Wait, Wasn't Google Supposed To Have Destroyed Our Interest In Reading Books?

from the oops dept

For years, we’ve found it amusing when various technophobes or techno-pessimists would bemoan the fact that kids spent so much time online as compared to doing “real” things like reading books. This seemed odd to us, as there was a long period of time where the alternative was kids watching TV. It seems like having kids actively engaged in communicating with others through text is a great way to improve both reading and writing skills — and there’s been plenty of evidence to suggest that, in fact, kids writing skills are getting much better. And, now, the latest report finds that (despite Nick Carr’s claim that the Google-era is killing our desire to read long form articles and books) more people are reading such things than just a few years ago.

Basically, the decades long trend of people (of all age groups and backgrounds) reading less seems to have been reversed. However, as Valleywag notes, the head of the National Endowment for the Arts refuses to accept the idea that the internet played a major role in the upsurge in reading. There certainly could be other factors — and it wouldn’t be at all surprising to find out a variety of different reasons for the higher reading rates, but it seems odd to out and out say the internet was a lot less important than other factors.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Wait, Wasn't Google Supposed To Have Destroyed Our Interest In Reading Books?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Comboman says:

Ryting Skillz

Kidz ryting skillz r getin bettar? Writing more perhaps but certainly not better. Unlike with books, a lot of what kids read on the net is written by non-professional writers (in fact, a lot is written by other kids). They no longer get the re-enforcement of being exposed mainly to professionally written content with correct spelling, grammar and sentence structure, which leads to poor writing skills (which in turn is read by other kids and perpetuates the cycle).

Rich Kulawiec says:

Re: Ryting Skillz

Maybe; maybe not. I often note that some of the “non-professional” writing seen online is vastly superior to the supposedly-professional writing appearing in books, magazines, newspapers, and journals. I don’t discern a recognizable pattern which reliably predicts where good or bad writing will be found.

Mike (profile) says:

Re: Ryting Skillz

Kidz ryting skillz r getin bettar?

Silly mocking aside, you are simply incorrect. Studies have shown that kids’ writing skills have gotten markedly better in the last few years. Part of it is that despite what older folks claim, most kids know when it’s appropriate to use “slang” typing and when it’s not.

They no longer get the re-enforcement of being exposed mainly to professionally written content with correct spelling, grammar and sentence structure, which leads to poor writing skills (which in turn is read by other kids and perpetuates the cycle).

Too bad the studies say otherwise. Why let facts get in the way of a good “the kids these days…” rant?

LadyGrey says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Ryting Skillz

As are “would of,” should of” and “could of” instead of “would’ve,” “should’ve” and “could’ve.” As a college English faculty member,that combo is one of my pet peeves. It speaks to a problem in *many* areas, including verbal enunciation, basic comprehension of the concept of a contraction, and a fundamental unwillingness to actually THINK about what is being written (insofar as the writer can’t even identify, _with the aid of a spell-checker_, that there is even a problem. I’ve had several students consistently turning in compositions with those particular contractions. I bring them up (the word issues, not the students!) in class, and the class members, as a large group, do not see the problem .
I’m not trying to weigh in on whether or not the World Wide Web has been a good influence or a bad influence; I only know that we write what we read. That’s not to say that I haven’t read some pretty bad writing by “professionals” in the field, but the likelihood of an editor/proofreader checking the average student’s website is slim to none, while print materials (except those from vanity presses) have had that extra service to improve the quality of the materials contained therein.

hegemon13 says:

Re: Ryting Skillz

You are dead wrong.

“Professional” writing is more about writing in a particular style than about writing skills. A journalist does not necessarily write good fiction. A fiction author might make a lousy technical writer.

The best way to get better at writing is simply to do more of it. Today, kids are writing (and reading) more than ever, and you don’t have to be “professional” to be competent. I am not a race car driver, but I can safely pilot my minivan on the highway.

Duane (profile) says:

Ryting Skillz

And to a certain extent, correct grammar and such are not that important. For instance in the original post, the person uses re-enforcement when, in fact, it should be reinforcement. The two words mean completely separate things, but we all got the idea.

True story. For the longest time I thought “loose” for “lose” was some Canadian thing, because I couldn’t imagine so many people using the word incorrectly.

snowburn14 says:

Re: oh no!!! No more long form?!

That you seem to think an article could not be both long and wordy, and well thought out at the same time is exactly the point the technophobes are getting at. While I’m not making the claim myself – I can see a common sense argument for either side, and I’ve yet to see a study on this subject that was convincing one way or the other – they would argue that the proliferation of brief snippets of information on any given topic prevents people from being exposed to all the additional information that they used to have no choice but to read through to find the nuggets they were looking for. Of course, the counter-argument is that the time wasted on “irrelevant” information could better have been spent reading a few (or a lot) more brief bits of targeted information.
What I’d like to see, is a study on how many adults still read Shakespeare and Plato after they are finished with school, or at least as something for their own enrichment and not an assignment – something that actually involves reasoning and thought.
And for anyone who is tempted to point out a run-on sentence or what have you, keep in mind that I’m writing this on my lunch break, so I don’t have the luxury of proof-reading 😉

Anonymous Coward says:

Technically Correct Writing

will most likely be found in scientific journals, research papers, legal documents, engineering reports, and product instructions. (Sometimes blogs with active grammar nazis in the commentary)

Books, in particular fiction, often use incorrect grammar, sentence fragments, misspelling, and other crimes against the language intentionally as a tool to develop the mood or to define a character or simply because that’s how people speak. Journalists are often under the gun to get a story out and while they try to use proper english sometimes mistakes slip through the cracks when they aren’t looked for, or aren’t even a concern because again, that’s how people speak.

Writing skill isn’t at all about grammar usage and spelling. It is about taking the ideas that are in your head and putting them in a form that other people can comprehend. Or about taking facts and organizing them coherently.

I’m not a professional writer, but I would probably be fired if I couldn’t write in a way that clearly expressed my ideas and the facts that I know. Many, many jobs today require emailing, writing reports, generating presentations, all of which require writing skills of some kind and that is what people who use the internet constantly will be good at.

slimcat (profile) says:

From one of Mikes 'older folks'

Anecdotal, I know, but… An interest in reading is instilled in a child primarily by the parent and it has been my experience that once that interest is there, it remains unaffected by tv, Google or anything else. My parents regularly read to me and my wife and I read to our children and grand children from the time they were able to sit up. Our kids and grand kids were/are all ‘gifted’ honor students not because there was anything particularly special about them but because we took an active interest in their education.

The grand kids, 12-16 year-olds, enjoy reading books, watching movies on the tube, playing WoW and Halo, texting their friends (It has been demonstrated by many qualified people that there is absolutely nothing wrong with texting slang. All you pedantic pricks get offa my lawn) and Googleing for new books and free stuff by their favorite authors.

~Mike: “… what older folks claim..”? You need a quantifier in there. Something like ‘some’ or ‘many’. We ‘older folks’ aren’t all stuck in the ’50s, or even the ’40s. 😉 By the way, I’m, “…will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I’m 64…” years old.

Killer_Tofu (profile) says:

The Internet and Reading

I would actually venture to say that the internet could have played a very large part in the upsurge of reading.
It has allowed groups of people who read obscure genres to get together easier and pass around suggestions. Sites such as Amazon have made it easier to buy books you would never find in your local libraries due to limits on their cash flow and space allocation. Finding reader reviews is also much easier so you can see a lot of people who liked similar books to you say a certain book is good, you are more likely to get the book. I would indeed venture to say that the internet could have had a very large impact over many other reasons.

Matt Bennett (profile) says:

So imagine there was a routinely tracked ratio of the average persons (written words of communication)/(spoken words of communication) in a day. Obviously such a ratio exists, I just don’t think it’s been tracked. I am sure that in the last ten years that ratio has gone up by an order of magnitude for the general population due to things like email, chat, texts, and social networking. It wouldn’t surprise me to see that that number has even become >1 for a significant minority of the population (a good deal of white collar professionals). THAT, I’m sure, has basically never been true before.

This will cease to be true again when speach recognition, or possibly thought recognition technologies mature. Of course, I do think that’s still a ways off and at that point, it could be argued that writing would actually be somewhat obsolete.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...