# Is today’s generation losing an interest in serious literature?



## haribol (Dec 16, 2017)

A few decades ago in my country almost every youth used to have a book in his hand, maybe a comic or magazine, if not a novel or a book of poems. People used to discuss literature, philosophy, religions and spirituality a great deal. Almost every graduate took an interest in creative faculties. I do not mean now such people do not exist in my society and of course there are still some youths who read books of literature, philosophy. But the point is today’ generation has been a mobile-phone generation, a video-game generation,  YouTube generation, and Facebook if not everywhere, at least in my nation. Now the number of  TV watching youths is declining and yes overall this generation is almost every day and if they are allowed by every hour they are on the internet and  maybe therein they are totally immersed and in fact they choose a virtual reality wherein they do everything virtual, and their communication virtual, their love and even romance are also increasingly getting virtual.
  Yes I come across a very few youths who still hold books in their hands and though they too belong to a virtual generation as well. Yet they sometimes discuss literature, philosophy and  the like. I wonder what is going with our literary faculties in a couple of decades. I wonder whether any people who are deeply interested in literature can be met in society.
  A few decades ago I used to meet youths in  big libraries taking a dozen of books and comics and journals but these days even those libraries are getting empty. I do not know whether this is a good signal or bad. What I see certainly is today people are getting farther and farther from realities and also from nature and their domain has increasingly been more and  more virtual. Is this not going to make them distressed humans if this goes on increasing unchecked?
  I do not what is going on in other societies? I want to discuss here.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Dec 16, 2017)

Yes - Too much like hard work.


----------



## LeeC (Dec 16, 2017)

There has always been a good number of people that shy away from exercising their reasoning and expanding their perspective, but you're correct in such being more obvious these days with all the distracting "toys" at hand. Some time back I remember something about a "lazy" gene as an explanation. Another explanation I tend towards, is that like all creatures we are subjective beings and slaves to natural drives. 

The paradox In Nature is that balance in an ecosystem is achieved mostly through biodiversity each competitively doing their own thing in their niches. We've gotten too big for our britches, so that's working against us in having little more than ourselves to exploit. That's our subjective natural order drives at work, our base animal drives. Too many abhor using their minds to reason out our increasing difficulties, instead hiding behind alternate realities and distracting ourselves with our "toys."

The cycle has been repeated many times in the history of humankind, but a literate and reasoned society on the whole would not be exacerbating their problems as we are today if they had read and heeded Nancy MacLean's _Democracy In Chains_, or even George Orwell's _Animal Farm_. Likewise, wouldn't we be trying to reverse the cultural inculcation of profit at any cost which is destroying our sustaining environment, if enough read and heeded Elizabeth Kolbert's The Sixth Extinction An Unnatural History, or for that mater any of a good number of books that might expand one's perspective of our little blue canoe. 

All that takes a desire to expand one's perspective, and effort, when it's "easier" to conjure up alternate realities to satisfy our subjective selves. Not to mention that the rabid manipulation in our society facilitates the "easier" path. Doesn't say much re our ballyhooed intelligence.

More generally, would there be so many substandard books on the market if more authors read extensively? Is that the so-called lazy gene at work?

On the other hand, some authors go overboard. Take for instance a book I'm reading, _Night Of The Animals_ by Bill Broun, in which the author goes way beyond a good dystopian story to address the base animal instincts of humans at length. Most readers that might otherwise enhance their perspective get bogged down in the wordiness and jump ship. We're on the whole bite sized "intellectuals" at most. ;-)

I've said more than many care to read, but thank you for broaching the subject.


----------



## Sam (Dec 17, 2017)

What's 'good' literature? 

I assume it's what you consider to be worthy of one's time, but the problem is that you aren't the arbiter of what constitutes 'good' literature. There are many young people reading nowadays. Some like traditional paperbacks, while others read electronically, and each one of them has an interest in specific literature that you may consider not worth your time. That doesn't make it any less valid. Hell, I didn't read classics when I was a teenager either. 

The same question was being asked a decade ago, and the one before it, and so on. It's something that pops up every time a generation considers its successors as being somewhat less sophisticated than they themselves are. In other words, snobbery from people who think they're better than their younger counterparts, but who scoffed at their elders expressing the same sentiments when they were teenagers.


----------



## JustRob (Dec 17, 2017)

Much of the serious classical literature is freely available online now. In fact, when I bought my E-reader many of the classics were preloaded into it already. Hence visits to the library for these isn't necessary as it once was. My angel and I are both retired and find browsing our county library's online resources for E-books to download is far quicker and easier than physically going to the local library. Even when we need to get a physical book it possibly isn't in our local library and may have to be sent there from another, all of which can be arranged by us online so that we can simply go and pick it up at our convenience. Hence personal appearances in a library may be few and fleeting, but that isn't a sign that people aren't reading books.

We don't belong to any social networks, unless you count WF as being one, so don't know what is discussed on them. People gravitate towards things like philosophy, religion and spirituality as much as a consequence of their personal experiences and interactions with others as through arbitrary reading. Also, truly serious books tackle just the salient points of a subject without wrapping them up in fiction to be extracted again by the reader. Does one need to read _Animal Farm_ to get the message that it conveys? Just reading a summary of the plot would probably suffice. Let's face it, that was probably all that the publishers did originally, although one did famously reject it stating that "animal stories never sell well." If one were to write the most erudite book imaginable nowadays it would equally probably just get thrown out by a publisher or agent who only skimmed through the synopsis and hadn't the time or inclination to do more, so who exactly should we blame for your alleged decline in standards anyway?

I have seen remarks by modern writers that the old classics wouldn't see the light of day nowadays because standards and the expectations of the readership have risen so much. Whether it is the standards or the styles that have changed is a moot point of course. Everything is done in the name of progress, but progress just means moving forward without any indication that the move is in the "right" direction. In human society there is no clear agreement about which way "forward" actually is. Anyway, who wants to read serious literature when everyday life is now in itself so full of intractable problems and drama? It is said by many that conflict is an essential component of a story and yet there is already far too much conflict in the world and many people's lives, so in that case what purpose does literature serve?

I have noticed that in American literature and other media a common theme appears to be wealthy people being dissatisfied with their lives. Is this propaganda to reassure the unwealthy majority or just an attempt to be philosophical?

I was in my working life an information technologist, so I see all forms of media as just methods of communicating information. Chopping down trees in order to print books is a pretty primitive approach to IT nowadays and quite unnecessary.


----------



## Winston (Dec 17, 2017)

Instant gratification and constant texting means that young people today lack the ability to appreciate a developed story, AND cannot express themselves effectively.  They cannot read nor write anything of value.
Sure, they can read and edit whatever tech documents they must at work.  An they can read and understand an Ikea instruction booklet.  But that's about it.
Any depth of plot or character is simply too hard to invest in.  And they are too lazy.


----------



## LeeC (Dec 17, 2017)

Yes Sam, “There are many young people reading nowadays.” But, is “many” relative to increased population, or is it your experiences among those you’re aware of? From research I did last year, book readership is declining, some even going so far as noting Microsoft’s study that attention spans for youth are decreasing to eight seconds [can’t find the study at present]. 

And JustRob, much of the “serious” classical literature is freely available online now, but is the number of people actually reading it declining?

Yes, writing styles change, but that’s a poor excuse. Books are a substantial repository of our experiences and knowledge. With readership seemingly declining, as per the research I did last year, might that be promoting and indicative of narrower subjective perspectives. It’s overly obvious we don’t heed our history, repeating our mistakes in cycles as we do. Could that be in part because history is too boring to read?

As to all the “intractable problems and drama” that distracts us from reading, such is mostly of our own making. Kind of a Catch-22 

As to my own experiences, I seldom run across anyone that has read much in the way of natural history books. We can’t have all those competing considerations that get in the way of getting by in today’s world, now can we ;-)

Anyway, I posted a few items on WF last year that speak to declining readership. They’re listed below. The OP was about “serious” reading, and declining readership overall contributes to such. 


https://www.writingforums.com/threads/168152-Do-writers-outnumber-readers

Where have all the readers gone?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/where-have-all-the-readers-gone/article28198236/

Where have all the readers gone?
http://ianchadwick.com/blog/where-have-all-the-readers-gone/

Where have all the readers gone?
https://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0208/p18s04-hfes.html

Where have all the readers gone?
http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2016/04/where-have-all-readers-gone-in-which.html


This quote has an added meaning when you think about it.
“_Only a generation of readers will spawn a generation of writers._” ~ Steven Spielberg


Sorry to be so short, but it's nap time


----------



## Sam (Dec 17, 2017)

Winston said:


> Instant gratification and constant texting means that young people today lack the ability to appreciate a developed story, AND cannot express themselves effectively.  They cannot read nor write anything of value.
> Sure, they can read and edit whatever tech documents they must at work.  An they can read an understand an Ikea instruction booklet.  But that's about it.
> Any depth of plot or character is simply too hard to invest in.  And they are too lazy.



A huge and unsubstantiated generalisation. 

I teach kids on a daily basis, and their parents are encouraging them to read all the time.


----------



## Winston (Dec 17, 2017)

Sam said:


> A huge and unsubstantiated generalisation.
> 
> I teach kids on a daily basis, and their parents are encouraging them to read all the time.



Sam, it's an intellectual wasteland out there.  People of good character and wit find each other. I'm glad things in your circle are well and hopeful.  
Most of the other circles "out there" resemble one of Dante Alighieri's.  A metaphor lost on most today.  That itself is a problem.  
Just troll around the Web a bit.  See how folks "communicate".  Most of the world is not literate.  They do not read.  Da pruf is in da pudin, dawg.


----------



## Sam (Dec 17, 2017)

So you're in touch with these particular circles, Winston, and are versed enough in them to be an expert on their quality or lack thereof? I doubt it. 

The same thing was said when I was a teenager. Yet, I read at a prodigious level and have done for some years.


----------



## Winston (Dec 17, 2017)

As long as we're strolling down the anecdote highway...

Yes, actually.  My wife teaches.  Her demographic is middle to lower-middle class households.  She mainly teaches special needs kids.
These children, above others, should be encouraged to read.  Their parents do not.  As a matter of fact, these parents can't even be bothered to follow a basic lesson plan to help their kids succeed.  
The parents can't be put upon because they are too "busy, and "That's the teacher's job."  This is what their kids learn.  Reading is not important.  It's a chore to be avoided.  Other stuff is more important.  
So yeah, Sam.  I have no magic crystal ball to see to entire world.  But the world I see is a bunch of anti-intellectual, indifferent, complacent people that see reading as an inconvenient task, and not a passion to pursue.   We're in an echo chamber here.  Sorry you don't see that.


----------



## Sam (Dec 17, 2017)

I come from a country with a rich literary background, so perhaps here it's different, but it's nothing that hasn't been said for the last one hundred years. 

People are always 'convinced' the next generation will be the worst. Hell, when I was a teenager, it was video games that were going to ruin my generation. Instead, they turned video games into one of the greatest entertainment industries of all time. 

Whether kids are reading in high school is largely irrelevant, despite both our protestations, because no one wanted to read when I was in school either. Everyone hated English class, myself included, and the F that I got in it will attest to that. Funny, it hasn't done me much damage going forward.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 17, 2017)

It would be interesting to see how literacy rates have changed over, say, the last hundred years, my guess is there are fewer illiterates.

The quality of culture is a different thing. When it was new people flocked to see The Messiah in such numbers that gentlemen were asked to leave their swords at home (If it did not inconvenience them) and ladies not to wear bustles; nowadays they flock to Mama Mia. 
Now look at it like this, the audience were of a class to carry swords and wear bustles, the other classes worked and slept, also the performance was condemmned by the press for turning scripture into trashy, popular, music. This is the sort of thing people have been saying since Roman times, 'The youth have all gone to pot, it was different in the days of the Republic/ Augustus/ Marcus Aurelius.'
A tiny fraction of the population read Jane Austen in her lifetime, Dickens was read aloud in public places to the illiterate masses, it is written to be read aloud, try it.
Then there is the memory factor, we remember the greats, but there were a lot of popular entertainments that would have made East Enders (a British 'soap') look like real quality, and not just the dog fights and cock fighting, bad poetry, rubbish plays; and remember popular music before rock and roll? No, that's because it was instantly forgettable rubbish, like a lot of stuff.

Crying 'Oh woe' and denegrating the modern age/youth is counter-productive, emphasising success and promoting the worthwhile is far more likely to lead to further improvements in human understanding and to extend them to a larger portion of the population. Teach without stopping learning.

BTW Love that quote about gents, leaving their swords if it did not inconvenience them, 'Damn me Sir, but I am inconvenienced; I do not have the means to run the blackguard through.' It is always difficult understanding change, people get sent to prison for carrying a blade nowadays, 'The past is another country, they did things differently there.' We can not judge our times by their standards, they don't apply.


----------



## LeeC (Dec 17, 2017)

I don't know about other's experiences, but mine, mostly second hand, are what I hear my teacher friends saying. That includes my daughter who teaches in a school district that is above average, at least as far as American standards. 

What I see and what I'm hearing is that many parents are happiest when their children are occupying themselves with video games, TV, cellphones, whatever. That doesn't lead to good reading habits. The biggest arguments I hear are about school choice as opposed to quality. Yes, school choice might prod public schools to do a better job, but I suspect the motivation being it's the alternate reality crowd that's pushing the hardest.

Since Europe has the common sense to address important issues like global warming, I'm inclined to think schools and reading habits are better there. That they aren't here is strongly evidenced my American culture.

There are so many different points to argue on the subject of readership, and even developed comprehension, that we could go on and on. If however, one considers all the "serious" books that could stimulate minds and broaden perspectives, and contrasts such with societal values, the proof is in the pudding regarding reading, or at least comprehension of such.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 18, 2017)

Special needs kids from middle to lower class is a pretty limited group.

Where I am, most parents are so worn out by the time the child is in special needs class that they are pretty checked out. It does usually turn around after a couple years, if the teachers, schools and services are good and help the child. Some of what Winston's wife may be seeing are battle weary people. They can, and often do, recover. I wouldn't make judgments or generalizations based on them.

I met a retired special needs teacher in my local bookstore. In the twelve years I knew him, his views of children and parents changed. He saw more variety in the bookstore. He told me that he realized how erroneous his opinions were when he was a special needs teacher. He confessed to being out of touch with smart kids and their parents, or even average kids and their parents. He worked as a teacher in grade school. He enjoyed working in the bookstore much more.


----------



## Kevin (Dec 18, 2017)

Reading in general is superfluous. Other than special notices or instructions everything you need in life can be read daily in two seconds or less. Take Facebook... Your family and 'friends' posting stuff you don't even bother with, plus a never ending series of click-baits you either already agree with, or you don't even see as you swipe past. Next thing you know an hour's gone by. What a waste. Books? Niche market...totally overrated.


----------



## bdcharles (Dec 18, 2017)

Might the quality of writing be to blame? I wonder if the categorisation of books into specific genres mean that many which get through are so hopelessly gerrymandered to fit the type that any innate readability they had has been processed out of them. As for the tech, I think the arrival of all this mobile stuff is actually a good thing. It means the competition has been upped so everyone has to try harder. I can't imagine the average millennial young reader (let's pick that generation) has lost any reading ability; I think they have had their standards and expectations raised by all these whizz bang games and films and what-have-you, and that their threshold for excitement is very high, so that's the writers' challenge - to excite them, to blow their minds, via print.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 18, 2017)

Reading 'One Hundred years of Solitude', frivolous literature seems to be doing fairly well


----------



## ppsage (Dec 18, 2017)

Historically, the human intellect has seemingly always expressed itself in language, but we can easily see that it has not always expressed itself in writing and, far less, in print. 500 years ago, when printing was gaining a foothold, intellectuals of a conservative stripe uttered prophetic polemics against it's corrupting influence. It would make thinking stodgy and linear, they claimed. Leaders would be forever looking things up in books and would miss the big picture. The youth would be indoctrinated by textbooks which were all exactly the same and which they would not have the valuable lessons derived from putting it down longhand as the instructor read. And so forth. There is a good example of this POV in one of King Lear's speeches. (And hundreds of them in McLuhan's larger book.) It seems to me that we've been engaged for most of the twentieth century in another technical revolution in the media to which we entrust our ability to think and communicate. Perhaps in another couple hundred years, print will be as quaint as the bardic arts. And in the meantime, people will rail against its passing with equal fervor.


----------



## haribol (Dec 20, 2017)

It was nice to hear a variety of opinions and  of course our points of views are limited by the dimensions of our thought processes and that is why nobody can turn up perfect for one cannot see all the sides of truth. The truth one has seen is from one angle and when looked at it the same may look different. Yes I have realized through these posts I have  read now that our obsessions with all that is old, classic or literary is flawed. Who is to judge? Unless one is a seer, speaking spiritually. Maybe we so much attached to bookish knowledge or too much concerned with things literary or philosophical might have  failed to understand the new stream of life that flows with Facebook, Tweeters, LinkedIn, video games and the like. When we think of serious literature we have philosophy, metaphors, images, styles, choice of words and structured sentences and a few grand themes in  mind and that often complicate a piece of literature and adding art to it. Of course these components make a piece of literature rather complicated and contemplative as well. That is why reading a piece of literature, somewhat serious kind demands of us a kind of exercise and at times it becomes an arduous experience. The modern generation has no time and  passion for such ruminations. They take a form art as something that can relax the mind That is why they are not interested in serious literature and are into some other forms of entertainments.


----------



## Winston (Dec 22, 2017)

ppsage said:


> Historically, the human intellect has seemingly always expressed itself in language, but we can easily see that it has not always expressed itself in writing and, far less, in print...



Oral history rocks.  Screw that evil ink and paper. And screw the Gorilla Glass. 
We don't talk anymore.  The Medium IS NOT the Message.  We simply forgot how to speak, and listen.


----------



## Larry (Jan 30, 2018)

Both of my kids are in high school, and have certain required reading for literature and/or English classes. I thought that neither kid would choose on their own to read Shakespeare, Chaucer, epic poems like Beowulf, or other literary works. However, during and after those assignments, both kids were interested in discussing it with Mom and me, unprompted. 

I had to smile when my 17-year-old son, whose interests center on girls and baseball, was interested enough to want to talk about Macbeth and Hamlet. He's a bright kid, and it was no surprise to me that he understood them far better than I did when I had to read them in high school. 

With all that is going on in the U.S. government today, I had mentioned several times at home, Orwell's _1984._ My 15 y-o daughter decided to read it. She thought it was a fantastic book, where I remember reading it at about the same age and it scared the crap out of me. 

Clearly, my kids are smarter and more open-minded than I was at their ages, and it makes me think they _will_ read, on their own, more similar literary works.


----------



## PiP (Jan 30, 2018)

Larry said:


> With all that is going on in the U.S. government today, I had mentioned several times at home, Orwell's _1984._ My 15 y-o daughter decided to read it. She thought it was a fantastic book, where I remember reading it at about the same age and it scared the crap out of me.
> 
> Clearly, my kids are smarter and more open-minded than I was at their ages, and it makes me think they _will_ read, on their own, more similar literary works.



When I read 1984 it was still in the future and we never had security cameras stuck up every orifice in RL. Who knew that fiction would become reality?

We had to study Animal Farm (George Orwell) when I was at school.. That is most definitely worth a read.


----------



## Sam (Jan 30, 2018)

Larry said:


> Both of my kids are in high school, and have certain required reading for literature and/or English classes. I thought that neither kid would choose on their own to read Shakespeare, Chaucer, epic poems like Beowulf, or other literary works. However, during and after those assignments, both kids were interested in discussing it with Mom and me, unprompted.
> 
> I had to smile when my 17-year-old son, whose interests center on girls and baseball, was interested enough to want to talk about Macbeth and Hamlet. He's a bright kid, and it was no surprise to me that he understood them far better than I did when I had to read them in high school.
> 
> ...



I don't mean to be a pedant on this, but everyone always quotes _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ as the harbinger of the times we live in, when in fact everything Orwell wrote was written years before, by Huxley, Kafka, Zamyatin, London, Wells, and a bunch of other novelists. 

I really wish people would expand their horizons and read their works as well.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jan 30, 2018)

Hmmm... Hi haribol, I'm very pleased to meet you. Your question is interesting.


Judging by some of the posts on Farcebook even the 'dyed in the wool' illiterates are trying to communicate by writing something comprehensible, even if it is only to troll someone. The human race has always been more of a sliding scale rather than  a series of points. I am currently working two jobs and doing a bit of moonlighting on the side just to break even, I don't get much time to read. I don't get much time to write. I do, however, listen to a lot of audio books. Modern tech is changing the way I consume literature. I doubt it will kill off paper based tech but it will steal a lot of its monopoly. Who needs a wall of shelving when an entire world of books is only a click or two away? When was the last, paper based,  Britannica Encyclopaedia  sold?

What concerns me is the 'voice activated' gadgets that are 'inconveniencing' their way into  peoples lives. When talking to AI becomes the norm then start to worry about the 'death of literature.' 

I'm sure there is a story in there somewhere.:cool2:
Good luck
BC


----------



## Pete_C (Jan 30, 2018)

Winston said:


> Just troll around the Web a bit.  See how folks "communicate".  Most of the world is not literate.  They do not read.  Da pruf is in da pudin, dawg.


I have some spare assumptions should you ever tire of creating your own.


----------



## Winston (Jan 30, 2018)

Pete_C said:


> I have some spare assumptions should you ever tire of creating your own.



That was hilarious.  The previous sentence was sarcasm.  Funny how even the well-read can lack humor. Or tact.


----------



## Larry (Feb 1, 2018)

Sam said:


> I don't mean to be a pedant on this, but everyone always quotes _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ as the harbinger of the times we live in, when in fact everything Orwell wrote was written years before, by Huxley, Kafka, Zamyatin, London, Wells, and a bunch of other novelists.
> 
> *I really wish people would expand their horizons and read their works as well.*



Ah, thank-you for your _enlightening_ comment.

It is interesting that you presume my ignorance in your criticism of my reading choices, and those of my daughter.


----------



## Matchu (Feb 2, 2018)

Sam said:


> I don't mean to be a pedant on this, but everyone always quotes _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ as the harbinger of the times we live in, when in fact everything Orwell wrote was written years before, by Huxley, Kafka, Zamyatin, London, Wells, and a bunch of other novelists.
> 
> I really wish people would expand their horizons and read their works as well.



Orwell was a bloody curse.  I swallowed every word at fourteen, bought/read them all.  Was even referred to as 'Gordon Comstock' by some Oxbridge sh*t in the office environment.  I won't forget that slander.

As for youngsters, one must strap one's knee from whacking that underside.  I suppose the same debate was...when was it when society dropped a shared cloud of the classics, y'know 1920?

'Like a sword of Damocles in my teacup, Geoffrey.' 

'Aye, and I struggle as Perseus on the rocks, such an Aegean stable of homework over my handbag.'

Now that was a real loss, worse than the apple computer.  Milton/Eliot all a mystery to me merely due to accident of birth.


----------

