What do you do with Star Trek novels?

[E-DUB]

Now, I can only speak for me here but I don't think that I absorb information as readily from the screen as from the page. There are aspect of the internet that I greatly enjoy, like interactivity, but I'm not giving up on real books.

(Real books you can give to a friend if you don't like them.)

Also stuff on the screen is ephemeral, the printed word is permanent. Those who don't recognize the distinction should go read Orwell.

 

[Therin of Andor]

(Real books you can give to a friend if you don't like them.)

You don't like your friends, so you give them a book?

 

[James Wright]

I could be wrong and probably am but, it could be the books he was referring to not like. Of course if you gave books you didn't like to your friends, you may not have any friends!
(Just a poor attempt at humor.....Sorry!)

 

[Therin of Andor]

I could be wrong and probably am but, it could be the books he was referring to not like.

You missed my

 

[rfmcdpei]

Yet people do read, just because they don't read books doesn't mean that people are reading less. There are magazines, papers, even the internet counts as reading etc etc.

But they're definitely reading less books, which is important. Plus I keep hearing that people are reading less newspapers and magazines, as well. (I certainly am.) While the latter two can be blamed on getting more up-to-the-second news on the Internet, I'm not convinced that an increased Internet presence means that the amount of actual reading is still equal to what it once was.

Actually, people are reading vastly more books than ever before.

In 1957, not even a quarter of Americans were reading a book or novel. By 2005, that number had shot up to 47 percent. I couldn't find a more recent number, but I think it's fair to say that reading probably hasn't declined to the horrific levels of the 1950s.

All this to say: our collective memory of past is astoundingly inaccurate. Not only has the number of people reading not declined precipitously, it's actually gone up since the perceived golden age of American letters.

So, then why is there this widespread perception that we are a fallen literary people? I think, as Marshall Kirkpatrick says, that social media acts as a kind of truth serum. Before, only the literary people had platforms. Now, all the people have platforms. And so we see that not everyone shares our love for Dos Passos. Or any books at all. Or reading in general.

After I posted this chart, Twitter friends made some good points: 1) This chart does not establish that high-quality literature readers have increased. That is true. 2) There are a lot of factors that go into these numbers and variables that are unaccounted for. 3) The big spike is partially driven by higher levels of higher education attainment. 4) Perhaps the quality of books has fallen, even as the number of readers has grown.

Point four comes with an embedded assumption that the books of the past were, on average, better than the ones today. But we tend to judge the past by the very best books (Nabokov!) and the present day by the worst books (Snooki!). The bad ones of yesteryear have gone out of print while the bad ones of today are alive and being sold in supermarkets.

 

[DAYoung]

Actually, people are reading vastly more books than ever before.

The NEA report, cited above, suggests that reading has declined since the 'eighties and 'nineties, i.e. in the period that saw the rise of the internet. Interestingly, the NEA report also claims that "Literary reading declined significantly in a period of rising Internet use." (10)

The NEA report does seem like a broader study, which takes more variables into account.

But perhaps the Gallup study is correct. If so, can you account for the different conclusions of the two reports?

 

[rfmcdpei]

Actually, people are reading vastly more books than ever before.

The NEA report, cited above, suggests that reading has declined since the 'eighties and 'nineties, i.e. in the period that saw the rise of the internet. Interestingly, the NEA report also claims that "Literary reading declined significantly in a period of rising Internet use." (10)

The NEA report does seem like a broader study, which takes more variables into account.

But perhaps the Gallup study is correct. If so, can you account for the different conclusions of the two reports?

I cannot, actually. Point.

 

[DAYoung]

Actually, people are reading vastly more books than ever before.

The NEA report, cited above, suggests that reading has declined since the 'eighties and 'nineties, i.e. in the period that saw the rise of the internet. Interestingly, the NEA report also claims that "Literary reading declined significantly in a period of rising Internet use." (10)

The NEA report does seem like a broader study, which takes more variables into account.

But perhaps the Gallup study is correct. If so, can you account for the different conclusions of the two reports?

I cannot, actually. Point.

I believe the appropriate response to my post is:

 

[Fer]

Seriously though, thanks for sharing the other report, I'm glad to see a positive perspective.

 

[JD]

Has the rise of e-books, e-readers and tablets had any effect on the amount of people who read?

 

[DAYoung]

Has the rise of e-books, e-readers and tablets had any effect on the amount of people who read?

I suspect that ebooks have seen a rise in so-called 'delete fiction' (pulp fiction for e-readers). But I haven't any data on this - yet.

 

[Steve Roby]

Getting back to the original question for a minute... my wife and I have a house and no kids, so what was once a bedroom is now the computer room, a room with four bookcases holding the Star Trek book collection (must be around a thousand books) and the other media SF, including several hundred Doctor Who books.

My wife was already a fan of Star Trek and other SFTV when I met her, but she hasn't read any Trek books yet. Maybe some day. After all, if she can read Splinter Cell, Mass Effect, and Gears of War tie-ins, Trek shouldn't be much of a stretch.