I've read 95% of Americans don't read books.

[Hardrada]

Is this too high a figure? Could this be the reason we have such fucked up policies in almost every area??

[datasuspect]

1. are you series?!?!1111

i can't possibly imagine where someone would come up with that?

[LostinVA]

32. That number is just too HUGH!!111

[HughMoran]

79. I knew there had to be a HUGH thread out there calling my name

;)

[LostinVA]

85. Just for you, baby...

[k_jerome]

2. books are overrated.

tv and movies are the way to go.

[hobo_baggins]

39. yeah, if they don't make a movie of it, that means it wasn't a good book

so why bother reading it?

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

94. Reading the book always just ruins the ending of the movie!

Why on earth would you do that to yourself?

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. That's probably a little high, but I'm sure it's close.

Remember, half of Americans are below average; and the majority of Americans are clueless, intelligence- and knowledge-fearing ignorant fuckwads who think considering anything outside their immediate environment to be "communist" or "intellectual".

And intellectual, to the most of America, is the same thing as "turtle raper", "foreigner", "minority", or "non-Christian".

[DanCa]

5. It wouldn't suprise me and not because of thier IQ.

I mean by the end of work day do you think the average blue collar worker would want to read or watch tv? Blue collar work is hard I am not degradding that proffesion but buy the time you work ten hours a day eat supper cleans house - something time & energy wise has got to give. Therefore the most easiest thing to do is to watch tv and let your mind go blank.

[Rabrrrrrr]

7. I don't think it's quite that simple - I know plenty of well-read

blue collar workers who work hard.

And I know plenty of white collar workers who haven't read anything outside of their college textbooks.

No, the problem is that in America being smart (beyond what one needs to do one's job) is seen as suspect, something to fear and belittle, and for many, people with books are people to be feared, curiosity is akin to being satanism, and learning for the sake of learning is considered idleness and is to be laughed at because it's "non productive" or "leads to communism". Unless it's rightwing or Christian fundamentalist books, those are okay.

[DanCa]

10. Hmm good point.

It's kind of like being teased back in high school for readding books and not being part of a 'cool group'. So the readers are regulated to being called "nerds and weak". Or worse "loners and anti social.

[Hardrada]

11. Yeah, I was called a "bookworm" and "four-eyes"

and so on but my detractors have long since passed into well-earned dust and obscurity.

[Hardrada]

12. The white collar workers didn't necessarily even read

the textbooks!! There was a lot of borrowing notes and getting test questions in advance. I was a TA at a university and did the folks in my classes ever want to know what we were going to ask them. I disdained to reply to such inquiries.

[book lady]

14. Don't you think too,

that many people want instant gratification...they don't want to take the time to see characters develop, to see a plot unfold. They want the 30 second sound byte, the 30 minute sitcom. Perhaps the fact that 47 percent of America's adults can't read is part of the problem as well.

[Hardrada]

60. I remember first being aware of the importance of sound bytes

when Reagan used them with the complicity of the media to trounce Carter in 1980. I think before then candidates had to explain their views in some detail. I almost think sound bytes (since Shrub is a hideous speaker) have been replaced now entirely with images. Even worse for the intellectual health of our nation.

[kick-ass-bob]

36. I agree. Yesterday on the bus, I sat behind a blue-collar worker

with the newspaper. He was doing the Cryptoquote. I saw him sitting there (I though he was asleep) - he was obviously thinking, because 5 minutes later, he went from no letters written in to having it solved. You can't tell me he is not well read.

Just because you are blue collar (and reading may not be part of your job) doesn't mean you aren't well read.

There is no way I would have done that puzzle that fast - white collar worker, here.

[China_cat]

66. I guess that's why I got the feeling something

was wrong with the hgtv dream house that they're giving away. Gorgeous house with wonderful views, beautifully furnished with all the amenities but something just didn't seem right. And then I saw what it was...5000 square feet of house and NOT ONE bookshelf.

[xmas74]

70. You nailed it.

I am a blue collar worker and I am constantly reading (almost) anything I can get my hands on. I often go outside, smoke a cigarette, drink my coffee and read a book or a newspaper. My coworkers treat me like a leper when they see me reading. One of them actually stated that (reading) was why I am an old maid(at the age of 31). No man wants a woman w/ her nose in a book!
I am the person they never ask to go out to the bars or any other events. They don't want to be around someone who likes to read "just because". I'm used to it and I figure that it will always be that way.

[Hardrada]

80. Don't let them bug you since their minds are going to

atrophy when they get older and yours will still be bright. Reading is exercise for the neurons!

[xmas74]

84. And I have a family history of Alzheimers.

I read constantly,do crossword and logic puzzles and play chess whenever I can find an opponent. I've pointed out this research about Alzheimers but no one at work listens.

[anarch]

46. I used to work with this carpenter who was always wanting to talk about

things he was reading, like St. Augustine's City of God or the various works of Thomas Aquinas. He was a weird guy.

[Hardrada]

6. LOL!

[datasuspect]

9. don't forget granola-chomping, free-loving, race mixing

socialists too.

[Hardrada]

13. And God bless 'em all!

[XemaSab]

26. You forgot latte drinking and sushi eating

n/t

[fudge stripe cookays]

86. ...and Volvo-driving!

:D

[XemaSab]

92. ... and Hollywood loving!

:D

[kick-ass-bob]

28. I know I read more than the average, and I only read 1 per month

on average.

[EstimatedProphet]

30. You're right

And think, 20 years ago the US was still known for its scientific excellence.

[DrDebug]

33. LMAO @ half is below average et al.

I can already hear * using this in a speech about his education policy. "With our current education program we achieved that half of our children have now above average intelligence."

[Rabrrrrrr]

37. LOL! Yes, I could see that!

It would still mean that only 25% of the population had an IQ above 100, but yes, by golly, No Child Left Behind has miraculously left us with a county in which fully half of its members are above average!

Ah, the way they can spin shit is truly art.

[TheBaldyMan]

40. LOL reminds me of I guy I used to work with ...

he wasn't the sharpest knife on the box. He was convinced he was pretty good at mathemathics because he scored 30% in a test "and that was more than half!"

[Nikia]

65. People in my blue collar environment read books

Some of them even bring their books to work and read them during break. Some of them even discuss them and recommend books to others. Probably around half read books on a somewhat regular basis.

[rug]

4. I heard about that on TV.

[Hardrada]

8. You didn't READ about it??

LOL

[NMMNG]

15. 95% is a high number, but the figures are climbing

I found a report from 2004:

The findings in the report show a steady drop, over two decades, in the percentage of Americans who read books of any sort -- with a much steeper decline in the consumption of literature. (The report defines literature as fiction, poetry, and drama, without regard to genre or quality.) In 1992, for example, 60.9 percent of those surveyed indicated that they had read a book of some sort during the previous year. By 2002, that figure had shrunk to 56.6 percent, a decline of 7 percent.

When asked about literature in particular, the change was even more marked. In 1992, 54 percent of respondents indicated they had read a literary work of some kind. That proportion fell to 46.7 percent in 2002, a decrease of almost 14 percent. Besides declining twice as fast as book reading in general, literary reading appears to have taken an especially hard hit over the past decade. From 1982 to 1992, it decreased by a mere 5 percent -- a rate that has accelerated, the report suggests, with the "cumulative presence and availability" of "an enormous array of electronic media."

snip

The steepest decline -- and the one that the report notes with most alarm -- has occurred among young adults. In 1982, respondents ages 18 to 34 were the group most likely to report the recreational reading of literature. Over the intervening decades, they have become the group least likely to do so (except for some segments of the population over 65).

The change has been particularly striking among those ages 18 to 24. The report says that, over the past two decades, the share of the adult population engaged in literary reading declined by 18 percent, from 56.9 percent in 1982 to percent in 2002. But for the 18-to-24 cohort, the drop has been faster, sinking from 59.8 percent to 42.8 percent, a decline of 28 percent.

http://chronicle.com/free/2004/07/2004070901n.htm



Very frightening indeed. :scared:

[Wapsie B]

17. This is the gop's wet dream.

Keep the populace down by discouraging intellectual thought. Discourage curiosity. Don't ask questions, just blindly obey your masters.

[Omphaloskepsis]

19. I consume fewer books now then I did five years ago.

From about 1998 to 2001 I was reading a new book every day. Work permitted this. I had actually read Enders Game on a Thursday while at work. The internet changed that. Now I participate in discussions and do research about topics. I actually watch less tv now. But, I think I know more now about the world. But, my spelling and grammar have gone to shit.. LOL

[NMMNG]

20. So much for "no child left behind"

Ignorant minions to work all of their minimum-wage service jobs (all of the tech-jobs having been outsourced). Simpletons who don't read cannot possibly discover the nefarious government crimes and plots and thereby become disruptors. They can all be spoon-fed the party line, the fundie spiel, and will be none the wiser because they will have no tools to tell them otherwise.

[Wapsie B]

21. It's a de-evolution of man

back to the days of illiterate slaves and serfs. It's back to the day when if a slave was discovered to be able to read they were killed.

[NMMNG]

25. Very frightening indeed, what Amurka is coming to

I wonder if it is time to start looking for another country to move to.

[barb162]

88. I suspect this is not happening in Asia

That's why they'll eat our lunch

[kick-ass-bob]

35. I have found that I have read more in the last 5 years

(age 27-32) Than I did the previous 5 (22-27)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

52. Just one indication

I participate on travel discussion boards, mostly answering people's questions about traveling in Asia, and what you get a lot of times is some young person coming on and saying, "I'm getting a trip to China as a college graduation present. What's there to see and do over there? Tell me about the culture."

My stock answer is, "Get a good guidebook, read it, and then come back with specific questions."

But it's not a risk-free answer. I gave it once on the Lonely Planet forum, and a bunch of posters started attacking me, saying that I was being "snarky" and "mean." One poster said, "Guidebooks are expensive!" (Let me get this straight. You're about to take a $5000 trip to China, and you can't shell out $20 for a guidebook?) Another said, "Reading a guidebook takes too much time." (If this trip is important to you, could you perhaps sacrifice one TV program or one session of game playing per day until you leave?) :eyes:

[bikebloke]

54. They're going to burn me at the stake.

Not only do I read before travelling, I'll keep reading about a place after my return.

[NMMNG]

93. That is pretty bad

Price shouldn't be an issue--the public library is chock full of guidebooks. As to not wanting to read a book, if they can read posts on a forum then why can't they browse through a book? It's not like guide books are lengthy tomes written in obscure languages. It is quite easy to find guides for even the laziest/dumbest people. Even the "For Dummies" series has travel guides out now.

People are just lazy. :eyes:

[Popol Vuh]

16. Well........

I guess that makes me a bookworm then because I am always reading one book or another.

[caty]

18. I read two books a month.

I must be a real weirdo!:silly:

[hfojvt]

22. I think that figure is way high

First of all, almost all students are forced to read, at least sections of textbooks and short stories. I suppose alot of them could be faking it. Second, I believe the majority of women are readers. But much of that is probably Danielle Steele/Nora Roberts fluff. Most people are not reading wonky treatises about policies, but there is also alot of thoughtful fiction out there. How many copies were sold of Confessions of an Economic Hitman? Or "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot?" Then again, ten million sounds like alot, but it is only about 3% of the population.

[Hardrada]

24. Well, you maybe remember students using Cliff's Notes etc. Also

It is startling to realize how even a million copies of a book could make no dent on our sea of blissful non-readers!

[britpopper]

23. Well, that figures...

It's been a while since Coulter and O'Reilly have put out a new book...

[kwassa]

27. What is a "book"?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. Reading is for poor people.

:shrug: I dunno what that's supposed to mean really.

[LostinVA]

31. I don;'t believe that -- I bet it's higher

Even my anti-learning redneck relatives read.

I read about a zillion books a week, so I may help the average a little bit!

[calico1]

34. I don't know if its 95%

but it is definitely true that people today are much less well read or articulate and less capable of using more than basic English words in a conversation. Many don't understand what you mean if you use a more complex word. Spelling and grammar is atrocious. That was not common years ago. Today even many adults can't spell or use proper grammar. I see that all the time. Not reading or reading much less definitely affects your ability to use a more varied vocabulary and it also affects your reading, spelling and grammar skills.

[Bridget Burke]

43. My brother read a book of letters from Civil War soldiers ...

He commented on the excellence of their language. Back then, there was less competition for "entertainment" & fewer ways to communicate with friends & family. No phones, no e-mail--& cross-country trips for a quick visit were just not possible.

But that was not the only book he'd read that year. An annoying variant of those who never read are those who read one (1) book per year & insist on telling everyone all about it. Generally, these guys all read the same book--most recently, the Da Vinci Code.

Meanwhile, I do my bit to bring up the average.

[calico1]

45. Even when I was a kid going to school

in the 60's and 70's kids (and everyone in general) were more well read. You only had network TV so TV viewing was limited. I remember lots of kids including me had pen-pals. So you wrote a lot of letters. You read books. My dad subscribed to Reader's Digest, National Geographic and some other magazines and I read those too. Most people read the paper to get their news. Today we are much more passive. Watching TV rather than reading is passive. E-mailing using all those abbreviations like "how ru?" is just killing the writing skills.

[RebelOne]

38. I read 10 magazines a month.

Each has 7 stories and I read each one word for word. But, of course, that's my job. I am a copy editor. So you could say that I am quite well read.

[warrens]

41. Does what O'Reilly, Coulter and Limbaugh "write"

Count as "books?" If so, that figure is too high. Otherwise, sounds about right.

[Wcross]

42. I have to say that figure is ass pulled.

As in somebody just pulled it out of their ass. If it were correct that would imply that only 15 million people read books. (300mil x .05)
Explain all these public libraries- what do the librarians do all day? It seems that they would be shut down if only 5% of the population used them? Explain the success of Barnes&Noble, Amazon.com and Booksamillion.

[oneighty]

62. Oddly

Erie County New York just completed shutting down many of their public libraries due to lack of funding.

I heard a comment on TV news; "Nobody uses them anyway." And if I heard correctly and I am quite sure that I did there are nine public libraries left to serve the entire county.

Sad times when taxes are cut to the bare bones except for sales tax which was raised once again.

Poor people gotta pay too god-damn-it.

The Republican way.

180

[China_cat]

67. The libraries here are used for their internet connections

In fact, one branch here has replaced almost all its books with fundamentalist publications in order to be able to stay open. B&N and Booksamillion survive on software, magazine (soft porn) and 'other' sales. Our yearly 'friends of the library' sale used to be so crowded that it was impossible to get in after 10am (opened at 9am) and most of the 'good' books would be gone by 10:30. Now there are few customers, prices have been reduced even further and it's possible that this year's will be cancelled because it barely made enough last year to pay for the space.

[WCGreen]

44. I heard that on the Cable.....

[Orsino]

47. My wife and I do our best to make up for the rest of you.

Seriously, I'm sure that an illiterate society contributes to the average American's incuriosity, which allows the Powers That Be to get away with almost anything.

[Shine]

48. Well, at least YOU'RE reading.

:)

[kay1864]

49. The truth is even sadder

Buffy notes above that
In 1992, 54 percent of respondents indicated they had read a literary work of some kind. That proportion fell to 46.7 percent in 2002

But that was of people who read at least one book. If you read ONE BOOK during the year, you were in the 46.7%.

So to get more detail, I read the report. Found this:

Readers of literary works can be divided into four categories:
“light” readers (1-5 books during the year, both literary and non-literary),
“moderate” readers (6-11 books per year, both literary and non-literary),
“frequent” readers (at least one book every month, i.e., 12-49 books per year, both literary and non-literary), and
“avid” readers (about one book every week, i.e., 50 or more books per year, both literary and non-literary).

The percentage of people in each category is as follows: light readers 21 percent, moderate readers 9 percent, frequent readers 12 percent, and avid readers 4 percent.

In other words, about one in six people reads one or more books a month. Five in six people read less than that.

Sadder still, 53% of the American population did not read even one book a year.

[dryan]

50. Where does....

that statistic come from? I read on the average 2 books a week--and they're not romance novels either. Currently reading City of Secrets at work which is about 300 pages. Finished Disney Wars last night which is about 400 pages.

[kay1864]

51. It comes from...

the report in Buffy's link. So count yourself in the elite 4%! :D

http://www.nea.gov/pub/ReadingAtRisk.pdf

You have to scroll through a lot of demographic stuff to get to it though.

[Shine]

53. Personally, reading is my most favorite activity.

well, almost.
:evilgrin:

[bikebloke]

55. A sign I've noticed

Waiting for books from the library reserve queue is much swifter these days. So few folk pining for books. Not like years ago, when you'd wait for months. Much better for us communistical traitors.

[Common Sense Party]

56. "The man that doesn't read good books..."

"...has no advantage over the man who cannot read them." --Mark Twain (paraphrased)


Turn off the TV, America.

[Hardrada]

59. That's a great quote

and Twain lived in a time when a greater proportion of people did read!

[BreweryYardRat]

57. I doubt it's that high, but it certainly is high...

I go to the University of South Florida (big goddamned school), and I don't think I've seen more than one or two other people reading books for pleasure at lunch/dinner like I do.

Kind of depressing, really.

On the plus side, given the ridiculous amount of books I read and re-read (and re-read, and re-read), I'm definitely bringing up the average.

[Heidi]

58. I thnk I saw something about that on TV or the internet. (nt)

[Gormy Cuss]

61. I believe that you misread that statistic.

It's 95% of Bush voters who don't read books.

They do have a strange affinity for talk radio however.
:evilgrin:

[bertha katzenengel]

63. Where have you read this?

It can't be right, but if it is, I want data. :)

[LSK]

64. im trying to make up for some of them thou

In the middle of 4 books right now.

[obreaslan]

68. I wouldn't know if 95% is too high, because I don't read....

So how would I know?

:P

[smitty]

69. Who are all those people

I see at Barnes and Noble or Brentanos? Personally, I think 95% is too high a percentage. Of course, the other question would be what are people reading? Reading books is no guarantee of sound policies.

[Hardrada]

75. They aren't necessarily buying books. Many seek

Lattes, calendars, chocolate bars, greeting cards, magazines in plastic wrappers, CD's and DVD's (a LOT of people there for just those) and also people who are killing time while their wives shop for clothes at TJ Maxx.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

71. I believe that number....

My husband and I are readers. We have a house full of books.....

About 1000 of them....

Right now I am reading "1776" by David McCullough.....it is outstanding.


I'm sure that you are correct as to why so many policies are screwed up...

[Hardrada]

72. I read that number in a study published in 1978!!!

So it might be even worse now. I used it as an estimate for how many books of a local history I should publish and it turned out to be accurate in practice and not just in theory. My younger brothers don't read and they are MUCH more conservative than their (surviving) elder siblings who do read. (The younger ones were raised by a different mother who is just hyper-Church and hyper-conformist).

[ScreamingMeemie]

73. Well, the last book MrG read was when he was 16, and our son is

a beginning reader...and our daughter, an awesome reader. I'd say 25% of Grumpy's don't read books.

[Wcross]

74. 58% is the figure I came up with.

http://www.parapublishing.com/getpage.cfm?file=statistics/index.html

58% of the US adult population never reads another book after high school.


I don't doubt it at all. I bet you more people could tell you who won the last "survivor" tv show or who is married to who in hollywood. Thats pretty sad if you ask me.

Right now I am reading a W.e.b. Griffin book(I know- cheap action thriller). I also am working on an book "the Bible of Options Stratagies" learning about options.
I try to read at least one book a month.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

76. I don't believe that figure

where did you get it?

Also, there are many people who don't enjoy books, per se, but read newspapers, blogs, magazines, etc.

[Hardrada]

78. There is a useful link above of a more modern study

which apparently substantiates my claim. My study was from an old publisher's weekly which was giving out this information for the publishing trade and was meant to be realistic about sales expectations and not necessarily a value-judgment on the then-prevailing culture.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

83. I'll check it out

But consider this. I teach gifted kids, who represent about 3% of the general population. All of them read a LOT. I just can't believe that only 2 more percent of the public read books.

However, I know that in my family I am the only bookreader. Everybody else is a magazine reader.

[ikojo]

77. While the number of books published has gone up

the number of readers has declined. I go to lunch daily with two women who pride themselves on not reading nor wanting to go back to school to complete (or in one case, begin) their education. They both say they are not readers and do not enjoy it. One surprises me because she is Jewish, as am I, and Jews traditionally love books.

http://www.nea.gov/news/news04/ReadingAtRisk.html

New York, N.Y. - Literary reading is in dramatic decline with fewer than half of American adults now reading literature, according to a National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) survey released today. Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America reports drops in all groups studied, with the steepest rate of decline - 28 percent - occurring in the youngest age groups.

[Rabrrrrrr]

81. But on the other hand, it means we keep a ready supply of shitjob fillers

handy at all times.

If all they aspire to is working some shit job that doesn't fulfill them in any way so they buy cheap beer and spend most of their loaded and overbreeding, then so be it.

At least it means I don't have to go work at the factory or Taco Bell or take my own garbage to the landfill or do the dishes at the restaurants that they can't afford to eat at, nor, likely, understand the food at.

Fuck 'em.

If all they want to be is ignorant idiots, then let 'em.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

82. When I was younger, I read all the time.

I didn't read so much in college, but I've been picking up lately. I know I read at least ten books last year, though.

[barb162]

87. There's a fairly high percentage of illiteracy in this country

and I wonder how many people don't have a library near them. Also I think reading is not encouraged in this country any more compared to several years back.

[benny05]

89. Maybe a high number

But those who answered the survey are probably honest

They read off the Internet, but not whole books anymore.

[joe_sixpack]

90. I've also heard that

six out of five Americans have trouble with fractions.

[Hardrada]

91. LOL!