Average Books Read Over Lifetime

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by afa

An interesting point. I'm not sure whether it should be. From what I understand, fewer is used when referring to an indeterminate amount of objects. So if we remove the '100' from the sentence, then it fits, i.e. "People in 2011 read fewer books than in 2001," or something like that.

Since we are mentioning a specific count, however, I think using less is acceptable.

Of course, I could be wrong. I am by no means an expert on grammar. I would be interested, though, for someone to chime in on this.

Fewer should be used when talking about individual items, less when talking about continuous quantities. Oddly, there isn't a similar distinction when talking about greater amounts; more is used for both.

I have less bread, or I have fewer slices of bread.

There are some notorious examples of this rule being ignored. E.g., supermarkets with their "10 items or less" checkouts, which is just awful.

[DMB]

Originally Posted by afa

An interesting point. I'm not sure whether it should be. From what I understand, fewer is used when referring to an indeterminate amount of objects. So if we remove the '100' from the sentence, then it fits, i.e. "People in 2011 read fewer books than in 2001," or something like that.

Since we are mentioning a specific count, however, I think using less is acceptable.

Of course, I could be wrong. I am by no means an expert on grammar. I would be interested, though, for someone to chime in on this.

"Fewer" applies to (potentially) countable items, "less" to materials that are measured in other ways. "Less bread", but "fewer loaves". There are also things like "money", which refers to countable numbers of coins, notes, and so on but is not itself countable. You can't say, "I have three money", so it is "less money" rather than "fewer money".

[maianhvk]

Originally Posted by afa

An interesting point. I'm not sure whether it should be. From what I understand, fewer is used when referring to an indeterminate amount of objects. So if we remove the '100' from the sentence, then it fits, i.e. "People in 2011 read fewer books than in 2001," or something like that.

Since we are mentioning a specific count, however, I think using less is acceptable.

I think you're confused.

Read less = just... less, generally. Not counting pages or the number of books.

Read fewer (books) = counting the specific number.

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...-reading_N.htm

The article is from 2007 but I have had heard similar numbers every year. 25% of the population did not read one book in 2007.

"The survey reveals a nation whose book readers, on the whole, can hardly be called ravenous. The typical person claimed to have read four books in the last year — half read more and half read fewer. Excluding those who hadn't read any, the usual number read was seven."

When you include the 25% who did not read anything, that average is going to fall. Half the respondents read fewer then 4 books in 2007.

So I can see where it is possible that many people will not read 100 books in their life time.

My husband is likely to be one of them, he has not picked up a book this year.

If the median is 4, it is pretty amazing that the mean is 100. It means that those of us who read a good bit, read a LOT.

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

A lot of other factors besides the education system. I doubt very much if the school system has played a big role in encouraging people who like to read.

It has AfAIK been overall concerned with preparing people for the workforce.

Reading for enjoyment or self edification does not prepare one to work as a sales clerk or a truck driver, although of course many truck drivers and sales clerks do read for enjoyment and self edification.

Many people become functional readers through pursuing another goal, such as deciphering the TV guide or reading about their favorite celebrities in the tabloids. Blogs and facebook/twitter are also having an effect in this area.

Still many people don't seem to want to read books or even newspapers.

They sit in a restaurant, or on a bus (for days sometimes) without a book or a paper or an ipod/smartphone/laptop or any outside stimulous except their inner thoughts. In general they seem just fine with that.

To each his own I guess

Helen

I was not commenting on the number of books read, but on the high % of illiterate in this country. And while an education system should not be concerned with graduating people who like to read, they sure the heck ought be worried about graduating people who CAN READ.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

If the median is 4, it is pretty amazing that the mean is 100. It means that those of us who read a good bit, read a LOT.

I read between 30-50 books a year and I am probably about average for folks on this site. I know that there are topics for people aiming for 100 books a year. So there is a small percentage of the population reading a lot. I am guessing that that number is well under 25% of the population otherwise the average number of books read per year would be higher then 7.

[VioletVal]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

If the median is 4, it is pretty amazing that the mean is 100. It means that those of us who read a good bit, read a LOT.

The two numbers refer to different time periods; 4 is the median number of books read in one year, and 100 is the average number of books read in a lifetime.

[jehane]

Originally Posted by VioletVal

The two numbers refer to different time periods; 4 is the median number of books read in one year, and 100 is the average number of books read in a lifetime.

Those damned statistics again. I also wonder how they are calculating that figure of 100 - after all, the only way to know how many books someone has read in their lifetime is once they've finished, and it's a bit late to ask them then. If they are extrapolating from a single year's average, that may not be valid.

I know more than a few people who don't read for enjoyment, but are still educated and literate. One of my closest friends (and yes, she does have other redeeming qualities) does not enjoy reading and *never* reads for enjoyment. On the other hand, she's a professional and in her current job reads a lot - newspapers, documents, etc. It's not a simple dichotomy of non-readers = uneducated. People just have different hobbies.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by BoiseShan

Shouldn't that be "fewer" than 100 books?

Wow... one of the things that usually annoys the hair [family friendly forum!] out of me, and I missed it!

[orlok]

Originally Posted by jehane

...after all, the only way to know how many books someone has read in their lifetime is once they've finished, and it's a bit late to ask them then.

Good point

[Mike Hobart]

At age 62 I've slowed down greatly in the amount of books I read. Part of it is that I used to read a lot in bed and now I'm too tired to do anything but go to sleep. (OK, I will sometimes read three or four pages of a magazine until I start yawning.)

In my teens I started keeping a log of the books that I read, with a brief run-down of the impression it made on me. Looking back on these battered notebooks, it's amazing to see that I was regularly reading half a dozen novels a week, month after month. I can't even begin to work out how many books I must have read by the time I turned 30 !