What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
CNET Top Weekly Download for Free Anti-Virus view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
131 Comments
- Lucas123, on 10/24/2009, -1/+105I'm sorry. Whatever this posts says, I'm sure it's important, but I don't have time to read it. Dugg anyways.
- ic3burg, on 10/24/2009, -6/+85I must say that even with the convenience of e-books, there is still nothing like curling up with a hand held paper back book on a rainy day.
- heliumflash, on 10/25/2009, -2/+60I read more on the internet than I ever did with books.
- Blinker1315, on 10/24/2009, -0/+51I don't believe that life is too hectic for reading books. It depends upon your priorities. I work long hours, but reading is one of life's singular joys and I make room for it in my schedule, and my wife and kids do the same. Even if for just an hour a day, turn off the computer, the cell, the tube, the music, and hole away and read a book. You'll emerge refreshed.
- SilverBlade2k, on 10/25/2009, -3/+50Why don't I read anymore? Simple...the joy of reading has been sapped away by schools and possibly parents. In schools, students read novels in order to pass tests or to write book reports - associating reading with homework, and not with entertainment. Also, when I was younger, my parents used to make me read stuff before I can watch TV or do other fun stuff..which is again, associating reading with work and not enjoyment. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's had this.
So, basically, kids have been raised to only read because there's some sort of 'reward' attached to it..classroom grades or being able to watch TV. This changed (somewhat) when Harry Potter came around which got kids into reading again, but I will always associate reading with some form of work or chore, and not enjoyment. - diemunkiesdie, on 10/24/2009, -4/+35Isn't it easier to watch Pride and Prejudice for 2 hours rather than read it for 10 hours? Not that I've ever read or watched it... SparkNotes FTW!
P.S. I did not read this article, I'll wait for the movie. - codenamepenryn, on 10/25/2009, -3/+293 pages? TLDNR.
- Pinkertinkle, on 10/25/2009, -2/+27tldr
- Truedirt, on 10/24/2009, -2/+23Reading is for the brain what physical exercise is for the body and it seems like the same excuses used by people who don't exercise, are being advanced here.
- AmnesiacJack, on 10/25/2009, -0/+19Come on, reading Digg posts has to count for some type of tragic comedy book at least.
- ChaotikBlu, on 10/25/2009, -5/+24All those English classes sucked most of the joy out of reading. Seriously, why the hell are kids still forced to read Shakespeare plays? Don't tell it's because they're important to know or they help foster creativity 'cause that's just *****. They have to read novel after novel just because they're "classics". Sure, some kids do enjoy them but many don't. The worst part is having to analyze "symbolisms", which nobody gives a crap about.
I only rediscovered how much I liked reading after one of my teachers lent me Harry Potter — that's right, Harry ***** Potter. Schools need to introduce students to different genres to help them find something that they'll actually like. - ElysianGold, on 10/25/2009, -0/+17The act of reading doesn't make you smarter, it's the fact that when you read you're most likely learning something. Of course reading ***** like the Twilight series is only going to make you more retarded. Also, if you never read you're going to suck at it, and sucking at reading is going to make you suck at other stuff.
- kooch888, on 10/25/2009, -1/+18Im in college and if I ever try to read for pleasure I start mentally kicking my own ass because its not a textbook.
- system5y, on 10/25/2009, -1/+18have you guys heard about "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_a ... - Lavarock, on 10/25/2009, -2/+18Yeah, all of us here are apparently masturbating at this article rather than reading it. Books are the only true text! The rest is corrupt!
- fasda, on 10/25/2009, -0/+15if it only takes you 10 hours to read it well you are one hell of a speed reader
- ElysianGold, on 10/25/2009, -0/+13Ever hear of a library?
- rpgmakr, on 10/25/2009, -0/+13LOL, I'm sure reading digg is a good way to spend your free time.
- Rockkybox, on 10/25/2009, -0/+12What, leave the house?
- Bega, on 10/25/2009, -2/+14Well, that depends on what you do. I spend about 70-80% of my awake hours reading crap (f'ing med school) just to keep up with the pace of material. While I love to read for leisure, I sure as hell am not gonna spend the small free time looking at another book when there's so much other stuff to do. It's unfortunate really, esp with that Martin book coming out soon. Hopefully over summer or something.
- rpgmakr, on 10/25/2009, -0/+11tl;dr
- Nintendesert, on 10/25/2009, -0/+9You should have just gotten a wife. They make you sandwiches too.
- JulioChavez, on 10/25/2009, -0/+9When you read well written books, you learn how to communicate effectively. You learn new words and how to use them. There are many morre reasons to read books - even fiction. Will it raise your "IQ"? Maybe not, but it will teach you to think instead of react, like the article says. ( not that you read it. )
- Bega, on 10/25/2009, -1/+10hahaha what can I say man, gotta get my nerd on somehow
- evilresident, on 10/25/2009, -0/+9Actual, the fat lazy losers here spend about 18 hours a day on the computer.
and I'm pretty sure the computer doesn't read the websites out to you or not.
I haven't read a book in months, but I edit and localize a foreign web designers content for a living.. Does that mean I'm being lazy? - kinerry, on 10/25/2009, -1/+9Are we all forgetting we read crazy amounts online each day?
- avidlinuxuser, on 10/25/2009, -0/+8I read the wiki entry for the article. it contained a good summary.
- inactive, on 10/25/2009, -1/+9I read about 500-700 pages a week of fiction, but I think I'm probably the minority. That doesn't include the 8 hours a day I spend on the internet reading things.
- Caergrim, on 10/25/2009, -0/+8I am going to check it out because of your comment. Thanks!
- bdbr, on 10/25/2009, -0/+8Even worse, kids will be reading not for "reward" but because they're screwed if they don't. Its not really a good way to give them an appreciation for it.
When you get older, the real appreciation can happen, though. - newznozzl, on 10/25/2009, -1/+9I think the real question is, "Why doesn't the author of this Article read any more"? He's making the assumption that just because he doesn't that others are doing the same thing. I've been reading since I was a early teen. I'm 42, and still read at least a book a week.
- Purplekat, on 10/25/2009, -0/+8The problem with English classes aren't the works, but the teachers. I read most of Shakespeare's works when I was in junior high and high school, as well as a lot of the classic novels (Jane Austen, Dumas, etc.) The problem is that the English teachers don't know the texts, so they can't explain what's happening in a way that brings it to life. Remember, all classics were written to appeal to the masses of their day, and we still have them because they did a good job of it.
I agree that teaching middle school and highschool students about advanced literary devices, especially when you yourself to not really understand them (as often seems to be the case) isn't very helpful. - dizilbdog, on 10/25/2009, -0/+8Is reading like 60 different blogs a day considered reading?
- MattBD, on 10/25/2009, -1/+8I think getting kids to read Shakespeare plays is arse-backwards. For *****'s sake, it's a play! It's meant to be appreciated as a play! Why the hell would you want to just sit there and read the script of ANY play, unless you were going to be in it and needed to learn your lines? Would you enjoy a film if you went to the cinema and instead of showing the film they gave you a copy of the script and you had to read it yourself? Would you bollocks!
The way to actually get people to like Shakespeare is to watch a production of it, or a film of it. Roman Polanski's production of Romeo and Juliet, while it does take some liberties with the script, does actually make it come alive in a way the script never would, and there's a pretty decent film of MacBeth too. And there are always people doing productions of Shakespeare plays. - unhg, on 10/25/2009, -0/+7In high school, I dread reading Beowulf, Grendel, and Shakespeare. Then you get to college and realize you have to read the whole ***** chapter of the textbook every week (at minimum). Yea that really saps all the joy of reading.
Then again, I read the article and all the comments, so that counts for something, right? - bdbr, on 10/25/2009, -0/+6I don't know about anyone else, but ever since I've been spending a lot of time on the internet, my mind wants to constantly jump from one subject to the next. Its really hard to focus on something for extended periods.
- TBBucs, on 10/25/2009, -1/+7I just read an article about people not reading. Interesting. The fact is, most people read all the time. It may not be the classic paperback novel, but it's still the same thing.
- maestroGSWJ, on 10/25/2009, -0/+5Your comment was TL,DR.
- revslaughter, on 10/25/2009, -0/+5Exactly. People read now more than ever. Look, you're reading right now. What does this ***** think we're doing when our eyes scan over the words in their 3 page article? What a haughty jackass.
- ShadowofAres, on 10/25/2009, -0/+5Being forced to read does sap out a LOT of the enjoyment, and makes it take a lot longer. I remember dredging through the Scarlet letter and Fahrenheit 451 over a considerable period of time and feel none the smarter for it, not to mention I barely remember the events of the book, and yet I went through Neal Stephenson's Anathem over two days with ease.
- centran, on 10/25/2009, -0/+5We do read... it is "deep reading" that is the problem.
We read a bunch of information online. We can skim through it. There are links to go to other sources. We have email. We have IM. There are article abstracts.
The problem is we have all this information that we multi-task and view very quickly. Another problem is search engines that give us a bunch of information.
It is information overload. On one hand it is a good thing. We can gather so much information quickly. However, we have become used to skimming, quick information, and multi-tasking.
Sitting down to read a novel and really immerse oneself has become a choir. It is different for the young generation because they are used to this new way of reading.. For those over 25-30, think about how you used to sit down and read a book. Reading was probably very easy. Now you probably have to keep forcing yourself back into the story. Your mind wanders. It is because you have adapted to absorbing information a different way. Is it a bad thing? I can't say but I do know that when I want to enjoy a book that it is a pain in the ass. - caramelzappa, on 10/25/2009, -1/+6Reading being associated with homework is a huge problem, but on top of that, the books that we're being forced to read in school are just horrible. Not necessarily horribly written or bad, but I'll give you some examples of books I read in high school.
Night by Elie Wiesel.
Of Mice and Men
Ordinary People
I can't remember a lot of the others, but I can't think of a single book I was forced to read in all of high school that wasn't downright depressing. Books about the holocaust, suicide, and someone killing their best friend, along with all the tragic "classics" like the Oedipus series and Shakespeare. You know what I associate novels with more than anything else now? Depression.
And on a slightly related note how can teachers and parents say we need to read classics like MacBeth and then turn around and tell us violent movies and video games are horrible? - crossmr, on 10/25/2009, -0/+5What is going? someone send me a voicemail or something summarizing this.
- Metalcastr, on 10/25/2009, -0/+5anything you want.
- mattmeow, on 10/25/2009, -0/+5I'm guilty of reading way too much Wikipedia.
- ElysianGold, on 10/25/2009, -0/+4Touché
- Purplekat, on 10/25/2009, -0/+4They made you read Night in high school?
That would turn me off to reading, too.
And your side note illustrates why classics don't catch on with teenagers. They're being treated as non-things, even by the people who are teaching them, sanitized. Bring them to life the way they were meant to be experienced, and they resonate with even reluctant readers. - eanbowman, on 10/25/2009, -0/+4I actually found it quite calming to just ignore the other tabs I had open, ignore my MSN and just read this article.
It also reminded me an ex-girlfriend lent me a book years ago which I have barely started. I still have her copy of it too. Maybe I should get to reading it. :P - MadHarvey, on 10/25/2009, -0/+4My battle against this trend has been audiobooks. Audiobooks give you a greater ability to multitask while reading.
Obviously, I'd rather curl up with a good book and not do anything else, but these days it is hard to find the time.
In the last few years, my reading had dwindled to a few books a year. This year I made a New Years resolution to start reading more, and subscribed to an audio book service. This year I've read 40 books, about 30 of them as audiobooks.
They really help fill in the boring gaps in life, like driving to work, waiting in traffic, doing mindless computer work, exercising, etc. - legom7, on 10/25/2009, -0/+4I wish I knew what this article was about. However, since I don't read anymore, it will remain a mystery to me.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 133 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is