Print is Dead: Books in Our Digital Age

Among all of the recent Harry-Potter-isn’t–leading-to-more-reading stories, Heidi Benson of the San Francisco Chronicle had one over the weekend entitled “Kids reading fewer books despite Harry Potter hoopla.” Benson leads off with the typical kind of stuff, referring to the upcoming NEA study which will show that kids aren’t reading after Harry: “Despite what has been dubbed the ‘Harry Potter Effect’ — which credits J.K. Rowling’s blockbuster book series with turning Game Boy addicts into lifelong readers — reading is in serious decline among teens nationwide, according to a forthcoming federal study.” She also talks to NEA chairman Dana Gioia, who says that “The power of the electronic, commercial entertainment media seems to be taking teenagers away from reading.”

This is interesting because, in the 2004 NEA report, Reading at Risk, Gioia and the NEA was more circumspect in where the readers were actually going. At that time, the NEA concluded that “Literature [in 2004] competes with an enormous array of electronic media. While no single activity is responsible for the decline of reading, the cumulative presence and availability of these alternatives have increasingly drawn Americans away from reading.” Three years after the last study, it seems that Gioia is drawing a clear line between the rise of the Internet and the decline of reading.

What’s also interesting is what Stanford education professor Michael Kamil has to say on the subject of kids spending their time online: “You have to be careful when you say kids are reading less. It doesn’t mean they are incapable of reading. It means they choose to do other things instead.” This is of course key, and should not be undervalued. Because while a lot of time online is spent being passive, watching stuff on Youtube, etc. much more of it is spent interactively, reading and contributing to blogs and social networking sites, discovering and engaging all kinds of content.

Kamil is also the chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, described by Benson as “a group charged with updating the way reading is judged by the federal government.” The Board has defined three different contexts of reading: reading for literary experience, reading for information, and reading to perform a task. According to Benson’s article, “Kamil believes that ‘reading for literary experience’ has been overemphasized and that today ‘reading for information’ is the most crucial skill.” So just because kids won’t be picking up those paperbacks of the “great classics” that nourished previous generations, all hope is not lost. However, in terms of publishers who have content they would like new generations to buy and consume, these new habits will have to be kept in mind. And because of this, maybe books of the future won’t look very much like books as they look today; maybe they’ll be more like blogs or videogames. A horrible thought for previous generations, I’m sure, but then again they’re not the ones the NEA is focusing on or worrying about. Besides, they’ll be able to keep their books. Meanwhile, we need to create a new format and reading experience for the kids who are already on their way to forgetting books.