Cultural Aliteracy
Submitted by dgeiser13 on Wed, 05/23/2001 - 06:44
Tags:
"More and More Americans Who Can Read Are Choosing Not To. Can We Afford to Write Them Off?" I don't know if we can afford to write them off but it seems to me they are choosing to be written off. This whole concept is abhorent to me but I must admit I know a couple of people who don't read even a single book in a given year. The majority of my friends, thankfully, read quite a bit.
I also found this article fascinating and passed it on. It's scary to think that some people get nearly all their info about the world from the boob tube. Even PBS news programs--as in-depth as they are--don't have time to cover the details found in newspapers or magazines or books.
And although I dearly love a good SF or mystery novel, they (like every other genre) have their share of trash and treasure. It's all in the eye of the reader!
I am glad you pointed out that article to us. As I was reading the article many people popped in my mind. I do know alot of people that read, but it seems to me that all they read is "mind candy." Mind candy books have their place of course - and I do read a few on occasion, but it seems like that is all most people read. To me, reading trash books is almost as bad as not reading at all. It does nothing to stretch your way of thinking. I would be curious to know what kind of books the "47% of readers" read.
I don't think reading trash is nearly as bad personally because it means the person is still sitting down and reading.
Out of curiousity, what would you consider trash reading? One person's fine literature could very well be considered trash by another person. I like SF, but not all SF. Someone else might very well lump all SF together with the movie/tv tie-in books and write it all off.
7days, I'd like to commend you on commenting on the link. I thought it had went unnoticed. :-)
However, I think I'll have to side with Kristin on this one. I'd much rather prefer people reading trash then not reading anything at all. When you read trash at least you are reading and the chance of your tastes becoming more sophisticated over time remains. That can't happen when you aren't reading anything whatsoever. I am personally much more concerned with the 53% of people who aren't reading anything.
On a related note my definition of trash (which probably could offend and/or conflict heavily with the reading preferences of others) are books which seem to have no real distingusing qualities in relation to others within their genre or in relation to other titles by the same aurhor. For me this includes most 'romance' titles, much of what constitues the 'mystery' genre as we know it, a lot of stuff by the hack writers like Dean Koontz, John Saul, V.C. Andrews, Piers Anthony, Mary Higgins Clark, Anne McCaffrey, et. al., and much of the stuff which populates the best sellers list including Danielle Steele, John Grisham, Tim LaHaye, etc., but that's just my opinion. As Kristin says one man's trash is another man's treasure.
I truly hope that I haven't offended someone by calling out their pet genre or writer and if I did that wasn't my intent.
I have a question, Why do you feel the need to define Trash? I am not offended as beside mysteries I do not read any of the stuff you mentioned. My question is what impelled you to call so much writing trash in a post you started on the fact that so many people do not read anything. It just seems contradictory and I am asking with no malice as to your motivation.
My apolgies, I didn't read everything on the previous post where trash was asked to be defined. It just seems to me any reading is good. Some people do not want there lives expanded by great literature; does not make them bad people. I was an english major and I have had this fight with so many intelligent people about Literature that I think they have finally convinced me that Literature is not neccessary for everyone's well being. It is for me, but not everyone.