Are the teenagers still reading books?

[johnsign11]

It;s not true that due to internet teenagers have divert their attention.Their are lots of E books on every topic or subject available on on internet and not only teenagers but every age group people like to read those books........

[PhotonicGuy]

laci_baby, you and your brother are the fortunate examples, I guess . I hope that what I said in my previous post is not always true. Because I love books and reading them and I want that all people can enjoy them.

[MrWright]

While I take issue with bluefoxicy's post, I feel their flippant dismissal of classic literature is primarily the product of a mediocre education, so not entirely their fault. My state education in the eighties fostered a similar attitude. Well, it might have done had we actually studied Shakespeare and co. But for some strange reason they didn't feature on the school curriculum - we were reading something called Frankenstein's Aunt instead

Yet I still got GCSE English (grade B), despite the fact that when I left school I'd never even heard of George Eliot! (I'm one of Thatcher's children)

In a way though I'm glad. As most of the teachers were so awful it's lucky we were spared their take on the classics. Besides, I was into computer games and TV back then and came to reading literature a little later on. I still think that serious literature requires academic and emotional maturity to fully appreciate anyway, similar to classical music or fine wine. Very few adolescents actually get it. I'm sure Middlemarch would have bored the hell out of me if I'd had to read it at 14 (I read it in my late twenties).

[bluefoxicy]

While I take issue with bluefoxicy's post, I feel their flippant dismissal of classic literature is primarily the product of a mediocre education, so not entirely their fault.

My taste was never for "the classics." They had no imagination back then. Shakespeare wrote occasionally about politics, which I can respect; but most of what he wrote was framed in the very mortal war-love-tragedy framework of the day. Love story? It's two very real kids you may have met. War story? This is what life as a knight is like. Tragedy? Your real life might suck this much.

I don't care to read about boys on the farm. I don't care to read about knights marching out in armor with pointy sticks. I don't care to read about detectives investigating mysteries of murder and underground crime rings. Those are all very mortal, very real world things.

That's all they fed us in school.

Jules Vern invented the god damn submarine. Wells invented the time machine. I'm not kidding, look it up. Heinlein even basically invented the Waldo and the waterbed, while Isaac Asimov invented the calculator.

I never even heard of Heinlein until a month ago. Or Asimov. They are irrelevant: too much meaningless tripe to bother covering in school. Jules Vern I heard of watching TV: Picard is a huge fan of Vern. Also I read The Time Machine when I was a kid, on my own, somehow.

These are people that set the foundation (nods to Asimov) for a lot of modern technology and philosophy, not to mention a lot of modern literature. They're completely ignored in school, though, in favor of Lord of the Flies, Tale of Two Cities, Huckleberry Finn, some Chaucer, some Shakespeare, Catcher in the Rye... we did have to read Lord of the Rings once, though, but I can't imagine why; maybe to try to slip some modern fantasy in.

Also everyone had to read Animal Farm. I also read 1984 on my own. Having read both, I'd have to say 1984 is a desperately important read and Animal Farm is an easily forgettable piece of base entertainment about funny talking animals. Every time it comes up, I get intellectuals talking about all the "symbolism" behind Animal Farm and how much it benefits normal people to read it so they can understand the dangers of communism; too bad normal, non-nerds only see a book about funny talking animals. 1984 will make you sh*t your pants even if you're about as smart as a jar of mayonnaise.

The restriction on reading is a horrible thing. The school systems' constant attempts to push a horribly narrow set of literature on students is completely effective at convincing them never to read once they escape the hell of high school. And I mean "restriction" in a serious sense: all those "summer reading programs" get you an instant failed major assignment if you show up the next year with a book report about a book that's not on the list.

When they finally lifted restrictions and gave me the assignment of reading one book every 3 months and writing a report, any book of my choosing, I started reading The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. I read 4 of the 6 in the series at the time; the only reason I read now is because I wanted to finish the series. If I had read The Gap Cycle in middle school, I probably would have read a lot more books (my teachers would have been upset though... read it once and you'll know why; this is not a series for today's intentionally ignorant kids... teenagers maybe).

You could probably get the same effect if you made sure 95% of the books students were allowed to read were Sci-Fi. Sure I would have liked that (I prefer Fantasy though); but I'm sure most people would be incredibly bored, especially if you picked all extremely dry things like Asimov (good stories, very dry telling). Then they'd never read anything ever again after high school got out, not even a newspaper.

[MrWright]

I think your education was very different from mine. We didn't have "the classics" shoved down our throat every other month. They didn't feature on the curriculum. To be fair, by the time we reached the GCSE years, we were given the option of taking either English Media or English Literature, alongside the standard English Language. As I didn't really enjoy reading fiction much back then, I took 'media' (the soft option). Although I still think it strange that me, and many others, were able to sidestep the entire literary canon throughout our formative education. Leavis must be spinning in his grave. Preceding the GCSE years we were reading Frankenstein's Aunt, and some other stuff I can't really remember.

That was along time ago though and since then I have done much reading. I think it's a bit unfair of you to say that past writers had no imagination. Many of these authors were great innovators. Shakespeare's plays form the basis for the English theatrical tradition. Henry Fielding's narrative's are generally considered the first modern novels. Dickens created some of the most enduring characters in literature. Most contemporary horror writers owe a great debt to the eighteenth century Gothic novel, and the work of Edgar Allen Poe. Mary Shelley had a huge influence over science fiction with Frankenstein. The novels of Wilkie Collins laid the groundwork for much mystery and detective fiction. etc. etc. etc.

I agree that the school systems probably do put people off most things. Certainly put me off football. And BTW, the first navigable submarine was built in 1620 by a Dutchman called Cornelius Drebbel. (I've got too much time on my hands).

[InfiniteMatt]

[/quote]Animal Farm is an easily forgettable piece of base entertainment about funny talking animals. Every time it comes up, I get intellectuals talking about all the "symbolism" behind Animal Farm and how much it benefits normal people to read it so they can understand the dangers of communism; too bad normal, non-nerds only see a book about funny talking animals.[/quote]

I have to point out, with all respect, that Animal Farm isn't simply about, necessarily, the "dangers of communism," but more about the understanding of the oppressed becoming the oppressor. That is, essentially, what pigs walking on their hind legs is implying, i.e. the idea of the downtrodden becoming the trodden and how easily corrupted one can become.

[StephenKingman]

I cant understand how you have that view of Animal farm as it is universally recognised as one of the greatest political parodies ever put to paper. Its also a fantastic example of how easily power corrupts and the nature of politicians and their constituents. In my view one of the greatest reflections of the hierarchical nature of society.

[patrickt]

I was asked once by a reporter about sex education in schools. I said I supported teaching sex education because if we taught sex the way we taught reading, by the time the kids reached puberty they wouldn't want to do it any longer.

Most people don't read so it stands to reason most teenagers don't read.

My children read. I think readers breed new readers. Those who prefer watching television breed watchers. Drunks breed drunks. I think schools hamper making readers.

In the 4th grade I pronounced a word incorrectly and the teacher laughed. Of course, everyone else laughed. I sat down. She said I wasn't finished reading. I said I was. I frequently visited with the prinicipal but I never read for that teacher again.

[bluefoxicy]

I cant understand how you have that view of Animal farm as it is universally recognised as one of the greatest political parodies ever put to paper.

Universally recognized by stuffy-headed scholars who are busy ascribing whatever their imagination comes up with to anything.

We have two kinds of people: Scholars who find all the "symbolism" in Isaac Asimov's works and then tell him (at a conference) that he's wrong about there not being any symbolism in Isaac Asimov's work (yeah, he actually did that once, challenged a literary speaker in public); and the 99% of the population that reads Orwell and doesn't see anything but a raw sequence of events (everything Orwell wrote was political, whether direct or symbolic).

Its also a fantastic example of how easily power corrupts and the nature of politicians and their constituents. In my view one of the greatest reflections of the hierarchical nature of society.

And 99% of us are going to see 1984 as a political piece, and Animal Farm as an amusing piece about animals that eventually turn out as just your basic "bad guy."

Everyone I went to school with read Animal Farm. The ones that actually think occasionally complain about a privacy issue with our surveillance system (we have CCTV all over the city here, watching what everyone does in public). The ones that have read 1984 are CONSTANTLY referencing Orwell and 1984, even the ones I'm quite convinced are total idiots and just panicking at every little thing.

What do you do with a B.A. in English? Just about nobody asks this question, because nobody ever goes for a B.A. in English; it's such a ridiculously useless prospect that almost nobody considers it. Only political science majors and English majors look for political symbolism in stories; the rest of us are just enjoying the action.

Besides, have you ever considered how hard it is to recognize political symbolism you're not familiar with? School kids aren't taught about concepts like the movement of political power in a liberated political body (i.e. right after the French or Haitian revolutions); they don't have that basis of comparison. Trying to illustrate it in an alien environment that we automatically associate with something completely ridiculous isn't the best way to get kids to think about the underlying political message. They might as well be reading Harry Potter-- it'd probably be more interesting.

I was asked once by a reporter about sex education in schools. I said I supported teaching sex education because if we taught sex the way we taught reading, by the time the kids reached puberty they wouldn't want to do it any longer.

This.

[InfiniteMatt]

I don’t think I’m one hundred percent sure as to what you’re saying.

We have two kinds of people: Scholars who find all the "symbolism" in Isaac Asimov's works and then tell him (at a conference) that he's wrong about there not being any symbolism in Isaac Asimov's work (yeah, he actually did that once, challenged a literary speaker in public); and the 99% of the population that reads Orwell and doesn't see anything but a raw sequence of events (everything Orwell wrote was political, whether direct or symbolic).

To say there are only two kinds of readers seems a bit ridiculous; especially calling one group “stuffy-headed.” Once an author writes his/her work and publishes it he/she should, essentially, not ascribe to the position that they KNOW what the work is about: this simply due to the idea that we, of course, understand and read things differently. That’s one of the best things about discussing literature, the different opinions and discussion.

I’m not entirely sure why you put symbolism in quotes. I assumed you were just using it as an all-inclusive word that represents all of literary speech and definition. Animal Farm, as a book, cannot be symbolic of anything. It’s a book. Only characters, setting, or situations can, in a manor of speaking be symbolic.

What do you do with a B.A. in English? Just about nobody asks this question, because nobody ever goes for a B.A. in English; it's such a ridiculously useless prospect that almost nobody considers it. Only political science majors and English majors look for political symbolism in stories; the rest of us are just enjoying the action.

I don’t understand how you think a B.A in English is a “ridiculously useless prospect that almost nobody considers it.” I have a B.A. in English, a masters, and working on my PhD. I’ve wanted this since I was—maybe—a freshman in high school. Still, however, my school is littered with students who love literature and are pursuing various degrees. Why then are there (and my) endeavors ridiculously useless prospects?

Again, I could be reading your post wrong—I read it through a few times though before commenting, though.

[StephenKingman]

Universally recognized by stuffy-headed scholars who are busy ascribing whatever their imagination comes up with to anything.

Thats not true, im neither a stuffy scholar nor a political activist and i immediately understood the themes of corruption, society and communism that Orwell was trying to portray in the story of Animal Farm. You dont automatically fall into a 'category' just because you happen to enjoy, and understand, a book.

And 99% of us are going to see 1984 as a political piece, and Animal Farm as an amusing piece about animals that eventually turn out as just your basic "bad guy."

Everyone I went to school with read Animal Farm. The ones that actually think occasionally complain about a privacy issue with our surveillance system (we have CCTV all over the city here, watching what everyone does in public). The ones that have read 1984 are CONSTANTLY referencing Orwell and 1984, even the ones I'm quite convinced are total idiots and just panicking at every little thing.

When i read 1984 as a 16yr old, a lot of it went over my head and im sure im not alone. 16 or 17 is not necessarily the most mature age to comprehend what an author is trying to portray. Its only when i read it later in life that i really appreciated the very true observations on life, society and government contained within the book. I see Animal Farm as political also, as the farm itself is so blatantly a blueprint template representation of a dictatorial communist society and the animals the eventual constituents of the greedy pigs, its very plain that that is what Orwell intended his characters to represent. As for 1984, i love the book but im not paranoid about cctv or mobile phones or other technology, thats just pure conspiracy theory madness!

[smellymonkey]

What do you do with a B.A. in English? Just about nobody asks this question, because nobody ever goes for a B.A. in English; it's such a ridiculously useless prospect that almost nobody considers it.

What!!! Im doing a BA in English Literature and it is still a very popular choice to say it is completely useless is unbelievable and all i can suggest is that you yourself are a 'stuffy-headed scholar' who looks down on others while seeing yourself as superior. And i think you will find that there are many career options available to someone with this degree. What is it that you studied?

[theonlinetrainers]

Alexa! Thank you a lot my dear for posting such a very important question....well...and my answer is it depends in if they enjoy reading or not...some people were born to read all the time! not all humans are the same...now if you visited any children school, you will find out...that some kids love to spell words and love to write a full sentence...they enjoy spelling all the time and they like it when their teacher says to them "BRAVO!" You have done an excellent work...keep it up...so they keep in spelling...until one day they'll realize that...Reading is their best Hobby...one day they'll find out that Reading s not only a part of Education, but it is the best enertainment they ever had in their whole life! and by the way! it doesn't matter to read from a book, a newspaper or from the internet...teenagers nowadays love to read E-Books...as they use their personal computers the whole day! so that doesn't mean they don't love reading....


Thank you again and again for your precious post...and wishing you all the best of the bests and a life full of peace, joy and happiness!

[Perrywinkle47]

Yeah teenagers are still reading books, although internet has made a great difference but still people who have long reading habit can not get away with it that easily.

[B-fly]

I don't have an idea. If a have children one day I intend to keep them isolated without TV till they are 18 . I'm just kidding but today teenagers are scaring me.