Reading literature for fun and saving our culture

[Alassëa Eruvande]

Yesterday I read the latest installment of Imprimis, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College in Michigan. In it, Michael Flaherty, President of Walden Media, which recently produced the Narnia movie, among others, discusses the decline of literary reading. This decline cuts across demographics, including race, age and education level. He compares most readers to C.S. Lewis's character Eustace Clarence Stubbs in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, who only reads to gain information, and not for the pleasure of simply reading. Flaherty goes on to cite a report by the National Endowment for the Arts indicating that less than half of the adult population now reads literature. The decline of literary reading also correlates to a decline in civic and cultural involvement. Literary readers are more likely than non-literary readers to participate in charity work, attend performing arts events, visit art museums and go to sporting events. The NEA reports that literary reading as a leisure activity will disappear in fifty years, and, Flaherty worries, take with it our culture. For this reason, Walden Media was created, to make great movies based on great books, great people and great historic events. Their latest releases are Bridge to Terabithia (popular book) and Amazing Grace (great people and great historic event). **

Read the full article here: www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2007/02/

I'm not sure why, but I was astonished to learn that so few people read literature for fun. I suppose my astonishment has something to do with my visiting TORn and all you well-read people. But I tend to gravitate to literature as leisure reading simply for the fact that it is more likely to be worthwhile reading. I have precious little free time as it is and don't want to waste it on a trashy beach novel. (Well, only when I'm actually at the beach!) Are these other folks just reading the technical booklets that came with their plasma TVs? Are they reading the trashy beach novels? Are they even reading?
We know what Michael Flaherty and his pals are doing to save our culture and civilization. My question to you, dear Tornsibs, is what are you doing to save us from the great dumbing-down of our times? How are we to protect our culture from the guests on Jerry Springer's show?

Okay, I will go first, since it is my post. As a stay-at-home mom with a kindergartener and an infant, I will admit that my contributions to the world at large are limited. However, I am still doing my best to expose at least two kids to literature for its own sake. I am currently reading The Hobbit to my kindergartener as part of his class reading assignment. I also try to minimize the mind numbing blather that passes for children's programming on TV. (We are a Sponge Bob-free household. []) We collect arrowheads and fossils on our property, then try to identify them. We play organized kid's sports. And my kids fall asleep to classical music. (Mozart Effect or not, it really helps them fall asleep!) I believe it is the baby steps that will eventually make the difference. I hope, as my baby gets older, that I will be able to spend more time outside the home, perhaps joining the reading program at school. It tears my heart out that there are kids who have no one to read to them. Baby steps.

**Credit line: "Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, the national speech digest of Hillsdale College, www.hillsdale.edu."

Disclaimer: I do not work for Hillsdale College and am in no way affiliated with it, other than receiving their speech digest. If you want to get it, too, go to their website. It's free! []

 

[linkin-artelf]

by reading yourself and being an active patron of the arts is the best way.
I read to my kids all the time and took them constantly to the library. My daughter grew up an avid reader, my son got distracted by the pc and video games. That's the problem really, too many other forms of flashy entertainment and too hectic lifestyles.
I think the demise of suburbia when the oil runs out will get people back to books of quality but it'll be a few years.

 

[sherlock]

I'm always amazed by the people I come into contact with (work, casual acquaintances) who don't read for pleasure and are proud of it. My parents, sister, and friends all love to read but my husband and daughter don't.

They are both smart people but would never chose to read for fun. I truly believe there is a reading gene and some people just don't have it because I did all they said to to encourage my daughter to read as a child. But I also think the decrease in reading is a product of our culture and technology and that there are probably plenty of kids who'd enjoy reading if they had the opportunity and encouragement.

I'm just hoping my granddaughter (now 3) turns out to be a reader and I'm doing all I can to encourage her. Recently I was in bed reading and she got in bed with me and I said "Won't it be fun when you learn how to read and we can sit here and read our books together?" She just looked at me and laughed. Not a good sign!

 

[a.s.]

Okay, I will go first, since it is my post. As a stay-at-home mom with a kindergartener and an infant, I will admit that my contributions to the world at large are limited. I hope, as my baby gets older, that I will be able to spend more time outside the home, perhaps joining the reading program at school. It tears my heart out that there are kids who have no one to read to them. Baby steps.

Well, now, you know I will not agree to your statement that your contributions to "the world at large" are limited. After all, it is not sentiment to say that preparing the next generation is somehow "non-contributory" to the "world at large". It's truth. It's bedrock. There is nothing that impacts a young child's future development as much as language acquisition, and being read to is the most excellent way to expose him or her to language. All the other interesting things you are doing with your children are also helping them learn language and its uses. Talking about an interesting fossil doesn't impart scientific knowledge per se to a three year old; it imparts language, the give and take of conversation and the reaching for concepts just a little bit out of reach which is so vital for future learning! School age is too late for many children to begin "reading programs" (however, better late than never! absolutely). If you want to volunteer, maybe there are "pre-reading" programs in your community for infants and toddlers. I know I wish more people would volunteer with my client moms (young, poor, inner city and poorly educated) to mentor them on enjoying books with their children. It's the best start. THE BEST. Now, if I can only convince them to turn off their TVs and silence their cell phones for thirty minutes while they play with their babies, I will be doing my part!! a.s. (removes community health nursing cap and resumes Torn identity)

 

[Alassëa Eruvande]

by world at large I just meant that I wasn't reading to those poorly educated inner-city single moms and *their* kids! [laugh]

Our local library does have a little-kid reading program, I just haven't been able to get over there lately for it.

 

[sherlock]

Now, if I can only convince them to turn off their TVs and silence their cell phones for thirty minutes while they play with their babies, I will be doing my part!!

I see this all too often these days, my daughter included, and I think it's a real shame!

 

[Aunt Dora Baggins]

I was pretty shocked too, as my family is almost entirely composed of voracious readers. My grandmother used to read ten novels a week. My daughter can read a thousand pages a day when the mood hits her. My son reads more slowly, but likes huge long Neal Stephenson novels. My nine-year-old niece is reading at a tenth-grade level. When my daughter was seven, she wanted to see Jurassic Park. I wouldn't let her, since it was so scary and bloody. She asked if she could read the book. I said "Honey, if you can plow through that huge book, I guess you're old enough to read it." She did. I've never censored my kids' reading, though I have censored their movie-viewing.

I can't imagine not reading for pleasure. I can't imagine eating breakfast or going to the bathroom without a book. When we moved to our house many years ago, we got our new library cards before we did any other paperwork (like change of address or changing our drivers' licenses.)

I remember, though, growing up next door to a boy who thought libraries were "spooky". We tried to get him to go along on our weekly visit, but he wouldn't go.

It makes me sad to realize that other people are missing out on this great pleasure. On the other hand, I wonder if some of those people are reading fiction online? One thing I love about the 'Net is the huge explosion of fanfiction. It's so great to see kids writing fiction and getting feedback on it.

Well, I'm rambling, so I'll stop. Thanks for a great thread, and for reading to your kids! (I read the Hobbit to my son when he was five, and LotR to my kids when they were 9 and 5. Also read the Narnia books, the Oz books, the Secret Garden, the Phantom Tollbooth, the Pooh books, and lots of others.)

 

[Advising Elf]

 

[Advising Elf]

 

[Timbo_mbadil]

(in reply to 'putting kids to sleep with Mozart'), but when my boy was still a toddler, the only way to save him from – er, shall we call it digestive problems?, was to play Bach's first cello concerto on the guitar.

As for reading and the decline of western civilisation, I must admit that I'm a lazy, slow and repetetive reader (I love to read stuff again and again).

But I don't think it necessarily has to do with the medium. Watching film and even the telly can be thought inspiring. On the other hand, simply reading a book doesn't automatically make you Einstein or Hemingway. It's what you do with the stuff that has been given to you.

 

[Timbo_mbadil]

Stephen King mentions libraries whenever he mentions kids, and not being from the US, I'm curious – are they really that popular? I remember that I used to go to the library when I was a bout 9 or 10, but then my collector gene simpy won (over my wallet gene).

 

[Darkstone]

Carpool the neighborhood kids to the library, especially for the weekend storytime hours. Give books as birthday and Christmas presents. Give away used books. There's lots of children's versions of good books. For example, one of my first books was an abridged version of Treasure Island which I devoured. Boy was I delighted when I found out there was a longer version!! Also for internet kids bookmark on-line libraries. Lots of good books on the net like Jules Verne. In the end it doesn't so much matter that they read the classics as they just read: trashy mags, pulp novels, comic books, cereal boxes.

 

[Luthien Rising]

While there was a rise in the practice of reading for fun in the early twentieth century -- when there was a coincidence of increased general literacy, decreased work hours, increased library holdings, and decreased cost of books -- it was a blip. Generally speaking reading for fun has always been a minority practice, reading "literature" for fun more so. Call me a heretic if you will, but while I don't have anything against literature and reading -- particularly given that I have a PhD in the stuff and now earn a living off habitual readers -- I've really never understood why it's supposed to be that much above going to the theatre (or its superseder, the movies), listening to music (or playing in a garage band), reading nonfiction or "escapist" fiction, or playing role-playing games over the internet. IMO, a healthy upbringing should include a variety of forms of entertainment and literacy, not all of them solitary, not all of them written, not all them "high". The valuation of literary reading over other leisure pursuits is, to my mind, simplistic and easy -- and often based on a failure to examine those other pursuits.

And before you ask, I'm a working mom (working beat the heck out of severe depression) of three highly literate children.

 

[Penthe]

I think a disproportionate amount of us who read 'for fun' desperately try to get into industries where they can basically earn money from reading. I'm thinking of publishing, teaching literature or writing, journalism and so on. We're the people who then go on to write articles, give papers at conferences, talk to journalists and so on about how reading is really, really important and how it makes you a better person. It's true for us, no doubt. But it's very subjective. But we're the experts, so our words carry weight.

There's two views of literacy, I would say, mentioned in the first article. One is for information - at the most basic reading information or instructional literature for a particular task. At the other extreme is reading literature (however you choose to define that, and there are lots of ways you can) 'for fun'. I do. It's fun for me to read anything, as Aunt Dora says. But a lot of my 'fun' reading is still for information. I read articles on sociology, literature, philosophy and anthropology as part of my research. I read material on pedagogy for my teaching work (I don't understand it, but I do read it). A lot of this reading is fun, but it's not leisure reading. I also read information just because I have to, like trying to figure out what is going on with legislation that affects my son's education. This is not fun, but it does have to take place in my leisure time. Does it still count as reading?

On one level reading 'for fun' is a complete and utter waste of time for most people. It gets them nothing. For those of us who have wangled a job out of it, of course, it gets us tangible benefits of wages, respect, etc. For people who read as a hobby, that's never going to be true. So why is it seen as a better hobby than any of the ones Lu mentions? Some would argue because it gives you better skills for all the useful reading that you have to do in life, and some would argue that it gives you insights into the human condition and that makes you a better person. But really, that's no more true of reading than any other communication medium, is it? I choose to believe reading is important for all those reasons, but I have a vested interest. I do think that child literacy is extremely important, because it gives children choices, whether or not to engage in this kind of debate for one thing, but mostly about all the kinds of reading that they want or need to do later on in life.

Now, the other argument that crops up here is that mums staying home give children a better start in literacy. I think Lu's example and a.s.'s example are good anecdotal evidence that this isn't true of families here at TORn. Broad studies vary on whether or not mum at home influences this at all. It tends to be location, economic position and the employment of the parents that alter literacy levels rather than at-home or working mothers. And as far as I can tell dads are also usually able to read to their children, so it's not exactly a mothering issue, it's a parenting issue and an issue of equitable distribution of wealth and privilege.

 

[Morrowdim]

I'm a stay-at-home as well. My husband and I are both avid readers who love to read science, history, literature, or any mixture of the 3. We read to our kids when they were younger and didn't give them much TV time (with the exception of Thomas the Tank Engine videos which we would watch as a family). Now, two of my kids are in high school, one is in junior high, and one is a 5th grader. All love to read.

In anticipation for when my kids would be old enough to enjoy the great works of literature, I began hunting at yard sales for book bargains as soon as I got married. I loved getting the chance to read the classics that I had missed reading while in high school. As the kids were born and grew, we started building bookshelves and filling them with books. When we bought a house, we dedicated one room as a library.

As the kids began reading on their own and enjoying children's literature, I offered them an incentive. I began keeping track of the "real" books they read (those which had chapters). Each child has the books they read listed according to author. For some series we had to add them to the list by the series name because there were so many authors in the series. (Like the Dear America books.) For every 50 books they read, we take a trip to GoodWill, HalfPrice Books, or the local used book store and give them $5 to spend on buying their own books.

Of course, what is a trip to buy books for them if I don't pick up a few for myself? This gave me a chance to find books to have on hand as they reached higher and higher reading levels. I started introducing them to Masterpiece Theater and Mystery on PBS. I would ask friends and family and total strangers for literary recommendations.

We also encourage the kids to listen to several genres of music--classical, bluegrass, jazz, big band, steel drums, celtic, and even some oldies but never modern pop and stuff. It just isn't our cup of tea. We sit as a family and watch Nova, Secrets of the Dead, American Experience, and other PBS science, history, and nature programs. Of course, we have to find time to add just enough silliness into life to make it a childhood and not a prolonged young adulthood.

I knew that I conciously tried to live a life outside the norm, but I had no idea I had gone that far astray of the main stream. It feels kind of good to know I'm succeeding in my own life and directing 4 other young lives in the same direction.

 

[a.s.]

Broad studies vary on whether or not mum at home influences this at all. It tends to be location, economic position and the employment of the parents that alter literacy levels rather than at-home or working mothers. And as far as I can tell dads are also usually able to read to their children, so it's not exactly a mothering issue, it's a parenting issue and an issue of equitable distribution of wealth and privilege.

In fact many recent studies point to the number and quality of words children are exposed to in the home as the key factor in their own subsequent language acquisition and attendent educational performance, including reading skills. Thus it's not simply reading to your child that is important. It is TALKING to your child, having conversations and encouraging their questions and LISTENING to the answers.

A recent study of adolescent mothers noted the established fact that children of adolescent mothers are at higher statistical risk of poor language skills at age 54 months. And yet:

Findings from the present study thus confirm that a poor quality linguistic home environment is a significant predictor of low performing preschoolers' language even after controlling for those contributions of maternal verbal ability, intergenerational risk, and maternal education...

[/url]However, as the test of moderation indicated, this effect was only relevant for those children whose mothers were performing below average in their own verbal abilities. Low maternal language ability moderated the effect of the home environment, such that the high-risk linguistic home environment was only significant for those children whose mothers' verbal performance was at least one standard deviation below the mean. For children with mothers who scored at least average on their verbal ability, the quality of the home environment was not associated with a below average performance

This means (for public health baby nurses working with adolescent moms) that there is HOPE for these babies if we can show mom how to expose her child to more language than is the norm for that household. One way is to make sure mom herself gets back to school. Another is to TEACH mom how to read to her baby and toddler, to turn off the TV, to "expand" her toddler's beginning language ("truck", baby says, and mom says, "yes, that's a red truck. A truck has big wheels") and to TALK TALK TALK with baby using grownup words. Since I have to work on mom acquiring language at the same time her baby is developing skills, I can't wait for her to catch up! I have to teach her.

a.s.

 

[Penthe]

Yes, that makes sense. It makes sense in terms of the studies I have seen (which I think are less focused on the process, and more on broad social issues, so they're probably rubbish), which is that mothers who have more education also have wider vocabularies and higher language skills, and are also in the higher economic groups. So the kids of those mothers perform better at vocab and language use benchmarks.

Your information is much more useful, though, in terms of actually helping people. Thanks for sharing.

One more reason that (some) university research is often useless compared to the research that people do who are doing (inside or outside of universities). Sigh.

 

[a.s.]

Isn't that the way? You go to get all citation crazy and everything, and then can't find the citation you really want!

It was the study from ?? four or five years ago where some researchers spent several months noting down EVERY WORD said in a child's home. They did this in low, middle, and high economic groups. They found a very marked difference just in the sheer number of words to which a child is exposed in all three levels. I mean, the difference in number was quite jawdroppingly large.

It's the number of words to which a child is consistently exposed in the formative years as much as any other factor that seems to impact future reading ability and school performance.

a.s.

 

[CAhobbit]

as horrible as that sounds. But I was raised in a family of non-readers. My mother was never much of a reader and my sister thinks it's pointless. It makes me wonder where I got my love for reading (that really started around age 11). Reading brings on a certain challenge to the mind (in imagination and sometimes trying to understand what one is reading) so I believe that's one aspect. Plus the sheer thrill from reading isn't bad either. []

So my contribution? Well, I can't count how many books I've given as gifts to others. I suppose that's it. Perhaps my speaking about books I've read may also interest others who aren't avid readers to actually pick up a book. I'm not sure about the last one though. *shurgs*

 

[diedye]

... the only time I get to read is at the hospital during my father's treatments. My youngest nephews have a collection of books, but comparing the time they spend reading and the time they spend playing videogames or watching TV is... ugh... don't get me started.

Frankly, I don't know what's worse... plopping them down in front of the idiot box or psycho-generator to keep them quiet, or leaving them alone for five minutes to play with toys that they end up using as weapons against each other or plotting ways of how to make their aunt shorten her life span by giving her a coronary.

*sigh*

How did it come to this?