# Harper Lee writes article for Oprah. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2006, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-lee-writes-article-for-oprah/362308 "2006-06-27T03:24:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Ogre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecb155/32.png) [@Ogre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ogre)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2006, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-lee-writes-article-for-oprah/362308/161 "2006-07-12T22:54:26Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > I agree with **kniz**. Vulgar language is going to turn a lot of people off from listening to your argument. Use it at your own risk. I will, in cases of frustration (or hell, whenever I really feel like it.) Remember that this thread did not start out in GD. If the occasional “adult word” turns people away from my argument, well sir, that’s their problem for being vaporish. Besides which, I believe (I’m not going to go back through chapter and verse of this thread) I only used profanity in what, two posts? The rest have been cleanly argued, with nary a “fuckstick.” ---
**Author:** ![Pyry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e480ec/32.png) [@Pyry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyry)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2006, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-lee-writes-article-for-oprah/362308/162 "2006-07-13T08:58:04Z")
While from one perspective the decrease in reading for pleasure is lamentable, from another it is just a natural increase in efficiency. To take the example given earlier of the victorians memorizing long passages and doing long division in their head, today doing either would be a waste of time since a matchbook sized memory stick (1 gb) can hold 5,000 books and a graphing calculator can do arithmetic (and even algebra) far faster and more accurately than a human. Similarly, the decline of morse code might be seen as lamentable in some circles (HAM radio operators) but from another perspective the loss is just the natural progression to more efficient means of communication. With regard to literary novels read for pleasure, a novel might be seen to have two purposes: to entertain, and to edify. Since other areas have seen great increases in efficiency due to specialization, it shouldn’t be suprising that the same effect occurs with novels. Rather than reading a novel which accomplishes both objectives at an adequate level, in the same time period you could play a video game (which is very entertaining but has little edification value) _and_ read an informative book or collection of philosophical essays (which is very edifying but not as entertaining as reading a novel). Novels are losing out to other media because it is now possible to get entertainment and information in far more concentrated forms than are available in traditional literature. Looking at the issue in this light, when people say that they “don’t have the time” to read, they don’t mean that they literally couldn’t make time for reading, but rather that the opportunity cost of reading is too high; that is, the time they would spend reading would cut down on the time available for more ‘entertainment dense’ or ‘edification dense’ activities. Of course, the amount of entertainment or edification involved in an activity varies greatly among individuals. I stopped playing piano because I didn’t think the time commitment involved justified the enjoyment I got from it, but I have a friend who practices for hours a day. Is my friend stupid for playing piano when he could just buy cds of the songs, or am I uncultured for not playing piano? Neither; he simply gets more enjoyment out of the activity, and so the time used is worth it for him. We shouldn’t be so quick to attach universal value to our subjective tastes. Another example: I have read the first half of Foucault’s Pendulum about three times, because I only read it on airplanes, and on each trip I can only get about halfway through. The next time I fly, however, I’ve forgotten what I’ve read, and so I can’t just pick it up in the middle. You may wonder why I don’t just read the rest at home, and the answer is that the time commitment once again just isn’t worth it. It’s a great book, but in terms of entertainment value it can’t compare to video games or the internet, and in terms of stimulating thought I’ve found that Umberto Eco’s essays (as just one example) are far more thought provoking. And so, because it excels at neither, Foucault’s Pendulum languishes in my suitcase until the next flight. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2006, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-lee-writes-article-for-oprah/362308/163 "2006-07-13T14:51:00Z")
Well said, **Pyry**. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2006, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-lee-writes-article-for-oprah/362308/164 "2006-07-13T22:58:58Z")
Speaking of vulgar language: > [@](#): > > “Then, of course, it was Uncle Wiggly at bedtime.” Well, I _never!_ ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2006, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-lee-writes-article-for-oprah/362308/165 "2006-07-15T02:47:34Z")
> [@Pyry](#): > > While from one perspective the decrease in reading for pleasure is lamentable Something that doesn’t actually exist, or never actually happened, cannot be lamentable. So far, no evidence of any kind has been presented to establish that there has been a decline in literacy or in the frequency of reading for pleasure. ---
**Author:** ![Klaatu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Klaatu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klaatu)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2006, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-lee-writes-article-for-oprah/362308/166 "2006-07-15T08:12:48Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Can you think of any single person today who has done more to encourage people to read good books? A few authors whose books have been on her book club list: Toni Morrison, John Steinbeck, Maya Angelou, Isabel Allende, Joyce Carol Oates, Jonathan Franzen, Alan Paton, Carson McCullers, Leo Tolstoy, Pearl S. Buck, William Faulkner, Elie Wiesel. > > Hundreds of thousands of copies of those books are sold as soon as they are discussed on her television show. I never thought I’d walk through the book section of Sam’s Club and find _Anna Karenina_, but thanks to Oprah it was there. This may be true, but how do we know all these people actually read those literary classics after purchasing them? I mean, they might read a few pages, but to be honest, the works of Tolstoy, Steinbeck, Faulkner et al. can be a bit…tedious when you grew up reading TV Guide, Cosmo, cheap romance novels or Dean Koontz. Not saying you’re wrong, but i have always wondered about this. ---
**Author:** ![Pyry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e480ec/32.png) [@Pyry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyry)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2006, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-lee-writes-article-for-oprah/362308/167 "2006-07-15T11:23:52Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Something that doesn’t actually exist, or never actually happened, cannot be lamentable. If there isn’t any decline in reading for pleasure, that’s great. However, even if there is a decline it doesn’t necessarily mean that there is any increase in “empty-headedness”, since people may have shifted to other sources of mental excercise. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harper-lee-writes-article-for-oprah/362308.md?page=8)