The recent extensive media coverage for Mark Bauerlein's book, The Dumbest Generation, indicates to me this whole subject has touched a nerve—and isn't it refreshing to have the subject of literacy come up in the national discourse? (It's a nice break from non-stop celebrity cellulite sightings!) As we've discussed here in the last few entries, this subject deals directly with the impact of young people reading less, and the consequences this shift is having on American society and culture as a whole.
I think Craig Wilson of USA Today got it right in this funny column.
Now Newsweek has weighed in with this article on whether the "Internet Generation" is really dumb and dumber than previous generations.
I think the Newsweek folks got it all wrong. It's not so much that kids can't access information in an instant with a quick Wiki search, more than it's the fact that they're wasting their time on the Internet socializing and watching YouTube clips. (Are they hanging out at Newsweek.com or at Facebook, MySpace and Hulu.net?) I'd argue the bulk of time spent online by the youth of America is wasted with the inconsequential and recreational, the fleeting and meaningless. (It's fun, but so is eating cotton candy.)
I think the real danger that The Dumbest Generation points to is the fact that we're losing our common culture. If 30 out of 30 middle schoolers can't tell me anything about Rip Van Winkle, David and Goliath or Pandora's box, then we're losing the common cultural touchstones that we use to communicate—touchstones that you're not likely to learn while posting photos of yourself "shredding" on your MySpace page.
Of course, I still have to read the dang book! (And here I am "socializing" on the Internet!)
Monday, May 26, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
The Cognitive Surplus and the Idiot Box
If I could get all the hours back that I wasted watching Hogan's Heroes as a kid, I could use that time to go to medical school. Twice. And walk/swim around the earth eleven times.
Regular visitors will know that I consider TV the anti-book. And it is. So it was with much interest that I read a truly hilarious column by Mark Morford on the San Francisco Chronicle's website. In it, he discusses getting sucked in by the tube in relation to NYU professor Clay Shirky's notion of the "cognitive surplus," which he defines as all that leftover brain power we are blessed with, but collectively fritter away drooling in front of the idiot box. You can read Mr. Morford's funny column here.
Shirky calculates that Americans, as a whole, spend about 200 billion hours a year in front of the tube (see above reference to frittering). The number is mind boggling. But, he argues, the web is starting to eek out a tiny sliver of this time, and he thinks that this still-nascent technology will soon unleash a new, participatory revolution that will change the course of mankind and the conceit of "free time." We'll see. But it's a cool idea: those billions of hours of "passive" time will slowly evolve into more active, participatory, brain-activated time. You can watch a fascinating 15-minute video of Mr. Shirky discussing the "cognitive surplus" here.
(I should note that Mr. Shirky seems quite a bit more sanguine about the future of the web and its prospects for the human race than does Mr. Bauerlein, whose book, The Dumbest Generation, I discussed in the previous post.)
Oh, I also read an interesting, but, I believe, somewhat overly optimistic, article on Newsweek's site about the explosion in YA (Young Adult) novels. My beef with the story was the lack of numbers/facts/statistics. Although this category of book has certainly seen an uptick, the numbers I've seen indicate that overall teen reading is going nowhere but south. Could it be that a small pool of avid-reading kids are just reading more? Hmmm. Either way, I was bolstered by the mere idea that reading may be considered a vital part of "hip" youth culture. You can read it here.
Regular visitors will know that I consider TV the anti-book. And it is. So it was with much interest that I read a truly hilarious column by Mark Morford on the San Francisco Chronicle's website. In it, he discusses getting sucked in by the tube in relation to NYU professor Clay Shirky's notion of the "cognitive surplus," which he defines as all that leftover brain power we are blessed with, but collectively fritter away drooling in front of the idiot box. You can read Mr. Morford's funny column here.
Shirky calculates that Americans, as a whole, spend about 200 billion hours a year in front of the tube (see above reference to frittering). The number is mind boggling. But, he argues, the web is starting to eek out a tiny sliver of this time, and he thinks that this still-nascent technology will soon unleash a new, participatory revolution that will change the course of mankind and the conceit of "free time." We'll see. But it's a cool idea: those billions of hours of "passive" time will slowly evolve into more active, participatory, brain-activated time. You can watch a fascinating 15-minute video of Mr. Shirky discussing the "cognitive surplus" here.
(I should note that Mr. Shirky seems quite a bit more sanguine about the future of the web and its prospects for the human race than does Mr. Bauerlein, whose book, The Dumbest Generation, I discussed in the previous post.)
Oh, I also read an interesting, but, I believe, somewhat overly optimistic, article on Newsweek's site about the explosion in YA (Young Adult) novels. My beef with the story was the lack of numbers/facts/statistics. Although this category of book has certainly seen an uptick, the numbers I've seen indicate that overall teen reading is going nowhere but south. Could it be that a small pool of avid-reading kids are just reading more? Hmmm. Either way, I was bolstered by the mere idea that reading may be considered a vital part of "hip" youth culture. You can read it here.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Internet Reading vs. Reading Literature
The notion that kids may be reading less is often considered not such a bad thing because they're using the Internet more these days. Aren't they reading on the Internet? Why doesn't that count? What does it matter what they're reading, as long as they're reading, right?
First, a few numbers to consider:
According to an NEA study, between 1997 - 2003 home Internet use soared by 53% among 18- to 24-year-olds. From 1981 to 2003, the leisure reading of 15- to 17-year-olds fell to seven minutes a day from 18. What's more, 58% of middle and high school students use other media while reading. So, apparently, when kids report that they're reading, they're often also watching TV, playing video games, instant messaging, emailing or surfing the Web. Consider that by 2003, children were cramming an average of 8.5 hours of media consumption a day into just 6.5 hours—by multi-tasking.
So what's the big deal? Kids can do more than one thing at once; they can chew gum while texting! Isn't that a good thing in our ever more complex and technologically focused world?
But according to a new book, called The Dumbest Generation, by Mark Bauerlein, a professor of English at Emory University, youngsters are not spending their time learning on the web, reading Wikipedia articles about the finer points of Greek architecture or the root causes of The Great Depression; they're watching YouTube videos of guys riding scooters down stairs or saying "hi" to friends on MySpace and FaceBook. The professor suggests that "kids are using their technological advantage to immerse themselves in a trivial, solipsistic, distracting online world at the expense of more enriching activities—like opening a book or writing complete sentences."
The professor may have a point. Younger Americans do seem to struggle more than ever with writing coherent sentences, and many have difficulty carrying on an intelligent conversation—at least that's my experience.
I found out about this interesting book by reading a review of it in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. You can read it here. I've ordered a copy from the library (ordered it online while listening to music and sending text messages!), so I'll give you the scoop once I get my hands on it.
First, a few numbers to consider:
According to an NEA study, between 1997 - 2003 home Internet use soared by 53% among 18- to 24-year-olds. From 1981 to 2003, the leisure reading of 15- to 17-year-olds fell to seven minutes a day from 18. What's more, 58% of middle and high school students use other media while reading. So, apparently, when kids report that they're reading, they're often also watching TV, playing video games, instant messaging, emailing or surfing the Web. Consider that by 2003, children were cramming an average of 8.5 hours of media consumption a day into just 6.5 hours—by multi-tasking.
So what's the big deal? Kids can do more than one thing at once; they can chew gum while texting! Isn't that a good thing in our ever more complex and technologically focused world?
But according to a new book, called The Dumbest Generation, by Mark Bauerlein, a professor of English at Emory University, youngsters are not spending their time learning on the web, reading Wikipedia articles about the finer points of Greek architecture or the root causes of The Great Depression; they're watching YouTube videos of guys riding scooters down stairs or saying "hi" to friends on MySpace and FaceBook. The professor suggests that "kids are using their technological advantage to immerse themselves in a trivial, solipsistic, distracting online world at the expense of more enriching activities—like opening a book or writing complete sentences."The professor may have a point. Younger Americans do seem to struggle more than ever with writing coherent sentences, and many have difficulty carrying on an intelligent conversation—at least that's my experience.
I found out about this interesting book by reading a review of it in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday. You can read it here. I've ordered a copy from the library (ordered it online while listening to music and sending text messages!), so I'll give you the scoop once I get my hands on it.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
America's J.K. Rowling?
My daughter was almost breathless after practically speed-reading Stephanie Meyer's three vampire novels—and they're as thick as bricks. As they say, she "devoured" them. She can't wait for the next one to come out; it's titled Breaking Dawn. If you ask her, she can even tell you the pub date: August 2nd. (I just checked, and it's freakin' #7 on Amazon right now!) So it was with much interest and seething jealousy that I happened across an interesting Time Magazine article about the author, her lightening bolt jolt of inspiration, and her subsequent meteoric rise—which, of course, I devoured. (Truthfully, how cool for her!)
I also thought this short piece by Christopher Paul Curtis from the May/June issue of Horn Book Magazine was pretty cool. In it, he describes his starkly different approaches to getting his two kids to love reading—the 13-year difference in age might have something to do with his radically different methodology. Great title too: A Dad Grows Up. There's something profound to be learned here.
Although I must admit, reading Christopher Paul Curtis' column reminded me of this article from Newsweek about how the older sibling always has it toughest, while kids later down the line get to skate through without getting hassled much. Of course, I immediately emailed the link to my six brothers in the hope of getting some mid-week fireworks started.
Onward!
I also thought this short piece by Christopher Paul Curtis from the May/June issue of Horn Book Magazine was pretty cool. In it, he describes his starkly different approaches to getting his two kids to love reading—the 13-year difference in age might have something to do with his radically different methodology. Great title too: A Dad Grows Up. There's something profound to be learned here.
Although I must admit, reading Christopher Paul Curtis' column reminded me of this article from Newsweek about how the older sibling always has it toughest, while kids later down the line get to skate through without getting hassled much. Of course, I immediately emailed the link to my six brothers in the hope of getting some mid-week fireworks started.
Onward!
Monday, April 21, 2008
Helicopter Parents vs. Real Danger
I was speaking at library recently and a few kids were hanging out at my table after all my books were signed, telling me all about this and that. One fifth grade girl told me her mom doesn't like her to go to the library. "Why not?" I asked. "She's afraid I'll get shot by gang members while walking over here," she told me kind of matter-of-factly. Yikes! Some kids just have it tougher. Tougher neighborhood. Tougher home life. Tougher school. Thank goodness for the neighborhood library. During my visit, I really felt like this library was a refuge for these kids, a place to hide from the outside world, to be surrounded and protected by books. And, hopefully, those same books may even transport them to new, faraway places.
I recalled this girl's story when I stumbled across an interesting article on Newsweek's website about whether parents today are overprotective of their kids. Are things more dangerous now for kids than they were 30 years ago? Are modern kids too coddled? One mom let her son ride the subway home alone, sans cell phone, and later wrote about it. She got blasted for being a neglectful parent. The article has a great title: Helicopter Moms vs. Free-Range Kids. Good stuff that you can read here.
I'm always bashing TV—especially too much TV for kids. We don't have TV at our house, so regulating it is easy. But I do sometime get my feathers ruffled by those who say TV is good for your diaper-clad rug monkey, especially "educational" programming for kids on stations like PBS. An article on the Washington Post's website points out, rather interestingly, that most young children don't possess the cognitive firepower to have any real understanding of much of the stuff they're watching. Not only that, but kids often misinterpret or miss altogether the "messages" that many of these shows are trying to convey. If you let your little droolers watch TV, read what the latest research has to say about what they should be watching here.
I was green with envy when I saw this article about My Beautiful Mommy, a picture book that deals with a mom going under the knife to "fix" her flaws. (Don't get me started!) Man, talk about great publicity! This dang story was on every single website I visited. Putting aside the book's merits and flaws, when was the last time a picture book got this much attention? Do you know what all that publicity is worth in media dollars? Millions! My dad used to tell my brothers and me, "It doesn't matter what they're saying about you, as long as they're saying something." But the raspberries in this case were pretty thunderous. Now how could I get this kind of publicity for next year's release of my first picture books? Maybe I should get pec implants before I go on tour!
Not to end on a sour note, but this article from Publisher's Weekly about RIF (Reading Is Fundamental) losing its funding is a real drag. I've met lots of kids whose only books in their rooms at home are from RIF's free book distribution program. There are links in the article if you'd like to encourage your representative, senator or the president to continue RIF's funding.
Chow for now!
I recalled this girl's story when I stumbled across an interesting article on Newsweek's website about whether parents today are overprotective of their kids. Are things more dangerous now for kids than they were 30 years ago? Are modern kids too coddled? One mom let her son ride the subway home alone, sans cell phone, and later wrote about it. She got blasted for being a neglectful parent. The article has a great title: Helicopter Moms vs. Free-Range Kids. Good stuff that you can read here.
I'm always bashing TV—especially too much TV for kids. We don't have TV at our house, so regulating it is easy. But I do sometime get my feathers ruffled by those who say TV is good for your diaper-clad rug monkey, especially "educational" programming for kids on stations like PBS. An article on the Washington Post's website points out, rather interestingly, that most young children don't possess the cognitive firepower to have any real understanding of much of the stuff they're watching. Not only that, but kids often misinterpret or miss altogether the "messages" that many of these shows are trying to convey. If you let your little droolers watch TV, read what the latest research has to say about what they should be watching here.
I was green with envy when I saw this article about My Beautiful Mommy, a picture book that deals with a mom going under the knife to "fix" her flaws. (Don't get me started!) Man, talk about great publicity! This dang story was on every single website I visited. Putting aside the book's merits and flaws, when was the last time a picture book got this much attention? Do you know what all that publicity is worth in media dollars? Millions! My dad used to tell my brothers and me, "It doesn't matter what they're saying about you, as long as they're saying something." But the raspberries in this case were pretty thunderous. Now how could I get this kind of publicity for next year's release of my first picture books? Maybe I should get pec implants before I go on tour!
Not to end on a sour note, but this article from Publisher's Weekly about RIF (Reading Is Fundamental) losing its funding is a real drag. I've met lots of kids whose only books in their rooms at home are from RIF's free book distribution program. There are links in the article if you'd like to encourage your representative, senator or the president to continue RIF's funding.
Chow for now!
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
What's An "Appropriate" Book Anyway?
Occasionally, my books are called "inappropriate." When they are, I never have a great response. (If you've got one for me, let me know.) About all I can do on the rare occasion that I do get a comment like this is to say, "Well, not all books are appropriate for all people. And that's okay with me." No exactly brilliant, but it always seems to mollify the offended citizen before me.
Although, honestly, my books are so tame that I don't even bother to put up a fight. If books came with a rating like movies do, my Joe Sherlock mysteries would get a G Rating, for "Mild Gross Humor." (Wouldn't that be awesome! Great marketing idea!) One day, I wish I could just say, "Lighten up, chief. It's all in good fun." But I always chicken out.
Speaking of inappropriate books, I've begun reading an interesting book called Welcome to the Lizard Motel by Barbara Feinberg. It's a first-person, non-fiction book that tells the story of a woman and her strange tale of how she goes about learning exactly why her 12-year-old son truly hates the books he's assigned to read in school. She's shocked once she starts reading the books herself and considers the content inappropriate and grossly unappealing to young boys. I'm just getting started; I'm just on page 25. But it's been an interesting read so far. I'll keep you posted.
How strange, then, that yesterday I stumble across this article on The Washington Post's website about the difficulty parents, teachers and librarians have in deciding which books are appropriate for young readers. As you might expect, there are as many opinions as there are children.
I'd like to say more here about this subject, but I'm certain it would be highly inappropriate.
Although, honestly, my books are so tame that I don't even bother to put up a fight. If books came with a rating like movies do, my Joe Sherlock mysteries would get a G Rating, for "Mild Gross Humor." (Wouldn't that be awesome! Great marketing idea!) One day, I wish I could just say, "Lighten up, chief. It's all in good fun." But I always chicken out.
Speaking of inappropriate books, I've begun reading an interesting book called Welcome to the Lizard Motel by Barbara Feinberg. It's a first-person, non-fiction book that tells the story of a woman and her strange tale of how she goes about learning exactly why her 12-year-old son truly hates the books he's assigned to read in school. She's shocked once she starts reading the books herself and considers the content inappropriate and grossly unappealing to young boys. I'm just getting started; I'm just on page 25. But it's been an interesting read so far. I'll keep you posted.
How strange, then, that yesterday I stumble across this article on The Washington Post's website about the difficulty parents, teachers and librarians have in deciding which books are appropriate for young readers. As you might expect, there are as many opinions as there are children.
I'd like to say more here about this subject, but I'm certain it would be highly inappropriate.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Are smart and cool mutually exclusive?
After a school assembly earlier this year, there was a beehive of activity going on around me; kids were swarming everywhere. I was signing books and also putting my autograph on tiny slips of paper that kids had ripped out of their notebooks. One little girl told me I was the first famous person she'd ever met. Other kids just stared at me with big bug eyes. This is the kind of thing children's authors live for, right? Then a cute kid caught my eye and said, "Books are for nerds."
All I could do was laugh and say, "Well, then I guess I'm a nerd."
I was struck by the dichotomy: How one kid could be so excited about getting an actual author to sign his book, while another wouldn't be caught dead with a book? How'd that happen?
Getting kids to read can be like that: a big, complicated mystery with no easy solution.
The San Jose Mercury News ran the first story in a fascinating series this week titled Smart vs. Cool. It's about the "success gap" in school, and how different races and ethnicities approach popularity and academic success. It's a MUST read.
Is reading cool? Is doing well in school cool? I sometimes hear about the issues concerning "A students" and how the kids lower down the grade scale treat them. Isn't it interesting how those who are considered "smart" are also relegated to the role of pariah? How destructive is that to the future of America? How the heck did that happen?
When I was in school I was neither smart nor cool. Nor popular. Nor a good dresser. I also had bad hair. When I was in middle school—as many of the kids in this article are—I think I was so lost in my own miserableness that I never quite registered on the popularity radar. I was just that weird, funny guy who was always scribbling cartoons in his notebook. So the pressures on the smart kid are something I've never dealt with on a firsthand basis.
In the end, I guess the question is this: How can we make being smart cool to young people? How can we make reading books the coolest thing you can do?
Talk about a tall order. Any of you smart people out there have any ideas? How about you cool people?
All I could do was laugh and say, "Well, then I guess I'm a nerd."
I was struck by the dichotomy: How one kid could be so excited about getting an actual author to sign his book, while another wouldn't be caught dead with a book? How'd that happen?
Getting kids to read can be like that: a big, complicated mystery with no easy solution.
The San Jose Mercury News ran the first story in a fascinating series this week titled Smart vs. Cool. It's about the "success gap" in school, and how different races and ethnicities approach popularity and academic success. It's a MUST read.
Is reading cool? Is doing well in school cool? I sometimes hear about the issues concerning "A students" and how the kids lower down the grade scale treat them. Isn't it interesting how those who are considered "smart" are also relegated to the role of pariah? How destructive is that to the future of America? How the heck did that happen?
When I was in school I was neither smart nor cool. Nor popular. Nor a good dresser. I also had bad hair. When I was in middle school—as many of the kids in this article are—I think I was so lost in my own miserableness that I never quite registered on the popularity radar. I was just that weird, funny guy who was always scribbling cartoons in his notebook. So the pressures on the smart kid are something I've never dealt with on a firsthand basis.
In the end, I guess the question is this: How can we make being smart cool to young people? How can we make reading books the coolest thing you can do?
Talk about a tall order. Any of you smart people out there have any ideas? How about you cool people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)