parapublishing.com — An enormous list of statistics about books. Other statistics include: 57% of new books are not read to completion, 70% of US adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years, and 70% of the books published do not make a profit.
Jul 7, 2006 View in Crawl 4
cyberdorkJul 8, 2006
Explains a lot to us 'elitist' Europeans.
conceptjunkieJul 8, 2006
Good for you. I read lots of books too (even if some are just Dilbert books or Uncle John's Bathroom Readers, but I read substantive stuff too (currently reading Michio Kaku's latest)). My wife reads a fair bit more than me, including lots of history, on top of her school work (getting a Master's online). I couldn't imagine not reading books. That's like not eating or breathing. I've got nothing against places like Digg.com and TV, I do plenty of both, but my brain would shrivel up and die if that's all I did.
Closed AccountJul 9, 2006
Your post is exactly the reason why people don't read books. Who has time to read all this?
theglineJul 9, 2006
No -- the 30% that do make a profit make up for the 70% that don't...
onthejdarJul 9, 2006
redundant post removed
raid517Jul 9, 2006
Well reading the bible is a bit like 'reading porn', it doesn't teach you anything particularly useful.Anyway if you really believe that that's a valid argument for not reading actual *real* books, then you are not worth wasting time on.I have nothing against reading the bible - but there are hundreds, if not thousands of other religious texts from other faiths out there too, which even if you don't agree with them, would widen your appreciation and understanding of your own faith. And then there are all of the works of science and literature and poetry and philosophy - all of these have a capacity to fundamentally enhance both your capacity to understand yourself and the things you say you believe in. I don't think that reading one book and only one book qualifies anyone to consider themselves as genuine readers at all. Particularly a book that is only capable of expressing a very single sided point of view.
genthreeJul 9, 2006
With the poor spelling on Digg, I'm beginning to believe the article.
pressmaniacJul 10, 2006
has anyone noticed that the "statistic" comes from the Jenkins Group, who's site doesn't even exist? Found this on the page: <a class="user" href="http://www.jenkinsgroup.com/">http://www.jenkinsgroup.com/</a>
raid517Jul 10, 2006
That's the same crap that you fundamentalists always throw in people's way. 'The reason you never got it, the reason it never worked for you, is because you didn't believe or try hard enough.'But that is not the kind of person I am at all. If I go into something I will go into it deeply and with all of my heart. However I have an innate capacity to continue to question, and that ability (or gift, for the ability to question is far more of a gift than a willingness to simply suspend disbelief and to dispense with one's capacity for rational thought) and that is something I am proud to say that I never lost sight of. Did I want to believe? I don't think that's the right question, the right question is did I want to understand if there was anything to religion, or to Christianity that warranted more of my attention? Or in other words, was it actually possible to believe?Unfortunately since I had (and still continue) to read widely, there were far too many things that I knew of that made the story I was reading often vastly improbable, frequently inaccurate and also horribly inconsistent.But did I try? I gave three years of my life to it. And to say I didn't try hard enough or seek deeply enough is an outright insult.One other thing I found was that the people whom I was with at that time, who were also 'evangelical' Christians, were just the same as the people in the rest of society. They were often connected, backstabbing, bitchy, competitive, selfish, arrogant and all of the things that ordinary people in the bigger world are too, except in microcosm within a small and exclusive religious community. So ultimately I saw no benefit in associating with these people any more - so I opted to avoid them, just as I would avoid such people in my normal daily life within the world at large. Christianity didn't make people 'better people' it didn't make them supermen, or (superwomen) it just made them arrogant, self loving and self important, almost as though they felt they were special and knew something that other people in the world didn't know.But anyway I diverge. I may be willing to read what you have to say with an open mind, if you would be willing to read what I have to say (with an open mind). That is the only bargain I would make with you. I am not interested in a blog, but if you seriously think you can do that, if you seriously think you can consider other potential answers with a fully open mind and not feel threatened by them and not impose your own agenda on them, then you can feel free to email me at raid517 AT ukonline.co.uk and we can chat some more. You should be aware though that I am in full possession of many attentive facts and explanations - and that I am not your typical sheep who has simply fallen by the wayside. I am more than capable of testing your faith every bit as much (if not more) than you imagine you are capable of saving me - and if you think I can't or won't do that, then I'm afraid that that would be your first mistake. But don't ever ask me to do something that you can't do yourself. I have no room left in my life for more hypocrisy. If you have lost the capacity to look at information with a truly open mind, then I'm afraid you and I really do have nothing more to discuss.