The NEA released a follow-up missive to the controversial 2004 report “Reading at Risk” last week, cleverly titled “To Read or Not to Read” (.pdf available here.) It would take much philosophical and scientific effort to properly determine if “reading” and “being” are synonyms. But the suggestion that reading is fundamental to being, to our way of going about who we are, underscores the commentary on the report, ranging from apocalypse-impending future-wrecked jargon, to the more mildly dismissive banter that pokes holes in the fear-mongering of the whole NEA project.
So–should we really be scared that readership is going down the drain? The gist from the research suggests that teens and twenty-somethings lose the impulse to voluntarily read when the number of cultural distractions spikes upward. It is no surprise that these demographics represent rich markets–and no surprise that they are highly sought-after consumers. They have years and years of buying power ahead of them.
But they also have years and years of reading hours, too. If the distractions that ween them off the book are propelled by economic forces, then what forces should counterweight?
The cruel irony that Dana Gioia suggests is the impact on civic life. Poor readers perform poorly in the job market, they vote less, they volunteer less, they perform less charity work, and in doing so, they participate in the possibility of economic decline. We market goods to young readers because they constitute such a lucrative market; yet the attending loss of readers overwhelmed by distraction has the longer-term potential to negatively impact the economy. Who wants to read Moby Dick when you can play Wii?
(Enter the doomsday language here.)
Still, it is hard to know just how volatile the situation is. Much has been made of this surprise irony–the coincidental introduction of Amazon’s video hype for their hand-held book-replacer, the Kindle, with the introduction of the “To Read or Not to Read” report by the NEA. Regardless of the Kindle’s future, business is investing in future readership, in new mediums. You won’t find many people around this blog who think that’s the only mark of healthy readership–there are more important telling features–but I think it bodes well, nonetheless. Who wouldn’t salivate at the potential freedom electronic media affords a publishing world tangled up in profit margins and bottom lines? You could actually put out a book that won’t need to sell 100,000 copies.
You might bring a few readers along as well.