Opinion
Appreciating literature for what it is not
In July, the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) released a new survey on reading habits in the United States. Titled “Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America,” the survey chronicles the accelerating decline of literary reading between 1982 and 2002, and makes particular mention of the dramatic drop in literary reading in the 18 to 24-years-old age group. The survey sparked a firestorm of debate and discussion over how to increase the percentage of readers as well as how to explain the benefits of reading to a public that is increasingly uninterested in books.
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Charles Parsons:
- Disingenuous imagery hampers abortion discourse (October 21, 2005)
- Court flawed in student paper ruling (October 27, 2005)
- University denies religious freedom (November 3, 2005)
- Ad-hominem attacks hijack debate (November 10, 2005)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
In July, the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) released a new survey on reading habits in the United States. Titled “Reading at Risk: A Survey of Literary Reading in America,” the survey chronicles the accelerating decline of literary reading between 1982 and 2002, and makes particular mention of the dramatic drop in literary reading in the 18 to 24-years-old age group.
The survey sparked a firestorm of debate and discussion over how to increase the percentage of readers as well as how to explain the benefits of reading to a public that is increasingly uninterested in books.
The reaction was a surprise from many of those outside of the literary world, but within there was very little shock. The survey was not a surprise, as the decline in reading had been well known and documented beforehand. Nevertheless, the public reaction of the literary world underscores the feeling by many that literary reading, literature in particular, has been increasingly under fire by the greater public. As the tangible benefits of science begin to dominate our daily lives, the intangible benefits of literature and the arts become more difficult to define. The public, always looking to make sure that public dollars are not wasted, have demanded to know the answer to one question: “Why read?”
In his preface to the survey, NEA Chairman Dan Gioia attempts to answer the question by tying reading to other desirable activities. The survey finds that people who read are more likely to do volunteer work, patron the arts and be socially active. In decrying the drop in reading, Gioia argues that “[a]s more Americans lose this capability, our nation becomes less informed, active and independent-minded.”
The irony is that this argument clearly violates the rules of logic. The fact that more people who read are socially active does not necessarily mean that there is a logical correlation between reading and desirable social activity.
As if to provide another answer, in his new book, Why Read?, Mark Edmundson argues the other side of the literary coin. If reading doesn’t make us better citizens, certainly it makes us better individuals. He summarized his main point in a recent New York Times article:
“They don’t read for information, and they don’t read for a beautiful escape. No, they read to remake themselves. They read to be socialized again, not into the ways of their city or village this time but into another world with different values.”
The problem is that reading doesn’t make us better individuals. There is a long-standing stereotype that the literary reading public is generally clean-cut and responsible. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, most readers are not particularly social. Throughout most literature we encounter the worst of society on a daily basis — murderers, thieves, pedophiles and all sorts of malcontents. How does this help to remake us? How does reading “Lolita”, “Macbeth” or “Things Fall Apart” make us better individuals? The simple and undeniable fact is that is doesn’t.
There is a truth that people like Gioia and Edmundson evade. That truth is that literature is useless. Like other art forms it will not ensure the survival of our species. It won’t make our dependence on fossil fuels go away. It won’t keep the Dow Jones above the 10,000 mark.
In its uselessness is its beauty. Humans are the only species that continually risk its own survival in order to discover, to explore, to find pleasure. We have evolved past simple Darwinian existence. Literature is part of that evolution. It is precisely because it is useless that it is one of the most human of all accomplishments. In the history of the world, literature is one of mankind’s greatest achievements. Through literature, we attempt to discover what it is to be human by creating something only a human could create. Learn about ourselves from ourselves.
It’s time we stop playing this game. It’s time we stop trying to apply useful value to a useless art. It’s time we acknowledge that literature won’t make us better people, won’t make us better citizens, won’t provide for the defense and well being of our family. Literature has a lone purpose: Teaching us about our own humanity.
Charles Parsons (cparsons@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in literature.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Top Classified Ads (view all)
Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!
DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!
IP hash: 6bb9d262
but newspaper columns like this are neither beautiful nor helpful….
IP hash: 3b46e4e5
I have to diagree that literature is useless, and i’m sure many of your literature teachers would agree. Reading may not make you a better citizen if you choose to ignore the things it says, the same way listening to good advice won’t help you if you dont follow it. Just because a serial killer or a pedophile has read Throreau doesnt mean that any person who reads it cant pull something of value from it.
IP hash: a4c459a6
I agree with you, literature is useless-; it seems to me that they (lovers of literature)tend to glorify literature as a historical, philosophical, psychological works. Yes, literature can exemplify such themes. HOWEVER…
We know history from studies, textbooks, and other research. Why read literature regarding some time period when historical texts and research could tell us so much more? We could could learn the events, impact, evidence, causes, effects, the ideologies and philosohpers in much great depth from reading texts of philosophy, psychological research, scientific experiments, archaeological finds, etc. If we want to learn more about, for example, existentialism—-we would learn more from the aformentioned sources than from some long and irrevently-detailed piece of literature. Why read some vaguely-themed novel when we could read actual philosophical texts, essays, etc? Actual debate and critical viewpoints are better emphasized in essays and psychological research than in a unnecessarily long, needlessly detailed literature that would probably cover only 5% of the basics (yes, maybe it would be easier to read. But would we really LEARN and CONTEND anything from that novel?)
I agree. Literature is useless. It’s just a way of retelling ideas in the form of a story. Some find it fun to read, and some don’t. But will we really learn anything that way? For example, English teachers would often have students “break up words” and analyze long and irrevently-detailed novel, and thus claim to have scholarly edified several individuals. Wrong. If teachers really wish to teach students about certain topics or ideologies… teachers should have them “break up words” and analyze philosophical and psychological research and texts. Why debate novels and literature? More…much more…can be learned from debating the actual philosophies…writing and evaluating essays from students and the psychologists/philosophers..etc. We can learn more about existentialism, for example, by reading a three-page essay on the philosophy than a two-hundred+ page novel or narrative. Sure, the novel may be easier to read. But will we really learn anything????