Are Books Becoming Obsolete?

A new report doesn't bode well for books. According to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released recently, one in four adults read not a single book last year, which explains the significant drop in book sales over the last few years, but doesn't explain why superstores, like Barnes & Noble and Borders, continue to expand.

There are many reasons why people don't read as they once did. The major reason is that there is a feast for the eyes without the need for settling down and focusing on the written word. Television provides a variety of images, video games deliver bright colors and packed action, and the Internet gives the power of immediacy. Books are something else all together--they are a quiet entertainment and we are no longer raised to know how to be "quiet." Richard Bustos from Dallas is a prime example:

"I just get sleepy when I read," said Richard Bustos of Dallas, a habit with which millions of Americans can doubtless identify. Bustos, a 34-year-old project manager for a telecommunications company, said he had not read any books in the last year and would rather spend time in his backyard pool.

This is discouraging news for the serious writer. Just yesterday, I lamented the difficulties of getting a traditional publishing book deal on my post here. Mainstream publishers are struggling since they are in the business of selling books. They must compete with the aforementioned forms of entertainment, and that is not an easy thing to do when money is to be made. This is why the latest publication of Harry Potter was met with such glee, even though with the dramatic discounts, bookstores didn't make much money from it. Still, the thinking was that it drove traffic into the stores and perhaps customers would pick up another book, along with that latest copy of Harry Potter.

But consider this:

Who are the 27 percent of people the AP-Ipsos poll found hadn't read a single book this year? Nearly a third of men and a quarter of women fit that category. They tend to be older, less educated, lower income, minorities, from rural areas and less religious.

I tend to think it also goes a little deeper. We are a busy people, most trying to stay ahead of the bills. We clock in overtime and forfeit vacations in order to pay the mortgage, and at the end of the day, most just want to collapse in front of the television with the remote in one hand, a beverage in the other, and not have to think.

But a book demands more from us. When one opens a book, one brings his or her experiences and knowledge, or hunger for knowledge, to the work and a new world can unfold with each turning page. Unfortunately, just like most media, there is a lot of fast food for the mind being published and people think that reading such commercial dribble keeps them in the know. On one level it does, but it is knowledge that serves no useful purpose. For publishers, it's a moneymaker because we are a fast food society unwilling to take time to digest sustenance.

Here are some more statistics:

People from the West and Midwest are more likely to have read at least one book in the past year. Southerners who do read, however, tend to read more books, mostly religious books and romance novels, than people from other regions. Whites read more than blacks and Hispanics, and those who said they never attend religious services read nearly twice as many as those who attend frequently.

There was even some political variety evident, with Democrats and liberals typically reading slightly more books than Republicans and conservatives.

The Bible and religious works were read by two-thirds in the survey, more than all other categories. Popular fiction, histories, biographies and mysteries were all cited by about half, while one in five read romance novels. Every other genre -- including politics, poetry and classical literature -- were named by fewer than five percent of readers.

More women than men read every major category of books except for history and biography. Industry experts said that confirms their observation that men tend to prefer nonfiction.

What this fellow said mirrors how the industry has been responding:

"Fiction just doesn't interest me," said Bob Ryan, 41, who works for a construction company in Guntersville, Ala. "If I'm going to get a story, I'll get a movie."

Bearing that in mind, it's possible Ryan has seen the movie version of Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird, even if he hasn't read the book. What is sad about this is that if Lee were to pitch her novel to agents and editors now, it's quite likely she'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to publish it, since it is "too quiet to be commercially viable."

Comments

[tililek]

If the commercials on TV continue to be annoying, numerous, and long-winded perhaps a book will be a pleasant change.

[leftLibertarian]

I'm not surprised. This is America, home of the boobie and those who voted twice for an elite fancy pants moron who went to Ivy League Skools.

[1will]

I disagree with the claim that books are becoming obsolete. I live in a Southern State that is home to many bookstores. There is a used bookstore close to my home that is always packed. This store charges 50% of the cover price and buys used books for 25% (if they want them) of the cover price. This store is a great alternative to paying $8 for a paperback.
The large chains such as Barnes & Noble are always crowded. I have noticed many older kids hanging out there also. The coffee bar thing has come to replace the mall for some High School kids. I know my Middle School aged daughter and her friends love Barnes & Noble. I take that as a good sign.
I doubt that books will ever become obsolete.

[KrazyKat]

Kill your television set. Utilize your local library. Support your local independent booksellers.

I'm amazed when I hear otherwise intelligent folks say they don't have time or don't enjoy reading a good book. That's like saying you don't have time or desire to eat anything other than fast food.

I think a love of literature must to be fostered in childhood -- my parents were huge readers, and books were always exchanged as birthday and Xmas presents, so I never felt reading was some kind of chore, or something to do because you had to. In my humble opinion, children should NEVER have a TV in their bedroom.

I do love movies and enjoy good tv shows, but NOTHING beats a great book!

[mckinley]

Ironically, I find internet literature such as this -- articles you can post responses to, IM chatting and roleplaying (creating my own literature with someone else), chatrooms -- MUCH more fulfilling than reading a book by myself in a corner of my living room...

[madrigal23]

My previous post is a little muddled, so I'll make up for it here:

Books are not obsolete, but the content and the publishers of that content can be.

It's true that too many of us work too long and have lots of ways to spend what leisure time we have. It's also true that some of us don't read anything or anything more than gossip rags, or Playboy and that ilk, or the sports and comics pages. (I once went through a phase, after reading for work all day, of reading nothing but the TV Guide at home. And my bills.)

But unless we're motivated, we tend to eat what we're served. Most of what we get served is in the "Not a Contribution" category, even as the publishers serving it think that that is all we will eat.

Ms. Hoenig's blog is filed under "Entertainment" at the Huffington Post, and that's just one symptom of the problem: shouldn't it be filed under "Living"? "Media"? "Politics"?

Reading is a tool for living, a type of media, and a statement of politics (if you're not sure about that, consider the historic reluctance of Church and Government to teach the peasants how to read: if the hoi polloi could read the Bible, they could think about Scripture for themselves. They could even think about what kind of government they want to have.... and come to think of it, if we're not reading much now, what kind of government do we have now? Sorry, off point... no, wait, maybe not...)

Since Ms. Hoenig's post is filed under "Entertainment" (one of my favorite categories), should we consider it to be the same candy we get with the current spate of Poor Little Rich Girl dramas?

Is "Entertainment" on HuffPo where I should be looking for enlightenment on the state of the world? I'd rather, it's so much easier than picking up a book with an entree of thought in it, but I don't think I'll be a better person for it.

(Ok, not completely unmuddled, but closer.)

[Indiana]

Please enlighten me since this is the second time you've mentioned this--what is the "Not a Contribution" category?

[madrigal23]

The category "Not a Contribution" includes most (notice the qualifier; there are always exceptions, but so few):
--copycat books that ride coattails of bestsellers, often mimicking their covers by type and design (like Harry Potter knockoffs);
--most business advice books, especially by titans of industry--virtuous, hardworking, and currently not indicted;
--most self-help books (like "Who Ate My Pizza?");
--vague reference books (like "Your Kitty"s Checklist of the Best 100 Cat Spas in the Former Soviet Union");
--unauthorized but really juicy celebrity biographies (like "The Tragic, Sympathetic Life of Pretty Boy Glitzoid, and How He Prevailed to Make the A List"), as told to or as ghostwritten by;
--diet books;
--diet books;
--did I say diet books?
So many trees to die in vain, so little contribution to the future.

[Pyroklst]

Hummm... let's see. would I rather spend $24.95 on a new book or $24.95 on a month's subscription to cable+internet???? Where, by the way I can get all sorts of book reviews and summaries.

[madrigal23]

Books will never be obsolete as long as batteries die and electricity costs money.

Even during the Dark Ages in Europe, when books were mostly obsolete--not to mention useless--they survived in monastic libraries and thrived in the Islamic Empire, where there was wit and thought enough to value Islamic, Jewish, Christian, Greek, and Roman contributions.

Commercial publishers are another story. They may go the way of the dodo. Maybe if they quit spitting out books in the "Not a Contribution" category....

[Rondo]

books are not cornflakes

I read everyday preferring books with a good narrative

art is food, readers digest, fools perish

nuf said

[bumpersticker]

Books have the same problem that records had - It's a serial experience, and it's a lot of the same stuff. Gone are the days when an adequate consumer pool will tolerate 12 tracks of Procol Harum or Grand Funk Railroad - or the 600 page book. We want random access and diversity. Too much video graphics flashing, I suppose. Brains that read seem brighter and better connected, but the delivery package is in trouble.

BEEP - Sorry, I just got an email, and I want to browse over to YouTube.

[DeafMom]

Out where I live, it seems like many people have wised up and are using the library rather than buying books. With foreclosures up, gas prices out of sight and food costs through the roof-- nothing beats a free book.

[Indiana]

With even mass-market paperbacks usually costing about $8.00 these days, and one read's being enough for the lion's share of novels, that's why I visit the public library once a week.

[MentalContent]

I agree. For a bookworm like me, buying books gets expensive fast. I'd rather use my library card. It wastes less paper, too.

[Rondo]

Do Americans want to be obsolete?

[mommadona]

no

they don't need

batteries.

just like

a deck of cards.