Why isn't reading "cool"?

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by teadonkey

I really have to disagree. I don't think that reading is 'uncool' and I don't think it's 'cool'. I'm a 21 year old college student and I know a bunch of people who read for fun and a bunch of people who don't. Similarly, I know a bunch of people who like to hike, a bunch of people who like to swim, a bunch of people who like to party, a bunch of people who play video games... Are you getting my point here? I don't see it as cool or uncool, I see it just like any other hobby. Some people like it, some people don't. Some people don't like it and then suddenly do. (I feel like I'm reciting One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish!)

I'd really love to know what makes y'all think reading is UNCOOL? I think the image of a nerdy person reading is extremely dated and not at all the case anymore. All sorts of people read, and considering just how many books are sold, I'd say a heck of a lot of the population reads in some fashion - books, newspapers, nonfiction, magazines.

I tend to agree with TeaDonkey (TeaDonkey, that's a funny word )

With that out of the way, my sister is a high school English teacher, and they have no choice in the matter, but must teach Shakespeare. They do Romeo and Juliet in 9th grade and then later I believe they get a choice between teaching Julius Caesar or A Midsummer Night's Dream. They also have to teach Dickens. I believe they do Great Expectations. However, they are not limited to these books, and my sister has her students read a 300 page novel of their choice a few times a year. If they pick a book over 300 pages that is fine, and if they pick a book under 300 pages that is fine too, but they need to read additional books to get to the 300 page limit. She also doesn't care if it is the Twilight series or whatever.

[sufue]

For me, a lot of the un-cool-ness comes with being forced to read and often (over)analyze the books.

I adore The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy and most of the other Tolkien books. BUT I was forced to read The Hobbit in 8th grade, and I hated it for the duration of the forced reading, and for quite a while thereafter.

And, I notably flunked one test because I couldn't tell the teacher what had happened in Chapter 12 - I had (re)read ahead so far that I didn't remember what was in Chapter 12 vs. 13 vs. 14...

I do think it's reasonable to have some reading lists that mean that kids will read widely across various genres and various types of "classicity", but still, for me, being compelled to read anything makes it a lot less enjoyable.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

i'm just curious if anyone has any opinions as to why reading is considered the domain of nerds and squares.

Actually, there are quite a few barriers. You need to be able to read (duh), and, depending on the author, a certain vocabulary (or a dictionary, and not being afraid to use it). It's also got to do with attention span, and the fact that you can't read a book in the background, the same way you can have the TV on. On top of all that, horror of horrors, you actually need to envision the story in your head, without anybody imagining them for you. All words, no pictures, you know? Clearly only for them brainiacs.

[Kubizo]

Reading is not cool because it is compulsory at school.

Grade schoolkids on their Final Fantasy scores and you'll find them hiding from their parents and reading Tolstoy :-)

Museums should be forbidden to children. They would find all kinds of ways to sneak in and would stare at the masterpieces with the same awe with which they stare at bloody severed heads in zombie video games :-)

[teh603]

Originally Posted by sufue

For me, a lot of the un-cool-ness comes with being forced to read and often (over)analyze the books.

Changed your boldface to show where another problem is. Its not necessarily that they're forced to read it, but they're also being forced to vivisect their reading in the most graphic way possible, in ways the author probably never intended their work to be taken.

Its also why I haven't picked up a book of poetry since the end of high school, and actively avoid poetry elsewhere. Once you've been conditioned to vivisecting poems to "properly appreciate them," you don't want to see another poem again.

[tamborine]

Originally Posted by sufue

I adore The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogy and most of the other Tolkien books. BUT I was forced to read The Hobbit in 8th grade, and I hated it for the duration of the forced reading, and for quite a while thereafter.

I was "forced" to read The Hobbit in 9th grade, and I loved it while I was reading it! After I read it, I immediately went on and read the Trilogy for fun. And I liked A Tale of Two Cities and The Scarlet Letter when we had to read them. I kind of appreciated being assigned books I probably never would've chosen on my own.

A little off topic: I went to Catholic school, and starting in 7th grade we had to read the New Testament. The bible we used had both old & new testaments, and I used to surreptitiously read the Old Testament like it was a sleazy novel.

[Ralph Sir Edward]

What is cool? Cool is all about external attraction, external apperances.

Reading is about internal attraction, the internal mindscape.

They are opposed...

[DiapDealer]

I'm glad reading isn't cool (whatever cool is). If it were to become "cool," the non-conformist in me would force me to give up the habit.

I'm not sure that the "being forced to read boring stuff in school" hypothesis really holds much water, though. I was forced to read the same boring stuff that everybody else was... and I did hate it... with a passion. But I still loved to read for my own entertainment and that passion was not dampened in the least by being forced to read stuff I didn't like. Of course I was reading books for my own enjoyment long before being forced to read books became a regular (let alone gradeable) part of my official education. Maybe that makes the difference. Because as much as I'd like to be considered "special," I'm sure that there's plenty of people that felt—and reacted—much the same way I did. I'm sure many of them are members of this forum.

So while being forced to read Shakespeare at time when you were ill prepared to appreciate it may certainly be a mitigating factor, I don't think it's the deciding factor. I think it's a lot simpler than that: reading isn't "cool," because those who love to read aren't "cool". Never have been. Harsh, I know, but educated bookworms have always been made fun of... hands-on experience has always been valued higher than "fancy book-learnin' " in most societies.

I'm sure there weren't many people that thought scribes were cool back in the day, either.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

What is cool? Cool is all about external attraction, external apperances.

Reading is about internal attraction, the internal mindscape.

They are opposed...

I think there's something to this. "Coolness" is a social attribute, and can only exercised in a social context. So solitary pursuits can only rarely be cool. This would mean that reading isn't cool. But alternatives to reading also aren't really cool. Watching TV isn't cool (it really isn't), nor is playing video games.

But mostly it's not about the activity - you can have a "cool party" or a "lame party," after all. It depends on who's there. And maybe on alcohol, especially if you are underage. But only because underage drinking is "cool".

[GoSharks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I think it's a lot simpler than that: reading isn't "cool," because those who love to read aren't "cool".

I don't think I can go there....it's simpler to say single faceted people are not 'cool'. If all you do is read, you're not 'cool'. If all you do is play sports, you're not 'cool'. If all you are is pretty, you're not 'cool'. If all you do is program computers, you're not 'cool'.... The list goes on forever.
How you blend your talents and likes is what determines your 'cool' factor. Of course, the ultimate in 'cool' is not needing a bunch of sycophants to affirm your 'cool' factor!
By the way, no matter what you 'force' kids to read in school, someone is going to hate it (all I have to do is mention Jane Austen to get this thread going off topic ). Required reading in school is about comprehension and critical thinking, not content!!!

[RDaneel54]

Originally Posted by GoSharks

Required reading in school is about comprehension and critical thinking, not content!!!

And over analyzing everything to death. For example, finding intentions or themes beyond what the author intended.

Why is Shakespeare taught as a reading assignment, why not acted as a play?

[GoSharks]

Originally Posted by RDaneel54

And over analyzing everything to death. For example, finding intentions or themes beyond what the author intended.

Why is Shakespeare taught as a reading assignment, why not acted as a play?

This and This!!!! I personally believe that Shakespeare never meant his plays to be anything but 'experienced'... and I truly like Shakespeare, but when I read any of his works I find I am 'visualizing' them at the same time!

[kennyc]

I've always thought it somewhat strange to read plays as literature, that's clearly not the intent of them.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I've always thought it somewhat strange to read plays as literature, that's clearly not the intent of them.

Me too. And I especially don't think Shakespeare intended his words to be read out loud by 30 different readers taking turns. I never understood that particular classroom exercise.

[GoSharks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Me too. And I especially don't think Shakespeare intended his words to be read out loud by 30 different readers taking turns. I never understood that particular classroom exercise.

Though with a few well placed mis-reads his works can take on a whole new meaning....sometimes highschool was fun!!!!