people who don't read is close minded and conceited. There are lots of people with lots of different interests and ways of learning.

On the example of useless intellectuals, of course that's a ridiculous stereotype. My point was that both sides are close minded stereotypes that do little besides justify one's own position and ego.

In my last year of college one of my professors was explaining to me why he didn't care if I read a bunch of art theory for a paper, "I don't really like my students to spit out other people's opinions. I'd much rather you learn something about the human condition by reading a novel." For some reason, it had never occurred to me that all through high school and most of college that I was reading these things to learn something. Obviously I didn't get it when I was growing up, and part of that was my fault, but I also blame my teachers for not just spelling it out. A "Hey class, the reason we're reading this really boring book is because it's supposed to tell you something about the world." would have been helpful.

A little off topic, but for some reason even as a kid,I could never get into reading most fiction.Only books on history and politics.That and sometimes a romance novel which is weird being a guy.

Well put, Hiromi. Just like people who drink and appreciate good wine and like to cook good food. "Oh, you're a wine snob or that's gourmet cooking." No, I'm not and it's just good cooking using decent ingredients.

Darkneuro is absolutely right- the tendency in education is to 'fix' the students by piling on the busy work. It hurts more than it helps. In my experience, the best way to learn the joys of reading is to watch a really good teacher give a close reading of a short text.

Also, the story Holly tells is shared by nearly everyone I know who teaches History at the college-level. There is often a student who, on the first day of class announces, quite proudly, 'I don't know how I'm going to do well in this class. I'm not a reader.' It is the pride, as if this was a cherished facet of their identity, that most unnerves.

My grandparents were of that generation that believed in self-improvement. They spent years learning Italian and Spanish just because these were good things to know. My parents were the same way. I think nowadays 'self-improvement' smacks of 'low self-esteem'.

Reading, like exercise, seems like a duty at first, but quickly becomes enjoyable. If you're like me, and live to read, it's impossible to escape the elitist label because, at some point, you feel compelled to explain what reading has meant to you and what it has added to your life. The inevitable assumption is that non-readers lack these things, which they probably do, but it's rude to point it out. The only alternative would be to keep quiet about reading. However, given how quickly reading is becoming vestigial in this culture, that seems perverse as well.

Check out "Homer's Daughter" Robert Graves

Also
http://www.maudnewton.com/blog/

I would have also thought that in a modern Western society, where most knowledge is transmitted in written form, that being illiterate, or being a non-reader (and I am not saying these are the same thing)would rather severely reduce one's general knowledge and access to knowledge as a whole (particularly in terms of the variety of sources one can access and compare). That would greatly affect one's ability to function in certain situations.

Most information is not transmitted orally these days, and I would say that the sheer volume and complexity of knowledge would be very difficult to transmit solely through speech. Some would argue that video can remedy that, but I have my doubts, especially given the "complexity" (NOT) that I have seen in say , the average History Channel or Discovery documentary. I know enough about various areas of history ( I was a history major) to realise that most of what i see is a very superficial treatment. This gets worse in discussing pre-TV or pre-film eras.

The other thing that I find weird is that being a non-reader strongly implies a lack of curiosity. Without curiosity, what the hell is the point of living?

It's not pointing out that reading expands horizons that is conceited, it's presuming that you can determine that other people's inner lives are "narrow and impoverished" -- in an absolute sense, the way you phrased it in the original post. If you're fine with that characterization, then so be it. But it seems hard to me to defend calling someone else's inner life something as strong as 'impoverished.'

For all those readers out there and you know who are:
http://bookcriticscircle.blogspot.com/
They are starting a best recommended list in January every month