Tag-Archive for » books «
The New York Times has talked about digital reading before and they’re doing it again. Despite the different scenario, a toddler being able to differentiate between a book and the screen and the impact each may have, the question is still the same: is online reading still reading?
Listen, people. Times they are a-changing. You’re reading this right now, aren’t you? Does that mean you’re not really reading? Are we getting metaphysical with that definition? Because it seems to be coming close to that. The first entry definition of “read” on dictionary.com is “to look at carefully so as to understand the meaning of.” The examples given to further the definition mention something printed, but those are just examples. The definition doesn’t officially include only that a book bound and printed is the only form of actually reading.
I’m not keen on the whole digital reading, really (despite the two blogs I have, I know). Staring at a screen for extended periods of time is much more straining on my eyes than staring at a book. But how can the benefits of digital reading be discounted? The Amazon Kindle, for example, can store a thousand books. How convenient is that for traveling? Does it mean that the guy next to you is “legitimately” reading the same book because he has the printed version and you’re just fiddling with technology? Of course not. The words are the same. The story is the same. The medium is just different. It doesn’t make it any lesser than the other.
Books, in many forms, have been around for thousands of years. I doubt the e-book is going to make them go away any time soon. I posted somewhere on this blog the statistics of people who like printed books versus digitial media and the former still greatly outweighs the latter. But it doesn’t make the latter not reading.
No, I don’t think a Kindle will ever replace the feeling of curling up with a good book. It’s just not the same. But let’s open our eyes to our changing literary environment, ok? To say reading one book on a screen isn’t really reading and reading the same thing in print is is just idiotic. They both say the same thing. For a generation that’s grown (and growing) up with iPods and cell phones, they can be and are the same thing. People act as if libraries and book stores are going to become extinct within the next week. Get a grip.
Reading’s reading and in a society where literacy rates and testing scores are steadily declining (or not getting better compared to our ridiculously low test scores), beggars can’t really be choosers, can they? So long as they’re reading, their brains are being stimulated. Let’s go on from there.
According to USA Today, the tween age set, between about 8 and 12, is where all the marketing is right now. But that article also questions whether all of this brand whoring and target marketing takes away from the childhood experience these kids are “supposed” to have. Are they sort of being forced to grow up a little faster than maybe what they, or their parents, wanted?
Right now, and this is what I’m seeing in book stores, is that a lot of the middle grade books are geared closer to boys, the Goosebumps series, for one. They’re more about action and adventure than at-home issues the kids may be facing. Recently I’ve seen a few more books start popping up about girls in that age range and they’re starting to focus on what they’re going through at that time in their lives but, and this is just from what I’ve read around the intarwebs, they don’t carry as much momentum as the more fantastical books. Could it be because parents are buying the books at this point and they want to keep their kids kids so buying the book about the girl going through girl issues in school when she’s 11 isn’t in their scope? How are they going to keep their children children when they’re reading about growing up? See what I’m saying?
But in this culture, these kids are growing up and every single one of them feels like they’re the only ones going through it because they might not talk to their friends about the stuff that’s really bothering them. So they’re left to make another grown-up step and seek out this type of reading material on their own. Sure they want to read the action adventure stuff but they also want an MC that they can relate to and is going through things they are. So we have a bit of a conundrum.
What’s funny is that going back just a hundred years, kids in this age bracket were lucky if they had the opportunity to be children. Usually that privilege was left to the richer and higher class of people. If you were an immigrant into this country, you had to work as soon as you were able in order to help your family, even if that meant selling flowers on the street corner before and after school. The realities are different but the kids are still the same age. I think that’s why I find it so ironic that parents now are so worried about their kids growing up too quickly when their own grandparents were pushing their kids to grow up faster (well, at this point maybe great-grandparents).
But which is better – keeping a kid a kid as long as possible or having them grow up at the rate they’re doing it?
The Washington Post released an article about the Newbery Awards and how, just maybe, the seemingly high brow award may be more detrimental to a child’s reading than beneficial.
Honestly, I’m more inclined to agree with this rebuttal article and add a few more points but first, the argument against the Newbery. Essentially, critics of the Newbery feel that the books that are chosen as award winners aren’t those that kids would necessarily want to read or could really understand. It’s an award that’s out of touch with the youth of America and thus forcing children to read books that don’t stimulate them could turn them off to reading even more.
I don’t know about you, but even with all of the information in that first article, I still think it’s a pretty weak argument, not to mention slightly underestimating younger readers. That’s why I like the second article better. Personally, I find nothing wrong with the Newbery, no more so than the Pulitzer or the National Book Award. Remember when Stephen King won the NBA? And all those masters of lit-ra-ture scoffed at a genre writer winning an award that was supposedly so far out of his reach? That’s kind of why I don’t read a lot of those books. Many of them are filled with pretentious naval-gazing and I do see the Newbery as being, relatively speaking, the children’s equivalent. At least the Newbery winners can’t stop open doors.
You know when people say they have these leaning towers of TBRs next to their beds? Do you take them literally or metaphorically? When I say it, I hope you take it literally. This, lovely image to the left, is my current TBR pile not including the two books I’m reading now. It may not be leaning now but if I were to stack them all into one tower, I’m sure they would. That list down there to the right does not include all of the books shown here. If you want a closer look, go ahead and click on the image for a bigger view. This is what I get for going to Barnes and Noble and buying at whim.
And I always used to think I was a fast reader. No. No I’m not. Maybe compared to the people closest to me, sure, but not in the broader scheme of things. Maybe if I weren’t doing so many things at once I’d be able to crack this a little more but as it stands, I can read two at a time at roughly a week and a half at once. I still need to go to Barnes and Noble and research for my YA series post but that means exposing myself to buying temptation. Bad. Must resist . . .
I just wanted to show you all that. So when I make mention of my ginormous TBR pile, I really mean it.
And just a couple more things. I hope the guy that thought deregulating electricity pricing in the state of Connecticut sucks chrome at 65 miles an hour. My condo is a little over 1,000 square feet. We have plastic over half the windows (lazy is keeping us from doing the rest). The heat in any given room is no higher than 65 at any given time. And it’s only that high when we’re in single digit cold snaps like we are now. About 1/3 of the lighting uses energy saving light bulbs. We’ve cut down usage by nearly half of what it was this time last year. Yet I needed to defibrillate myself when I saw the $301.94 due on my bill. Wouldn’t you? I still have an arrhythmia.
And lastly, help me hatch my egg! Click on it to the left. The dragon will love you for it. So will I.
