I remember we had to read The Catcher in the Rye and I still believe that is one of the most overrated books of all time.  I mean, were we supposed to identify with the protagonist because he was a teenager?  I didn't.  I just longed for him to get hit by a bus so the book would be over.

You and I share a brain when it comes to this book.   

The only time I was ever really into it was when it looked like the elevator pimp was going to beat Holden to a pulp.  That would have been a great way to begin the upward phase of the character's Harmon Circle: have him wake up in the hospital, reevaluate his life in something like a "Come to Jesus" moment, and then set himself to making amends and developing virtues and whatnot.

(For those who aren't familiar with the Harmon Circle, I'm referring to Step 5.)

Seems like that article lacks any useful data. "the very age when, according to publishing lore, lifetime readers are made" Right. I'll just trust lore to be a scientific study.

I'm sure the reasons are an amalgamation of many factors. Covid, screens, educational funding and curriculum, lack of parental care.

Lynn has some good points, and the only reason I was reading at a young age is because my mother took me to the library.

From my own experience, I have to generally agree with Tim. School absolutely killed any interest I had in reading. I was forced to read books I didn't want to read, write book reports for them, and get points marked off because my interpretations weren't the correct interpretations. When I stopped actually reading the books and just rephrased Spark Notes, my grades improved. I found it hard to read for pleasure after having books associated with hard work and pain.

It wasn't until I was in college that I started reading again. I had more control, and could explore books I actually found interesting with my limited free time, and was able to actually enjoy them without having to worry about overanalyzing everything to death. I explored genres based on movies and TV I enjoyed and started to read more widely over time. After reading some blurbs, I also read a number of the classics they try to shove down your throat in school. And many of those I actually enjoyed, without the threat of a grade hanging overhead. I'm sure I missed some greater themes, symbolism, or other small details, and I don't care. Gatsby can kill me with his green light for all I care.

Grown women have always been the biggest readers in history and now. Men usually aren't big readers, never have been. I doubt many kids were ever passionate about reading. Most read because they have to in school and boys rarely ever read if it's not mandatory. It's the same with men. Men read way less than women, always have. And when they do read men tend to read nonfiction books, etc. Women read for pleasure more than anyone. Girls do read more than boys it seems but to what extent?

My point is, children are not monolithic. You got some that like to read and some don't, just like adults. When I was a kid, I read a lot. I read way more than I ever did as an adult. Why? Because as a kid I wasn't as busy, and I enjoyed books more back then. As an adult, I am much picker with my reading than I was as a kid so it's harder for me to find books I wanna read. A lot of the books that are popular don't appeal to me and I only read indie now. I haven't bought a trade book in years. But if you asked me would I rather write than read, hell yeah. I spend way more time writing and I enjoy immersing myself in my own stories more than I do reading. Doesn't mean I don't like to read anymore but it's not as big of a passion for me as it was when I was younger.

So, IMO, I don't think kids in general were any more passionate about reading in the past. If you didn't have school, many wouldn't read at all. It's the parents we should be talking about. They should enforce reading more and get their children more involved than just letting them be on the computer on social media all day. But then again the parents probably don't read either so...  If you don't do something you sure aren't gonna tell someone else to do it.

I was a kid in the 80s and a teen in the 90s. We didn't have the Internet, cell phones, social media, etc. All we had was cable, TV, and music. That in itself was enough of a distraction for some kids not to read. And when I was a kid we always went outside to play everyday after school and on weekends. Many kids only read when they had homework. Today, these kids have WAY more distractions than even I had so heck, if I was a child today I don't know if I would be reading much either for pleasure. Not saying that's a good thing at all. I think kids should be reading as much as possible to learn stuff, but much of it is a sign of the times and not so much about the state of literature or books. I don't have kids, but if I did I would definitely instill the importance of reading to them.

I found school put me off reading more than anything else did.

I wasn't interested in what they wanted me to read, and I read it so fast that by the time we discussed the books, I'd already forgotten them.

I picked up reading again after I left high school and was earning money.

I'm not too worried about that age group. I don't aim at them, and I don't expect them to start buying books themselves until they're in their late teens or twenties.

If the stats start showing that the same drop off is happening in the 20's group, then we can start to get worried.

But stats like these can be very deceptive anyway, because of the small samples, or limited groups they sample.

The first thing I want to know is what was the actual question asked was.

Because that question could have been aimed at paperbacks by the way it was phrased, and is being interpreted to mean all books. And if so, that's BS.

May, a favorite month for a variety of reasons: https://vijayabodach.blogspot.com/2024/05/happy-may.html