Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Kathleen Parker :: Townhall.com Columnist
America's Death March Toward Illiteracy
by Kathleen Parker
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



People who read books are different from other people. They're smarter for one thing. They're more sensual for another. They like to hold, touch and smell what they read. They like to carry the words around with them -- tote them on vacation, take them on train rides and then, most heavenly of all, to bed.

They're also a dying breed. And newspapers, apparent signatories to a suicide pact, are playing ``Taps.''

The news that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has eliminated its book editor position -- causing much (BEG ITAL)Sturm und Drang(END ITAL) throughout the Southern literary community -- highlights the continuing demotion of books and literature in American culture. While an Internet petition circulates to reinstate Teresa Weaver as book editor, writers are expressing concern that they're losing their best vehicle for recognition.

Soon, who knows? Maybe we'll be burning books in the town square chanting: We don't need no dadgum books. We got Innernet porn 'n' satellite TeeVee! OK, so maybe the end of civilization isn't nigh, but the systematic gutting of culture from newspapers is symptomatic of a broadening illiteracy that bodes ill for the republic.

From a practical standpoint, it also makes no sense. Clue: People who read newspapers are also likely book readers. So why do newspaper editors and publishers think that killing one of the few features that readers might -- big word here -- READ is a smart move in an era of newspaper decline?

Whereas 10 years ago, there were 10 to 12 stand-alone book sections in the country, today there are only five: The Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, The San Diego Union-Tribune and The New York Times. Other large papers, such as the Los Angeles Times, have folded book pages into other sections of the paper.

Ironically, book publishers are partly to blame for the disappearing book sections, as they've cut advertising in print media. Instead, they prefer to spend on front-table book placement in stores that costs as much as $1 per volume and reportedly delivers more bang for the buck.

But where there are no ads, there are no book sections. Where there are no book sections, there are no reviews to send readers to the bookstore where, curiously, there are more books than ever -- 50,000 published annually. Something doesn't quite compute.

Judging from the sheer number of volumes, a visitor to any Barnes & Noble would think that Homo sapiens Americanus has his nose buried in a book most of his waking day. In fact, a 2004 report by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) found that fewer than half of Americans read literature.

Total book reading is also in decline, though not at the rate of literary reading. Between 1992 and 2002, the percentage of American adults who read any book dropped 7 percent, while literary reading (non-work-related reading of novels, short stories, poems or plays) dropped 14 percent, according to the NEA.

Reviews aren't just helpful to readers, but they also offer a higher quality of writing than readers typically find elsewhere in a newspaper. To read a review by the great Southern curmudgeon Florence King, who elevated book reviewing to a literary art form, was to wish the authors subjected to her scrutiny wrote as well.

Book reviews also aren't only about the book. They're about the conversation, the cultural dialogue and the marketplace of ideas. They're part of the human exchange that tells us who we are and that can't be duplicated on a book blog, a television interview or even by a tete-a-tete with Oprah.

Yet, as newspapers have lost advertising revenues and circulation has dipped, corporate owners have cut costs by eliminating the ``nonessential'' parts. First went the cartoonists, then the Sunday magazines and now the book sections -- all parts of the newspaper's soul.

It may be arguable that the soul is not essential to a body's functioning, but it's critical to what makes us human and that once made newspapers vibrant repositories of a community's values.

The loss of yet another book editor and the homogenization (or possible loss) of another review section may not cause the earth to shift on its axis, but it is symbolic of the devaluing of American letters. It is also symptomatic of a corporate culture that cares only about the bottom line and owes no allegiance to the immeasurable value of a community's uniqueness or the profit of an educated populace.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kathleen Parker is a syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Kathleen Parker's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Then vs. Now--Censorship
The 1895 Saline County eighth-grade graduation exam mentioned here seems to induce some sort of "Those were the good old days...." syndrome in large numbers of people who have convinced themselves that public education today has gone to the dogs. A little research enlarges the view somewhat in this case. First, as is pointed out in the Salina [KS] Journal, very few students actually took the test since very few students intended to go on to high school at that time. So the test, as written, was really intended for a select subset of children, and it's therefore probable that only a few eighth-graders of that time could have passed it. Second, the provenance of the test itself is at the very least interesting. The test is posted on the web site of the Smoky Valley Genealogical Society; the test page carries the following description: "The Examination will be oral, and the Penmanship of Applicants will be graded from the manuscripts." Say what? Penmanship will be graded for an oral examination? There aren't any more details available on the test page, so it's not possible to unscramble this discrepancy. Third, a little browsing on the Smoky Valley Genealogical Society's web site takes one to the 1880 Mortality Schedule for Saline County, Kansas. You don't have to be an epidemiologist (although it helps) to notice the extremely high numbers of deaths of children age 5 and under as well as the high overall proportion of deaths due to communicable diseases that are now preventable or treatable. An unabashed liberal such as myself will have no difficulty whatsoever in preferring the modern era, when the chances of my children dying before getting to kindergarten age were virtually nil. Some may think that the 1985 test is an artifact from an America that was somehow better than the one we have now, but I just can't see it that way. I prefer living now, with my children educated fairly responsibly in the local public schools, to living 100 years ago when they could easily have been dead children never educated at all, thank you very much.

Next, it really is a shame that good, decent people like Pamela are treated so shabbily in a discussion forum devoted to a serious topic, a forum in which most contributions are from folks who genuinely enjoy reading and who seem to have little difficulty recognizing that individual tastes will vary quite a lot. Reading is a fundamental part of the well-lived, well-examined life, and we are all fortunate that there are enough choices available that everyone's taste can be satisfied. However, you must all surely be aware that there are far too many people out there who would restrict the choices available to you and/or your children if they could. I haven't actually done it, but it would not be difficult to compare the various lists of favorite works in this discussion with the lists of "most frequently challenged" books maintained by the American Library Association (which, incidentally, also opposes the national ID initiative mentioned frequently on this web site). Year after year, misguided zealots try to prevent or restrict access to "Huckleberry Finn" [alleged racism, alleged pedophilia, coarse language], "Fahrenheit 451" [profanity--you gotta love the irony], "In The Night Kitchen" [predisposes to pornography], "To Kill A Mockingbird" [profanity, racial slurs], "A Wrinkle In Time" [mixed signals about good and evil], "Where's Waldo?" [alleged 'dirty things'], all of "Harry Potter" [promotes witchcraft and sorcery], "Anne Frank: The Diary Of A Young Girl" [sexually explicit], "1984" [communist and sexual content], "Twelfth Night" [promotes homosexuality] and "The Merchant Of Venice" [anti-Semitic stereotype--banned in my hometown of Midland, Michigan in 1980]. Think of your all-time favorite book: it's highly likely that someone, somewhere has tried to have it banned from schools or public libraries, and recently too.

I'll just close with my favorite passage from John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" [also challenged sometimes]: "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." Think about this when you consider the authors and books you love; when you consider speaking out against those on your side of the political spectrum who would silence (or even kill) those on the opposite side; when you consider how critical it is that we find a way to tolerate people like Handy, even when we find him swinish and offensive. Almost all of us are with you, Pamela, so hang in there: "Illegitimi Non Carborundum."

Pamela
Don't rise to Handy's bait. I can tell words mean a lot to you, as a way of building up and edifying others. Handy uses them for a different purpose. But just as the mere existence of rap lyrics doesn't undermine the power of Shakespeare or the Bible, so Handy's methods don't undermine you.

Words will never hurt you, shipmate. Hope you see this and reconsider.

Pamela
Don't leave. Handy is acting like a jerk.

You're right, there are a lot of people running around these days calling themselves conservative, that bear little to no resemblance to them at all.

Handy
You're WAY out of line. Argue the points if you want, but can the bedroom humor and sexist insults.

A last thought on conservative/liberal
It's a shame I must depart this site, but I have realized why it is not for me:

There are too many kinds of conservatives.

It's pretty easy to tell a liberal when you see one: They think Big Government is the answer to everything, and that thoughts and ideas can and should be legislated. They believe in Speech Codes and Hate Crimes. They espouse the idea that Group Membership entitles some to privilege, others to guilt. They like the idea of Collectivism and dismiss notions of individual achievement. My disagreement with these ideas drove me from the liberal camp.

But silly me -- I thought that being a conservative meant certain things too: a belief in less government interference; a belief that individual responsibility trumps Collective Guilt and that individual achievement trumps Collective Privilege; a belief that the truth is more important than how people feel about it, and that self-control and self-awareness mean far more than "self-esteem." If this is an accurate assessment, then I am certainly a conservative.

Guess I was wrong. Others are obviously working with a different definition:
If you like literature, you're a liberal.
If you teach literature, you're a liberal.
If you prefer Austen and Dickens to Rand, you're a liberal.
And if you're a liberal, that means you deserve to have venomous scatalogical smears cast your way.

This definition is utter and complete DOO-DOO, and frankly I don't need it in my life. Sooner or later, you're going to want to stop explaining things to people who refuse to hear you.

One more thing, Handy-man (and I hope you enjoy your hands, and the level to which you've brought this once-enjoyable discussion):
My guy is most decidedly NOT metrosexual. He's getting some lovin' from someone who both admires and respects him -- which is something you are clearly not getting, or you wouldn't be the angry li'l frat boy you are.

Sorry, dude,
but I've got a man I'm engaged to marry, and he's all the man I will ever need. He isn't rich and he doesn't have an estate, but he has something for me that you would never have:

Respect.

It really doesn't do any good to try to reason with you, because you don't know how to frame a reasonable argument. Insult is all you know. Somebody likes something you don't like; insult them. Somebody disagrees with you; insult them. Nineteen-year-old boys may think this sort of thing is a laugh riot, but men know it for what it is -- boorish, classless, frat-boy garbage.

The trouble is that I seem to be the only one who sees this. Everybody else seems to be fine with the stuff you put on this site.

So I guess this site isn't quite the home of well-reasoned debate I was hoping for. It is not the place for me.

Au revoir, and thanks for the memories.

The decline of western civilization
I've had two moments when I felt our civilization was in decline. The first happened at Carnegie Tech in the 1960s when I was playing bridge in the lounge in my dorm with the Jack Benny Show on the TV and another student switched the channel to watch Gomer Pyle -- an instant drop of perhaps 30 IQ points.

The second came when I read Fred Allen's book, "The Road to Oblivion." One chapter of his book had the script to his radio show when Orson Welles was the guest star. The script supposedly gave Fred a chance to play a dramatic part, Inspector Javert to Orson Welles' Jean Valjean in Les Miserables. The joke was that Welles had all the dialog in the "play," and kept assuring Fred how important his character was to the story. It was a funny script, but what impressed me was that the show gave no explanation of Les Miserables. It was taken for granted that Fred Allen's radio audience in the late 1940s would be familiar with the story. I don't think an audience today would be given that much credit.

Dickens and "Individual Responsibility"
I need to clarify a statement from my previous post, namely, the issue of Dickens and the responsibility of the individual. The last post is far from dispassionate, but then, when you find yourself attacked personally, it's awfully hard not to respond in kind. If someone disagrees with me and takes the time and trouble to point out the specific flaws in my argument, rather than simply going ad-hominem, I'll usually respond with dispassion.

Dickens was a social reformer, but we must remember that he was a creature of his time. He would have shunned Socialism and Collectivism as we know them today. He advocated reforming the Poor Laws, but he understood that at the end of the day, society could rise or fall based not on what the government does but on how we, as individuals, treat each other. Each individual has a responsibility to his fellow man -- as Jacob Marley would have it, each is commissioned to "walk abroad among his fellow man." Mankind is our business. The common welfare is our business. Those ideas are hardly in line with the Nihilist philosophy as set forth by Nietsche.

However, they are directly antithetical to the ideas of Ayn Rand, so it's no surprise that a fan of Rand may find Dickens objectionable. I think it's a pretty good idea to teach Rand, not instead of Dickens but in addition to him, so that students can see both philosophies and weigh their respective merits. But there's a problem: practically speaking, it's hard to teach either "Atlas Shrugged" or "Bleak House" in a course, because both are so long that they would take up the majority of a semester by themselves, excluding other literature. Dickens's shorter fiction is easier to teach. If Rand finds her way into the classroom it's likely in the form of the shorter novel "The Fountainhead."

Still, ideally a course on The Novel would find room for both.

As for Austen -- well, issues with her are different. Dickens is a Dead White Male, and most Leftist Indoctrinators are quite happy to paint him in such a light that students might come away despising him, or at least finding him irrelevant. Austen is another matter. Rather than trying to reduce her, the Indoctrinators are trying to co-opt her, to twist her words and her works so that they can convince students she is saying what THEY want her to say -- not what she's actually saying.

I've seen first-hand how the Indoctrinators destroy Austen. A friend of mine once decried Austen as a misandrist. Where did he get this? Not from her actual novels, which offer very admirable heroes who come to the rescue when the heroines are powerless (e.g. Mr. Darcy in Pride and Prejudice, the very aptly named Mr. Knightley in Emma, Colonel Brandon in Sense and Sensibility). However, a feminist professor can take these images of heroic masculinity and twist them and stick the label "patriarchal" on them and claim that rather than trying to help the women they love, these men are trying to control them. Voila! Out comes the idea of Austen as a misandrist. To find the truth, you have to cut through all the bovine excrement and look at the original work, Austen's own words. There, one finds that Austen does not deal in Groupthink. She paints men and women as individuals, and her lively, witty portraits are a large part of why she is still read today (though not, of course, by Handy).

If Handy wishes to disagree with me, fine. But I would appreciate it if he could show me, specifically, where I am wrong in my arguments, rather than commenting on the size of my butt.

But whether one reads Dickens or one reads Rand or one reads both, surely we're all in this together against a common foe: the growing tendency not to read at all.

Pamela
Those are all great children's books. Reading your list brought back a lot of good memories. But, you left out "The Black Stallion" series. I just loved those as a kid.

I myself liked Shakespeare
I didn't think I would, but I took a class on Shakespeare in High School. After you read enough of it, you really have no problem understanding the verbiage he uses. I really started enjoying it.

Well, this WAS a civil discussion...
All I can say, Handy, is THANK GOD I DO NOT KNOW YOU FACE-TO-FACE.

But I suppose I should feel sorry for you, because your hate reveals that you're a victim. You've been brainwashed; you've been handed such a load of bull---- by literature professors that you've come to think literature itself is the Enemy. If you'd read Dickens straight-up, or with the help of Kantor's book, you would know he is anything but a nihilist. What is a nihilist? One who tears down all of civilization's rules without offering anything worth building up in their place. Dickens urges social reform in certain matters, but he offers the most noble thing to build up in their place: INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. You'd know that, if some idiot hadn't twisted your thinking so you'd perceive him as a nihilist. You'd also know that Austen isn't "saccharine" simply because she writes about women and women's concerns.

You've been HAD, my foe. And now you're spewing the lies you've been taught, from the other side. Believe it or not, I hate overly Leftist indoctrinary profs every bit as much as you do -- precisely because they create people like you, so full of anger and hate and resentment that they can't see what's there on the page in front of them.

I'm sure the only female for whom you have anything but contempt is Ayn Rand. Go ahead and hate me; I hate you right back. But sooner or later, all that hatred and anger is going to get old, and you're going to want something more solid, more constructive, to put in its place. Here's hoping you find it.

the beauty of Shakespeare
One of the greatest things about hearing Shakespeare performed, or even just mouthing the words to yourself as you read, is that many of his greatest dialogues are blank verse. His vocabulary, his characterizations, the plot twists, the lessons about life are superb, but the grandeur of the language itself is beyond compare. I feel that it's always useful to keep in mind -- no matter what you're trying to write or speak, even in casual conversation -- the cadences of Shakespeare. It's an inspiration to know that it's possible to express yourself that well because someone actually did it. We owe it to ourselves to use his gift.

Even people who scoff at the Bard as too old-fashioned or difficult, have many of his sentiments and cliches imbedded in their thinking. "All's well that ends well," "My salad days," "The quality of mercy is not strained" -- the list goes on and on. He was that influential.

About those illiterate cities...
You will note that most are heavily populated with Latin American non-English speakers. The cities mentioned are made up of folks who the Mexican government targeted with comic book-style "how to invade America and what do do once you get there" manuals. And, their kids are every bit as illiterate as their parents only in two languages instead of one.

Reading is a left-brain exercise, as is listening to radio. TV and video games are right-brain activities. Left-brainers tend to be conservative, right-brainers tend to be liberal. Is it any wonder that liberals in the education system discourage reading as a pleasurable activity? Think about it. Don't many teachers make reading into some kind of punishment or activity to be avoided?

How do you know that???
Friends and family continually make the mistake of wondering aloud about some obscure matter...I wonder why we call it THAT, I wonder why that is, I wonder how that works. They pose their question in a rhetorical tone, not expecting anybody around to know.

Until I answer them. "How do you know that?" they'll sometimes ask.

The answer? "I read."

I can't picture going through life without learning more about history than what I learned in school, without being able to visit places and times through the author's words and my imagination. It seems to me that not having books in one's life is true poverty.

But it's wrong to discredit all modern literature, as some have here. Harry Potter? These books may not have lofty goals, but there's much to admire about J.K. Rowling's craftsmanship--and a cracking good story is still a cracking good story. It may lack the historical relevance of Homer, but its moral relevance is much the same.

Tolkien was a respected academic (my college copy of "Beowulf" included one of his critical essays), but "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" were just stories. There was no theme, no symbolism, no point to be made about human society. They're nothing but highly imaginative storytelling.

The same is true for Patrick O'Brian's Jack Aubrey novels. They're just sea stories, meant not to illuminate the human condition but to entertain the reader. Nothing wrong with that if it's done well.

The problem with getting kids to read Shakespeare is that Shakespeare is not meant to be read in a book--it's meant to be SPOKEN. Kids who hear the language spoken the way it was meant to be, by actors who really know how to get the most out of Elizabethan English, will never look at Shakespeare the same way again. Try using one of Kenneth Branagh's film adaptations--"Henry V", "Much Ado About Nothing" (especially the byplay between he and Emma Thompson), "Hamlet"--and have them compare what they see on the screen to what they read on the page.

Literal Suicide
Guess what? It's worse than you describe.

Because our young do not read, memories are sub-par. School kids remember nothing not committed to a hip-hop beat.

Why do the post-boomers and younger believe the President alone raises taxes? They've never cracked a Civics book. Why does global warming sentiment burgeon and real scientific analysis get short shrift. It's explained Al, the Hutt, in a slickly produced movie.

And why, oh why, do our young believe pacifism in the face of uncivilized barbarians' threats?
They have never read and understood history.

Newspapers stood idle as the technology world sailed past, did nothing to help themselves or their readers when the dailies adopted a "moral" stance on everything from war to abortion.

They "smarted" themselves into extinction. The dinosaurs, at least, could lay the blame on natural cataclysm. The news folks have no such excuse. This is reminiscent of the oil patch guys in the sixties.

The choice has ever been "adapt or die." Newspapers made the wrong choice.

Great books for children
Hey, JimmyCarter! Hadn't gotten to C.S. Lewis yet; he's 20th century and I stopped with the 19th. But certainly the "Narnia" books belong on anyone's list, as does "Till We Have Faces" (a book with a very strong female protagonist, proof positive that Lewis COULD and DID create those), and "The Weight of Glory" and "Mere Christianity" and "The Abolition of Man."

Anyway, speaking of C.S., he provides my kickoff for the Children's Books list. It's no surprise to me that many adult readers go back and revisit the classics of their childhood, and even explore more recent children's literature. Lewis (and I'm paraphrasing him) once said that when he was a child, he read fairy tales in secret, but when he became a man, he "put away childish things" -- and he read them openly.

Children's Lit isn't all roses and pretty ponies. (The good stuff isn't, anyway.) It can be violent; it can be frightening; it can be tragic. But like the best of the grownup classics, it deals with ideas and questions that matter. And it's FUN, in ways that more recent books for adults simply aren't. Since children are our best hope for seeing reading continue into future generations, it behooves us to give our youngsters a look at the Good Stuff. I do mean the GOOD Stuff, not the Safe Stuff. "A good book," as Katherine Paterson said in a recent Christianity Today interview, "is never safe."

Part I. Adventure Ahead!
Young readers (particularly young male readers) love action. And as a young girl reader, I loved books that could take me far out of the here-and-now and show me exotic landscapes. So my Number One choice for Adventure Reading is...
"The Jungle Books" by Rudyard Kipling. (Politically correct they may not be; breathtaking they certainly are.)
Not far behind:
2. "Treasure Island"
3. "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" (a must-read for any age)
4. Adams' "Watership Down" (don't turn your nose up because it has animal protagonists; it has plenty of action and tough heroes worth rooting for)
5. Tolkien's "The Hobbit"
6. Lewis's "The Chronicles of Narnia"
7. The works of George MacDonald (especially "At the Back of the North Wind")
8. T.H. White, "The Once and Future King"
9. Edith Hamilton, "Mythology"
10. Bulfinch, "Mythology"
11. Graves, "The Greek Myths" (this'll get 'em ready for "The Iliad")
12. Hawthorne, "A Wonder Book" and "Tanglewood Tales" (another presentation of Greek myths, for younger readers)

Part II. Good Books with Female Protagonists and/or Memorable Heroines.
Teachers seem eager to give kids books with female protagonists these days -- so why not give 'em some that are actually GOOD? Here are a few that spring to mind:
1. The works of Madeleine L'Engle. Meg Murry, Vicky Austin, and Polly O'Keefe are bright, strong, noble young ladies worth getting to know, and their stories (esp. "A Wrinkle in Time") include a good bit of action. Also good: L'Engle's fiction features in-tact, functional families, while most children's lit is populated by orphans (there are reasons for this, but it's good to see an exception once in a while).
2. Carroll, "Alice in Wonderland." Lest I forget the obvious.
3. Alcott, "Little Women." Don't believe its reputation; read it for yourselves.
4. Burnett, "A Little Princess" and "The Secret Garden." Especially the latter -- a beautiful book.
5. Baum, "The Wizard of Oz."
6. Paterson, "The Great Gilly Hopkins." (Paterson's most famous work is, of course, "Bridge to Terabithia"; while its protagonist is a boy, it does feature a very memorable heroine in Leslie Burke.)
7. Montgomery, "Anne of Green Gables" et seq. and "Emily of New Moon" et seq.
8. Lee, "To Kill a Mockingbird." (Though Homer Simpson would disagree; after all, it offers no useful advice on killing mockingbirds)
9. Rowling, "Harry Potter" et seq. -- yes, the protagonist is a boy, but Hermione Granger rocks.
10. Lewis's Lucy Pevensie is also a smart, imaginative heroine. Of the girls and women who populate the Narnia novels, she's absolutely my favorite.
11. E.B. White, "Charlotte's Web." Again, Wilbur the pig is the protagonist, but the beautiful, literate Charlotte the spider is the character that stays with you.

Also worth reading: Grahame's "The Wind in the Willows"; Juster's "The Phantom Tollbooth"; Hoban's "The Mouse and His Child."

I know I'm forgetting something, but I have to close now. It's been nice discussing with you. What a delight to participate in a thread where the posters haven't been hurling insults! (I apologize for my own insult earlier, Handy; I didn't realize you were being satirical -- I thought you really meant Austen was crap. Sorry. My bad.)

not just in public schools
By the way- the private schools also assign rotten stuff. My kids did study many classics, which is good, but at least half of their assigned reading included junk.

Books on the decline
The problem, partly, is that writing is on the decline. I have read some of the books assigned to my kids over the past ten years in high school and they range from the mediocre to the truly awful. Some of the books were assigned purely for shock value- there can be no other explanation for their inclusion on the list.
For the past twenty years, our schools haven't presented students with good literature- and that is why no one reads any more, they think all literature bad. The exception, in my mind , is in the area of history. There are some fine history books being written now.

Vocabulary
Kids love the sound of words, even if they don't know what those words mean. Kipling's "Just So Stories" are ideal for reading aloud because of the richness of the language. My younger boy still likes to say "There was a Parsee from whose hat the rays of the sun were reflected with more than Oriental Splendour." He also liked "the great gray-green greasy Limpopo River." I read all the "Just So Stories" aloud to them until they could read for themselves. In fact, asking the older kid to read to the younger before the younger one could read was helpful to them both; it let the older brother show off a little and it inspired the younger to copy his brother. When I joined the reading program at schools in Atlanta, they let us bring our own books, and I read "How The Camel Got His Hump" to the kids; they loved the chance that Kipling gives frequently to join in as I said "And the Camel said..." and they all said "HUUMPH!" and laughed. There's a good moral to that story too; the camel was punished by the Djinn because he would not work like the other animals did.

Daddy read to us, but he was more like Peter Falk in "The Princess Bride" -- the stories were never exactly the same when he read them again. And they were never as interesting when we read them for ourselves. (I heard one of my brothers in law reading to his daughter from a book she thought was called "The Wicked Old Witch And The Ayatullah Khomeni.")

Finally, when you read Shakespeare to or with a group of kids, point out all the 'dirty jokes' and smartaleck remarks in the stories. Explain to them what is meant when Mercutio is asked "Do you bite your thumbs at us?" and replies "Nooooo...but I do bite my thumbs!" The kids don't realize that these were teenagers and that whole scene is two gangs nyahh-nyahh ing at each other. (My kids liked this repartee from "Taming of the Shrew": "Everyone knows where a wasp doth carry his sting -- in his tail!" "Nay, in his tongue!" "Let him who moved you hither remove you hence!" "What, with my tongue in your tail? Kate! I am a gentleman!") The mistake teachers make is in telling the kids that this is oatmeal when in fact it's banana cream pie.

Good list Prof. Pamela..
...but no C.S.Lewis?

By the way, when's the test?

To: jdw
My daughter now has my copy of Kipling's complete verse with her at college. Well dog-eared, I might mention. "Cold Iron" is one of her favorite poems.
So, too, is "The Settler", which she regards as definitive disproof of the frequently-heard complaint that Kipling was a warmonger.

"Here, in the waves and the troughs of the plains,
Where the healing stillness lies,
And the vast, benignant sky restrains
And the long days make wise—
Bless to our use the rain and the sun
And the blind seed in its bed,
That we may repair the wrong that was done
To the living and the dead!"

Great list, Pam
There are several on the list I don't recall reading, but most were actually assigned reading by English and Literature teachers. I would add Edgar Allan Poe and Robbie Burns, two of my favorites.

For the children's list, I recommend the Nancy Drew series for girls, all of Edgar Rice Burroughs and Robert Lewis Stevenson for the boys, although these may be challenging to younger children nowadays.

Another side note; The Grampa of one of my best grade school buddies, in his seventies at the time, could recite word for word "Rhyme of Ancient Mariner," a very long poem that had to be memorized before passing the 8th grade in his time. We were always amazed.

Try and get a kid to sit still for that one.

Reading is no longer fundamental
A 20 years ago, while attending my 20th high school class reunion, I toured the school's library, a place I'd spent so many enjoyable hours. I started pulling books from the selves that I remembered reading (I used to read 1-2 books per week) and found that most of them hadn't been checked out since the 60's and my name was the last listed. Some of them, I was the ONLY person to ever check them out, meaning the librarian, Mrs. Elliot, who read every single book she added to the stacks, and myself, were the only people who ever read that book.

Pathetic, and what a waste. This year is my 40th reunion and if I get a chance to go back, how much can I wager that those books are still there, dusty and undisturbed since the last time I pulled it out of the shelf? In addition to most of the classics, this included all of the best sellers of the era. No light airy tomes, either. I was a serious reader.

Funny story about Mrs. Elliot. At age 9, my reading and comprehension tested at 12.4 grade level, so by this time I was reading books out of the adult section. This wonderful old lady noticed me among the "big" books one day and fetched me back to the childrens section, informing me I was out of my area.

I protested that I had already read all of the kiddie books so she started pulling books at random to see if I had, in fact checked them out. After a dozen or so, all with my name in them, she held one out to me. "Aha!" she exclaimed, "You didn't read this one!"

"Nah, that one looked dumb, only for babies," I told her. With that (damn smartalecky kid) she escorted me back into the adult stacks, grabbed a thick book at random, thrust is at me and ordered me to read it out loud, which I did without hesitation.

"That's pretty good," she admitted. "Oh, I read this one already," was my response and opened the inside cover to show her where she had checked it out to me. We had a good laugh together and she promised to start looking up from her desk to see who she was signing books out to after that.

Throughout the rest of my school years, Mrs. Elliot made me one of her "pets" and whenever she'd get an especially good book in for the library, she'd recommend it to me, after she had enjoyed it, of course.

I wonder what librarians do now days, other than making sure the perverts have a connection for their porn.

P.S.
I am very pleased to see that this article has as many discussion-responses as it does. It's a sign that people do care about this issue.

Only, we mustn't be defeatist! We can, and will, do something about this problem.

(Next up -- a little later anyway: Great Reading for Children. And yes, I too love Harry Potter. And I'm not ashamed of it, either.)

For Melissa55 and others
who didn't go to college (and for plenty who did), here is your indispensable resource to literature:

Dr. Elizabeth Kantor, "The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature."

This book offers a guide for those wishing to educate THEMSELVES in literature, whether because they want to deprogram themselves after indoctrination into a Western-Culture-and-Dead-White-Males-are-Evil ideology, or because, like Melissa55 and others, they were not able to go to college but they recognize the importance of literature to the development of the human mind and soul.

But to be honest, everybody should read this book. Sometimes Kantor gets it wrong (she misinterprets Mary Wollstonecraft, for instance; Wollstonecraft is actually quite conservative by today's standards, especially if you compare her with contemporary feminists), but she offers a useful list not only of what you should read, but why you should read it.

Just for the record, here is MY short-list of literature no one should miss:
Homer, The Iliad. (trans. Robert Fagles)
Homer, The Odyssey. (trans. Robert Fagles)
Sophocles, Oedipus the King. (ditto)
Ovid, The Metamorphoses.
Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales.
Shakespeare, Othello.
Shakespeare, Hamlet.
Shakespeare, King Lear.
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night.
Shakespeare, As You Like it.
Poems and Meditations by John Donne.
Pope, The Rape of the Lock.
Swift, A Modest Proposal.
Austen, Pride and Prejudice.
Austen, Persuasion.
Wordsworth, "Lines Composed a Few Miles Above Tintern Abbey"
Wordsworth, "Ode on Intimations of Immortality"
Coleridge, "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner"
Coleridge, "Dejection: An Ode"
Keats, "Ode on a Grecian Urn," "Ode to a Nightingale"
Shelley, Frankenstein.
Dickens, David Copperfield.
Dickens, Bleak House.
Dickens, A Christmas Carol. (Darn it, at least people ought to know which film adaptations are the most faithful to the source.)
Dickens, Our Mutual Friend. (My personal favorite.)
Bronte, Jane Eyre. (Another personal favorite.)
Eliot, The Mill on the Floss.
Eliot, Middlemarch.
(Skip Silas Marner.)
Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest (for the sheer beauty/elegance of the wordplay).

Okay, that about takes care of material up to the nineteenth century. Naturally I've left things off, but every person's list is different.

Bottom line: I don't see ANYONE becoming a "non-reader" as a result of his experience with "The Iliad" or "Ode to a Nightingale."

Learn from example
Bush never mastered the English language and is proud of his 'C' average as a student so kids figure why bother to learn when they see where that doofus ended up.

boredom...
My son, who is now studying creative writing at the University of California at Santa Barbara, had a very similar experience with literature in High School.

By the time the teachers and administrators got finished being both diverse and inclusive in their selections for literature you found that you had a syllabus chock full of indifferent prose selected on the basis of authors' ethnicity, locality, race and ideology with little, if any, attention paid to whether any of these politically correct literary lights could actually write.

I know that at the time he asked me to read a story about a young girl whose mother had divorced and who felt alienated from her dad. The prose, aside from the topic, was terrible so I chased up whatever I could about this authoress on the web and discovered that her whole oeuvre of prose consisted of a set of stories about only this topic and that she liked writing about this situation because she felt that it helped her to come to terms with her own mother's divorce and its impact on her growing up.

Public educators seem incapable of getting a grip on the idea that talent in writing and literature is a rare phenomena and should be found and treasured whenever it happens regardless of where it comes from.

I've said this before
But I still find it a worthy example:

My eldest brother was a voracious reader, as was my sister and I. My 2nd eldest brother might read a book... if you put a gun to his head.

The difference? My 2nd eldest brother went to school when they introduced the "word-unit" method of reading. He couldn't read any words he didn't already know, and reading was a painful chore for him. He finally became more literate when our mother (a renaissance woman who's anti-feminist) sat him down and taught him to read as she did with the rest of us.

When I was in 2nd grade (1970, I believe), I'd moved to a new school. They had a reading period, where a group of students would sit with the teacher and read their current book. I wasn't prepared (had just moved in) and the night before I grabbed a book off my brother's bookshelf, checked to see that I could read it, and took it to class.

I began reading the first page, when Ms Mertz interrupted me and asked a question I cannot answer to this day. "What does that page mean?"
A page doesn't MEAN anything, it's paper with ink on it. Had she asked, "What's happening on that page?" I could have answered that a chauffeur was waiting for his boss and he didn't like his boss much. She chastized me and humiliated me in front of the rest of the kids, saying that I should stick to books appropriate for me.
The name of the book? Aldous Huxley's "After Many a Summer Dies the Swan."

For the next year I wouldn't read anything but Dr. Seuss (publicly) and "The Lion's Paw." Finally, the librarian, an old, retired teacher herself (a Mrs and not a Ms!), saw me being belittled by a couple of sixth-graders for reading Dr. Seuss, took down from the top shelf one of the reference books for the teachers, opened it, and ordered me to read. Preparing for more humiliation, I did as I was told, only to look up to see her beaming proudly at me, and turning to glare at my persecutors. They were the ones who fled, humiliated, and I resumed reading what I liked, even tried writing a little science fiction when I got older.
It still brings anger to my heart to recall this incident, not because of my personal humiliation, but because of the damage this small-minded b1tch did and thousands like her did to otherwise intelligent children who should have been celebrated and promoted. We see the results of their handiworks today. If it weren't for one of those old-fashioned teachers, I might well be as un-literary as my brother.

ZB2,

I'll put "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel" and "Citizen of the Galaxy" up against anything in modern English classes. Another author you'll never see in a modern school is Rudyard Kipling. Which is sad, since a lot of our modern problems are repeats of those he commented upon a century ago. Wee Willie Winkie is my personal hero (in fact I modeled an Everquest character after him.) And "Little Black Sheep" will shed a new light on the nature of bigotry (as you shed a few tears), especially when you learn that it's semi-autobiographical. (Kipling wore glasses as the result of a suicide attempt as a small child, depicted in the story). "The Islanders", "Hyenas", "Cold Iron", "The Hymn of Breaking Strain" and a host of poems and stories children would learn too much from.

"By which sole token, we knew we once were gods..."

I sometimes think
... that public school curricula are designed to bore today's children into not reading.

For example, when my daughter was in 9th-grade English class, she was required to read "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings", by Maya Angelou. Quite apart from the propriety of having adolescents read a book that includes a female child being raped, my daughter and a number of her contemporaries came to the conclusion that Angelou couldn't write decent prose.

Another example--in a unit on science fiction, her English class was required to read an obscure novel entitled "Z for Zechariah", about a dystopian future. I skimmed portions of it. It seems the only reasons it may have been used is that its protagonist was a 16-year-old girl, and the antagonist was a narrow-minded, controlling Christian. With GOOD science fiction such as Robert Heinlein (or H.G. Wells) available, they had to choose this claptrap?

As I said--it sometimes seems the public-school curriculum is designed to create NON-readers. Through sheer boredom.

Encouraging
I seldom read all the posts to thes articles but because of the subject matter here I did. I was encouraged by all of you, not because you all are positive, but I can see that there are many people who truly care about the nature and quality of America's literature.

I have been toying for some time about writing a novel about a significant but often overlooked episode in the war which birthed this nation, but have put it on hold because I am busy. You all have convinced me that we need more literature which speaks to the goodness of America. Therefore I will become unbusy enough to write this book. Please keep reading. Thanks. And hopefully next year you will see my book "The Guns of Ticonderoga" on your lists.

Kathleen gets it wrong?
I ordinarily like Kathleen's writing. In this case, however, I feel that it's likely that she's run off the tracks more than a little.

Here is the NEA report she refers to in her article.

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

The "do you actually have time to read" issue that several commentators here have brought up is touched on in the pdf, viz,

"those who are not in the labor force are 17 percent more likely than others to be frequent readers;"

That says to me that if you have time to read, you read.

As well, as best as I can see the report doesn't differentiate between fiction and non-fiction. Most of the stuff I see moving in bookstores around here is literary Kool Aide. It's little wonder that television and other media offerings offset this sort of "literature". As well, with the increasing availability of tv channels like the Discovery Channel and the History Channel, it's little wonder why, for most people, that you'd see a decline. As I read the report, people aren't sinking into some sort of information appetite vacuum but rather taking advantage of the increased diversity of modes by which they can slake that thirst.

Finally, the really key statistic that I saw in the report is one that perhaps Kathlen missed. That was table 19 on page 22. It talks about the percentage of people who do creative righting. Since 1982 that percentage has stayed in a very narrow band between 7-7.4%.

Sadly, Kathleen for whatever reason seems to have succumbed to a bit of yellow journalism in this article.

Who uses a newspaper anymore?
I disagree with the author that book sections being eliminated from newspapers means book readers are declining. The medium is just changing. I get all my book reviews from amazon.com. Not only do you get the opinions of snooty professional reviewers, but you also hear what regular people think, and you're not limited to whatever books there happens to be room for in a newspaper section.

As soon as I hear about a book, I can instantly read some reviews. Then if I'm interested I can immediately check if it is available at the library. If it's available I can place a hold online, or put it on my Amazon wish list if my library doesn't have it yet.

Also, Amazon recommends books based on my own preferences, not on the preferences of the editor of some liberal newspaper. Yes, newspapers are dying, but reading is not.

I don't grieve for newspapers
I use my newspaper - its free in this little city, under our truck when we change the oil - the thing is useless and a waste of good trees.

As for reading, Kathleen Parker has an elitist view of it. Only literature? Only books? What about all the novels I LISTEN TO when I am doing my needlework, crochet and tatting? What about my hour or so at night with science books, and, only rarely, a novel? What about my 2 hours a day on the computer reading articles, including, today, hers? Hey, does science fiction count in her elitist world view? Fantasy? mystery novels? Harry Potter, while great fun is not a novel I brag about loving! (Which I do!)

By the age of 55,I have read almost all the classics I am ever going to read and I admit that the list of them is rather slim compared to those lucky enough to go to college. But, lets face it, some of the old classics don't inspire a person to read them unless you have the whip of a teacher behind you. Jane Austen is an exception so is Shakespeare but he is better on Video than in a book.

I can't help the generations going to school now and I believe only a teacher-killing disease would fix our education system at this time, not very likely, right? Of the few young people I know I see a complete break-down in education - High school graduates who are lucky they know HOW to read and barely know how to compose a decent sentence.

You have generations of ignorant teachers indoctrinated into hating Western Culture - why read Plato through to the Lord of the Rings when you think Western Culture is a walking hairball - when you think its 'dead white men walking'? You have to LOVE your culture and the ideas of a your culture to love its literature and it's Western culture that produces the most books. What I see is a educational system that disdains its own roots, and, therefore has no solid to stand on. Its not only God they have thrown out of the classroom but all of the history and literature written about and by Religious people in the last 2000 years.

Education doesn't teach kids to learn to read, love reading or how to educate themselves - it barely teaches kids to be HUMAN> but that isn't my fault - it's the fault of liberal teachers who worry more about whether a kid is indoctrinated into liberalism's twisted philosophy by adulthood than whether the child is actually a trained human being who can continue their education once they are out of school and knows the Greats of Western Culture and some of the Greats of the rest of the world so they know where to look once they leave school.

As a woman who could not go to college all I can say is that I have continued studying and reading my entire life and so has my husband. Self- education isn't just books - its all kinds of media and it is a choice. If you love knowledge, love reading, love books than you will have passion for books, knowledge and the rest, if not, well, you will mature into an ignorant person whose last good story was very, very long ago. The end.

CB...
..excellent response to Pamela and especially to roadmaster..that was funny!

Illiteracy and book sections
I'm not sure I find having book sections in newspapers to be a sign of "literacy," so much as a sign of some significant number of people being interested in a special variety of book review. In the hands of a master, a book review can be an art form -- there are some I have prized for years, and even go back and reread for sheer enjoyment. (Someone earlier mentioned the unparalleled Florence King...)

I do have to say that over the last 20 or so years, I've found that the quality of reviews in the book sections of the major newspapers has declined. There's less and less of any pretense at political objectivity, a key prerequisite for LITERARY discrimination. Opinion journals provide a higher overall quality of book reviews today. Newspapers have pretty much lost my business, book sections included.

The robust trade in opinions on books at Amazon's website indicates there are still a lot of people interested in talking or reading ABOUT the books they read. The format is less formal, naturally, and much less professionally exacting.

All that said, of course today's children and young adults haven't been reading, to the extent their elders did, nor do they have to know as much to pass through the wickets of the educational system.

As Pamela points out, the way to make readers is to READ TO your children -- and teach them to read. (My amazing mother taught all five of her children to read before we went to kindergarten, and later taught a generation of four- and five-year-olds to read when she was a teacher in a daycare center. Her secret, three words: Sound It Out. AKA, "Phonics.")

Reading is a highly rewarding activity that people will choose -- even over video entertainment -- if they have been familiarized with it, and shown that there is, indeed, no frigate like a book, to take us lands away. Harry Potter works for some. For one of my nephews, it was the urgent desire to read the instruction booklets for his father's electronic gadgets. Once he figured out the magic of material mastery through the written word, there was no stopping him.

For parents who aren't sure what their kids will get out of being read to, consider this: of all the things I remember about my father, and what we did together when I was a kid, nothing is as memorable as his reading to me in the evenings: Lassie, the "dog books" of Albert Payson Terhune, The Swiss Family Robinson, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.

Great Posts

Amelia- good point

Pamela- now I feel guilty. I'll do better.

roadmaster

roadmaster writes:

> An 8th grade diploma today is useless, other than to bestow
> unearned and undeserved self-esteem to graduates, who are so
> dumb, they don't even know what they don't know. I maintain
> the same can be said of HS or university degrees. Ask any of
> them about Martin Luther or Luther Burbank and I will wager
> you'll get a blank stare.


I've always thought Martin Luther was cool for nailing 95 feces
to the church door in Wittenberg. You hardly ever hear of a man
of the cloth doing anything that radical anymore.


-CB-


Deliberate Disempowerment of America
The Left is determined to tear down America, whatever the cost. They are like termites, eating the wooden ship they are floating on, seemingly so obsessed that they don't realize that they are going down with the ship.

Besides ensuring that we have generation after generation of illiterate kids who grow up to be ignorant, easily manipulated adults, they are also making sure that we are going to have a defecit of manly men to lead our country.

I have written a new post about this called " Making a Nation of Wussies: the Emasculation of American Boys."

Our nation's survival depends on us having strong, intelligent, well educated leaders.

Drop by my Blog and comment!!!

Re: Choosing Literacy: Do It For The Kid

Pamela writes:

> Parents, kids are the reason you SHOULD read, not the reason
> you can't.

Well said. Like you, I was lucky to have literate parents who
read because it gave them pleasure -- and who understood that
my seeing them read made ME want to read, too. Consequently,
I started reading at the age of four.


> If you're creative, you can find ways to read, even when your
> child is very little.

I A friend of mine claimed not to be able to read because he had
a kid. That didn't compute with me. When I was little, my father
would sometimes say, "Don't bug Daddy. He's reading now." It
didn't make me feel neglected or warp me for life. The idea that
there were certain times when other people should be left alone,
and that when they were reading was one of them, was just another
part of my socialization.


> When the child is playing by herself, read.

"Herself?" Why do you posit a girl, specifically?

I'll confess to being deliberately obtuse. You seem to be doing
what a lot of people do nowadays (most of them liberals): alter-
nating the gender of your pronouns or maybe even pointedly giving
preference to feminine pronouns. This is a pet peeve of mine.

As we dedicated readers know, however, the oppressive, patriarchal
MASCULINE gender is the default in English and is properly used as
the generic pronoun, as well as when the sex of the person in question
is either unknown or irrelevant. That's just the way it is


> Let the child see, through your own actions, that reading is
> NORMAL, that it's just "something people do" [...]

Not knowing that can cause problems later in life, above and
beyond not reading oneself. I once had a housemate who wasn't
a reader, and who was never taught the concept that people do in
fact read, and that he'd have to resign himself to that.

My reading cause a certain amount of friction with him because he
felt it was rude for me to do it in his presence in the common areas
of the house, and that I should be talking to him when we were both
at home. I had to explain to him that while that was true before
we shared a home, I LIVED there now, and so the rules were a bit
different.


> Take the time and trouble to buy your kids books, and to educate
> yourselves about those books before you put them in your kids'
> hands. If something in those books is objectionable, don't expect
> the government to "clean them up" for you; instead, be your chil-
> dren's own censor until they develop the keen understanding to make
> decisions for themselves.

This is something I just don't get. The parents who believe in
controlling what their kids read or see on TV, it seems to me,
are the same crowd who object to laws which make it possible for
teenage girls to get abortions without parental notification on
the basis that parents and children should communicate.

Well, if communication is the key, then by the same token, why not
take a _laissez-faire_ approach and let a kid read or watch whatever
his curiosity leads him to, and encourage him to communicate with you
if he runs across something that he finds disturbing? And otherwise,
leave him to his own devices?


> No more excuses. Just read.

Hear, hear!



-CB-


R. A. Sheppard
I know I'm awfully busy with a job that requires reading journals and books to remain up-to-date, a family and home. It is much harder to find time to read a book of leisure. I read constantly when I was single, etc. now I seem to need sleep.

Roadmaster
Point well made. I just flunked 8th grade.

Excellent posts
Pamela and especially QParker's.

I know for a fact that the school that I graduated from in the 60's has declined in the quality of it's graduates. They certainly couldn't pass the English and History courses I had to work hard at in those days. Today's professors and teachers were the D students in my time, who elected to seek education degrees which by the 70's, had been diminished to a position lower that the perennial refuge for boneheads and jocks, the PE major.

After gaining a teaching certificate, these underachievers then passed their mediocrity on to their students, who then became the next generation of even dumber educators. Ignorance only produces more ignorance; laziness has created the illiterate dolts who cancel out your ballot.

Everyone no doubt has seen this 1895 8th grade final exam from Salinas, KS:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a385e7b435ce6.htm

Many college students may have passed this test in the 60's but I doubt very few professors could pass it today. Schools in the 1800's were primarily taught by young women who had passed the 8th grade, thereby qualifying them to be teachers with higher academic standards than today's college graduates have to meet by 8 or 10 more years of so-called education.

An 8th grade diploma today is useless, other than to bestow unearned and undeserved self-esteem to graduates, who are so dumb, they don't even know what they don't know. I maintain the same can be said of HS or university degrees. Ask any of them about Martin Luther or Luther Burbank and I will wager you'll get a blank stare.

They'll know who Lex Luther is, though.

Silas Marner--Yikes!
I remember teaching Silas Marner to 9th grade students many moons ago--about 1968. What drudgery! Shortly thereafter I transferred to another school and continued teaching 7th and 8th grade English for 19 additional years. (I never read poor Silas again.) Instead, I used "The Hobbit" (many students went on to read the Lord of the Rings trilogy), "Animal Farm," "Tom Sawyer," "Anne Frank," "Night" by Elie Weisel, "The Pearl" by (oh no!) Steinbeck, "Shane," "The Black Arrow," "Johnny Tremaine," "White Fang," and Greek mythology. Sometimes I showed the film version at the end of the unit of study. My students agreed the books were better than the films.

Tech effects
Technology affected even "classic" literature. It's very likely that the Bible attained popularity because its opaque writing and wordiness could be condensed and refined into epigrams, parables and sermons presented to the subliterate masses by professionals -- priests, monks, nuns and so on. Reading, nor literacy for that matter, were inaccessible to the masses until that most treasured of all technological breakthroughs, Gutenberg's printing press with moveable type.

It's likely that Shakespeare chose drama as his medium for the same reasons preachers used the Bible. The stage can get a message to urban multitudes who can't afford books.

The transition from teh verbose Henry James to the terse Ernest Hemingway is attributable in part to the fact that James gave wordy dictation to a secretary and let her figure out the punctuation. Hemingway struggled himself with a creaky, manual typewriter. He had a strong incentive to be succinct.

We mustn't get too flustered by electronic media, nor by the avalanche of dreck; nor suppose that the classic writers are all dead and that only junior varsity thinkers are extant today. Ignorant people have always been the norm -- preferring superstition to fact, sensation to thought, etc. The key thing to keep in mind is that elitism is not always bad. Some people value the intellect more than others, always have and always will.

another great Potter benefit:
The big words!(No care taken to only use age-grade-level-appropriate watered down and excessivly defined vocabulary. Kids glory in those big unfamiliar words, and pick up the meanings through context. What a concept!) The British grammar! (No tortuous PC gender-neutrality.) The unfamiliar, even subversive ideas! (Imagine the stupid, conventional Dursleys living right next door, the idiot bureaucrats in charge of levying your county's taxes. We all know them, but dare we admit their foolishness?)

The bad guys are horrifyingly bad, the good guys are inspiringly, shiningly good, and as a previous poster pointed out, some are hard to pin down, just like real life.

There's a lot to like about Harry Potter, and it shouldn't take a nine-year-old to point that out to us.

I am reading
Henry James' "Portrait of a Lady". Reading it is a reminder that words written and spoken were once elaborate, rich, grammatically correct.

Keep reading
In my youth (a long, long, time ago) I can remember fantasizing about floating down the river with Tom and Huck.

The problem with reading for most people today is that it takes a little effort to "imagine" as opposed to being instantly entertained by video games without expending any mental effort.

I don't read as much as I used to but when I do I find myself staying up way to late rather than put the book down.

A study I saw several years ago associated reading with keeping mental abilities into old age. The curve showed a comparison of the abilities of those who didn't read throug those who read a little to those who read frequently. If the study still holds true I forsee a couple of upcomming generations of blithering idiots when they reach their golden years.

reading junk
Some sniff in contempt, some are horror-struck, at what they consider junk reading. How sad that kids prefer Harry Potter to Silas Marner or David Copperfield, they mourn.

These elitists haven't seen the grin of triumph on a nine-year-old's face, when he holds up his borrowed, dogeared copy of the first Harry Potter book, hundreds of pages long, and brags, "I finished it! What a great book!" He's moved from the sludgy drudgery of reading textbooks to the gripping excitement of a book he can't wait to finish, so he can go on to the next. That fourth-grader is going to be a lot likelier to open another book than one forced to keep his eyes open through some distant 19th century melodrama, no matter how well-written.

I grew up reading constantly, and much of it was trash, like Nancy Drew. But when I did get to Dickens, Shakespeare, and Rand, I was ready for them. By then, the mechanics of reading were already effortless, and I could spare the mental machinery to think about the message, rather than struggling with the medium.

First you get his attention. (Magic!) Then you get him hooked. (Exciting plot!) Then, and only then, really, will reading become so second-nature that 'good' literature is accessible and enjoyable.

Besides- lovely as whole-grain bread and organic beansprouts may be, sometimes a dollop of literary chocolate ice cream is a great treat.


Quote
"A man that can read great books and doesn't has no advantage over the man that cannot read at all." - Mark Twain

This sounds a lot like
the unrequited pleas of parents for continuing art classes and marching bands as the budgets for these items were cut from our schools.

The print media is dying. Partially from the effects of technology, but more and more because they no longer have the credibility they once did. Their leftward bias is so blatant, and the sources of more reliable information so ubiquitous, that their very survival is seriously in question.

I note the conservative broadsheets don't seem to be suffering these problems. Perhaps the successful strategy would be to petition the WSJ to add a book review section.

Steinbeck Rocks!
Am very surprised at this column. I'm in two book clubs. And all my friends read. Many are also in multiple book clubs. Because I have a big say in the boooks we choose, we choose lots of literature, lots of classics. Only occasionally venturing into Pop culture books. (when people beg for a brain rest)

Borders and Barnes are surprisingly hopping places on a Saturday night. And consider the explosion of Amazon. Started as an online bookstore. Can the Stats Kathleen Parker mentions be right? I'm sure they are, but then what are people doing with all the books?

And Handy? Steinbeck Rocks. As for Rand, she's an excellent writer, her books are gripping. But then again, how many sermons on Objectivism do we need?

SOCIALISM & LITERACY ARE INCOMPATIBLE

Those pondering the origins of the fall in literacy rates of the American public need to start with the obscene partnership existing between the nations Colleges of Education and the Democratic Party. Over the last 40 years reading curriculum and teaching methods have been the subjects of endless tinkering by teacher educators. Concomitantly, reading levels of American students have spiraled downwards. The continual geometric drop in reading ability seems to suggest that if something was done reasonably well in 1960, and is a disaster in 2007, there must be an overriding design. The faculties of today’s Colleges of Education appear to be but an extension of the DNC. Given the need for the Democratic Parties agenda to be advanced by slogan’s and childlike emotional appeals could it be the extinction of literate, critically thinking voters is anything but planned.

Pamela
Great post. BTW, the difference between Bradbury and Moore is that Ray was an amazing storyteller(my favorite is Something Wicked This Way Comes), but Moore couldn't tell me how to cross the street.

Reading is easy, but TV is easier
I have always been an avid reader but my pace picked up tremendously when my wife convinced me to turn off the TV. I have much more time for reading now and when I turn on the TV it goes off in about ten minutes. My wife by the way read almost seventy books last year.

Reading is harder than TV and requires more thouht. TV connects directly with the emotions while reading and radio (IMHO) appeal the the analytical side of the brain.

The problem I have with much of today's 'literature' is that its depressing and effiminate. Masculine virtue is seldom portrayed. Therefore I am more inclined to read history, science, and philosoply.


Choosing Literacy: Do It For The Kids
Ladies and gents, here is the silver lining: we can all be part of the solution to the problem that Parker writes about. The first step is to STOP MAKING EXCUSES, AND READ!

The worst excuse of all is, "My kids keep me too busy." That's a fine excuse if you want to raise another generation of deliberate illiterates, but a really lousy one if you want your kids to grow up reading -- and thus, to grow up imaginative and understanding. Kids pay attention to what their parents do, and if parents pay only lip service to the idea that "reading is important" but the kids never actually see them crack a book, how much attention are those kids going to pay to the lip service?

(Answer: none at all.)

Parents, kids are the reason you SHOULD read, not the reason you can't. If you're creative, you can find ways to read, even when your child is very little. When the child is playing by herself, read. When the child is napping, read. When the temptation is strong to watch television, read. And at night, before the child goes to bed, read the child a bedtime story. Let the child see, through your own actions, that reading is NORMAL, that it's just "something people do" and therefore it's natural that the child should do it, too. (That's what my parents did with me -- and FOR me. It's one of many blessings I have to thank them for.)

When the child gets older, Family Night can be Reading Night rather than TV Night, at least some of the time. I'm not one of those "get rid of television altogether" people, since I love classic movies, but the child can learn through this that TV is not the ONLY way of absorbing a story, nor is it the BEST way of absorbing a story. My parents exercised the Moderation Principle when it came to television. They even laid down rules: if we wanted to watch, we were expected to read as well. As a result, television ended up helping me more than hindering me, e.g. I read "How Green Was My Valley" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" on my own (not as assignments) because I saw the movies first, and the movies made me curious. My experience with books had shown me that the novels were bound to offer MORE of the stories I was curious about.

Take the time and trouble to buy your kids books, and to educate yourselves about those books before you put them in your kids' hands. If something in those books is objectionable, don't expect the government to "clean them up" for you; instead, be your children's own censor until they develop the keen understanding to make decisions for themselves.

In the meantime, keep reading for pleasure, and let the kids see you do it. This way, no matter how many deliberate illiterates they encounter at school, they will still perceive reading as a normal activity, as just something people do.

And you'll be a lot richer and more rewarded in the Life of the Mind, too.

Mark Twain famously said that the man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them. When we discover for ourselves how right he was, we can help our young people discover it, too.

No more excuses. Just read.

Blame the other NEA
Ever since the day the education establishment decided that it was more important to protect a child's self-esteem from the humiliation of failure than it was to actually reqire them to learn, the prospect of widespread academic accomplishment has plummeted. Unfortunately, that prospect has been realized in society as a whole. It seems as if the only book most HS grads read nowdays is the phone book and many of them can't do that very well.

Pamela---
Love your post.

Great lit

Take it easy, Pamela. I think Handy was joking about Dickens, Austen and Steinbeck. I always enjoy your comments, so I'm looking forward to further thoughts on Ms. Parker's column after you relax a bit.

AudiR10, you provide good examples about how literature becomes an essential part of the way you view the "real" world. With luck, it can become part of your soul. I too, "learned how to live" from reading. I wouldn't be the same person without Shakespeare, Thoreau, Twain, Kerouac and Tom Wolfe. Learning the essentials of human nature, especially from Shakespeare and the ancient Greek dramatists, made me realize, "There is nothing new under the sun; vanitas, vanitatem." (From the Bible, which I find unreadable because of the archaic language and some of the preposterous claims of veracity. Fortunately it's quoted enough to get the gist of its high points.)

Another good effect from extensive reading is that nothing surprises me, yet I never feel jaded, either -- only familiar with life's many patterns and possibilities. Newspaper headlines report that people are "shocked" by disasters and atrocities. Not me. 9/11 didn't surprise me; neither did the Virginia Tech massacre. They're both straight out of Othello; only more examples of how the Green Monster rules the world, and always has.

The Moor strangled his wife after he became consumed with jealousy over misinformation from a false friend. On 9/11 a failed culture became consumed with jealousy at a successful one and tried to tear it down. In Blacksburg, a nebbish consumed with jealousy over rich kids in their fancy cars decided to act out his rage with bullets. Revenge of the nerds, writ large. Tyrants like Hitler, jealous of the British Empire, and ambitious peasants like Stalin and Mao out to bring down "the rich," shared a similar animus, but with well-articulated programs.

I'm not surprised that astronomers report another inhabitable planet. If we should go there, it wouldn't surprise me either way -- if they greet us with bombs and burp guns, or if they send their comely maidens out in canoes like the credulous islanders greeting the first Western visitors to Tahiti.

A couple of other things. I feel that reading is still the best way to learn complex, non-technical information. With a book in your lap in a quiet place, you can absorb the stories at your own pace and compliment the writing with your own imagination. No medium has yet surpassed that. The screening and editing of writers before they get to book publishing removes a lot of dross, silliness and items of mere transient interest. There are still a lot of frivolous book topics, but nowhere near as high a percentage as in newspapers, magazines and electronic media.

I feel it's also true that we will never live in a world where 100% of the people are fascinated by learning. For one thing, intelligence is a bell curve; there will always be limited ability at the lower end. For another thing many people, especially boys, prefer action to contemplation for reasons of temperament.

but I cant get my kids to read
Reading is boring they say---as they go to myspace or video games. This is MY fault for not insisting that they read. We are a society truly in decline.

Defeatism -- Choosing Illiteracy
The thing that bothers me most about the early posts in this discussion is their tone of defeatism: Reading is dead and there's nothing we can do about it. With all the other technologies in our popular culture, something had to give, and it was reading. Besides, we're all too busy to sit down and string together the words written on a page. (These are very much like the excuses my students give me for not doing their reading assignments.)

Sounds to me like a prescription for a "Fahrenheit 451" future -- and, worse, we're FINE with that. (If you don't realize I'm talking Ray Bradbury -- if you think, instead, that I'm talking Michael Moore -- you've got some reading to do.)

No, ladies and gentlemen, that won't do.
One of the greatest joys of reading is the opportunity to see further than "real life" can take you -- the chance to see the world through the eyes of another person, and thus develop the organs of empathy and understanding; the chance to see, hear, and understand great individuals like Achilles and Othello and Elizabeth Bennet, and thus build up an internal antidote against the poison of Groupthink; the chance to see how much deeper and wider Life is than that tiny box labeled "Contemporary," and thus arm ourselves against the innundation of trivial pop-culture non-icons like Britney and Paris and Anna Nicole. Best of all, reading makes you THINK. It opens up a world of Ideas, a realm through which the mind can transcend the purely material and tangible. It raises questions of Right/Wrong, Value, and Identity that don't go away with fads and trends because they're a part of what makes us Human.

Thus, I see non-reading as at least partially responsible for many of the social problems we decry: the superficial relationships that result in divorce and neglected children; the rise of the Trivial and the hypersexualization of pop culture; the tendency to think of ourselves and others as members of Groups rather than as individuals, somehow entitled to special privileges due to our Group membership rather than our individual merit and accomplishment; the lack of ambition and inner self-sufficiency in our young people; the reliance on artificial stimulants like drugs. True, some readers may be part of these problems (since I know someone is going to bring up Leftist English professors), but those readers who engage in Groupthink and who rely on artificial highs only reveal that while they may have read the words on the page, they have not UNDERSTOOD them. In terms of understanding, they're as good as illiterate -- because they've chosen to see only what confirms their own narrow worldview.

Part II coming up.

I love
James Albert Michener. I actually was almost in tears when I read of his death. Clavell is pretty good too.

Justin
I agree about the Atlanta paper. That lady columnist just won the pulitzer.

sheesh

Handy
Thanks for reminding me - It's time for me to read 'Atlas Shrugged' again.

BTW - Have you ever been able to read John Galts radio speech all the way through?

I haven't.

No loss if AJC folded totally
I wouldnt wortry about what happens to the Atlanta paper.

Its a left wing liberal rag anyway.

The population of the Atlanta metro has almost doubled in the last 20 years and the AJC sales have actually dropped 20%, because no one wants to read their liberal take of the news.

Its so refreshing to read, say, the Mobile Alabama newspaper to get the actual NEWS, not the papers liberal slant on the news.

A couple of years ago, on Mothers Day, the AJC did a front page spread about an unmarried welfare queen with about half a dozen children.

Thats quality news I wanna pay money to read, yessir!

Learning How to Live
Back in the day, literature was the way people learned how to live. Mama thinks I'm crazy because I, the most practical and down to earth person she knows, read Georgette Heyer's Regency Romances. I like to read about the way people lived before me. I read books like those about the Melendy Family who grew up in New York City during World War II; like "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" about a family that grew up in Brooklyn during World War I; like "Gone-Away Lake" about a family that grew up in New York City and took their vacations 'in the country' in the 1950s ... because I grew up near New York City and I love to know about what life was like before I got there.

I read four or five books a week since I was four years old, and I read classical literature over and over -- because most of the trash being spewed out today is repetitive, filthy and depressing. I read to fire up my imagination and to learn; and I don't want to feed my imagination with chainsaw dismemberment, vampire attacks and unrelenting repetition of f*** and s***.

As for Harry Potter, my grandson was reading well below grade level and his teachers said he would never learn to read any better. I took him to the first Harry Potter movie and within six months he had raised his reading level by two grades because he wanted to read about Harry Potter. Same thing when the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe came out -- he wanted to read it after he saw the movie, and he painfully raised his grade level again. And not only that, but a kid who was not interested in school at all now asks questions like "Is Professor Snape a Good Guy or a Bad Guy? Do you get to choose which side you're on? How do you make that kind of choice? Is Neville really braver than Harry, because he knows the enemy first hand (Neville's parents are in a mental asylum because they were tortured beyond their ability to resist) and what can happen?"

Reading gives you something to think about besides the kind of muppetry the Virginia Tech Murderer spewed in his home made caricature of De Niro. And it also makes you think, "What would I do if I were he?" Which can be useful when you're faced with an insane muppet with a gun.

reviewers
The redeeming factor to newspapers letting their book reviewers go is that most of them are FAR left socialists - see there - a silver lining

"Dickens and Austen CRAP"????
Handy, take a look in the mirror.

You know that problem Parker is writing about?

If you dismiss Charles Dickens and Jane Austen (NEITHER of whom was a 21st-century style liberal) as "crap," then guess what?

YOU ARE PART OF IT.

Proud ignoramuses
It is a badge of honor for my intellectually-challenged students to announce that they have never read a book. (Of course, they don't pass my courses, but that's another story.) The point is that many other of my high school teacher colleagues have given up on trying to force-feed these resistant-readers actual reading and have simply decided to show them films. Unfortunately, these determinedly-stupid seatfillers, pay no attention to any of the spoken words - just to the "action" on the screen.

My only hope for the future lies in the large numbers of youngsters that I see in our public library, loading up on books!!!! Yippee!!!!!

Hey! Nothing wrong with 'the Hobbit stuf
Literature is like wine. Some ages well and becomes Shakespeare. Some is cheap and becomes those monthly magazines. And some is just plain beer. And good on a hot night with popcorn.

But it ALL fires the imagination, doesn't it?

And that, sir/madam, is the point.

You may not like my beer, but I like it just fine. There are times for a good wine and a cozy fire... Which also is nice.

The point, I think, is how to pick what for when without a 'winelist.'

Why Reading Is On The Way Out
Our Great School System is disfunctional to the
point that it's graduates are no longer
literate enough to get any good from books.
Watch a music video and take note of how often
the scene changes and you will have an idea
of just how long the attention span is for our kids.
Try to figure out the "new" way of talking and
you'll see that the written word is beyond them.
The true Constitutional Crisis is that they
can't even read it well enough to understand
it's meaning.

literacy

Please don't forget to thank J.K. Rowling for
stimulating a renewed interest in reading.
Aw hell, include Stephen King in there too.

It begins and ends with:
Ms. Florence King.


A different thought onm topic
I am wondering if people due to jobs, family and responsibilities just do not have time to read. I understand the use of books on tape and internet articles have increased even though printed book sales have dropped. As a society we have become more kinetic and auditory in our learning. Perhaps literacy is being accomplished, just not by traditional reading of books. What are your thoughts?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.