I am currently reading the Straight Dope Message Board.
(c’mon, you saw that one coming).
I have to start reading for grad school, so the next book I pick is Lessig’s Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity --which touches on this thread topic tangentially.
Other than that, I am reading this week’s The New Yorker.
I’m reading the banner ads. Did you klnow the HUMOR WORKSHOPS take you to a online distance learning 10-week writing course?
how very odd…
I am reading four books:
-Flapper: a Madcap Story of Sex, Style, Celebrity, and the Women Who Made America Modern by Joshua Zeitz
-Ota Benga: the Pygmy in the Zoo by Phillips Verner Bradford and Harvey Blume
-The Great Influenza: the Epic Story of the Deadliest Plague in History by John M. Barry
The Last Kaiser: the Life of Wilhelm II by Giles MacDonogh
How’s that for light reading? 
(I can never just read one book at a time-I always have to be in the middle of at least three.)
“…in an abundant society where people have laptops, cell phones, iPods, and minds like empty rooms, I still plod along with books,” she writes."
That is what Lee wrote. She is saying that people have computers, mobile phones and gadgets. But most people have empty heads. And she reads books.
I would be happy to say the same thing. It seems pretty true to me. Many people have computers and gadgets and are morons.
I have a laptop and a mobile phone. I read books. I do not think I have an empty mind.
What is so bad about what she said?
You can say this and say this, but repetition doesn’t make it true.
Kids have always said this. They say it now, they said it in 1996, they said it in 1986, they said it in 1976, they said it 1956, 1936, 1836, and 1636. The same “easy entertainment” accusation was levelled at TV from about 1950 on, at movies, at radio, at pop music, at various sorts of games, and what have you, going back much longer than either of us has been alive.
Look, I grew up in the 70s and 80s, which doesn’t seem like that long ago but was before anyone had heard of the Internet and almost nobody had a computer, and I had lots of friends and schoolmates who disliked reading and found it boring. My father, who is certainly a very smart man, didn’t read much as a kid; he grew up in the 40s and 50s. Neither did most of his friends, at least according to him. He had five siblings and they weren’t much for reading either. What you are describing has been a common condition of many children pretty much since they invented books.
Ogre doesn’t have to come back and dissect your arguments, because the issue here is not your arguments, it’s that you’re making claims without any evidence to back them up. You’ve provided one cite that kids read less after the age of eight - which may be true, but does not establish that that is a new condition.
Your claims are not only unsupported, but are regrettably founded in two of the most famously bullshit-laden positions in the history of human discourse:
“Kids today aren’t as smart/well behaved/conscientious/hard working/insert-positive-attribute-here as they were in the past.” (Old person bullshit)
“The average person is not as smart as I am.”
Arguments fired out of one or both of these positions are usually nonsense.
But if you have any evidence, well, by all means, present it. If you don’t, then you may want to consider if what you’re saying is based in objective fact, of if you’re just old. Anecdotes are useless; I could cite my mother, a schoolteacher, who is adamant that in her 38 years of teaching, the kids have gotten smarter, and read more, on average. I could point out that I actually know some teenagers and kids and they all seem to like reading as much as I did when I was a kid. But those are merely anecdotes, so what good does that do you?
Still, you’re making the claim, so show us the hard evidence.
OK, folks. Here we are, a week later, and I must confess that my enthusiasm for this topic is waning. I wouldn’t have put it quite as harshly as RickJay did, but I agree with him. I read Lee’s letter, and it doesn’t substantially change my position. It’s still basically a “back in my day” letter, with a little rider of disapproval for these Degenerate Latter Days…and I find my willingness to dive in and prove why Kids These Days are not as dumb as people think they are to be rather pointless.
Add to that the fact that right after this post, I’m going to have to break my computer down and move it, and that I won’t have regular access to it for close to a month, and the whole thing is getting a big “MEH” from me.
Maybe I’ll revisit this later, when fewer things are on my mind. Then again, though, maybe I’ll just go read a book.
But that’s because you’re old.
She’s been coasting off the success of her “one hit wonder” book for the past 46 years, and very little else.
I just read the Harper Lee letter myself. And it’s exactly what everyone should have expected it to be: an elegy for the past, not a screed about the present.
Now the ads are for losing weight like Oprah…see? Even the thread ads can’t focus on reading and books…hee.
Good luck with your book and your computer. Nice chatting with everyone.
Yes, however I wonder when was this golden age before “junk” food? Ninety percent of everything is crap today. Ninety percent of everything was crap in the days of yesteryear.
Some people today read for information, persuasion and enjoyment. Some people critically analyze the information that the media provides them. Most people today don’t. However, “back in the day”, most people still didn’t.
This just shows that people aren’t subscribing to newspapers and magazines as often. Reason? Probably because the Internet can provide the same services cheaper. That doesn’t mean that people used to subscribe to Harper’s are now just looking at porn. It means that many of the people who used to read newspapers and magazines for information and entertainment are now reading online for information and entertainment. People who read for intellectual stimulate are still doing the same though in some cases the format may have changed.
Yes, and most of the most popular magazines and such… have a lot of pictures. Nothing new.
Do you have anything to back this up? Anything at all? When was this age where the majority of youth were interested in literature, fine arts, progressive political activism, foreign news, foreign travel and speaking foreign languages?
Or was it not the majority of youth back in the day? Perhaps it was those who were intellectually curious, well educated, widely read, and had the resources and
inclination to to follow such pursuits. Guess what, those are the same people who are pursuing those activities today.
Finally, foreign news??? You think the generations of yesteryear had more interest in foreign news? Where in the world did they get this steady supply of foreign news? Now, I’m not saying that today’s generation has any more interest in foreign news then previous generations; but those so inclined certainly are far better informed thanks to improvement in communications technologies. Previously, there simply wasn’t a handy tool if someone wanted to find out what was going on in Cuba, Spain, Mongolia and North Korea. It could be done but with a lot more effort for a lot less reliable information.
First, where is some of the non-anectodatal data supporting this. Second, even if true what does this have to do with reading habits?
Most people have never had that habit. It’s not a question of them losing it.
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.
[/QUOTE]
Once again, where is your evidence that “most” people have ever had the discipline or interest to keep themselves informed.
The heyday of the [at least in this thread] hallowed newspaper stand where people dropped by to pick up newspapers and cheap pulp novels was also the heyday of “Yellow Journalism.” It was cheap, it was entertaining and it appealed to all the baser instincts. It also made “Fox news” look like a bastion of journalistic rigour. They were also incredibly popular, however it did not make their readership “well informed.” Those who cared about such things found more reliable sources, those who didn’t just went for the quick read. Just like today.
Once again, ninety percent of everything is crap. ninety percent of everything has always been crap. The vast majority of people who read in Harper Lee’s day did so for quick entertainment. The vast majority of people who read today do so for the same reasons.
What I’m saying is that the vast majority of readers never “learned how to read critically, understanding the personal and societ benefit.” The vast majority of readers “years ago” read for information and escapist entertainment. These are the same reasons the vast majority of today’s readers read today.
Good teachers have always tried to enstill a love of literature in their students just as they do today. And just as it was years ago, the majority of the time they fail, but there are just enough triumphs to keep doing it again the next year.
Yes, but what she forgot is that many people who do not have computers and gadgets but do read books are …still morons. Likewise, many people have computers and gadgets and do not read but still aren’t morons.
It’s a fairly meaningless statement.
I have no cite (I hate GD for just this reason-as if there were no commonly acknowledged positions. I feel certain that if I posted I was female here, someone would demand a cite), but I do see the world of classical music and ballet–all the fine arts shrinking at an alarming rate. There is no way that reality TV or even American Idol (note that none of the contestants sing opera or similiar) compare in terms of talent, intellectual rigor or depth to the fine arts. Youth today do not ignore these arts–they actively shun them. Go to any symphony and count the gray heads. It is an aging population and that is an issue of concern for it’s members–and not just dead white composers–jazz is also suffering.
I lump literature in with the Fine Arts–maybe because I was taught to regard it that way. There is plenty of room for beat poetry and Harlequin romances, I would not deny anyone their mode of expression, even if I don’t share their interest. But, that is not reciprocated, from where I stand. Recreate culture, create new methods of expression, interpret old culture in new ways, by all means. But don’t go so far from older, finer arts that the link between the two is severed-doing so impacts negatively on both old and new. There is greatness in the totally new (shades of Monty Python’s "and now for something completely different!), but not at the expense of the old. As with music, so with literature.
I don’t. See where anecdotal evidence gets us?
Ballet is not reading. Classical music is not reading. The decline of either does not establish, or even suggest, a decline in reading or in intellectual pursuits in general. Other forms of dance and music are just as intellectually stimulating as a form of music popular in Europe from about the mid-18th century to the early 19th, and a form of dance which in its present form began in the 17th century. What makes the popular art forms of those periods so special? It’s not like people are uninterested in dance or music. They may like dance and music you don’t, but so what, really? Does anyone seriously think Wagner trumps the Beatles in terms of musical innovation and artistic originality? Shit, Wagner’s well behind REM, isn’t he?
Neither did vaudeville.
Neither did popular radio programs.
Comparing, say, Michaelangelo to Taylor Hicks is just stupid. Of course they don’t compare. And the crappy artists of the 16th century don’t compare with Billie Holliday. The my-daddy-can-beat-up-your-puppy argument is the laziest one around.
Oh, boo hoo, jazz is suffering. Jazz as a musical form is a fart in the history of music; it’s existed only since what, the 1900s, and really the 1920s as a well known art form? At this point, rock and roll is almost as venerable. Rap and hip-hop is just as socially relevant and it itself getting long in the tooth. So jazz is being replaced by hip-hop; so what? Implying that this means kids are stupid exactly is precisely as ridiculous as saying that the decline in popularity of baroque music, in the face of the popularity of classical music, proves the kids of the mid-18th century were empty-headed.
Honestly, this thread is just appalling, the exact opposite of what this message board is supposed to be about. We’re here to dispel ignorance, and we’re up to the fourth page of 100% polyunsaturated ignorance that sounds like a “Four Yorkshiremen” ripoff sketch. An SDMB poster is castigating the intellectual lives of a segment of the population and expressing frustration that anyone would ask for actual proof of this claim. Pot, won’t you please meet the kettle?
The level of unconsciousness being demostrated by the “kids are empty headed today” crowd is just staggering; it almost defies belief that people could be so blind, and seeing it on here is depressing. Do you really, honestly not realize that you are saying what old people have said for three thousand years? Do you not realize that sixty years from now, this will be the “good old days,” the kids of 2066 will be said to be empty headed? Do you not remember that when YOU were a kid, adults said the same things about you? Exactly the same?
Ya know, one can learn alot at a hair salon. I was there this afternoon, and picked up the Oprah mag in question.
How is this for a cite? On page 37 (IMS), a study from the NEA(National Endowment for the Arts) is quoted–28% of those between 18-24 admit to reading fewer “literary” materials, including poetry, classic literature and I don’t remember the rest, in 2004. That is a definite decline by anyone’s standards. Ironic that it’s in the damned mag. And no, I am not going to google NEA and find the study and copy and paste a link–call me a Luddite.
I also read Harper Lee’s letter. It doesn’t strike me as bitter or judgemental in the least. Is she an intellectual snob? Probably–but it sounds like she always was one. The tone of her letter is poignant and nostalgic–not surprising for someone her age. It also has funny bits–and she sends up herself and her compatriots of her youth.
IMO, this is very much a tempest in a teapot–but it’s been a great discussion-well, except for some of it.
The drop in attendance and interest in the fine arts does indeed include literature–or do you have a different understanding of literature than most people?
Yes, I understand your point about anecdotal evidence–it’s a valid one. Not all aspects of common culture and experience can be cited. I was expressing a mild frustration at the constant demand for empirical evidence that occurs here. No need for this to go OT.
I guess you could keep listing the shallow, mindless stuff that passed for entertainment thru the ages, if you want to. I don’t really see the point–I got your point long ago; I don’t agree with it. Seems simple enough on the face of it. Me, I’ll take the NEA study as good enough–I have no doubt that there are many here that won’t.
As to the caustic remarks re aging–tick, tock. Yep–it’s been said since time immemorial that young folks are empty headed etc. Yep, it’s more common to hear if from old folks (whom do you think you should hear it from? I’m curious. Kids? Babies? Of course it comes from people who have been around long enough to learn a few things. Stick around–you’ll say it too–in regards to some aspect of life and culture.) Just because a thing is common, doesn’t make it useless or worthless or false. Time enough to look back and see changes and rue or celebrate them–what a gift it is to have that perspective.
A few question in regards to this study. “Fewer” then what? fewer then the amount the read when they were younger? Fewer then previous generations of 18-24 year olds. Was this a drop in overall reading or were they reading the same amount but including less “poetry and classical literature?” How did this study define “literary” materials vs “non-literary?” Basically, what were the questions asked by this survey and whom did they ask them of?
This may seem like pointless nitpicking but given how studies and statistics work, the information is useless without the specifics.
Ogre I agree with you that her statement concerning “empty minds” was poorly chosen.
You have the right to disagree with anyone, but you lose much of your credibility when using four letter words.
I don’t agree that she was saying that the world was better to live in back in the 1930’s. Her words “no movies for kids and no parks for games” doesn’t say that to me.
Lastly, I am over 65 and your comments regarding those who are in that group are just as bad as the statement you were complaining about.
Sez you. I may have a filthy mouth (sometimes,) but if you engage the argument itself rather than the manner of the argument, you’ll find my credibility intact. In other words, go ahead. Get the vapors at the occasional “fuck.”
I never said she did. I restricted my judgment to her perception of books and readership. Or at least, I meant to. If I went off the rails, I apologize.
I am not generalizing. I never generalized to all older people or copped out to “generations of the past,” so I’m not sure why you’re taking exception. IOW, do you claim that a generation gap does not exist? That many, many, many (but not all) people of older generations (in the US, which remains the context of this discussion) are not disconnected from modern culture and cultural trends? That many (but not all) people of older generations do not idealize to one extent or another the culture of their youth, or of “the past,” whatever that means to them?
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.
Let me also illustrate something else. I once worked for the World Wildlife Fund. I was in their central office in DC, and while I love WWF, and think that what they’re doing is worthwhile and vastly important, I also know for a fact that they y’know, fudged here and there. Nothing outright false, of course. They just highlighted certain ecoregions a bit more than others here and there, which may or may not have served to heighten fears of Certain Ecological Doom.
In other words, NEA stands only to gain from reporting that literary appreciation is going to hell in a handbasket. Not exactly an unbiased source.