Why isn't it cool to read books? I heard something on a local sports talk radio show today that illustrates what I'm talking about. While riffing on nightly routines on the show, the co-host said that he typically has a two hour window after work when he is able to shower, eat dinner, read, watch a little tv, and visit with the family. Immediately afterwards, he corrected himself and said something like, "well, my wife reads...haha."

That example is just the quickest one that I can come up with off of the top of my head, but I feel like I've encountered the "reading is dorky" or "reading is something that my wife and her book club does" sentiment for as long as I've been a reader. Why is that?

My personal theory is that reading is generally associated with the intellect, and for a reason that I don't understand, there seems to be a rampant feeling of anti-intellectualism in our society. Readers are considered eggheads--people who think that they know better than somebody else. Personally, I think that is a silly prejudice put forth by non-readers who misunderstand the motives of readers, but perhaps there's something else to it. I'm sort of tossing around this theory in my head that has to do with reading discussions, feelings, and sexism. Am I off the mark here?

Well, I'd rather watch a TV show or movie than what qualifies as most "wife reading" (i.e. romance/thrillers/etc). The only fiction I find it worth reading is "good" literature, not more entertainment-oriented reading (though of course something can provide both), and I'm not sure that reading whatever's on the bestseller list is "better" in any sense than watching a movie or show. Now, non-fiction is a different story, but I think a fair number of middle class men read non-fiction (either in magazine or book form, topics like politics, biographies, history [especially military history in the case of former military], technology, or even finance journalism stuff like what Michael Lewis writes). And then there are blogs, which are taking the place of magazines, plus the news (but that can be consumed on TV and the radio as well).

I think the "reading is dorky" theme is a big thing in high school and before, but I see less of it as I get older. Maybe that's just self-selection on my part, but I think it's more than that.

Anyway, dorky is sort of in nowadays.

I admit to not reading a lot of books in the last 20 years but I will be pissed when newspapers are gone

Most excellent.

One of my amusements with the test culture-induced literacy push is the oft-used scare tactic: the possibility of an illiterate generation. As sold to a generation that can read and chooses not to. Insert Mark Twain quote about person who chooses not to read. We'd better hope that the way reading is taught in schools isn't turning people off of it, because our kids are getting more of that than we ever did.



I'm not sure most of what appears on the best seller lists for non-fiction, or the increasingly simplified presentations many news organizations fart out, are any better than watching television, either, but I speak without really knowing. I haven't had cable in years, and only about 4 TV shows total have managed to invade my life during that time.

I wish I had more time to read...I've taken in 13 books on education, behavioral science, and cognitive theory just in the last year as part of my work and research, and I have a hard time finding opportunities to read fiction. The Thousand Autumns of Jacob De Zoet, Swamplandia, and to a lesser extent A Widow for One Year have all managed to affect me during that time, however. Especially Swamplandia I believe there is an inherent value to the exploration of the self, the human experience, and the spirit, of which literature is one of the more effective avenues. Beyond this admitted belief, numerous studies have indicated that the effect in the brain of reading a fictional narrative about an experience is very similar to the effects of experiencing said narrative, and fMRI studies have shown that the parts of our brains that we use to create connections and comprehend the world around us overlaps with the part that we use to process narrative and the part that we use to inform our interactions with others. In children, we know that students up to the age of 20 who regularly read narrative and fiction actually do a better job at comprehending, interpreting, and drawing conclusions from non-fiction readings than they do if they stop reading fiction. And if said students stop reading narrative, their comprehension and prediction abilities about non-fiction begins to change within a period of weeks. I've never seen any research as to whether this maintains into adulthood, but if I had to bet? Well.

This summary overlaps some of the above.

There's probably something to that. I was pleasantly surprised when I walked into the Boston Public Library reading room and saw rows and rows of people actually reading (not to mention the fact that the BPL has a designated room just for reading...) It was a nice contrast to the throngs of people waiting for the internet, napping, or charging their phones at any given Houston Public Library branch.

You know, I have been interested in Swamplandia for a while now. An endorsement from McParadigm might be just the ticket.

My students hate to read and usually don't.

Re: fMRI studies. Please see: Neuroscience within the larger class of pseudoscience.

Yeah, I agree with that--I think I actually meant "non-fiction is different for me," as in, I enjoy reading a lot of non-fiction, but I left out a transition to speaking about others. As for the news, there's something to being informed for its own sake, but being aware of the biases in the coverage you're getting is important. But I guess that's really a whole other topic.


Do any of those studies compare those who read fiction regularly with those who read non-fiction regularly, or do they just pit fiction readers vs. people who don't read fiction (therefore, who might not read at all, which seems especially likely in under 20 year olds who don't read fiction)? Also, does "narrative" encompass non-fiction narrative, or only fiction? I'm thinking of history and journalism for the most part.

Oh, but I do agree that there's benefit to reading fiction for "the exploration of the self, the human experience, and the spirit." I just think TV shows and movies can actually be pretty effective for this as well. And often, they can present an idea more effectively than the written word could.

i'm more of a math guy

tldr

the gen-y dilemma made manifest

Each of the studies regarding "school aged" children that I've read (one was early college age) was comparing those who read fiction and non-fiction to those who read non-fiction only. It would be hard to examine the question of whether or not reading fiction produces unique results, otherwise. Two of those studies were actually done in response to the earliest, testing the validity of the results with tweaked or adjusted samplings, measurements, and time frames with the same results.



The first fMRI study was comparing the effects on the brain of narrative fiction, narrative non-fiction, and "other" non-fiction (I forget the exact phrasing they used here, but it's probably something obnoxious like 'non-narrative non-fiction'). The narrative non-fiction had a mild impact on the overlapping regions discussed above, the narrative fiction had a huge impact, and the "other" non-fiction had no recognizable effect.

Anything beyond those results, in terms of causality, is conjecture and should be discussed separately from the results themselves. But my thought would be that narrative non-fiction is often driven by recorded facts, with topics like intention, emotion, and internal reasoning being limited by the degree to which the subject(s) expressed them (bolstered slightly by some assumptive statements by the author or other experts). It's also possible, I suppose, that our brain simply responds differently BECAUSE it is aware that what it is reading is fact or fiction. Sort of like how infants who spend a large amount of time having an adult talk to them will acquire phonemic recognitions faster and greater than an infant who watches a video recording of an adult talking to them.

The second fMRI study was a follow-up that tested ONLY fiction. Specifically, it piggy-backed on the results of the previous study by examining the effects of different fictional works measured on three different standards (placement on the Flesch-Kincaid, number of analogies per 1,000 words, number of unique words per 1,000 words). The Flesch-Kincaid test focuses on words per sentence and syllables per word, and on that measurement people would show greater reaction to more difficult books, but only to a point. That point was different for each person, so the assumption is that the closer one is reading to one's current reading level, the more impactful it is. The results were nearly identical with the number of unique words per 1,000 words, which could also be associated with reading level, and were elevated slightly beyond that for analogies. However, the biggest impact was found when the three measures were combined. So apparently fictional narrative that challenges you as a reader and contains, let's call it decorative, language has an impact on you as a reader that is absolutely unique.

By the by, did I mention Swamplandia?

Swamplandia.

girls don't really read

The pretty ones don't have to.