Lack of reading stamina in teenagers...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4548226.stm

Just wondered what you all think about this....

Personally I saw this a lot with my A-Level Lit class, I know people will think I'm just saying this to be a t***, I'm not, but I was the only person in my class to have read a pre-21st Century novel by choice. I understand that people have completely different tastes and that Dickens etc is certainly not for everybody, but in my class of nine, six of us are doing literature degrees!

For example with our coursework we had to read 'Birdsong', not exactly a complicated novel but I suppose fairly 'lengthy'. The two other girls who were going to really strong universities (Newcastle and Nottingham) to do English didn't even read the entire book! They explained that they couldn't be bothered because it was too long...

How are they going to cope with 'Paradise Lost'?! :confused:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Danielle89

a book is a book is a book surely? I cant be arsed with "classics" because yes, they are too long and often not very interesting IMHO. I, however, am not studying literature.

Reply 2

Danielle89

Oh, and in the article it says pre-20th century.

Reply 3

pipkinlove

Danielle89

a book is a book is a book surely? I cant be arsed with "classics" because yes, they are too long and often not very interesting IMHO. I, however, am not studying literature.

I see what you mean, but it's not the 'classic' status, it's that many of the books which are considered to be the finest ever written are pre-21st Century and even if you don't like them, if you are doing Lit you just read them...

But you're not so whatever :biggrin:

Reply 4

vaanish

Danielle89

a book is a book is a book surely? I cant be arsed with "classics" because yes, they are too long and often not very interesting IMHO. I, however, am not studying literature.

yes actually, thats what i think, you should read what you want to, not what others think you should, its dumb that some people read those sort of books just so they can say they have and to feel like they are better than other people who havent read them

Reply 5

pipkinlove

Danielle89

Oh, and in the article it says pre-20th century.

That's because I was relating my own experience and not the BBC's.

Reply 6

T kay

Hmmm very interesting, especially the criticism on most schools choosing to study Nazi Germany.

As for lack of reading amongst teenagers I would agree with that. In my english class absolutely no one reads a book in their own time. Last year, we studied Emma by Jane Austen and some of them didn't even read the entire novel. I understand that 19th century novels are hard to read, there very wordy, I'm reading pride and prejudice at the moment and I'll admit it gets hard to understand what's going on, but I'm enjoying it nevertheless.

Even so, there are plenty of books out there that are easy to read which are very good, e.g. J.D Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye to name but a few. People are more intent to play on their Wii or whatever there called these days.

Reply 7

pipkinlove

T kay

Yes the Nazi Germany thing is interesting and I think you're right (going back to the actual question) in that the problem is that fewer and fewer people are choosing to read in their spare time.

It's a shame because the mental health benefits attatched to reading are massive.

It was same in my class. We had to read like 5 novels (which were not THAT long either) and 95% of my classmates just downloaded the plot summary from the internet so they didn't get 0% for that activity...

Reply 10

pipkinlove

Danielle89

There are plenty of people who read in their own time but dont read classics. We dont all sit and watch telly and play the wii.

And Im sure when Emma and the like came out they werent considered the finest ever written - literature gains respect with maturity. At the time Jane Austen was writing there were no doubt older books that were considered the best literature. Therefore just because it is easier to read, modern literature/novels should not be looked down upon because what can an author do? Travel back in time and release their book then just so it can be respected???[/QUOTE]

I didn't at any point say that, I'm not contesting the validity of any novel, I'm just saying that if you are serious about knowing your subject inside out (which is assumed when you are doing it to degree level) you explore it fully, you don't just stick to one small time period because then you won't have to use your brain to tackle difficult language.

Again I never said anything about respect so that statement makes no sense.

Reply 11

T kay

Danielle89

Yes I agree but I didn't say that people shouldn't read modern novels, I mentioned The Catcher in the Rye, 50 or 60 years old.
And I was talking about people in my english class, in my whole year as a matter of fact. No one seems to want to read anymore, I'm not saying its a bad thing, I was merely talking about what happens at my 6th form. I'm sure there'e plenty of teenagers who read, take those who are on TSR for example :smile:

Reply 12

diamonddust

I'm weird in the sense that pretty much all I read are classics. I'm trying to aquire a collection but they're so expensive. I don't really enjoy modern 'literature' because I feel it just lacks depth. I don't know how, but it's just more satisfying settling down and reading Jane Eyre or Jude the Obscure than it is reading Harry Potter.

I remember reading Great Expectations in Year 10 and I was one of about 3 people who actually read the book. Most people just went on Sparknotes.

Reply 13

Danielle89

pipkin I wasnt referring to your post, but more to the post saying something along the lines of kids these days dont read, they just play the wii etc. And it does make sense. Many people look down on modern writing as not as good as "the finest literature" written in the 19th/early 20th century. Simply by calling it the finest literature is degrading anything written later as less than excellent which isnt really fair to modern writers. Hope I've been clearer this time

Reply 14

yameretzu

I think books are interesting nomatter how old they are. However books from the era of Jane Austin are a heavier read than books nowadays. I can go through a modern book in hours, it takes me ages to read a pre modern era book.

Reply 15

A Stranger in Moscow

T kay

As for lack of reading amongst teenagers I would agree with that. In my english class absolutely no one reads a book in their own time. Last year, we studied Emma by Jane Austen and some of them didn't even read the entire novel.

And Jane Austen isn't even one of the more difficult to understand...

Reply 16

wizard710

I love reading everything, magazines, books but I don't like classics though. IMO they are too old to long and too boring, Executive Orders, what I am reading now is awesome, I am 300 pages in and have another 900 pages to go.

Reply 17

pipkinlove

Danielle89

Yes you have and I apologise if you thought I was trying to degrade modern literature, I suppose what I meant to say was that literature from that time period makes up a lot of the finest literature simply because of the mechanics of time as you say.
I know that not everyone else sits at home and plays Nintendo, the people who p*** me off are the ones that read little and then do literature degrees as they think they will be able to get by on wikipedia summaries of 'Jude the Obscure' :smile:

Reply 18

Piano Thing

Danielle89

Therefore just because it is easier to read, modern literature/novels (etc)

Ever tried Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie?

Modern literature may be generally easier to read, but easier to understand...?

I found similar things in my English Literature class, in that many people didn't read the books in their entirety. Some of us had studied Tess of the D'Urbervilles for both GCSE and A2, and one girl even boasted that she had not finished the book either time. She actually got an offer for Cambridge ( however not for English, funnily enough, and in the end she missed three As)...