Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Books

Journal pudge's Journal: Reading 53

Journal by pudge

Last night on NewsHour someone from the NEA (the Arts one) discussed a report that shows literary book reading in the U.S. is down. But they define literary book reading as novels, short stories, plays, or poetry.

They did ask about people who read books of any kind, but didn't use that much in their analysis. They did not ask about people who read non-books, such as magazines and online. The even included Internet use in their analysis, astonishingly, as a non-reading activity.

Why is this interesting, you ask? Well, it isn't. And that's my point. I know people who read only romance novels, which is included in literary reading. I read political and historical books, which are not included. And somehow their romance novels is good whereas my reading is not? It's ridiculous.

Look, people are reading fewer novels because people care less about them. They are reading more online and reading more non-fiction because it is more accessible and more interesting. This trend is positive IMO, not negative. Most novels/plays/short stories/poetry are inane and a waste of time.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reading More

Reading

Comments Filter:

  • Moo (Score:2)

    by Chacham ( 981 ) *
    This is bad. Although romance novels themselves are usually trash, they express feelings in many different forms. Factual reading, is gathering, not expressing.

    Reading also expands vocabulary, attention span, recognition of significant facts within the noise, ands views on life. Little of which can be found online. Although a few sites use proper English, most are dumbed down. Websites usually only mention the important things, and people skim in and out anyway, and the views are sometimes more diverse, bu
  • What do you expect from a group that their main goal is "art."

    For them, reading is artistic reading.

    More importantly, or more interestingly, is why do we have the NEA to
    begin with? Two fold there is savings in removing the NEA, one we don't
    get reports on how folks don't read enough literature, and two we also
    stop sponsering "artists." If someone wants are, or finds their life
    lacking without art, let them find a sponser who is willing to sustain
    them, not the government.
    • Dang. Beat me to the "WTF is the NEA for any way?" lines. The NEA always sounded like some sort of WPA project from the 30s depression area wher eartists were given handouts to do lousy work painting public buildings, or painting murals on public buildings, etc.

      And yes before someone complains about my NEA bashing, I know they are a major contributor to programs on NPR, PRI, and PBS. That doesn't mean the are efficient or usefull (in my mind).

    • Funny... government sponsored art has been with us almost as long as societies have organized governments.
      • Funny... government sponsored art has been with us almost as long as societies have organized governments.

        Federally funded art is unconstitutional.
        • Federally funded art is unconstitutional.


          How so?
          • Seriously. I don't find this restriction anywhere in the Consitution and everything that I have been able to dig up on short notice seems to go against your assertion.

            While it isn't a constitutional right to receive funds from the government for works of art, it isn't , as far as I can tell, unconstutitutional for the government for fund art.

            • Oh, and one more thing: while the Tenth Amendment makes clear that these unenumerated, undefined, powers belong to the States, John Madison, the primary interpreter of the Constitution -- while defending the proposed Constitution in Federalist 45 -- wrote it a bit more clearly, to give you some context:

              The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised

          • Federally funded art is unconstitutional.
            How so?

            The Constitution list the powers of the government. Nowhere on this list is the power to be a patron of the arts. QED

            • That's a bullshit answer because the Constitution grants congress the power to create legislation. Congress, in exercising that right created legislation to create and fund the NEA. Unless the activities of the NEA go against the Consitution (as repeated lawsuits have shown it DOES NOT), it is not unconstitutional.

              Given that, it is up to Congress to decide whether to maintain the NEA (or other arts funding projects) or not.
              • That's a bullshit answer because the Constitution grants congress the power to create legislation.

                That's an ignorant answer, because the legislation Congress has the power to create is concerning its enumerated powers. Look at McCulloch v. Maryland, which I mentioned before. If what you say is true, then there would have been no case, because the court would have said, "they have the right to create legislation, and they are not specifically forbidden from doing it, so therefore it is OK."

                Hell, if what
                • Actually, I have read that case and I respectfully think that you are wrong. I will put up my full rebuttal when I have more time.

                  I leave you with this:

                  Marshall: "But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "ex
                  • Actually, I have read that case and I respectfully think that you are wrong. I will put up my full rebuttal when I have more time.

                    And I've read your comments, and I respectfully believe I don't really have a reason to listen to someone who thinks that Congress can make any law it wishes, as long as it is not specifically prohibited from doing so, something nobody believes, something which is specifically denied by all relevant law and precedent.

                    Your quote of Marshall is intended to allow for implied powe
                    • By your reading, Congress is only to be concerned with external issues and the powers needed to support that trust. The is, in fact wrong. There are plenty of internal matters of national concern that Congress oversees, hence a lot of their legislation is geared towards handling issues internal to the United States. These are part of the charge of the Congress to provide for the security, prosperity and happiness (as mentioned by Marshall) of the United States. In that regard Congress can make laws and
                    • By your reading, Congress is only to be concerned with external issues and the powers needed to support that trust.

                      No. By my reading, there are some internal matters enumerated that are for the Congress, and those are the only ones they are allowed to touch. This is, in fact, true.

                      These are part of the charge of the Congress to provide for the security, prosperity and happiness (as mentioned by Marshall) of the United States

                      You're pulling out words that were never intended to mean what you have them
                    • What about funding the National Institute of Health? Is this unconsitutional as well?
                    • I think so, yes. I can see nothing enumerated in the Constitution, as you noted, granting the power to Congress to do it, and I can see no power by which it would be implied.

                      I already stated that this limit on government power is ignored regularly; noting examples of it doesn't stregthen the case against me.
                    • So are argument is based on a differing opinion of what powers are implied by the constitution. I would hazard that you are a strict consitutionalist... I on the other hand, am not (I guess).
                    • s/So are/So our/
                    • So are argument is based on a differing opinion of what powers are implied by the constitution. I would hazard that you are a strict consitutionalist... I on the other hand, am not (I guess).

                      We are arguing over the original meaning of the Constitution. Being a strict constructionist just means you think the original meaning should stand until it is amended. So whether you're a strict constructionist or not doesn't mean very much when we're arguing over what Marshall meant. :-)

                    • How about passing a law to ban gay marriage, or even gay relationships? Congress isn't specifically prohibited from doing this. So can they pass such a law?

                    • Congress cannot pass a law saying gay marriage is illegal. I believe they can do what they did, which is pass a law saying one gay marriage in one state need not be recognized by another state (although the validity of this law is in question too, but for another reason: the full faith and credit clause of Article IV), by virtue of Section 8 which says Congress has the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested b

                    • Right. My point is to Cascadefx, who seems to think that Congress can do whatever it wants, since it can "pass laws."

                    • Well... it kind of CAN. IF it can AMEND the consitution. Of course they need 2/3rd of both houses and 2/3rd of the states...

                      Didn't say it would be EASY, but the mechinism exists to pass an amendment declaring all rocks to be protected poisonous tree frogs, if that tickled their fancy.
                    • They could, but then they would probably be shot down by some of the equal protection and other clauses in the consitution should there be a challenge to the law.

              • Baloney. The power to make law does not imply the power to make any law you wish. Otherwise they could outlaw religion or whatever. (Or outlaw atheism.)

                • Not true, because Congress is specifically prohibited from making laws that would abolish religion.

                  The First Amendment states:
                  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

                  As such, any such law that Congress would make (hypothetically) with regards to outlawing religion would,

                  • The implied ideas behind an amendment process to the consitution back this up.

                    Err, the implied idea behind an amendment process is that you have to amend the Constitution to delegate new powers to the federal government.

                    Also, there has been plenty of controversy over the NEA and YET it has not ever been disbanded on constitutional grounds.

                    Hopefully it will be, soon. Meanwhile judges don't get to make law, so they can't find new delegated powers for the Congress. (No matter how many times they de

                  • I absolutely agree with you that prohibitions against laws, such as laws against religion, are not nullified by your stance. But your stance has enough problems that it doesn't need this one too. :-)
          • Because it is neither an enumerated or implied power. cf. Article I, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. Section 8 lists the powers Congress has; Clause 18 says it has additional powers necessary and proper to execute those powers; and the Tenth Amendment says any additional powers not enumerated belong to the States and to the people.

            There is nothing in the Constitution granting the government the power to fund the arts, and there is no power where the funding of the arts would be imp
            • The Constitutional questions of the NEA has been addressed numerous times in multiple court cases... so far it is still standing.

              Congress could disband it and has changed it over the years in an effort to stave off its controversy. However, it is still here. If Congress were to disband it entirely, there would be no constitutional argument that would be able to reinstate it. So far, it hasn't been permanently disbanded and I personally doubt it ever will be.
      • Even though government sponsored art (in its diverse forms) has been quite known throughout the history, it isn't without its problems. For one, "official" artists aren't necessarily the most talented ones, but rather the ones that are the best at sucking up to the sponsors (eg the body handing out the grants). This problem may not be so acute in a democratic country (even Michael Moore getting a grant for the filming of "Fahrenheit 9/11" isn't entirely unconceivable), but it's still something you must acco

    • I always loved the comment from Eric Raymond's libertarianism FAQ: "the label of "artist" confers no special right to a living at public expense." :)

      • As has been backed up in cases against the NEA. The NEA can choose who it disperses funds to based on their own criteria. Just because there is a national arts funding organization does not mean that there is a right (stated or implied) in the consitution for such funding.
  • First of all, i agree that excluding non-fiction from the survey may have altered the results. But i don't think the difference this makes is too big. A person who doesn't read "literary" books (and the number of people in the US that read that kind of books has, according to that article, dropped by 20 million(!)) isn't likely to read much anything else, either. Magazines you say? Most of them are trite. Those that aren't, are still not comparable to reading a book.

    Now, concerning the relative merits of r

    • A person who doesn't read "literary" books isn't likely to read much anything else, either.

      Says you. My wife and I don't read any literary books. I read one a couple of years ago, but not since. She hasn't read one in many years. We both read quite a few books, though.

      Magazines you say? Most of them are trite.

      So are most novels, plays, short stories, etc. 90% of everything is crap.

      Now, concerning the relative merits of romance novels over political books, then the thing is, that no matter how m

      • But even though romance novels are (IMHO) trash, i still prefer people reading trashy novels to them not reading at all

        I don't. I'd rather they did something productive and not read at all than read trash.

        I consider 'entertainment' to be indirectly productive. Sometimes it's nice to 'escape'. Me? I go camping or hiking. A few days in the woods near running water and I'm 'recharged'. Sometimes reading does it for me, too. Of course, some of what I read might be 'trash' to you, but that view is entire

      • Is that supposed to be an argument for, or against, what I am saying? It doesn't seem to hurt my point ...

        You were saying that if novel/play/poetry etc reading levels go down, it's good, as non-fiction reading levels go up. I was saying that if fiction reading levels go down, general reading levels go down. Both arguments are moot, however, as neither of us have the evidence to support our claims (but, with a toungue in cheek, i might add that despite the lack of evidence, i still think my guess is closer

        • You were saying that if novel/play/poetry etc reading levels go down, it's good, as non-fiction reading levels go up.

          No, I was not. You are incorrect.

          You can't be productive all the time. At some point, you will need to take some time for recreation.

          I am not opposed to recreation. I am opposed to trash, like romance novels and the majority of prime time television.

          And i'd rather they spend this time reading trashy novels than doing something even less intellectually challenging, like watching mind
          • No, I was not. You are incorrect.

            Sayeth you: Look, people are reading fewer novels because people care less about them. They are reading more online and reading more non-fiction because it is more accessible and more interesting. This trend is positive IMO, not negative.

            Hmm. Indeed, i seem to have read a bit too much into your statement (as if there had been an "as a consequence..." between 'people are reading fewer novels' and 'people are reading more non-fiction,' while there was none). My bad. Howeve

            • However, i still don't believe that general reading levels (fiction + non-fiction, both online and offline) have risen or remained the same; it's more likely that they have fallen, along with "literary" reading levels.

              But you have no way of knowing that, and it is beside any point I made anyway.

              While, according to research, reading and watching TV both score (practically equally) low on the brain activity scale, TV supposedly makes people more passive (passively watching pictures instead of actively try
              • Watching documentaries harms language comprehension, while reading romance novels helps it? Flummery.

                Interestingly, my source* (no, it wasn't Marshall McLuhan) claimed that in the case of TV, it's not the content but rather the experience itself that shapes these skills. The skills needed for TV and reading are different: watching TV relies on your visual skills, while reading relies on auditory language ability.

                One should, of course, not take all this for 100% truth, as there's also researchers claiming

                • watching TV relies on your visual skills, while reading relies on auditory language ability.

                  But most of the TV I watch -- and I would guess, much of the increased TV viewing in general -- is programs that are more about language and less about being visual.

                  Even if that isn't true, the study just assumes it is not.

          • But it isn't less intellectually challenging.

            I dont think daniil was implying that reading ('trash', ie. romance novels) was high on the scale of "intellecutally challenging" -- mearly that it was more so than TV. You suggest it's the same:

            But it isn't less intellectually challenging. It's the same.

            I would disagree with you. This is a subjective difference of opinion.

            Perhaps this minutia is detracting from your major point that the study discussed in your JE was inaccurate -- or a at the very least,

            • I would disagree with you. This is a subjective difference of opinion.

              Sure, but I stated it similarly to how daniil did. If it sounded like I was stating it as fact, it is because daniil did. :-)

              You are making this claim because YOU get nothing out of it (reading what you define as trash). However, that may not be true for Joe Shmoe.

              But it goes to the heart of the study, which is that reading literary books is somehow necessarily good (indeed, better than other kinds of books).

              • But it goes to the heart of the study, which is that reading literary books is somehow necessarily good (indeed, better than other kinds of books).

                I agree with your statement that it's silly to think 'reading literary books' is 'necessarily good'. However, you appeared to suggest something more -- that reading what you call 'trash' is not productive. Those are two different points.

                I can say with certainty that me reading what I feel is 'trash' is a waste of MY productivity. Subtle difference, but an i

      • 90% of everything is crap

        Applies to all reading, literary or not (including what you read... or I read for that matter).

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Hmmm (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      And BTW, I don't see much reason to be defensive. The fact YOU don't read a lot of literature doesn't make you bad, or lower in intelligence, or otherwise inferior, it doesn't make anyone those things.

      It's not about being defensive, it's about saying their study is virtually meaningless.
  • "Literary" novels are a relatively recent art form.

    Look at the most literate generations ever -- I don't know for sure, but I'd guess 18th and 19th-century Protestants, in America and England.

    They read the Bible above all. Then came penny dreadfuls, news accounts, serialized fiction (Dickens, Hardy, etc, were serials before novels), genre stories, and rhyming poetry. For a long time, novels were considered a feminine, flabby, irrelevant art form. Most people could not afford to buy a novel, until paperbac
    • Personally, I do find growing illiteracy alarming, but on a more basic level. In September I'll be volunteering as a literacy tutor.

      Great! And I agree. If it were talking about literacy in general, I'd be concerned. But they are not. This is just a bunch of art wankers wanking about what they think is art.

Slashdot Top Deals

The last thing one knows in constructing a work is what to put first. -- Blaise Pascal

Close