a bookseller's plot to make the public more intelligent?

I was thinking the other day that it would be beneficial to the
bookselling
industry if the public was more intelligent. Ocassionally, conspiracy
theorists
worry about the "dumbing down" of the population for some nefarious
reason.
It seems that if many people are getting less capable of reading an
adult level book, nor having any desires to better themselves with
books, the business of
bookselling will be affected by this.



--
Robert Pearson
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net
Creative Virtue Press http://www.rspearson.com/

John A. Stovall wrote:
"telicalbook" wrote:

I was thinking the other day that it would be beneficial to the
bookselling
industry if the public was more intelligent. Ocassionally, conspiracy
theorists
worry about the "dumbing down" of the population for some nefarious
reason.
It seems that if many people are getting less capable of reading an
adult level book, nor having any desires to better themselves with
books, the business of
bookselling will be affected by this.


The Aliteracy of the American public is a well know phenomena.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
http://osusentinel.com/theopenend/in...cy_v_aliteracy
http://www.havenworks.com/vocabulary/a-z/a/aliteracy/


"Last week I was in Nashville, Tennessee; after the show I was eating at
a Waffle House....And I'm sitting there and I'm eating and I'm reading a
book....Waitress comes over to me: 'What choo readin' for?' I said,
'Wow, I've never been asked that. Goddang it, you stumped me.' Not,
What am I *reading*, but What am I reading *for*? I guess I read for a
lot of reasons, but one of the main ones is so I don't end up bein' a
****ing waffle waitress."

--Bill Hicks (a late, great Texan, BTW)


Jon Meyers

Actually not being able to read has its advantages!

There is a certain slanted newspaper which has telemarketers call me about
three times a year, trying to get me to subscribe.

When they call, I tell them I don't know how to read. Then there is a long
silence at the other end and then click!

So far as getting people interested in reading, I know a 23 year old lady
who had never read an entire book until Harry Potter was published. That
did the trick. I have given her books like spooky stories, Guinness Book of
World Records, a book on rats, etc. Then her 6 year old wants her to read
these books to him.

A 30 year old man I know rarely reads, but likes to gamble. So I gave him a
book on gambling. He read it from cover to cover.

There are plenty of books out there to peak the interest of those who
typically do not like to read. For example loompanics.com has titles such
as these...

THE LAZY PERSON'S GUIDE TO SUCCESS

JOBS YOUR MOTHER NEVER WANTED YOU TO HAVE

PANTIES DOWN! BEFORE MONEY DOWN!

HOW TO LOSE YOUR EX-WIFE

HOW TO MAKE DRIVER'S LICENSES

TECHNIQUES OF SAFECRACKING

HOW TO OPEN HANDCUFFS WITHOUT KEYS

HOW TO INVESTIGATE YOUR FRIENDS AND ENEMIES

HOW TO MAKE $50 PER HOUR SCREWING IN LIGHT BULBS

HOW TO EARN $15 TO $50 AN HOUR AND MORE WITH A PICKUP TRUCK OR VAN

Etc...


"telicalbook" wrote in message
I was thinking the other day that it would be beneficial to the
bookselling
industry if the public was more intelligent. Ocassionally, conspiracy
theorists
worry about the "dumbing down" of the population for some nefarious
reason.
It seems that if many people are getting less capable of reading an
adult level book, nor having any desires to better themselves with
books, the business of
bookselling will be affected by this.

I'm suspicious of people who don't read. I don't trust their
motives or their outlook on life, and don't want to be around
them. Those who don't read are limited in two ways. One, they
don't possess the innate motivation to open a book, which suggests
that they are mentally challenged to begin with. Two, they have
been denied the educating and broadening influence of good
literature, which makes them not only dumb but ignorant.

I have known smart people who never read, but they are smart in an
unpleasant way. They are sly smart, crafty smart, street smart,
sneaky smart, put-one-over-on-the-other-guy smart. That kind of
smart is (to me) repulsive. Their outlook on life is limited and
prejudiced. Oddly enough, these are the folks who most often think
they know everything. No one can teach them anything, or tell them
what to do, because they already know it all.

Greetings:

Well that's an interesting philosophy. Given that very few Americans
actually do read (I assume you are excluding Tom Clancy/John Grisham
fans) you are writing off a very large number of people.

In fact it is this very attitude of superiority that makes the rest of
them look at us (those of us who read) with some suspicion.

I make my living in what is more or less a blue collar business, yet
my father was a failed English professor. So I have seen both sides of
the street.

Generally speaking, I find that people who read can be at least as
nasty and know-it-all as those who do not read. After all, I read,
therefore I am an intellectual, therefore I am superior and have the
answers to the questions that you haven't even thought to ask.

I was raised to be one of those street-smart folk you talk about, but
I also read. I photograph. I collect modern literary firsts as well as
photo monographs.

I have many friends that don't read and I have many friends that don't
go to museums either. Some of them I try to encourage to do one or the
other, with varying degrees of success.

But to simply say all who do not read belong to a class lower than
those that do simply puts you into the same class you describe below;
limited and prejudiced.

Regards,
Denton


On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:51:50 GMT, Al Smith
wrote:

I'm suspicious of people who don't read. I don't trust their
motives or their outlook on life, and don't want to be around
them. Those who don't read are limited in two ways. One, they
don't possess the innate motivation to open a book, which suggests
that they are mentally challenged to begin with. Two, they have
been denied the educating and broadening influence of good
literature, which makes them not only dumb but ignorant.

I have known smart people who never read, but they are smart in an
unpleasant way. They are sly smart, crafty smart, street smart,
sneaky smart, put-one-over-on-the-other-guy smart. That kind of
smart is (to me) repulsive. Their outlook on life is limited and
prejudiced. Oddly enough, these are the folks who most often think
they know everything. No one can teach them anything, or tell them
what to do, because they already know it all.

But to simply say all who do not read belong to a class lower than
those that do simply puts you into the same class you describe below;
limited and prejudiced.

Regards,
Denton

What class are you in when you accuse an individual you don't even
know of prejudice?

Hi Al:

I'm a member of a number of classes. By income, the upper class. By
education, the lower class.

I don't know you, but if you review the below, one would have to
conclude, especially as you are a member of the writing class, that
you have consigned any and every person who does not share our love of
literature go be unworthy of your notice and friendship. I quote:

I have known smart people who never read, but they are smart in an
unpleasant way. They are sly smart, crafty smart, street smart,
sneaky smart, put-one-over-on-the-other-guy smart. That kind of
smart is (to me) repulsive. Their outlook on life is limited and
prejudiced.

You are a writer, and so would be expected to chose words carefully.
Are you seriously going to claim that the above statement is not
elitist, prejudicial, and classist? And that such an attitude is
counter-productive to actually getting people to read?

This reminds me of a Kazuo Ishiguro reading I attended in NYC a few
months age. A young male, whom I would have pegged to be a Nigerian
educated in England, asked a rambling question where he basically
tried to kiss up to Ishiguro, by saying, in essence, how do you go to
these readings and deal with all the stupid questions that the stupid
audience asks?

And Ishiguro answered, rather magnificently, that it's the good
questions that get asked over and over again, and so are predictable,
but it's the stupid questions that are interesting. And that
furthermore the literary community is a kind and generous place. And
that's what I didn't find in your post.

Denton


On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:26:27 GMT, Al Smith
wrote:

But to simply say all who do not read belong to a class lower than
those that do simply puts you into the same class you describe below;
limited and prejudiced.

Regards,
Denton

What class are you in when you accuse an individual you don't even
know of prejudice?

Al Smith wrote:

But to simply say all who do not read belong to a class lower than
those that do simply puts you into the same class you describe below;
limited and prejudiced.

What class are you in when you accuse an individual you don't even
know of prejudice?

the class consisting of those people who read a post which appears
to relect a distinct attitude or set of values on the part of the
poster, and who comment on that post and that attitude. for waht it's
worth, i'm in the same class and certainly came to the same conclusion
about mr. smith's previous post.

chiwito

I'm a member of a number of classes. By income, the upper class. By
education, the lower class.

If you're posting here, you probably read. Unless you are a
collector who doesn't ever open the books he collects.

I stand by what I wrote and make no apology for it. At all. I have
no intention of attending to the needs and vanities of the PC
thought police. What I expressed was a personal opinion, based on
my experience. To reiterate, I've found people who never read a
book to be limited intellectually. This includes my own relatives,
most of whom do not read books.

If you happen to find those who do not read paragons of wisdom and
virtue, fine. You're welcome to them.