Avid reader kid dominates reading contest, library director miffed

Originally Posted by fjtorres

But creativity is not the only form of achievement worth being proud of.
Discovery, exploration, mastering a skill, assisting others in need...
Living a good life in these trying times, improving *yourself* intellectually or economically...

I agree with what you're saying. I just don't believe that a few of them require external validation (e.g. improving yourself intellectually, economically, health-wise, etc.; mastering skills that are of personal value, but not of value to others).

(But, then, at that age I would read each year's new World Almanack, cover to cover, as soon as it hit the street.)

Man, I loved almanacs around that age too.

There is a big rift between how different people and entire societies view and treat high achievers. I expect even bigger consequences down the road.

I can't comment on the book since I've only seen a synopsis of it. However, it is worth pointing out that there are different types of achievement and different attitudes towards them. I think a key point is that achievements that are of purely personal value are respected as long as they are modest, but they are often frowned upon if they are immodest. Achievements of social value are far more likely to be respected even if there is a lack of modesty.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

I'm a little curious as to why it took her five times through to figure out that there is a problem with the setup. You'd think by the second, or at least third time through that she'd have considered a change in the contest parameters.

Maybe she thought that the kid would eventually get bored by reading.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Maybe she thought that the kid would eventually get bored by reading.

As a former kid who loved to read I can tell you not gonna happen.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Reminds me of a SciFi story I read, where the people with good vison were required to wear glasses that made their vision worse, and fast runners were hobbled and smart people had to wear headphones playing loud distracting sounds. The goal was an equal society.


Helen

I'm pretty sure that was a Kurt Vonnegut story. I think it appears in Monkeyhouse.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Reading is exactly the same, it does not do anything to improve the world by itself. You may use that healthier mind to help other people, but it doesn't automatically happen.

That said, books aren't hugely different from television. People can choose to read garbage books, just like they can choose to watch garbage TV. People can choose to read quality books, just like they can choose to watch quality TV.

I agree, that reading combined with inaction is unlikely to improve the world. However, reading may contribute to action, and increase the quality of that action. By knowing more, considering more, and understanding many different viewpoints, an avid reader is more likely to be thoughtful, informed and compassionate in their response to real-world events. Which would you rather have voting for government officials: someone who has read thousands of articles and full speeches by the candidates, or someone who has seen a few hundred commercials "approved by" the candidates? Which do you think will make the more informed choice?

Again, I really think you need to read Jim Trelease's book. There is a snobbery that says that some books are "garbage" and others are "quality." One anecdote he uses is when he asked a mother if her son read. "Oh, never." She said. He poked around. "Comic books?" "No." "Magazines?" "He reads Sports Illustrated every week from cover-to-cover." Trelease then analyzed the complexity of the writing in Sports Illustrated and compared it to broadcast television. The writing in SI was orders of magnitude more complex than what was on television. His point is that what is widely considered "garbage books" (even comic books) is far better than what is considered quality television.

Television teaches us to make snap judgements about people. We see very limited information and then we decide, "I really like so-and-so." "I hope so-and-so gets voted off soon, I can't stand him." "She's an airhead." No problem because these judgements have no impact on our world, unless we happen to meet one of those people in real life. But then we go into the workplace and we make the same snap judgements about co-workers. Or we pick Presidents because we like their smile, or the way they speak. And then the lessons we've learned on television have a real impact on the real world.

Yes, I can learn more about how to do a particular task from a video. Watching tennis videos is far more instructive for me than reading a text about how to hit a forehand. But that doesn't make television a good format for learning what is wrong with Keynesian economic systems or why genetically modified foods might be bad for me. The more complicated (cerebral vs physical) the problem, the less television is able to convey.

[exaltedwombat]

Another prejudice is that reading is somehow superior when done from paper.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by exaltedwombat

Another prejudice is that reading is somehow superior when done from paper.

This is an area in which studies need to be done over an extended period of time with a large sample size. Questions that need to get asked are things like the following:

- What is the average reading speed on paper, eInk and LCD?
- How much information is immediately retained?
- How much information is retained in long-term memory?
- How easily can a reader find information in a text they previously read, weeks, months or even years later?

AFAIK, these studies have not been attempted in any scientific manner. Until they are done, we simply don't know if reading is superior when it is done on paper. I can think of reasons why it might be, and reasons why it wouldn't be.

With my own book, I quickly learned that while releasing it as an eBook was relatively easy, formatting and releasing it as a printed book was a much more complicated and involved process. And some of my potential readers told me that as much as they wanted to read my book, they simply didn't have the necessary hardware to read it as an eBook.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Sregener

This is an area in which studies need to be done ...

With my own book, I quickly learned that while releasing it as an eBook was relatively easy, formatting and releasing it as a printed book was a much more complicated and involved process. And some of my potential readers told me that as much as they wanted to read my book, they simply didn't have the necessary hardware to read it as an eBook.

I get that too. The problem is how to market to those without an e-reader as they are often not people who spend much time online. So then you go to all the trouble and expense of creating a paper copy only to find that you have to spend more money trying to let people know the book exists! For most of my books, only the series have proven to be able to reach enough people in paper. The stand alones sell less in ebook and in paper such that I probably won't do any more stand alones in paper.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sregener

Again, I really think you need to read Jim Trelease's book. There is a snobbery that says that some books are "garbage" and others are "quality." One anecdote he uses is when he asked a mother if her son read. "Oh, never." She said. He poked around. "Comic books?" "No." "Magazines?" "He reads Sports Illustrated every week from cover-to-cover." Trelease then analyzed the complexity of the writing in Sports Illustrated and compared it to broadcast television. The writing in SI was orders of magnitude more complex than what was on television. His point is that what is widely considered "garbage books" (even comic books) is far better than what is considered quality television.

.

Some of the best essayists and non-fiction writers of the last century were sports writers. And more than a few fiction writers.

And comics used to be the gateway to Science Fiction for a *lot* of people. Probably a bit less so these days, with SF (both real and pretend) all over TV and the movies but then comics have matured into a "respectable" literary form in their own right.

I will admit that the quality of cereal box writing has declined, though.

[exaltedwombat]

Originally Posted by Sregener

This is an area in which studies need to be done over an extended period of time with a large sample size. Questions that need to get asked are things like the following:

- What is the average reading speed on paper, eInk and LCD?
- How much information is immediately retained?
- How much information is retained in long-term memory?
- How easily can a reader find information in a text they previously read, weeks, months or even years later?

And, - unless you have an axe to grind, why not just be happy reading is taking place at all!

[way8lifter]

Originally Posted by PeterT

I remember my first summer in Canada; I was eleven. My routine was to ride a bike to the local library, borrow 7 books (the maximum allowed) and head home.

The next day, return the 7 books and repeat the cycle.

WOW ..wait a second ..you ,mean to tell me you could read 7 books in one day???? can you read that many now?? what is that like 2000 words a minute?? WOW

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by way8lifter

WOW ..wait a second ..you ,mean to tell me you could read 7 books in one day???? can you read that many now?? what is that like 2000 words a minute?? WOW

Children's books tend to be much shorter, and use larger fonts.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by exaltedwombat

And, - unless you have an axe to grind, why not just be happy reading is taking place at all!

Because, as others have pointed out, reading is a means to an end. It'd be like a debate over whether plowing your fields leads to better yields or not. "Why not just be happy people are planting?" If people read slower, retain less, and are not able to find things later, then their reading time is not being used as productively as it could be.

OTOH, if they're able to read more often, they may consume more books. Audiobooks are waaaaay slower than printed books, but my kids have heard many books simply because we listen in the car on the way to-and-from town. It's not the same as reading them, but it's probably been better for them than constantly staring out the window or fighting over who's foot is on the wrong side.

I don't have an axe to grind, but I do wonder what the answers are to my listed questions. And I'm afraid we'll have to wait a long time to get those answers, and by then the new technology will be entrenched, even if it is proven to be inferior.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

So then you go to all the trouble and expense of creating a paper copy only to find that you have to spend more money trying to let people know the book exists!

Not to make an advertisement or anything, but I didn't have to pay anything to CreateSpace (other than buying a proof copy) to make my book available for POD. But it did take me several tries to get past their evaluation process. The upside is that when I finally ordered a proof, it came out looking exactly the way I wanted it to. So now (or as soon as CreateSpace's posting shows up on Amazon) people who wanted to read my book but needed a printed copy can have one. For over 4x the price of the ebook, and I get the same royalty for either one.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Sregener

Not to make an advertisement or anything, but I didn't have to pay anything to CreateSpace (other than buying a proof copy) to make my book available for POD. But it did take me several tries to get past their evaluation process. The upside is that when I finally ordered a proof, it came out looking exactly the way I wanted it to. So now (or as soon as CreateSpace's posting shows up on Amazon) people who wanted to read my book but needed a printed copy can have one. For over 4x the price of the ebook, and I get the same royalty for either one.

I paid for extended distribution because I want my books to be available for libraries and B&N and Joe-Bookstore down the street. I also buy an ISBN. It's certainly not my highest cost but on low margins and few sales, it can take a looong time to earn back that plus the costs of the proofs.