http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ikcf3Iq9HqsQTzx1PU11AJ3LWy3wD8T0I0180

I agree with Leigh that one critical aspect is encouraging children to read, because once reading becomes a habit, it's lifelong.

Here's a report on UK kids and reading (the exec summary is the easiest to digest, pdf about half way down the page):

http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Research/readsurvey.html

Interestingly it notes that very young kids ("primary school" over here, age 5 through 10) are more enthusiastic about reading then older kids (11 through 18) and that one reason for older children not reading is the books aren't interesting.

I can relate to that. When my kids were younger I thought it was very hard to find decent fiction for them. The new stuff is almost invariably politically correct and you can hear the preaching; kids aren't dumb, they know when they're being patronized. I wound up buying them old stuff like the Hardy Boys -- until HP came along.

For all its merits or lack thereof (and I don't want to start another HP debate) it wasn't PC (witness the bookburnings). That was refreshing, and my children could relax and enjoy the stories without worrying about hidden morality messages. Also, and tying in with the aforementioned report, HP had websites discussing the books, which of course helped create interest, impetus and sales.

I think we need more politically incorrect YA's linked with subversive websites. Now, where's my keyboard ...

And the editors and agents who believe in It.

The problem with schools is the books don't change; yes Hemingway, Conrad and Shakespeare are classics, but just once could we read something by someone who's not dead? Coupled with the mounds of analysis and work (and the fact that no one likes being told what they should get out of a book) it's no wonder to me that my peers don't like reading.

I actually think that we're (my age group) reading just as much; the problem is we're reading different; blogs, txts, other brief internet type writing. And while the language is, according to "the rules" atrocious, it communicates fast and easily; much faster to type ppl than people, and so long as my audience still understands my meaning...

Another problem is that standardized testing makes learning to read and write a chore; teachers drill grammar and vocab into students' minds so that the scores come back good...blech, I don't like that at all...

One other thing to remember is that with the rise of video (youtube) it's becoming just as easy to express yourself audio/visually as it is by writing...books at one time were reserved for important ideas, as were pictures, then movies...

I don't feel like my life has been negatively impacted by my bizarre lapses in literary experiences. I was busy reading all that Heinlein and Asimov wrote during those years, my nose was always in a book. I have picked up some classics as an adult, though I'll be honest, The Great Gatsby is still on the shelf. I'll read it once I get through this next Weber book, and the Pratchett book I want to read (how DO they sell so many?) and those 8 YA ones from the library used book sale (25c each, how could I not snap up every one that had Science Fiction or Fantasy on the spine?) You know, some day.

I wish that teachers in late elementary and high school could help kids learn to love to read, and one way would be to let them choose more, and to let popular fiction into the classroom. There's something to learn from EVERY book that's written - even if often what there is to learn is what NOT to do.

A music teacher of mine used to let me pick sheet music that was from popular songs on the radio. I practiced those songs 10x as much as the classical pieces I was rehearsing for recitals. And learned just as much.

Dad took me to the library once a fortnight. He would take for-ev-er to choose his regulation four books, by which time I'd chosen my four and read a fifth. He never told me what to read or censored my choices, so I read what I wanted.

He knew that in books I could go all the places he either could not take me (on the Monte Carlo rally in a red MG), or would not be able to take me (into orbit on a space station with Kemlo). When I discovered the yellow Gollancz SF imprint and realized that SF was written for adults too, I was hooked for life.

In contrast, at school they made us read classics. Yech. Funny English that never seemed to get to the point, endless rambling desciptions of people I had no interest in, kings and queens and princes being treacherous and fighting over riches while ordinary people starved (what kind of role model is that for young minds?!) -- and in Shakespeare they spoke in something called blank verse that didn't rhyme and sounded silly. Not only that, Shakespeare went on and on and on and on and on.

The trouble with classics is that you have to be interested in the historical periods they cover and how people lived, and I wasn't. (I understand that for many people they're a delight and that's okay. But it's a matter of taste, one that I do not share. I believe I'm not alone.) I'm still not interested, unless there's a steam engine involved.

All I learned from classics was that if your opinion was different from the accepted one you were an outcast, "Not one of us, dear boy". I suppose I should thank them in a way. By accident they taught me something about how to defend independent critical thinking and the meaninglessness of parroted analysis.

I agree that schools should teach children to read critically and accept their analysis of books whatever it says, as long as it's well reasoned. Too, they should allow children a far broader choice of what they read.

And publishers should be braver and encourage authors to write the kind of books that kids and YAs want to read, not the prize-winning stuff with the mandatory moral messages.

quote:

---

I also wish we were allowed to form our own opinions about what certain things mean in a book; in Heart of Darkness I focused almost entirely on the theme of being consumed by something, only to find out it's supposed to be bashing imperialism...

---

However, the suggestions I give to people when they REALLY, REALLY want to learn how an author did whatever it was that the author did in a particularly effective book is to do something similar which will also probably make them hate the book.

So I strongly recommend people don't use a book they love and don't want to come to hate.

The suggestion is to read the book STRAIGHT THROUGH at least three times without reading anything else in between. By the third or fourth time, if you haven't noticed all kinds of things that the author has done and you aren't at least tired of the book, you are probably not paying attention to your reading.

Sometimes, in order to learn something, you have to pay a price.

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls/

Both the USA and UK are discomfittingly low in the table.

Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario are significantly higher in the table. Does anyone know what they do differently from the rest of us?

It seems to me that there is some fallacy about people buying fewer books these days. They didn't buy books at all back then because there weren't stores to sell them like there are nowadays. So, how CAN they be buying fewer?

Maybe in some of the big cities like Chicago people are buying fewer but Austin, Texas back then didn't have much opportunity. Owning books was kind of elitist. One big department store had a book section and it sold a few books. But all my books came from the drugstore and grocery store -- comics and paperbacks sold on spinners. (I had a very generous mother. She had an account at the drugstore near us. I could pedal up to it, go inside, pick out however many comics and paperbacks and magazines I wanted. All I had to do was show them to the lady at the counter and she'd add them to mom's monthly bill. Sigh. Those were the days.)

As for the classics... well, at the time I complained. Now, I'm glad I was forced to read books. I never would have read Jane Eyre--now it's one of my favorite books. Other books I still don't like, but I feel they've broadened my mind and experience anyway. School isn't about letting you do what you like--it's about teaching you and (sorry students!) making you do what's good for you. At my high school, by junior year, we got to choose English seminars, focused on different themes or topics. That was pretty cool.

To ramble on a bit, reading was very difficult for me at an early age. English was my second language, and my language skills in generally were a bit stunted. I remember my mom had to force me to read, literally pin me down in a chair with the book on the desk in front of me. I wailed and cried and complained, but I did it, and somehow, I started liking it.

Like TaleSpinner, though, it was my father, and my sister, who really got me to love reading. Both of them would read to me, an experience I'm eternally grateful for.

One quick comment on the "Classics". If your reading is for the intellectual aspects...ok, I can see the appeal. But I just don't see reading Shakespeare for fun....I read for two main reasons...to learn (programming books mainly), and entertainment. If the story is work to read, and I have to spend too much time wondering what the last five pages had to do with anything in the story at all...well, that isn't my kind of book.

Kids today are less apt to read the "Classics" because not only are they supposed to read them, they have to write a report on it. Like that ever made a book enjoyable. The Red Badge of Courage (which wasn't really a bad book), I read in a day...as fast as I could so I could take a test on it. Which I passed, but hated the fact that I had to read it so I could be tested....