By Alex Distefano
By Scott Snowden
By Anna Merlan
By Steve Almond
By Jena Ardell
By Jon Campbell
By Alan Scherstuhl
By Tessa Stuart
I'm amazed you're reading thisor reading anything at all.
"For the first time in modern history, less than half the adult population now reads literature . . . [amid] our society's massive shift toward electronic media for entertainment and information," thundered NEA chairman Dana Gioia earlier this summer. "Greater understanding of human motivation and behavior, for instance, can be gleaned from a multi-dimensional novel than from the fleeting images on a video screen. The indictment to be made against the Internet as a disturber of reading in America is considerable."
Terribly sorryI've mixed up my notes. Only the first sentence was written by Gioia. The second appeared in a New York Timespiece inveighing against television . . . in 1959. And the third? Replace "Internet" with "motor" and "America" with "England," and you'll find that sentence in a 1909 newspaper article titled "Motor Enemy of Reading." Automobiles, it seems, were lobotomizing our friends from across the pond.
"Reading at Risk," proclaimed the cover of the NEA's curiously familiar-sounding call to arms issued in July. For a man appointed by a president whose last known act of reading was "The Pet Goat," Gioia sure is upset at everyone else's literary laziness. Wielding a "comprehensive survey . . . based on an enormous sample size," Gioia found that "literary reading in America is not only declining rapidly among all groups, but the rate of decline has accelerated, especially among the young.
"The concerned citizen in search of good news about American literary culture," he concludes, "will study the pages of this report in vain." The figures certainly look dire. The percentage of American adults reading literature has declined from 56.9 percent in 1982 to 54 percent in 1992 and 46.7 percent in 2002. But now (ahem) read the wording of the question: "The survey asked respondents if, during the previous twelve months, they had read any novels, short stories, plays, or poetry in their leisure time (not for work or school)." It will come as news to historians and memoirists, working in the two most vibrantly evolving genres of the last decade, that what they create does not constitute "reading." Nor, for that matter, do essays or graphic narratives.
See, Bergdorf Blondes is literature; Persepolisis not.
The question's wording also rules out any students who may already be reading for their classes, and for that reason are not engaged in leisure reading. Fancy that: You can be an English major and still be a nonreader. And then, when you're done working on your term paper, you can relax in the campus coffeehouse Not-Reading newspapers and magazines, and fire up your laptop to Not-Read the blogs and the latest wire reports.
Maybe Reading at Risk should really have been called Reading Several Genres Favored in a Certain Historical Period at Risk. Still, might the NEA's focus on these more allegedly artsy forms of reading be due to their social significance? Literaryreaders, we are primly informed by the NEA, are more likely than nonreaders to be involved in charity work. Whether this constitutes a meaningful and causalcorrelation, alas, is less obvious. A set of statistics buried in Reading at Risk shows "literary reading" rising hand in hand with income levels and education. Might we wonder whether people with the time and education to read novels might be better situated to provide charity in the first place?
Why yes, we might wonder. But the NEA did not.
Surprisingly, for a document trumpeting its white-lab-coat credentials, nowhere in Reading at Risk's numbers is its margin of error noted. Nor is an even more serious problem addressed. The NEA's figures were compiled through telephone surveys each decade, which we are informed had a response rate of 70 percent in 2002. Presumably that response rate is for those people who picked up the phone. But much has changed in phone usage since the 1992 survey, including widespread use of voice mail, machine screening, and caller ID, all of which allow sizable numbers of potential respondents to now select themselves out of the pool of respondents without changing the alleged response rate. It may be impossible to compare a 2002 phone survey with those of previous decadesnot because the survey changed, but because the phonesdid.
No matter. While Reading at Risk's moral inspiration is obviously William Bennett, its statistical conclusions are pure Rufus T. Firefly. "At the current rate of loss," the report yells, "literary reading as a leisure activity will virtually disappear in half a century."
Really? To answer this question, let's look for a moment at the photograph of NEA chairman Dana Gioia displayed in the report's introduction. He's a trim-looking fellow: I'd guess about 165 pounds. Now, let's say that Dana's been hitting the maple scones lately, and gained four pounds in the last month. By applying Reading at Risk's statistical model of linear progression, I hereby predict that in 50 years time, NEA chairman Dana Gioia will weigh 2,565 pounds.
And the real cause of this impending obese illiteracy? Well, we all know the answer to that one. "The computer, brighter and better than books," reports the NEA, "which was supposed to lead men and women to the library, merely lures human moths to chat rooms." Dreadfully sorry: my mistake again. I've made hash of a Times article from 1937: Edison's electric lamp, brighter and better than gas, oil, or candles, which was supposed to lead men and women to the library, merely lures human moths to Main Street.