Why Are People Reading Less Today? Here is what I have come up with since morning after reading your post (I will look for your feedback). The decline in book reading is often blamed on social media and the internet. Still, this trend probably began decades ago and has only accelerated with each significant technological advancement. While the internet and social media certainly play a role, the roots of this shift can be traced back to earlier innovations like radio and television, which fundamentally changed how we consume information. With the advent of AI, we may now be approaching the end of the era of book reading altogether.
The Shrinking Book and Changing Reader Habits: One clear indicator of this trend that I have noticed is a decline in the average length of books. A few decades ago, it was common to find books averaging 400 pages. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, this number had dropped closer to 300 pages, and today, many books hover around just 250 pages or maybe less. Authors and publishers are adapting to the changing habits of readers, who now prefer shorter, more concise works. Shortly, it’s likely that many books will no longer be written primarily for human readers but instead to train AI systems (if they still need human-created training data). People may consume summaries or condensed versions of books instead of reading entire works—a trend I dislike but recognize as better than complete disengagement from reading.
How Did We Get Here? The shift away from reading can be attributed to several factors:
1. The Rise of Passive Media Consumption: The invention of the radio and television marked a significant turning point. These technologies transformed us from active participants in the learning process (through reading) to passive information consumers. Reading requires focused attention and cognitive effort, while listening to the radio or watching TV is more passive and less mentally taxing. It’s a shortcut that saves time and energy; unsurprisingly, many people chose the easier route.
2. The Internet and Information Overload: The Internet has expanded access to information exponentially. With millions of experts, articles, and videos available at our fingertips, people no longer need to spend hours reading books when they can get quick answers or summaries online. This shift has fragmented attention spans, as people are now accustomed to consuming bite-sized pieces of information rather than engaging with long-form content.
3. The Convenience of Audiovisual Content: Audiobooks, podcasts, and video lectures have provided alternatives to traditional reading. While these formats are valuable, they contribute to the decline in book reading by offering the same knowledge in a more convenient form. Listening while multitasking has become the norm, reducing the time and effort spent sitting down with a book.
4. Standardized Education and Forced Reading: In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many autodidacts read books out of personal interest and curiosity. Over time, standardized education introduced mandatory reading lists, often forcing students to read books they didn’t enjoy. This approach may have unintentionally stifled a love of reading in many people, leading them to associate books with obligation rather than pleasure. Once school requirements are over, many people stop reading altogether.
5. Cultural Shifts and the Pace of Modern Life: Modern life demands constant productivity, multitasking, and speed. Reading a book requires slowing down, focusing, and dedicating hours to a single activity—something that feels increasingly incompatible with today’s fast-paced world. Many people think they “don’t have time” to read, even though they might spend hours on social media or streaming platforms.
The Role of Technology and AI:
As stated above, AI is likely to reshape the reading landscape further. With tools that can instantly summarize books or generate personalized content, the need to read full-length works may diminish even further. In the future, books may be written primarily for AI training or archival purposes, with humans relying on summaries, snippets, or multimedia adaptations.
Can Anything Be Done? While the decline in reading feels inevitable, there are potential scenarios where it could make a comeback:
1. AI and Increased Leisure Time: If AI automates most jobs, people may have more free time for hobbies like reading. Books could re-emerge as entertainment and a way to pass the time in a world where work is no longer the central focus.
2. Campaigns emphasizing Gamification and Social Incentives: Apps and platforms that make reading a social or gamified activity—similar to fitness challenges—could motivate people to read more. Book clubs, online reading communities, or apps with rewards for completing books might rekindle interest in reading.
3. AI Customized Education to Foster a Love of Reading: Reforming educational approaches to allow students more choice in reading could help develop a lifelong love of books. Instead of standardized reading lists, students could be encouraged to explore topics that interest them.
4. Hybrid Formats: Combining books with multimedia elements, such as augmented reality, interactive visuals, or audio enhancements, could appeal to younger generations accustomed to dynamic content. These formats might serve as a bridge to traditional reading.
The decline in reading is not a sudden phenomenon but the result of a long history of technological and cultural changes. While it’s unlikely that we’ll return to the levels of book reading seen in the past, there are opportunities to adapt and find new ways to engage with books in the digital age.
That's a fascinating and comprehensive analysis of the factors contributing to the decline in deep reading! I'm glad the "reading as rebellion" aspect struck a chord.
Your points about the historical progression from radio/TV to the internet and now AI creating shifts towards passive consumption, information overload, and demand for brevity are solid. The shrinking length of books is indeed a telling indicator (do you know sentence length declined too). I agree in principal with your reasons, passive media, info overload, convenience of audiovisual, the potential negative impact of forced reading in standardized education, and the sheer pace of modern life, these collectively paint a convincing picture of the pressures working against sustained reading.
Your analysis, especially points #2 (Info Overload) and #5/#7 (Cultural Shifts/Social Capital/Faux Newspeak), brought René Girard's theory of mimetic desire to my mind.
Girard argued that our desires aren't spontaneous but imitated – we learn to want what we see others wanting.
Applying Girard: Perhaps the shift you describe is partly fueled by a change in our mimetic models. The media landscape you depict constantly bombards us with models desiring instant information, sound bites, online validation (likes, retweets), and easily digestible opinions, often framed in conflict (Faux Newspeak vs. the world).
Through mimesis, society increasingly learns to desire that kind of fleeting, often superficial or antagonistic, engagement over the focused, patient, and potentially transformative effort required for deep reading. The models for deep reading, like Rose's autodidacts seeking entry into a 'higher' conversation or grappling with challenging texts, become less visible, less socially validated, and therefore less desirable to imitate. We mimic the desire for the quick take, the hot take, the easily shareable opinion, rather than the desire for complex understanding cultivated through solitary reading.
The Loss of Shared Models/Objects: Rose's subjects often desired access to a shared canon, a common intellectual currency, even if it was conservative. My take on Girard would suggest that the fragmentation of media and the decline of such shared cultural touchstones leave our mimetic desires unanchored, easily captured by the algorithmically promoted trends and echo chambers you mentioned (X/Twitter, Facebook, QAnon etc.), which often thrive on mimetic rivalry rather than shared exploration. The "social capital" of being well-read diminishes if there are fewer people desiring or recognizing the same cultural knowledge.
AI & Summaries: The potential shift towards AI summaries fits this too, it caters to an imitated desire to know about a book or possess the talking points, rather than the desire to experience the process of reading it, a desire perhaps modelled on efficiency rather than intellectual exploration. (I am assuming, but fairly confident, here as there is insufficient research).
Your proposed solutions, leveraging AI for leisure, gamification, customized education, and hybrid formats, are intriguing ways to potentially create new models or incentives for reading in this changed landscape. But laziness might prevail!
Overall, there are many aspects, historical, technological, and perhaps even mimetic, to the question of why the world Rose described feels so distant now.
The idea of “reading as rebellion” reminds me of the Royal Society’s motto: “Take nobody’s word for it.”
I also recently came across a post on LessWrong discussing the decline in sentence length over the centuries—an average of 49 words per sentence in the 1400s, down to just 12 words in J.K. Rowling’s *Harry Potter* books. This trend is mirrored in other forms of writing, such as newspapers. You can read more about it here: [Why Have Sentence Lengths Decreased?](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xYn3CKir4bTMzY5eb/why-have-sentence-lengths-decreased).
I find this connects to Girard’s argument that our desires are often shaped by imitation. Personally, I grew up watching my parents read constantly. Their love for books inspired mine, and reading soon became one of my most cherished daily activities. However, as fewer adults read, their children are less likely to pick up the habit. In the U.S., this trend has reached alarming levels—there are reports of college students, even at elite institutions, struggling to read more than a few pages per semester. The Atlantic recently explored this issue in an article: [The Elite College Students Who Can’t Read Books](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/11/the-elite-college-students-who-cant-read-books/679945/).
While smartphones and social media are often blamed for this decline, there’s more at play. Passive consumption of content, imitation of non-readers, and an overreliance on shortcuts like summaries have eroded the ability to engage with complex ideas. This could lead to a future where AI tools are widely used to simplify information, further outsourcing critical thinking.
It’s clear that convenience and laziness are replacing many skills. Reading may go the way of navigation, which has been largely forgotten in the age of GPS. However, I’ve never encountered a truly successful person or expert who doesn’t read extensively. Perhaps, as automation takes over more jobs, reading will become less tied to success or expertise and instead fade into obscurity, much like cursive writing and handwritten notes in U.S. schools.
The Gallup Poll sheds more light on the decline in reading habits:
“College graduates read an average of about six fewer books in 2021 than they did between 2002 and 2016, dropping from 21.1 to 14.6 books. Women, who historically read nearly twice as many books as men, also saw a decline, from 19.3 to 15.7 books, while men’s readership fell slightly from 10.8 to 9.5 books. Older adults, who once outpaced younger readers significantly, now read fewer books, with those aged 55 and older dropping from an average of 16.7 to 12 books annually. The decline is largely driven by avid readers choosing to read fewer books, rather than a significant increase in non-readers.”
These numbers reflect a broader trend across all demographics. As the data shows, the median number of books read per person is closer to four, with half of Americans having read at least one book in the past year. According to The Washington Post, reading five books puts you in the top 33% of readers, while reading 10 books places you in the top 21%. Those who read 50 or more books a year are the true “one-percenters.”
For me, I plan to remain in that one-percent group for the rest of my life. I believe a passion for reading is one of the greatest gifts you can pass on to your children. My parents instilled this in me, and my wife and I have done the same for our son. I hope he, too, will carry this legacy forward to his own children.
I will end with a quote from Mark Twain (it may sound harsh, but I like it): “The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.”
There was a sitcom , apparently, that the characters are sitting on a porch, and they ask someone- What are ya reading fure? Now, what are you reading, but, why are you bothering to read that, it must have a purpose. In my home, reading was a norm, for the pure love of it. As you say, the reading decline happened long before social media- it began with the advent of TV, and different ways to spend leisure time.
What is unsettling to me is that authors, I devoured 20 years ago no longer publishes deeply engaging books, but write offerings like a bird, who has chews up the substantial meal, to make it palate to pur down the gullet of its progeny. Their words minus the previous depth are devoid of taste, check books written 20 yeas ago by well known authors, who are writing today. It's like they are different people. It's challenging to discover new books push reflection although Dr. Ian McGilChrist, never disappoints me.
I concur with most reasons you've outline for the decline in reading.Would you consider Audio listening to a book "NOT Reading". I've found people listen to those on the trip to work, and they do listen. While different than reading words, I still consider it a book 'read'.
The reason of no time is an excuse, not a reason.This book covers people who did truly less time to read, as they had no modern conveniences like washing machines. Yet, one example was the servant girl with Shelley in her pocket. They valued reading then, as this book so clearly details. . Readers will READ. I raised five sons. I read while stirring soup, for example, because a day without reading is a worthless day.
Your suggestions on how to improve reading today are helpful. What I've found with gamification of reading, like summer reading club at libraries, is that YES there is more reading, but I've not seen an uptick in the reading after that. (Btw, I am a private tutor) I've not figured out why yet. Rewarding children when they first begin to decode words, and offering them a reward once they do ,ONLY works to their benefit for a short time, with respect to inspiring a life long love for reading, as outlined in the book, " Punished by Rewards".
I'd truly like to believe that AI offering more time for engagement with the arts will happen, for example reading for pleasure or playing an instrument. I do wonder your source that will happen? Will people Finally become bored with screens, or will they immerse themselves more in AR/VR as that continues to become more 'real' than real life.
As I'm sure you know, education has been profoundly impacted by the lack of reading skills and interest, especially with the ability to summarize a book into snippets of understanding. But, there isn't understanding, for authors put in all that 'extra' reading because it matters for complexity.
But , I agree, this decline began a LONG while ago. We do need to find new ways to engage people to WANT to read books.
Yet, my question is WHY? What are you reading fure?
I do not think that people will become bored with screens, the younger generation reach constantly for their screens... it would take huge habit shifts sadly.
I like Dr. Ian McGilChrist... I have to admit I find it difficult to listen to his discussions, but to read him is something else.
I tried to listen to Dr. McGilChrist in discussions on my walks, but, I don't enjoy it either. However, I've sat for hours reading his books. I reread the Master and Emissary, even though his later book, The matter of things, is a comprehensive update.
Sadly, I agree with you. From everything I've seen, people are not becoming bored endlessly scrolling, or bored with that same repeated advice to how to improve on YT. Nor do they seem bored with watching poorly done TV shows. No wonder there is little reading, especially of anything in-depth, when one's chosen diet is tripe, and requires little effort to digest.
There is dialogue about being free to follow passions thanks to an AI 'utopia', often expressed by Diamandis and Salim Ismail , but, I rarely see that, even even when people have leisure time now . From what I've observed, as you have often written on lately, with the increasing proficiency of AI, both in the creation of art, and with AI -ah hum- companions, there is even less likelihood of a movement to reading in general or deep engagement with reading 'harder' books, , or with the arts in general.
I confess, there are days that I am grieving the loss of the culture, the substance of humanity that brought us to this very moment in history. My apologies if these thoughts lean to melancholiness .Habits of ease-shall we say- are deeply engrained into our culture now . I grieve the loss.
Eventually, the novelty of screens will fade, and they will be replaced by something new. I hope that whatever comes next will encourage depth, reflection, and meaningful engagement—perhaps even a renewed appreciation for books—rather than technologies like virtual or augmented reality suggested above or something entirely new that we cannot think of today that risks further distracting us from what truly matters. However, given Silicon Valley's tendency to prioritize profit and engagement, it's likely that future innovations will continue to foster addiction and constant stimulation.
I've been avoiding McGilchrist's books because of their length. Several years ago, I made a rule to focus on books under 300 pages and only make an exception when necessary. This approach has allowed me to explore multiple authors and perspectives on a topic, which is more rewarding than relying on a single foundational book. No matter how brilliant an author is, there are always gaps and biases in their knowledge—something I'm very aware of, even in my area of expertise. That said, McGilchrist's work comes highly recommended, and perhaps it's worth reconsidering my rule for a book that so many regard as an essential read.
'So many books, so little time'. At one point, this was my chosen epitaph, so I understand focusing on shorter books, to absorb multiple authors' ideas and perspectives. Every author speaks what matters to them, and having breadth of reading is vital to cover their gaps. I've done that as well.
As Colin said, reading McGilChrist's book is an experience. So, I read parts, put it down to craft it onto what I already know, read other books, and come back to it It becomes an ongoing lengthy dialogue with the author, just as books like 'A new Kind of Science' by Stephen Wolfram was for me when I I read when it was released 20 years ago. It is still impactful today.
“Sven Birkerts warned of this in The Gutenberg Elegies, lamenting the loss of “the language of inwardness.” As the screen displaces the page, he argues, we risk becoming strangers to our own interiority. “Writing, in its essence,” he reminds us, “is an intimate, recursive act, an engagement with thought that deepens it.” But in a culture saturated with artificial content and algorithmic curation, intimacy becomes noise, recursion becomes redundancy, and thought becomes just another asset in the content economy.“
I love it! Reading as an act of rebellion. Planting the seed of revolution. Defiant in the face of patronizing plutocracy.
I'd like to propose another reason for the disappearance of the autodidact - a workload foisted upon the masses by the ruling class. The former "40 hour workweek" replaced by the 60 hour workweek, and "on call" demands. I believe most of us are too exhausted to spend time and effort on quality reading these days.
Another reason is what might be termed "social capital". The well read are alone in a sea of sound bites coming from Faux Newspeak and Newsmax and unsubstantiated commentary off computer screens from X/Twitter, InYourFaceBook, QAnon and 4chan.
I think you're absolutely right to propose those additional reasons for the autodidact's decline. Rose does discuss the impact of changing work and leisure patterns, and while the Victorians/Edwardians certainly weren't strangers to exhaustion, the modern pressures you describe (the 'always-on' culture) present a different kind of barrier to the sustained effort self-education requires.
And your point about the degradation of the information environment is vital. Rose's subjects often sought out the classics or rigorous texts precisely to gain the critical tools needed to counter manipulation (like the commenter Norris seeing through 'humbug').
Today's media landscape does makes finding solid ground and engaging in that kind of deep reading far more challenging. Thank you for those great points.
Carrying on from the prior piece, perhaps this says it all here... "…Training in the art of thinking has equipped me to see through the shams and humbug that lurk behind the sensational headlines of the modern newspapers, the oratorical outpourings of insincere party politicians and dictators, and the doctrinaire ideologies that stalk the world sowing hatred."
A population equipped to see through the shams is not helpful to those who have found a way to leverage the status quo to their benefit. This is part of these longer cycles where the powerful get too far ahead, the people finally recognize they are being humbugged, trust in the governing structures (whether church, education, government, etc) is lost, and then reading, history, general and specific knowledge become a necessity for survival.
We've had 100+ years of ease. Grade school is mandatory, not recognized as a gift. Compare any N.A. student to a child in middle-Africa, South America or Asia and you'll see the difference in attention, effort and appreciation. In the past 70 years this has migrated to post-secondary and all the way now to PhD levels. Education is seen as a right and many feel it should free. But free is not appreciated and even in the mid-20th century it was just a place to fill time before having to get serious about life. Only the exceptional embraced the opportunity of education
Perhaps this is just what Rose is recognizing. This long path of decay that is just moving to the next phase. Perhaps we'll need to continue on this path even further before the impact becomes dire. But I think people are waking up. The lack of trust today is forcing people to find their own answers and this will eventually take us back to deeper learning. How bad does it need to get first? No telling. But the knowledge still exists, the books of Plato to Shakespeare to Hemingway still exist. Resting quietly on the shelves, waiting for us to return and take them down for a another read.
Thank you for this insightful comment and for picking up on that powerful quote from George Norris. Rose's book is filled with such gems!
The ability to "see through the shams" is exactly what those in power often find inconvenient. I agree with your point about the historical cycles, where widespread distrust eventually forces people back towards seeking genuine knowledge for themselves, this aligns with the spirit Rose captures. When established structures fail or mislead, the tools for critical thinking found in reading and history do indeed become essential again.
I agree that there's a sad irony in how easily accessible education can become devalued, seen as a mandatory chore rather than the precious gift Rose's subjects often treated it as. Your contrast with students in other parts of the world highlights this starkly. This is similar to my take on Rose's elegy for a time when the pursuit of knowledge felt more urgent and transformative.
Perhaps, as you suggest, we are moving into that next phase where disillusionment necessitates a return to deeper learning (I hope!). Rose himself entertained the possibility that new forms of autodidactism might emerge, driven by that very need to "find their own answers" in an age of spin.
It's a hopeful thought that the knowledge does still exist, waiting on the shelves (or servers) for us.
Yes, and this important to think about when there is so much effort going toward "abundance" mindset. Also, technology is driving us to abundance in everything. This is getting to be an important conversation as AI advances and we decide what we are willing to trade for abundance.
It’s hard for me to imagine our world in light of what Rose describes. The classics that were embraced by these working class autodidacts are seen today as either relics of a problematic past, or “too hard” to approach without training wheels. There’s a podcast or LLM that can summarize them anyway.
What foundational education enabled these revolutionary readers to take on these often complex works? With declining literacy rates in elementary and high school education, we may be depriving future generations of even having the skills to attempt literary self-emancipation…. So how were things different then? Was literacy simply “in the air”?
The following is an excellent quote. If more people could execute the below, the world would be different.
“I read,” said one ironworker, “because I wanted to say what I thought, not what I was told.”
My thought exactly when I read that quote.
Excellent post!
Why Are People Reading Less Today? Here is what I have come up with since morning after reading your post (I will look for your feedback). The decline in book reading is often blamed on social media and the internet. Still, this trend probably began decades ago and has only accelerated with each significant technological advancement. While the internet and social media certainly play a role, the roots of this shift can be traced back to earlier innovations like radio and television, which fundamentally changed how we consume information. With the advent of AI, we may now be approaching the end of the era of book reading altogether.
The Shrinking Book and Changing Reader Habits: One clear indicator of this trend that I have noticed is a decline in the average length of books. A few decades ago, it was common to find books averaging 400 pages. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, this number had dropped closer to 300 pages, and today, many books hover around just 250 pages or maybe less. Authors and publishers are adapting to the changing habits of readers, who now prefer shorter, more concise works. Shortly, it’s likely that many books will no longer be written primarily for human readers but instead to train AI systems (if they still need human-created training data). People may consume summaries or condensed versions of books instead of reading entire works—a trend I dislike but recognize as better than complete disengagement from reading.
How Did We Get Here? The shift away from reading can be attributed to several factors:
1. The Rise of Passive Media Consumption: The invention of the radio and television marked a significant turning point. These technologies transformed us from active participants in the learning process (through reading) to passive information consumers. Reading requires focused attention and cognitive effort, while listening to the radio or watching TV is more passive and less mentally taxing. It’s a shortcut that saves time and energy; unsurprisingly, many people chose the easier route.
2. The Internet and Information Overload: The Internet has expanded access to information exponentially. With millions of experts, articles, and videos available at our fingertips, people no longer need to spend hours reading books when they can get quick answers or summaries online. This shift has fragmented attention spans, as people are now accustomed to consuming bite-sized pieces of information rather than engaging with long-form content.
3. The Convenience of Audiovisual Content: Audiobooks, podcasts, and video lectures have provided alternatives to traditional reading. While these formats are valuable, they contribute to the decline in book reading by offering the same knowledge in a more convenient form. Listening while multitasking has become the norm, reducing the time and effort spent sitting down with a book.
4. Standardized Education and Forced Reading: In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many autodidacts read books out of personal interest and curiosity. Over time, standardized education introduced mandatory reading lists, often forcing students to read books they didn’t enjoy. This approach may have unintentionally stifled a love of reading in many people, leading them to associate books with obligation rather than pleasure. Once school requirements are over, many people stop reading altogether.
5. Cultural Shifts and the Pace of Modern Life: Modern life demands constant productivity, multitasking, and speed. Reading a book requires slowing down, focusing, and dedicating hours to a single activity—something that feels increasingly incompatible with today’s fast-paced world. Many people think they “don’t have time” to read, even though they might spend hours on social media or streaming platforms.
The Role of Technology and AI:
As stated above, AI is likely to reshape the reading landscape further. With tools that can instantly summarize books or generate personalized content, the need to read full-length works may diminish even further. In the future, books may be written primarily for AI training or archival purposes, with humans relying on summaries, snippets, or multimedia adaptations.
Can Anything Be Done? While the decline in reading feels inevitable, there are potential scenarios where it could make a comeback:
1. AI and Increased Leisure Time: If AI automates most jobs, people may have more free time for hobbies like reading. Books could re-emerge as entertainment and a way to pass the time in a world where work is no longer the central focus.
2. Campaigns emphasizing Gamification and Social Incentives: Apps and platforms that make reading a social or gamified activity—similar to fitness challenges—could motivate people to read more. Book clubs, online reading communities, or apps with rewards for completing books might rekindle interest in reading.
3. AI Customized Education to Foster a Love of Reading: Reforming educational approaches to allow students more choice in reading could help develop a lifelong love of books. Instead of standardized reading lists, students could be encouraged to explore topics that interest them.
4. Hybrid Formats: Combining books with multimedia elements, such as augmented reality, interactive visuals, or audio enhancements, could appeal to younger generations accustomed to dynamic content. These formats might serve as a bridge to traditional reading.
The decline in reading is not a sudden phenomenon but the result of a long history of technological and cultural changes. While it’s unlikely that we’ll return to the levels of book reading seen in the past, there are opportunities to adapt and find new ways to engage with books in the digital age.
That's a fascinating and comprehensive analysis of the factors contributing to the decline in deep reading! I'm glad the "reading as rebellion" aspect struck a chord.
Your points about the historical progression from radio/TV to the internet and now AI creating shifts towards passive consumption, information overload, and demand for brevity are solid. The shrinking length of books is indeed a telling indicator (do you know sentence length declined too). I agree in principal with your reasons, passive media, info overload, convenience of audiovisual, the potential negative impact of forced reading in standardized education, and the sheer pace of modern life, these collectively paint a convincing picture of the pressures working against sustained reading.
Your analysis, especially points #2 (Info Overload) and #5/#7 (Cultural Shifts/Social Capital/Faux Newspeak), brought René Girard's theory of mimetic desire to my mind.
Girard argued that our desires aren't spontaneous but imitated – we learn to want what we see others wanting.
Applying Girard: Perhaps the shift you describe is partly fueled by a change in our mimetic models. The media landscape you depict constantly bombards us with models desiring instant information, sound bites, online validation (likes, retweets), and easily digestible opinions, often framed in conflict (Faux Newspeak vs. the world).
Through mimesis, society increasingly learns to desire that kind of fleeting, often superficial or antagonistic, engagement over the focused, patient, and potentially transformative effort required for deep reading. The models for deep reading, like Rose's autodidacts seeking entry into a 'higher' conversation or grappling with challenging texts, become less visible, less socially validated, and therefore less desirable to imitate. We mimic the desire for the quick take, the hot take, the easily shareable opinion, rather than the desire for complex understanding cultivated through solitary reading.
The Loss of Shared Models/Objects: Rose's subjects often desired access to a shared canon, a common intellectual currency, even if it was conservative. My take on Girard would suggest that the fragmentation of media and the decline of such shared cultural touchstones leave our mimetic desires unanchored, easily captured by the algorithmically promoted trends and echo chambers you mentioned (X/Twitter, Facebook, QAnon etc.), which often thrive on mimetic rivalry rather than shared exploration. The "social capital" of being well-read diminishes if there are fewer people desiring or recognizing the same cultural knowledge.
AI & Summaries: The potential shift towards AI summaries fits this too, it caters to an imitated desire to know about a book or possess the talking points, rather than the desire to experience the process of reading it, a desire perhaps modelled on efficiency rather than intellectual exploration. (I am assuming, but fairly confident, here as there is insufficient research).
Your proposed solutions, leveraging AI for leisure, gamification, customized education, and hybrid formats, are intriguing ways to potentially create new models or incentives for reading in this changed landscape. But laziness might prevail!
Overall, there are many aspects, historical, technological, and perhaps even mimetic, to the question of why the world Rose described feels so distant now.
The idea of “reading as rebellion” reminds me of the Royal Society’s motto: “Take nobody’s word for it.”
I also recently came across a post on LessWrong discussing the decline in sentence length over the centuries—an average of 49 words per sentence in the 1400s, down to just 12 words in J.K. Rowling’s *Harry Potter* books. This trend is mirrored in other forms of writing, such as newspapers. You can read more about it here: [Why Have Sentence Lengths Decreased?](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/xYn3CKir4bTMzY5eb/why-have-sentence-lengths-decreased).
I find this connects to Girard’s argument that our desires are often shaped by imitation. Personally, I grew up watching my parents read constantly. Their love for books inspired mine, and reading soon became one of my most cherished daily activities. However, as fewer adults read, their children are less likely to pick up the habit. In the U.S., this trend has reached alarming levels—there are reports of college students, even at elite institutions, struggling to read more than a few pages per semester. The Atlantic recently explored this issue in an article: [The Elite College Students Who Can’t Read Books](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/11/the-elite-college-students-who-cant-read-books/679945/).
While smartphones and social media are often blamed for this decline, there’s more at play. Passive consumption of content, imitation of non-readers, and an overreliance on shortcuts like summaries have eroded the ability to engage with complex ideas. This could lead to a future where AI tools are widely used to simplify information, further outsourcing critical thinking.
It’s clear that convenience and laziness are replacing many skills. Reading may go the way of navigation, which has been largely forgotten in the age of GPS. However, I’ve never encountered a truly successful person or expert who doesn’t read extensively. Perhaps, as automation takes over more jobs, reading will become less tied to success or expertise and instead fade into obscurity, much like cursive writing and handwritten notes in U.S. schools.
The Gallup Poll sheds more light on the decline in reading habits:
“College graduates read an average of about six fewer books in 2021 than they did between 2002 and 2016, dropping from 21.1 to 14.6 books. Women, who historically read nearly twice as many books as men, also saw a decline, from 19.3 to 15.7 books, while men’s readership fell slightly from 10.8 to 9.5 books. Older adults, who once outpaced younger readers significantly, now read fewer books, with those aged 55 and older dropping from an average of 16.7 to 12 books annually. The decline is largely driven by avid readers choosing to read fewer books, rather than a significant increase in non-readers.”
These numbers reflect a broader trend across all demographics. As the data shows, the median number of books read per person is closer to four, with half of Americans having read at least one book in the past year. According to The Washington Post, reading five books puts you in the top 33% of readers, while reading 10 books places you in the top 21%. Those who read 50 or more books a year are the true “one-percenters.”
For me, I plan to remain in that one-percent group for the rest of my life. I believe a passion for reading is one of the greatest gifts you can pass on to your children. My parents instilled this in me, and my wife and I have done the same for our son. I hope he, too, will carry this legacy forward to his own children.
I will end with a quote from Mark Twain (it may sound harsh, but I like it): “The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.”
I may have shared this post before, and I also consider reading the best bargain in the world: https://m.facebook.com/groups/227079345953752/posts/689714833023532/
There was a sitcom , apparently, that the characters are sitting on a porch, and they ask someone- What are ya reading fure? Now, what are you reading, but, why are you bothering to read that, it must have a purpose. In my home, reading was a norm, for the pure love of it. As you say, the reading decline happened long before social media- it began with the advent of TV, and different ways to spend leisure time.
What is unsettling to me is that authors, I devoured 20 years ago no longer publishes deeply engaging books, but write offerings like a bird, who has chews up the substantial meal, to make it palate to pur down the gullet of its progeny. Their words minus the previous depth are devoid of taste, check books written 20 yeas ago by well known authors, who are writing today. It's like they are different people. It's challenging to discover new books push reflection although Dr. Ian McGilChrist, never disappoints me.
I concur with most reasons you've outline for the decline in reading.Would you consider Audio listening to a book "NOT Reading". I've found people listen to those on the trip to work, and they do listen. While different than reading words, I still consider it a book 'read'.
The reason of no time is an excuse, not a reason.This book covers people who did truly less time to read, as they had no modern conveniences like washing machines. Yet, one example was the servant girl with Shelley in her pocket. They valued reading then, as this book so clearly details. . Readers will READ. I raised five sons. I read while stirring soup, for example, because a day without reading is a worthless day.
Your suggestions on how to improve reading today are helpful. What I've found with gamification of reading, like summer reading club at libraries, is that YES there is more reading, but I've not seen an uptick in the reading after that. (Btw, I am a private tutor) I've not figured out why yet. Rewarding children when they first begin to decode words, and offering them a reward once they do ,ONLY works to their benefit for a short time, with respect to inspiring a life long love for reading, as outlined in the book, " Punished by Rewards".
I'd truly like to believe that AI offering more time for engagement with the arts will happen, for example reading for pleasure or playing an instrument. I do wonder your source that will happen? Will people Finally become bored with screens, or will they immerse themselves more in AR/VR as that continues to become more 'real' than real life.
As I'm sure you know, education has been profoundly impacted by the lack of reading skills and interest, especially with the ability to summarize a book into snippets of understanding. But, there isn't understanding, for authors put in all that 'extra' reading because it matters for complexity.
But , I agree, this decline began a LONG while ago. We do need to find new ways to engage people to WANT to read books.
Yet, my question is WHY? What are you reading fure?
I do not think that people will become bored with screens, the younger generation reach constantly for their screens... it would take huge habit shifts sadly.
I like Dr. Ian McGilChrist... I have to admit I find it difficult to listen to his discussions, but to read him is something else.
Will we go to the arts more? Huge question.
I tried to listen to Dr. McGilChrist in discussions on my walks, but, I don't enjoy it either. However, I've sat for hours reading his books. I reread the Master and Emissary, even though his later book, The matter of things, is a comprehensive update.
Sadly, I agree with you. From everything I've seen, people are not becoming bored endlessly scrolling, or bored with that same repeated advice to how to improve on YT. Nor do they seem bored with watching poorly done TV shows. No wonder there is little reading, especially of anything in-depth, when one's chosen diet is tripe, and requires little effort to digest.
There is dialogue about being free to follow passions thanks to an AI 'utopia', often expressed by Diamandis and Salim Ismail , but, I rarely see that, even even when people have leisure time now . From what I've observed, as you have often written on lately, with the increasing proficiency of AI, both in the creation of art, and with AI -ah hum- companions, there is even less likelihood of a movement to reading in general or deep engagement with reading 'harder' books, , or with the arts in general.
I confess, there are days that I am grieving the loss of the culture, the substance of humanity that brought us to this very moment in history. My apologies if these thoughts lean to melancholiness .Habits of ease-shall we say- are deeply engrained into our culture now . I grieve the loss.
Eventually, the novelty of screens will fade, and they will be replaced by something new. I hope that whatever comes next will encourage depth, reflection, and meaningful engagement—perhaps even a renewed appreciation for books—rather than technologies like virtual or augmented reality suggested above or something entirely new that we cannot think of today that risks further distracting us from what truly matters. However, given Silicon Valley's tendency to prioritize profit and engagement, it's likely that future innovations will continue to foster addiction and constant stimulation.
I've been avoiding McGilchrist's books because of their length. Several years ago, I made a rule to focus on books under 300 pages and only make an exception when necessary. This approach has allowed me to explore multiple authors and perspectives on a topic, which is more rewarding than relying on a single foundational book. No matter how brilliant an author is, there are always gaps and biases in their knowledge—something I'm very aware of, even in my area of expertise. That said, McGilchrist's work comes highly recommended, and perhaps it's worth reconsidering my rule for a book that so many regard as an essential read.
'So many books, so little time'. At one point, this was my chosen epitaph, so I understand focusing on shorter books, to absorb multiple authors' ideas and perspectives. Every author speaks what matters to them, and having breadth of reading is vital to cover their gaps. I've done that as well.
As Colin said, reading McGilChrist's book is an experience. So, I read parts, put it down to craft it onto what I already know, read other books, and come back to it It becomes an ongoing lengthy dialogue with the author, just as books like 'A new Kind of Science' by Stephen Wolfram was for me when I I read when it was released 20 years ago. It is still impactful today.
I just read an excellent post that speaks about the same topic: https://carlhendrick.substack.com/p/ultra-processed-minds-the-end-of?ref=thediff.co&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
And one paragraph from it resonated with me:
“Sven Birkerts warned of this in The Gutenberg Elegies, lamenting the loss of “the language of inwardness.” As the screen displaces the page, he argues, we risk becoming strangers to our own interiority. “Writing, in its essence,” he reminds us, “is an intimate, recursive act, an engagement with thought that deepens it.” But in a culture saturated with artificial content and algorithmic curation, intimacy becomes noise, recursion becomes redundancy, and thought becomes just another asset in the content economy.“
I love it! Reading as an act of rebellion. Planting the seed of revolution. Defiant in the face of patronizing plutocracy.
I'd like to propose another reason for the disappearance of the autodidact - a workload foisted upon the masses by the ruling class. The former "40 hour workweek" replaced by the 60 hour workweek, and "on call" demands. I believe most of us are too exhausted to spend time and effort on quality reading these days.
Another reason is what might be termed "social capital". The well read are alone in a sea of sound bites coming from Faux Newspeak and Newsmax and unsubstantiated commentary off computer screens from X/Twitter, InYourFaceBook, QAnon and 4chan.
I think you're absolutely right to propose those additional reasons for the autodidact's decline. Rose does discuss the impact of changing work and leisure patterns, and while the Victorians/Edwardians certainly weren't strangers to exhaustion, the modern pressures you describe (the 'always-on' culture) present a different kind of barrier to the sustained effort self-education requires.
And your point about the degradation of the information environment is vital. Rose's subjects often sought out the classics or rigorous texts precisely to gain the critical tools needed to counter manipulation (like the commenter Norris seeing through 'humbug').
Today's media landscape does makes finding solid ground and engaging in that kind of deep reading far more challenging. Thank you for those great points.
Carrying on from the prior piece, perhaps this says it all here... "…Training in the art of thinking has equipped me to see through the shams and humbug that lurk behind the sensational headlines of the modern newspapers, the oratorical outpourings of insincere party politicians and dictators, and the doctrinaire ideologies that stalk the world sowing hatred."
A population equipped to see through the shams is not helpful to those who have found a way to leverage the status quo to their benefit. This is part of these longer cycles where the powerful get too far ahead, the people finally recognize they are being humbugged, trust in the governing structures (whether church, education, government, etc) is lost, and then reading, history, general and specific knowledge become a necessity for survival.
We've had 100+ years of ease. Grade school is mandatory, not recognized as a gift. Compare any N.A. student to a child in middle-Africa, South America or Asia and you'll see the difference in attention, effort and appreciation. In the past 70 years this has migrated to post-secondary and all the way now to PhD levels. Education is seen as a right and many feel it should free. But free is not appreciated and even in the mid-20th century it was just a place to fill time before having to get serious about life. Only the exceptional embraced the opportunity of education
Perhaps this is just what Rose is recognizing. This long path of decay that is just moving to the next phase. Perhaps we'll need to continue on this path even further before the impact becomes dire. But I think people are waking up. The lack of trust today is forcing people to find their own answers and this will eventually take us back to deeper learning. How bad does it need to get first? No telling. But the knowledge still exists, the books of Plato to Shakespeare to Hemingway still exist. Resting quietly on the shelves, waiting for us to return and take them down for a another read.
Thank you for this insightful comment and for picking up on that powerful quote from George Norris. Rose's book is filled with such gems!
The ability to "see through the shams" is exactly what those in power often find inconvenient. I agree with your point about the historical cycles, where widespread distrust eventually forces people back towards seeking genuine knowledge for themselves, this aligns with the spirit Rose captures. When established structures fail or mislead, the tools for critical thinking found in reading and history do indeed become essential again.
I agree that there's a sad irony in how easily accessible education can become devalued, seen as a mandatory chore rather than the precious gift Rose's subjects often treated it as. Your contrast with students in other parts of the world highlights this starkly. This is similar to my take on Rose's elegy for a time when the pursuit of knowledge felt more urgent and transformative.
Perhaps, as you suggest, we are moving into that next phase where disillusionment necessitates a return to deeper learning (I hope!). Rose himself entertained the possibility that new forms of autodidactism might emerge, driven by that very need to "find their own answers" in an age of spin.
It's a hopeful thought that the knowledge does still exist, waiting on the shelves (or servers) for us.
“Free is not appreciated” well said. Abundant and easy are not appreciated either…
Yes, and this important to think about when there is so much effort going toward "abundance" mindset. Also, technology is driving us to abundance in everything. This is getting to be an important conversation as AI advances and we decide what we are willing to trade for abundance.
Bravo - one of the best defenses of the liberal arts I’ve ever read.
Indeed it is !
It’s hard for me to imagine our world in light of what Rose describes. The classics that were embraced by these working class autodidacts are seen today as either relics of a problematic past, or “too hard” to approach without training wheels. There’s a podcast or LLM that can summarize them anyway.
What foundational education enabled these revolutionary readers to take on these often complex works? With declining literacy rates in elementary and high school education, we may be depriving future generations of even having the skills to attempt literary self-emancipation…. So how were things different then? Was literacy simply “in the air”?