There are two ways to read Caleb Crain's New Yorker essay about the death of reading. You can read it like I did the first time, filled with dread and apprehension about what it said (more on that in a bit), or like I did the second time, with a more balanced view that contained elements of hope.
The essay itself is a pretty straightforward look at the decline of reading, not just in the United States, but around the world. I'm sure people smarter than I from a statistical standpoint will pick it apart, but the data seems pretty conclusive -- three key paragraphs are below:
if you consulted the Census Bureau and the National Endowment for the Arts, who, since 1982, have asked thousands of Americans questions about reading that are not only detailed but consistent. The results, first reported by the N.E.A. in 2004, are dispiriting. In 1982, 56.9 per cent of Americans had read a work of creative literature in the previous twelve months. The proportion fell to fifty-four per cent in 1992, and to 46.7 per cent in 2002. Last month, the N.E.A. released a follow-up report, “To Read or Not to Read,” which showed correlations between the decline of reading and social phenomena as diverse as income disparity, exercise, and voting.
This decline is not news to those who depend on print for a living. In 1970, according to Editor & Publisher International Year Book, there were 62.1 million weekday newspapers in circulation—about 0.3 papers per person. Since 1990, circulation has declined steadily, and in 2006 there were just 52.3 million weekday papers—about 0.17 per person. In January 1994, forty-nine per cent of respondents told the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press that they had read a newspaper the day before. In 2006, only forty-three per cent said so, including those who read online. Book sales, meanwhile, have stagnated. The Book Industry Study Group estimates that sales fell from 8.27 books per person in 2001 to 7.93 in 2006. According to the Department of Labor, American households spent an average of a hundred and sixty-three dollars on reading in 1995 and a hundred and twenty-six dollars in 2005.
More alarming are indications that Americans are losing not just the will to read but even the ability. According to the Department of Education, between 1992 and 2003 the average adult’s skill in reading prose slipped one point on a five-hundred-point scale, and the proportion who were proficient—capable of such tasks as “comparing viewpoints in two editorials”—declined from fifteen per cent to thirteen. The Department of Education found that reading skills have improved moderately among fourth and eighth graders in the past decade and a half, with the largest jump occurring just before the No Child Left Behind Act took effect, but twelfth graders seem to be taking after their elders. Their reading scores fell an average of six points between 1992 and 2005, and the share of proficient twelfth-grade readers dropped from forty per cent to thirty-five per cent. The steepest declines were in “reading for literary experience”—the kind that involves “exploring themes, events, characters, settings, and the language of literary works,” in the words of the department’s test-makers. In 1992, fifty-four per cent of twelfth graders told the Department of Education that they talked about their reading with friends at least once a week. By 2005, only thirty-seven per cent said they did.
Okay, let's wallow in the negs a bit. Around the world, people are reading less, understanding less of what they read, and losing the ability to think deeply about what it is they've read -- both in terms of fiction and nonfiction. The data on newspaper reading has been well covered here and in other places so isn't new, but man, it's still pretty grim. The demographic data is also tough -- no bright light on any of the age ranges. PLus, there seems to be conflict between the ways we receive info - reading competes with TV time, and it's a zero sum game. The article notes:
The antagonism between words and moving images seems to start early. In August, scientists at the University of Washington revealed that babies aged between eight and sixteen months know on average six to eight fewer words for every hour of baby DVDs and videos they watch daily. A 2005 study in Northern California found that a television in the bedroom lowered the standardized-test scores of third graders. And the conflict continues throughout a child’s development. In 2001, after analyzing data on more than a million students around the world, the researcher Micha Razel found “little room for doubt” that television worsened performance in reading, science, and math. The relationship wasn’t a straight line but “an inverted check mark”: a small amount of television seemed to benefit children; more hurt.
What about the bright sides? Well, there are a few. Turns out that having a computer and using it, to do almost anything, increases reading fluency. As computers become increasingly ubiquitous around the world, that should increase reading capacity. Finally, there is no doubt that receiving information visually/orally (especially directly) is a very powerful way for people to connect with ideas and information.
The article is filled with interesting factoids and nuggets, all worth reviewing. My final take? The communications pendulum will continue to swing --oral/print/visual, and communicators will need to use all mediums.
As for me? I'm going to read more books in 2008!