Some people lament the disappearance of the spotted owl from our forests; others sport bumper stickers boasting that they
eat fried spotted owls. It appears that books, too, are a threatened species, and reactions to the news are similarly various.
In 2004 a National Endowment for the Arts survey revealed that 43 percent of Americans polled hadn’t read a book all year,
and last November, in its report “To Read or Not to Read,” the NEA lamented the decline of reading, warning that non-readers
do less well in the job market and are less useful citizens in general. This moved Motoko Rich of the New York Times to write a Sunday feature in which she inquired of various bookish people why anyone should read at all. The Associated Press
ran their own poll and announced last August that 27 percent of their respondents had spent the year bookless, a better figure
than the NEA’s, but the tone of the AP piece was remarkable for its complacency. Quoting a project manager for a telecommunications
company in Dallas who said, “I just get sleepy when I read,” the AP correspondent, Alan Fram, commented, “a habit with which
millions of Americans can doubtless identify.”1
Self-satisfaction with the inability to remain conscious when faced with printed matter seems questionable. But I also want
to question the assumption—whether gloomy or faintly gloating—that books are on the way out. I think they’re here to stay.
It’s just that not all that many people ever did read them. Why should we think everybody ought to now?
Log in to read more . . .
If you're a subscriber, use the login panel at the top of the page to enter your username and password.
If you're not a subscriber—it only costs $16.97 per year. You'll receive 12 issues of Harper's Magazine, plus access to the Harper's Magazine website
for a full year.
It takes a few minutes to subscribe, and then you can read anything you'd like.
Subscribe today for $16.97
|