Are We Readers? And Are We The Right Kind Of Readers?

BY Linda Holmes
14 January 2009, Monkey See (National Public Radio)

During a recent vacation, I happily devoured Nixonland, an 800-plus-page behemoth that I stuck to with such constancy that I'm fairly sure that toting it around and clutching it awkwardly with my short-lady fingers actually injured my wrist. Not kidding.

As L.A. Times book editor David L. Ulin points out today, this would not help me contribute to American "reading" under the definition used by the National Endowment for the Arts in its series of studies on reading in America. The last couple of reports had stated that reading was on the decline, but the one released this week, called "Reading On The Rise," shows that the trend is reversing itself. American "literacy," they say, is improving.

What's the catch? After the jump...

Of course, that only applies to "literary reading." It includes novels, short stories, plays, and poetry. It does not include history, politics, science, economics, memoirs...in short, it does not include much of what I personally enjoy reading for pleasure. And as Ulin points out, the report goes on at some length about not only the trends in literary reading, but also how good literary reading is for you -- as he puts it, "framing reading in terms of moral value." The study proudly points out, "literary readers attend arts and sports events, play sports, do outdoor activities, exercise, and volunteer at higher rates than non-readers."

Here's the irony, to me: Under this definition, I am more of a contributor to American "literacy" because I have a weakness for kicky romance novels than because I like books about politics and sociology. Yes, the NEA study does discuss rates of "book-reading" generally (meaning that all books are included), but those numbers are only touched upon; it is how much Americans read fiction that drives the report and the NEA's conclusions about how we're doing.

As Ulin points out, the definition of and dwelling upon literary reading "is unconscious of its own elitism, the idea that literary reading is different from (read: betterthan) any other kind."

Indeed, I have to question why the numbers on all book-reading aren't of more significance than the numbers on literary reading. Certainly, counting all "book-reading" means you sweep in self-help books and other things that the NEA perhaps doesn't have in mind when it sings the praises of reading, but it also includes all the worthwhile and satisfying nonfiction that's otherwise excluded. "Literary reading," after all, sweeps in plenty of material that's also emphatically not the NEA's focus: romances, mysteries, thrillers -- in fact, a good chunk of what all those "literary readers" are actually reading.

It's not hard to come up with guesses about possible motives for the perplexing definition the NEA is applying: it uses the results to sing the praises of its own literacy initiatives aimed at young readers. If you look at the numbers for "book-reading" generally, the story is actually different: a smaller percentage of adults read books in 2008 than in 2002. How can reading be "on the rise" when fewer of us read books? Because not all books are created equal.

I get a point for advancing American literacy because I read Shopaholic Takes Manhattan. (That's right; I read them all.) I get no point for Daniel Radosh's Rapture Ready: Adventures In The Parallel Universe Of Christian Pop Culture, probably the most intriguing, thoughtful book I read last year. Nothing for Gang Leader For A Day, nothing for Mark Harris' Pictures At A Revolution -- oh, and nothing for Nixon.

It's useful to know where we stand on fiction reading, but it's also important not to drive people away from the entire world of books and book clubs and feeling the turn of a page by tut-tutting at them for not reading novels.

Now, if you'll excuse me: my non-literary reading calls upon me to ice my wrist.