Live data from Hacker News

U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

reuters.com

21–30 of 59 posts

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#21
post #14
post #5

I do not see the problem. I have never read books for pleasure. Most of the books I own are technical or reference material that have practical applications. Why would I want to read for pleasure? I did not find anything interesting about The Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, or To Kill a Mockingbird which were standard readings when I went to school. Maybe I do not have the imaginative capacity like those peopl…

Story-telling is important for society. It teaches us how people might react to situations we are not immediately familiar with, and how to empathise with people (characters) who have a different viewpoint than our own. And, it teaches us how to communicate our own stories effectively (as you have done here, in fact). So, I find it strange that you have never enjoyed reading fiction books. It is not necessary to read…

Story-telling is important for society.

I'd also argue that even if someone says "oh, I don't read stories," their lives are still very much affected by "stories," many of which are not explicitly told to us (rather, we learn them via cultural habits). Over the last few years, I've found it interesting (and satisfying) to examine what sorts of stories inform my life.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#22
post #12

Recently, I stopped over a friends house. And, I was surprised to see a group of 7 or so 9-11 year olds all watching their computers or devices. At first I thought they were having a lan party, playing a game. So, I asked them what they were doing, and they said they were watching youtube videos. I observed them for a while and watched as they'd go back and forth between each other, sharing different links then sitti…

> I'm not sure if this is good or bad (who can really say?).

Actually, there are many people who can say whether it's good or bad.

> Didn't Marshall McLuhan predict this back in the 60s? The 'book' as we know it has only been around for a few hundred years. And, certainly it's been quite important to our progress and exchange of information. But, information has been communicated for thousands of years, in different means, with success. I'm fairly optimistic that new generations will rely on different types of communication to exchange ideas and to learn. Books will not be irrelevant, but books (and reading) are being replaced, in importance. What will happen when we re-evaluate all of our knowledge outside the context of the 'Gutenberg mind'?

I suggest you pick up a copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shallows:_What_the_Internet... to broaden your outlook.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#23
post #13
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standard assigned readings may not interest you precisely because they're assigned. You're telling me you've never read a novel on your own? Not Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, nothing?

>You're telling me you've never read a novel on your own? I have never read a novel. I was curious whether I could finish one, so I tried to read the first Harry Potter book. I did not continue after the fifth chapter since it felt like work.

>I have never read a novel.

Wow. This is like someone telling me "I've never used the internet.". You're cutting yourself off from a huge supply of information.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#24
post #5

I do not see the problem. I have never read books for pleasure. Most of the books I own are technical or reference material that have practical applications. Why would I want to read for pleasure? I did not find anything interesting about The Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, or To Kill a Mockingbird which were standard readings when I went to school. Maybe I do not have the imaginative capacity like those peopl…

You should try out some better books. Have a go at this passage from A Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Man, by Joyce, wherein the protagonist Stephen Dedalus is losing his mind after having spent a week being whipped into a religious frenzy. He is alone in his room pondering his frequent visits to brothels:

> He closed the door and, walking swiftly to the bed, knelt beside it and covered his face with his hands. His hands were cold and damp and his limbs ached with chill. Bodily unrest and chill and weariness beset him, routing his thoughts. Why was he kneeling there like a child saying his evening prayers? To be alone with his soul, to examine his conscience, to meet his sins face to face, to recall their times and manners and circumstances, to weep over them. He could not weep. He could not summon them to his memory. He felt only an ache of soul and body, his whole being, memory, will, understanding, flesh, benumbed and weary.

>

> That was the work of devils, to scatter his thoughts and over-cloud his conscience, assailing him at the gates of the cowardly and sin-corrupted flesh: and, praying God timidly to forgive him his weakness, he crawled up on to the bed and, wrapping the blankets closely about him, covered his face again with his hands. He had sinned. He had sinned so deeply against heaven and before God that he was not worthy to be called God's child.

>

> Could it be that he, Stephen Dedalus, had done those things? His conscience sighed in answer. Yes, he had done them, secretly, filthily, time after time, and, hardened in sinful impenitence, he had dared to wear the mask of holiness before the tabernacle itself while his soul within was a living mass of corruption. How came it that God had not struck him dead? The leprous company of his sins closed about him, breathing upon him, bending over him from all sides. He strove to forget them in an act of prayer, huddling his limbs closer together and binding down his eyelids: but the senses of his soul would not be bound and, though his eyes were shut fast, he saw the places where he had sinned and, though his ears were tightly covered, he heard. He desired with all his will not to hear or see. He desired till his frame shook under the strain of his desire and until the senses of his soul closed. They closed for an instant and then opened. He saw.

>

> A field of stiff weeds and thistles and tufted nettle-bunches. Thick among the tufts of rank stiff growth lay battered canisters and clots and coils of solid excrement. A faint marshlight struggling upwards from all the ordure through the bristling grey-green weeds. An evil smell, faint and foul as the light, curled upwards sluggishly out of the canisters and from the stale crusted dung.

>

> Creatures were in the field: one, three, six: creatures were moving in the field, hither and thither. Goatish creatures with human faces, hornybrowed, lightly bearded and grey as india-rubber. The malice of evil glittered in their hard eyes, as they moved hither and thither, trailing their long tails behind them. A rictus of cruel malignity lit up greyly their old bony faces. One was clasping about his ribs a torn flannel waistcoat, another complained monotonously as his beard stuck in the tufted weeds. Soft language issued from their spittleless lips as they swished in slow circles round and round the field, winding hither and thither through the weeds, dragging their long tails amid the rattling canisters. They moved in slow circles, circling closer and closer to enclose, to enclose, soft language issuing from their lips, their long swishing tails besmeared with stale shite, thrusting upwards their terrific faces...

>

> Help!

>

> He flung the blankets from him madly to free his face and neck. That was his hell. God had allowed him to see the hell reserved for his sins: stinking, bestial, malignant, a hell of lecherous goatish fiends. For him! For him!

>

> He sprang from the bed, the reeking odour pouring down his throat, clogging and revolting his entrails. Air! The air of heaven! He stumbled towards the window, groaning and almost fainting with sickness. At the washstand a convulsion seized him within; and, clasping his cold forehead wildly, he vomited profusely in agony.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#25
its cuz of txtng

Not just texting, but it seems like any communication online is excused from having to follow any sort of rules. People try to justify it in a sense of 'This is just how kids speak these days', but would any other field allow a grotesque destruction of itself?

What's the lol-speak equivalent in math, science, or art?

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#26
post #12

Recently, I stopped over a friends house. And, I was surprised to see a group of 7 or so 9-11 year olds all watching their computers or devices. At first I thought they were having a lan party, playing a game. So, I asked them what they were doing, and they said they were watching youtube videos. I observed them for a while and watched as they'd go back and forth between each other, sharing different links then sitti…

> I'm not sure if this is good or bad (who can really say?). Actually, there are many people who can say whether it's good or bad. > Didn't Marshall McLuhan predict this back in the 60s? The 'book' as we know it has only been around for a few hundred years. And, certainly it's been quite important to our progress and exchange of information. But, information has been communicated for thousands of years, in different…

What I mean is: who can predict the future?

The 'book' had certainly impacted the structure of Human thinking, and McLuhan suggested that this resulted in things that weren't necessarily 'good' (maybe some good? some bad?). Likewise, new technologies will again change the structure of Human thinking. But, we can't presume to know how this will turn out.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#27
post #5

I do not see the problem. I have never read books for pleasure. Most of the books I own are technical or reference material that have practical applications. Why would I want to read for pleasure? I did not find anything interesting about The Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, or To Kill a Mockingbird which were standard readings when I went to school. Maybe I do not have the imaginative capacity like those peopl…

Most books you can read "for pleasure" are stories about people, their interactions, struggles, aspirations and conflicts. Reading such books helps you better empathize with other people and relate to them, even if you yourself have not personally experienced what they are going through.

I'll give you a random example that popped in my head: there are a ton of similarities between office politics today and the society the kids set up for themselves in Lord of the Flies. For a long time I could not make sense of the former, until I read the latter a second time, but this time outside of a school's "standard reading" context. Only then did I appreciate the power of the book's social commentary and its applications to a large variety of social settings (including, as I mentioned, the workplace).

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#28
post #13
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standard assigned readings may not interest you precisely because they're assigned. You're telling me you've never read a novel on your own? Not Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, nothing?

>You're telling me you've never read a novel on your own? I have never read a novel. I was curious whether I could finish one, so I tried to read the first Harry Potter book. I did not continue after the fifth chapter since it felt like work.

It takes the right book, the right mood and the right stimulus. I used to think like you. I can tell you that after you enjoy the first novel, you "get" it. You get why everyone says the book is better at the end of a movie session.

What changed my perception of fiction books was the passion of a friend of my mom about a particular book, and the fact that the book was around during some particularly boring summer vacations.

I imagine such a collusion of events in nowadays fast paced world is more difficult. I do understand where you are coming from, though.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#29
post #13
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standard assigned readings may not interest you precisely because they're assigned. You're telling me you've never read a novel on your own? Not Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, nothing?

>You're telling me you've never read a novel on your own? I have never read a novel. I was curious whether I could finish one, so I tried to read the first Harry Potter book. I did not continue after the fifth chapter since it felt like work.

Wow.

Re: U.S. children read, but not well or often: report

#30
post #13
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standard assigned readings may not interest you precisely because they're assigned. You're telling me you've never read a novel on your own? Not Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, nothing?

>You're telling me you've never read a novel on your own? I have never read a novel. I was curious whether I could finish one, so I tried to read the first Harry Potter book. I did not continue after the fifth chapter since it felt like work.

Reading for pleasure is a skill that works like a muscle that must be exercised. The more you train it, the easier it becomes. If you never read as a kid, I can understand why you'd find it difficult as an adult.

I'm curious, though: do you watch TV for fun, i.e. not to learn something but just to enjoy the story?

Post reply on HN