I guess in a thread about literacy I should point out that I do know the difference between “hear” and “here,” contrary to what the last sentence may have suggested.
Until I read Ms. Lee’s full article, I can’t agree or disagree with her statement. However, I do think it is a lot easier to get your news from other sources than reading. It is much easier to let someone tell you why you should be angry with the New York Times than it is to read the NYT’s eight page internet article on Swift to see for yourself. The younger generation is more cynical than some may think. Because of the internet, we can go straight to the source and form our opinion from there. Hope I made sense. I got to go to work now, or I"ll be late.
Again, we’re not talking about news. I use TV and the internet as my primary news sources. I read medical sites and look up parts for the hot rod, etc., and as far as that’s concerned, it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. This is a different kind of reading. Not informational; it’s the food of the soul, so to speak.
But you did add some needed elucidation–thank you.
Ogre --I can’t explain myself better than I have. I have no cite or study that illustrates the importance of books in shaping minds and characters. I fear the ones out there might err on the side of moralistic, “wholesome” junk. I refuse to support Oprah’s ego any more than I have to, so I also am not buying the magazine. Oprah is not known for her indepth look at anything, so I doubt that Lee delves too deep into her premise.
I belong to 2 book clubs–one, comprised of much older people than me, talks about such things as theme and plot arc and such. The other, comprised of my peers and some younger, speak of the latest gossip from the country club and tangentially the book’s premise. No, I’m dissing the younger group–it serves more social function than the older group. That’s all. But I do see certain troubling aspects in the younger group. There is a desire for group census present, and a distinct distaste for confrontation or discussion about difficult topics. I once had them read one of Oliver Sack’s books–and every last one of them said that reading about the mentally ill was “depressing”. I pointed out that his book was not about the mentally ill, but about those unfortunate to suffer from overwhelming neurological disorders. The answer was the same. These are all college educated women-graphic designers, attorneys, accountants etc.
My point, biased as it may well be, is that if college did not “train” these women to think critically about the topic at hand, what of those who never pick up a book? Who do not have books at home or ever learned the habit of reading? Gross generalization? Sure–and I love when I find exceptions to it. Like the housekeeper at work who reads magazine like Time and Newsweek and can speak well on current events. Like the washing machine installer who qouted Robert Frost to me yesterday. Like all the people here on the SDMB, who appreciate and support intelligent discourse and analysis. But I see our numbers shrinking. There are more people reading today, but it is a different kind of reading. I am just starting my graduate degree in library and information science, so I will most likely have lots more info about this in about a year.
Personally, I think that might be what Lee was getting at-and this lack of intellectual curiousity has been mentioned by another author I am familiar with: Madeleine L’Engle. She expressed dismay way back in the 60s or 70s that her college friends had given up reading for enlightenment, period. This same disinterest in challenging oneself and oneself’s assumptions and preconceptions is rampant today. Yes, it most likely was rampant in 1930’s Alabama and in 1960s Chicago or wherever-depending on class and to some extent, race (sadly enough); due to lack of access or different priorities, ie feeding oneself. But its rampantness (to coin a term) is more so now, regardless of class or race. It is good that even the poorest among us have access to books, as is true today. But now that access is common, is it used? What does it say about our culture when leaders of industry and government cannot be considered learned men and women? It’s great that they can make money, but there used to be more to it than that. Maybe I’m not making sense, but a renaissance man was the ideal for quite some time–not so today. That’s my assertion-it’s damned hard to back up in terms of hard data.
I can’t help but think that you are taking Ms Lee’s comments personally. Why? It sounds to me like you are one of the ones who is keeping the quest for intellectual rigor alive.
Yeah…far be it from me to let some paltry neurological disorder harsh MY mellow! :rolleyes: I find this to be true of a lot of people. They prefer run-of-the-mill “fluff” to anything with any substance or anything that would challenge the limits of their emotion. It’s precisely these emotional and intellectual stretches that help me determine who I am. Life ain’t all kittens and candy canes and exposure to the hard stuff teaches me compassion.
It provides no basis for comparison. Zero. In other words, perhaps I’ve been approaching this from the wrong direction. What evidence do you have to show that reading was any more prevalent in times past. You’re saying that the 40% number is “bad,” but what are you comparing it to? Your overall impression?
To counter this, let me offer up this page from the same site.
Now, granted, this is a measure of ability, but one of the things taught in school (and per this cite, just about as well as it has been taught since 1948) is critical reading. You assert that kids are not being taught to read critically. Can you prove this?
I certainly hope you don’t see this as a negative thing.
How can you say what is or isn’t food for someone else’s soul?
Uh, this is pretty easily explained quite apart from intellectual laziness or some sort of critical failing. Maturity…or the concomitant lack thereof. As people get older, they tend to become more reflective. You wouldn’t believe how many of my formerly hell-raising male friends were suddenly absolutely stricken with reading history after they hit a certain age. It happens. It’ll happen to your younger reading group too.
You had me nodding along until the last sentence, which brought me up short. Shrinking? How do you know. In short, perhaps it’s you who are become more cynical and not the rest of the world who are becoming less likely to read a book.
It is precisely because I am one of the ones vitally interested in intellectual rigor, that I am calling Ms. Lee on her statement. It is a damaging and cynical assertion with no evidence. It is simply what I said it was from the first: Harper Lee playing the closed-minded geezer role, and it suits her very, very ill. It’s inevitable that every older generation looks down a little on the following one, but it’s still insupportable. Every generation has its share of brilliant, creative, well-read minds, and it’s share of utter dolts. The vast majority fall somewhere in the middle, and I have seen absolutely no evidence that the balance is shifting in a negative direction (in terms of reading) over time.
People as a group do not change. You could take this statement and plunk it down in any age and place of mankind, and it would be equally as true (and as unfair a generalization.)
For starters, I’m astonished you consider Great Britain to be a “different culture” than us for purposes of this discussion. They may be across the ocean, but they’re very much like us in terms of cultural interests.
Secondly, people may be able to read, but they don’t read for the reasons they used to. That’s because they have other forms of easy entertainment. Most young people have chosen the lazy “give it to me” forms of entertainment. I hear many kids and young people say that reading is boring. Not enough bells and whistles. I know many young people who won’t watch a movie unless it’s a “blockbuster” with special effects, and certainly wouldn’t bother with a movie filmed in black-and-white. I know very few who read regularly for entertainment; they’ll read what they’re told to read and they’ll regurgitate the “right” answers that the teacher coaxes out of them so she gets a good grade. My experience working with the writers and editors of the Iowa Skills Tests proved that very clearly to me. While literacy rates may be up, the kind of reading being discussed in this thread is becoming more rare all the time. Is it extinct? No. I never said it was.
As far as food for the soul goes, you’re right. I’m not trying to dictate what should or shouldn’t touch a person. But I can back up with my own experience what Eleanorigby says about people who don’t want to be bothered with depressing newscasts, reading material, or movies. And we’re not alone. They want everything to be peaches and cream all the time, and if it isn’t, they dismiss it as icky and unworthy of their attention. People who don’t at least attempt to empathize with people less fortunate than themselves are lacking what I consider to be the basic ingredients of compassionate humanity. I accept this as part of the world I strive to understand. But I don’t have to like it.
I have no idea how old you are, ogre, but it’s been my experience that people don’t change so very much over time. Shallow at 25 is shallow at 40, so far as I can see. Certainly the women in my bookclub (ranging from 30-49) are not increasing their tolerance for challenging fiction or even nonfiction. They also don’t like to read what they call “old” books–most of them want to be “current” and read best sellers. Best seller does equal quality book to me. You see why I joined another book club! I use one for social outlet and the other for intellectual stimulation.
You have asked for stats and Kalhoun, bless her, has given you some. How about you? Show me where intellectual rigor and reading for edification has increased. Show me where publishers are taking chances on new, edgy fiction, instead of same plot, different cover. I see alot of chick lit and serial, commercial products out there. “Carol Keene” wrote the Nancy Drew series, and that legacy remains strong with Babysitter Club, American Girl and Goosebumps. But where are the Fitzgeralds, the Hemingways, the Thurbers of today? Grisham? Dave Barry? Please. I want to be wrong about some of this–i would like nothing more than for Literature to keep its place in the pantheon of enriching minds and souls.
Time was that you needed an excellent grounding in Greek mythology, scripture, history and philosophy to be considered well educated and rounded in the western world. You were supposed to want that, whether or not the majority lived up to that ideal. The ideal was there-where is it today? Here is just one example: seems to me that students are scorned for wanting to study liberal arts-they seem to be encouraged to pick a field and only attend college courses that accrue to that degree. That happened to me, back in 1980–I was told to not study German or take Shakespeare or religion, but to take courses that would feed into my major. I thank God now that I ignored such horrible advice. But I digress.
I don’t agree entirely with Ms Lee-I think she expressed herself badly, if I am even reading her remarkds correctly. But I can sympathize with her on this subject.
I am also at a loss as how exactly this has a black or white/right or wrong answer. We all explain the world to ourselves and other in terms of how we perceive it. Perceptions are often wrong, but to the perceiver they seem true. What purpose does it serve to prove Ms Lee “wrong”? Me you can disagree with and that’s fine–but she is an elusive celebrity figure who may well be out of touch with modern media and even modern writers. I doubt the last bit, just because of her history, but anything’s possible.
Eh, in some ways. In others, not very much at all. Tea, anyone? Do you have any specific reason to think that the reading rates here would be directly comparable, or are you just offering up a “well, they’re pretty similar to us, so here’s a stat.”?
I think you misunderstand, because I said none of things you seem to be refuting. What I said was, what’s your basis for comparison? Do you have studies or numbers or anything that might show actual reading rates of the 1930’s? It seems to me that you’re strongly idealizing the past. You’re starting with this:
Given: Most people across broad cultural boundaries used to read lots and lots of books for self-betterment, edification, philosophical development, etc.
Can you give me something that actually backs that up, or is it possible that you’re seeing the past through rose-colored lenses? I contend that it’s not only possible, but very likely. You tend to see the (apparently - hell, if 60% of people are reading books regularly, that’s pretty good in my book.) dismal numbers and think, “this must be MUCH lower than it used to be.” But does it? I doubt it.
People have ALWAYS had easier forms of entertainment than reading a book. Kick-the-can. Monopoly. Solitaire. Picking legs off flies. Whatever. My point is that whatever time period you talk about, the majority of people did not have the time, money, access, mental wherewithal, or inclination to wade through a big book.
And remember, eleanorigby, that the one thing that makes a “classic” is not some ethereal magical power that hovers around the book itself, but time and popularity. Most of the novels written in the past have been forgotten…even those from whatever Golden Age you’re envisioning. And with good reason. They probably sucked (but maybe not. They could be rediscovered. Moby Dick was a novel that was widely panned in its time, and was rediscovered as a masterpiece later.) Never you fear that books that are coming out right now will someday be viewed in the same starry pantheon as what are considered classics. Hmmm, dawn of the mass media age, huh? Let’s place that around, oh, say, 1955, around the TV explosion? Off the top of my head, then, *Gravity’s Rainbow, Pynchon (1973,) A Confederacy of Dunces, Kennedy (written in 1969, published 1980,) The Fall, Camus (1956,) Love in the Time of Cholera, Garcia Marquez (1985,) One Hundred Years of Solitude, Garcia Marquez (1967,) On the Road, Kerouac (1957,) Post Office, Bukowski (1971,) Canopus in Argos series, Lessing (1979-1983,) Beloved, Morrison (1987,) I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, Angelou (1969,) The Corrections, Franzen (2001,) Incident at Vichy, Miller (1965,) and let’s not forget To Kill a Mockingbird, Lee (1960.) There are many, many more I could name, if you really need further proof. Many of these authors are still alive and prolific, along a with masses of younger writers that are exploring literary themes in profoundly different ways, such as exploring our multicultural world by experimenting with bilingualism, etc. Literature is alive and well, and so is readership. In 15-20 years, books published in 2006 will have earned the moniker “classic.” It’s absolutely inevitable.
Take-home lesson: those who are intellectually motivated will generally ignore bad advice such as this, and pursue whatever path brings them mental satisfaction. You did it, right? Lots of others did too.
Because it’s intellectually lazy, untrue, and infuriating, and if I could, I’d let her know about it. She needs to know that there are wide worlds of intellectualism being explored in book (and other) form(s) right now. This very second. And there always will be.
And yet every other person in this thread keeps telling you that it is true. Not one of them has said that people have stopped reading books, or that important books aren’t still being written, or that some people still care passionately about books. They do say that books no longer have the place in our culture that Lee - and Updike - describe.
I’m pretty sure that most of us are older than you are as well. I’ve lived through the 60s and I’ve seen the changes in popular culture since. There is nothing you can tell me about generation gaps that I haven’t seen and experienced a hundred times over. If 100 older people tell you they don’t like your culture, then it probably means absolutely nothing. But if these same 100 people tell you that the culture has changed in fundamental ways, you should sit down and listen to them. Because they know something you don’t.
Harper Lee is right and you are wrong. John Updike is right and you are wrong. You’re wrong because you are not listening, and haven’t been from the start. You are thinking of the issue in the wrong way. Every time you say that older people are out of touch - John Updike is out of touch with today’s world of books and you are not! Think about that statement! - you are thinking of disapproval of the culture, not change in the culture.
But we’re talking about change. It has changed. To paraphrase Galileo: but it does move. The culture has moved on. Whether this is good or bad is up for debate but not the basic fact.
This may be infuriating. Being told you’ll understand when you get older is always infuriating. It’s often true, nevertheless. It’s just as infuriating from the other side, because we know exactly what the reaction will be, because that once was our reaction. And the only possible way to get past that reaction is to live long enough to see it from the other side. Infuriating. Exactly.
Fortunately our culture has both age and youth, and the two together can offer the best of both points of view. And the worst, of course.
You may be right about other things. You may experience today’s culture in ways that Lee and Updike can’t even imagine well enough to envy. But on this one particular thing, on this one particular statement, they are right and you are wrong.
Actually, it’s only three strident posters that are telling me so. Oh, and that’s argumentum ad populum. In other words, so what? There are others here that have agreed with me…not that that particularly matters either. Also, the other two are arguing a significantly different point than you are. You’re actually knocking on the door to a point…that the culture has changed, and y’know, it may not be all bad. The other two are openly mourning the passing of some idealized book-readin’ age that never existed.
No? I’d be interested in alternate interpretations of this, then:
No. They’re saying that Lee’s “minds like empty rooms” line is at least partially accurate. It is not.
If that’s what Lee meant, then she should have said so. As someone recently told me, “If you don’t want to be misunderstood, write clearer words.” She related her personal experience with books, then, from everything I’ve been able to find, explicitly passed judgment on modern culture for what she thinks is a lack of attachment to books. One does not relate the concept of generational change by accusing a whole generation of having empty minds. It’s insulting and disappointingly cliched.
Lee is wrong. Updike is wrong. You are wrong. If they had been merely talking about how time moves on, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. I’d have nodded, muttered “yep,” and moved on. However, this is not what they did. In Lee’s case, she insultingly accused younger people of having “minds like empty rooms,” and while I’m not 100% sure of this yet, I’m about 95% sure that she meant it in exactly the insulting way I’m interpreting it. I’m basing this on incomplete data, true. I’ll still offer a retraction if wrong. However, the supporting information I’ve been able to find seems to point to the conclusion that she is not merely commenting, she is passing judgment on how other people find their joy.
Note the “should” in the following sentence. It is an explicit term of judgment. “Some things should be done with soft pages, and not cold metal.” Sez you, lady. I happen to agree, but I’m not about to tell a whole generation that they have “empty minds” because they don’t find their edification in the same way I do. Besides which, neither she, Updike, nor you have shown that many, many people don’t still find deep, abiding joy in the written word. Hell, if Kalhoun’s link is to be believed, 60% of us still do. I’ll bet my bottom dollar that’s a higher figure than was the case in Lee’s childhood. Culture is made of individuals. Always remember that. 60% is a LOT of individuals.
In Updike’s case, again, he had me nodding right along until he got to the last sentence, which reeks of looking down the nose at people. How does he know it’s a last resort? Does he, or is he just saying what’s a pretty easy and cheap statement? Who says? What’s he basing that conclusion on? Shit, I’ll talk books with Updike. I bet I could make a pretty damn good go of it, too. But I’m a young whippersnapper. What the fuck do I know? I know this: the Culture of Books is alive. Alive and well. And I’ll argue that point until I no longer feel it to be true.
Lovely. And if that were the only thing being conveyed, I’d be in bed reading some Salinger, instead of arguing on the internet. Unfortunately, it’s not the point being conveyed, or at least not the only one. There’s this little kernel of nastiness hitching a ride, and I refuse to let it pass without calling BS on it.
Save it. I’m not a teenager anymore, and you frankly have no idea about what I have or haven’t experienced in my life. I’m well acquainted with the concepts of uncertainty and change, and that older people are more experienced than me.
I doubt it. I like to read books. I don’t own an iPod or a laptop. And my fucking mind is not “like an empty room.”
Except the part where I said that “I get that the comment about “empty minds” seemed to have inflamed you beyond the point of rational thought.” That was about you, and you certainly seem hell bent on proving me right.
No she didn’t. She never used the word younger. You are reading that into her quote.
But Lee’s comment still wasn’t about you. At least it wouldn’t be if you didn’t keep up these empty rants.
Errr, the term “younger” is not necessary to any of my arguments. It could be older people. Could be her contemporaries. Doesn’t matter a bit. The point is that her stement is a judgment. She assigns a lower value to new ways. She does not merely note that the culture has changed. While I tend to think that she specifically had younger generations in mind (who, after all, is more likely to carry an iPod, a laptop, and a cell phone?,) it doesn’t actually matter at all. She implies that her “plodding along with books,” while outwardly appearing to be old and quaint, is actually superior (note again her use of “should”.)
I am arguing two points:
The culture hasn’t really changed in that respect as much as she seems to think. Lots of people, including, oh, let’s see, my 15-year-old niece, my 60-year-old Italian neighbor, and the little old lady who discussed Kingsolver’s Poisonwood Bible with me, still love to “plod along with books.”
Even if it were true, her superiority is misplaced.
I’m not seeing that, for myself. I’ve been loosely following this thread, so perhaps I missed something along the way, but while some people are disagreeing with Ogre on various points, the one antecedentally referenced here–that Ms. Lee’s view is “intellectually lazy, untrue, and infuriating”–seems one rather fewer than all responses in this thread have even touched on.
Beyond that, Ogre seems to be saying much of what I have to say on the matter, as if an ad populem argument has any place in a logical discussion. I’m sure you don’t need to be told that many people thinking one thing is the case need mean nothing at all toward its veracity.
And I actually think there’s some modicum of merit and worth to what Ms. Lee said, though probably not in the way you’re thinking.
Expano -thank you for saying so clearly what I failed to say.
I do NOT harken back to some Golden Age of Literature–I spoke of the esteem that so called Renaissance men (always men, but that’s nother thread) were held, not men who actually lived during the Renaissance!To be well rounded and well read was valued for many years in this country. It was expected of our leaders.
I spoke of one of the premises that Victorians based their education and value system on–the memorizing of complex poetry etc to aid in learning and personal edification. I asked where are the authors of today who compare to those who have come before–and mine were mostly postWW2 examples. I take issue with the “strident” remark–show me where I was, please.
Things change over time–people don’t read Dickens anymore, at least not in serial form. His sentence structure is tortuous and long winded. Same with any number of other Victorian writers. Yes, they are taught in school. Yes, there are still many people who DO read Dicken et al for pleasure. My point is that the last category is shrinking, for better or worse. Ogre is absolutely correct when he says that we don’t know who will be considered classic. And he is correct that many, many novelists were shoddy and shallow and did not stand the test of time.
What I don’t understand is the premise that this is somehow the best of times for Literature–and that the past somehow sucked and it’s wrong or bad to be nostalgic about it. As has been said, someday these will be the those days–and what comments will a retired author have to say about fiction in the 2050’s? I most likely won’t be here, but somehow I doubt that early Y2K will be seen as the pinnacle of fiction writing.
Funny thing is, neither Ms Lee or myself or other posters here have posited that. The best age of Literature is higly subjective and open to debate–Chaucer? Shakespeare? Thackeray?Joyce? It would be an engaging and interesting discussion. Some things are better done with soft pages than cold metal. Something has happened to the way we absorb ideas and values–other media are definetly a part of this change, but IMO, it is also the world’s shrinking and the instantenous methods of communicating that have a larger impact. But to have a book that stirs thoughts and challenges the reader, and then to have the time to “digest” the thoughts etc–that is slipping, from my POV. Obviously, it isn’t for the OP.
I also don’t get the whole personal affront on the part of ogre --an old woman is entitled to her opinions. Do you really think she’ll sway readers of Oprah to denigrate today’s fiction? Or will she be seen as someone who is saddened by the losses she perceives and feels helpless against the relentless march of time?
I doubt that I have to remind you that there are legitimate non-fallacious uses of argumentum ad populum and I don’t believe anyone here is deliberately being misleading, Ogre. What is lacking so far is more evidence to support what many, many readers, professional writers, publishing houses and organizations such as the National Education Association and the National Endowment of The Arts profess to be a given: while there is lots of reading material around, the interests of the mass audience in regularly reading for information, persuasion and enjoyment isn’t what it used to be. That critical thinking skills to analyze all media has eroded. That the self-selection of substantive news sources and literary reading materials is not what it once was. Just as there is good food and junk food, there’s junk information, junk news, junk entertainment, junk analysis. None of this junk is good for anybody.
Many indicators – such as the average time Americans spend watching TV, (average of 170 minutes a day, according to one study), to falling national magazine circulation numbers, (*Reader’s Digest * worldwide circulation numbers fell to 12 million – 10 years ago it had 16 million paid subscribers in the U.S. alone) to closings and consolidations of many major daily newspapers (Like the Atlanta Journal-Constution or the Chicago Sun-Times) in the 1970s through the 1990s when market penetration reached below 100% for the first time to its current 53%, to the failure of children’s literature to produce more than 5 books written in the 80s and 90s to make all-time best sellers list point – all point to a fading readership. Unless you can provide evidence elsewise, I do not see falling circulation numbers in print being translated into rising circulation numbers via the internet, although some are trying that, too. Concerning news magazines, I sold magazine subscriptions over the phone and the number one excuse people used NOT to buy magazines at a 70% cover-price discount was, “I don’t have time to read.” People will make time to be entertained.
Despite the fact its billed as an information superhighway, increasingly, people use the internet for entertainment purposes or information pertaining to entertainment purposes, or commerce. Most content is visual – in terms of kilobytes, one picture is much more than a 1,000 words.
There most assurdedly was a multigenerational book reading era in this country: it arrived when 1) literacy rates were up in the millions 2) newsstands were the primary disseminiators of reading materials and 3) before the ascendancy of other mass mediums, particularly TV. From (roughly) the 1880s until (roughly) the early 1930s, there were basically six mass mediums in America: books, magazines, newspapers, ephemera (I’d include certain print ads and religious and political pamphlets in the traditional definition), theatrical venues (for which I’ll broadly lump vaudeville, live theatre, nickelodeons and cinema into) and radio. That’s about it. Four of the six required literacy. Three of the six dominated people’s factual information, entertainment choices and social, economic, and political ideals for about 70 years, or around the mid-1950s when the immediacy and conveneience of radio and TV began taking a firm hold. It was another 20 years, in the 1970s, before you started seeing major papers like L.A.'s Herald Examiner fold and critics like like Harlan Ellison decrying the influence of TV, the gulliablity of youth and declaring, “Print is dead.”
Unfortunately people who live with abundance – who have laptops, cell phones and iPODS and yet somehow manage to have “minds like empty rooms” is fairly accurate if brusque characterization of today’s inexperienced and sheltered youth. As a group, they’re less interested in literature, fine arts, progressive political activism, foreign news, foreign travel – even speaking foreign languages than previous generations. They have less personal socializing, buy more porn, self-medicate more, are more obese, less interested in spiritualism, feel greater entitlement than previous generations. Not every single person down to the man, but generally, aggregately, since Harper Lee’s generation? Sure. Again, there are all kinds of observations, statistical information, anectodotal data and trend indicators this is so.
Historically, one of the best ways to stay more connected with a changing world, to be well-informed and have an active, engaged mind is with purposeful, substantive, discriminating regular reading habits along with, y’know getting out and meeting people from all walks of life. But most people in America do not have that reading habit anymore and increasingly become isolated in their own homes. As long as your TV delivers entertainment, sports, and your internet links include more diversions, porn, and shopping opportunities than news and educational sites, I do not think most Americans have the discipline or interest to keep themselves informed. Chances are you can tell me who won “American Idol” but can’t tell me about why internet neutrality being jeopardized is a bad thing.
The thing is, not everything can be measured with cites and stats. There is a quiet chipping away at the things we’re talking about here. Some proof of it appears in the cites provided. Much of it is a slow whittling away of an attitude, or way of thinking, that was commonplace back in the day. I don’t believe you will ever understand exactly what some of us are referring to because there is no way to lay it out in a spreadsheet. I can’t see it, count it, or put a name to it, but I can feel it…and it’s dying.
No, my old age is showing. Student activism from the 1930s to the mid-1980s was characterized by a string of progressive grassroots activism, from the New Deal Projects to nonviolent racial desegregation to Vietnam anti-war protests to nuclear energy protests and pro-green to organized corporate boycotts for everything from animal testing to apartheid.
Since then, the main focus for any sort of activism, college protests, outrage and advocacy has mostly been in the arena of… politically correct language. Those who don’t really care to get into lengthy debates about correct nomenclature tend to get apathetic about politics in general. Those who benefit most from any kind of activism are young conservatives, to the point where Young Republicans (from ages 18-40!) are growing on as youth leaders in a way I don’t see Democratic organizations doing.
Hell, during Desert Storm in the Gulf War, college students largely supported the war. The biggest political action of my college years was the Million Man March where absolutely nothing of substance was demanded or presented as a definite call to action for black America.
I didn’t mean to imply that students who aren’t progessive and liberal have minds like empty rooms. I was more bemoaning college student indifference to political activism in general for the last 20 years
I just realized I made something of a terrible error and I wish to correct it before somebody (Ogre) realizes it and beats me to it.
Earlier, I typed “proofs” of people not reading as much as they used to and provided some indicators, one of which was “… the failure of children’s literature to produce more than 5 books written in the 80s and 90s on the all time best sellers list point – all point to a fading readership.”
I was referring to this 2000 paperback booklist compiled by Publisher’s Weekly. It lists 150 book titles. Counting the top twenty, there are, as I stated, only five books published in the 90s and 80s. Counting the entire list, however, I find a total of 67 such books were published in that time frame – fifty-eight in the 1980s and nine in the 1990s. Many of them are series books of fluctuating and sometimes debatable literary merit by the same author, like the Berenstain’s Bears books, R. L. Stine’s Goosebumps series and children’s books by writer/artist Mercer Mayer.
I picked the softcover list, assuming it would be similar to the hardcover list and maximize books read because they’re cheaper. This isn’t always the case. It excludes the impact of bestsellers by J.K. Rowling, because her books tend to sell more as hardcovers.
But it’s been said before by people more informed than me how Rowling’s books are an across the board publishing anamoly. I’ve been on record before saying how her books do increase reading and inticing students to read. I still believe that’s true. But looking elsewhere at other indicators of reading, particularly the decline in newspapers and magazine subscriptions, it remains to be seen if that will translate into a resurgence of long-term reading habits and especially in other mediums.
