|
Post by xandra on Aug 22, 2007 15:24:32 GMT -5
That number is pretty surprising, but it would be interesting to compare it to the number of people who work 2 or 3 jobs just to get by. I doubt they would have the time and/or energy to read books. But still, I find it sad that so many people didn't read a single book last year. Makes me wonder what the Canadian statistics are.
|
|
|
Post by daisypukes on Aug 23, 2007 6:38:43 GMT -5
^Yeah, back when I was working three jobs I didn't read a book for almost six months.
|
|
|
Post by EA Observer on Aug 23, 2007 8:36:58 GMT -5
Makes me wonder what the Canadian statistics are. Probably not that different from the U.S. Ironically, tho, the U.S. sells most books domestically or abroad - Barnes & Noble and Amazon, both U.S. booksellers, leading the sales.
|
|
|
Post by ladystacey on Aug 23, 2007 10:35:15 GMT -5
I'm not surprised I know a lot of people that never read books. For me I have always been a book worm, even now with such little free time I have I still try to read a little before I hit the hay. I'm re-reading American Psycho right now, last time I read it was when it was first published. I treat my books with great care, they all still look new even though they are decades old and I always sniff in that yummy book smell.... It's shame that a lot of people are missing out on so many great stories
|
|
|
Post by xandra on Aug 23, 2007 13:41:52 GMT -5
Makes me wonder what the Canadian statistics are. Probably not that different from the U.S. Ironically, tho, the U.S. sells most books domestically or abroad - Barnes & Noble and Amazon, both U.S. booksellers, leading the sales. Out of curiosity I ended up doing a search and found a government report on Canadian rates of reading. dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/CH44-74-2006E.pdfSome highlights: SUMMARY OF RESULTS • The results of a survey carried out by Créatec + on behalf of Canadian Heritage in January 2005 (“Reading and Buying Books for Pleasure”) highlighted the same key demographic and social factors that influence book reading as those brought to light by most of the previous Canadian, European and US studies1, namely gender, education level, geographical location and language.
→ The results showed that book reading for pleasure is mainly a female pursuit, varies greatly by activity, region and language, and decreases when the education level drops. → Men’s and Francophones’ reading habits still lag behind, and the results among Francophones outside Quebec are a cause for concern.
Overall, the results of our statistical models show that although the situation in Canada is very different from that in the United States (where the reading rate is on the decline and much lower than in Canada), general reading and regular reading are chiefly influenced by the same two variables, i.e. gender and level of education, the other variables decreasing in relevance after their interrelationships are taken into account.
→ Women read far more than men. Our MLR analyses show that the odds2 that a woman will read at least one book per year are 2.9 times greater than those of a man, and the odds that a woman will read regularly are 2.4 times greater than those of a man.
→ The more education a person has, the more likely that person is to read. The odds of reading are 4.5 times greater among those with a university education than among those with a high school education or less, and the odds of regular reading are 2.6 times greater.
• Contrary to what has been observed in the United States, however, reading in Canada is not influenced by age. Even after controlling for the effect of the other variables, age is not a relevant variable for explaining reading rates in Canada, which tends to confirm the absence of a generation gap and contradicts the belief that young people avoid reading books for pleasure or that this type of reading among young people is a major problem in Canada.And I thought this was particularly interesting: The results of the MLR also contradict the widely-held belief that the Internet has had harmful effects on book reading rates. Thus, chatting over the Internet has a positive and significant correlation with the general leisure book reading rate. In a broader sense, being connected to the Internet has no bearing on reading rates. It should be recalled that neither the general reading rate nor the average time devoted to reading has declined since 1991, which is when the Internet arrived on the scene. → The odds of reading books are 1.7 times higher among respondents who chat over the Internet than among those who do not.
|
|
0
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by 0 on Aug 23, 2007 15:41:12 GMT -5
@ Xandra - I'd believe those numbers - I usually see more women than men carrying, reading and buying books. Of course I also see more women reading gossip mags too but that's another story.
I think that the idea that internet, which for the most part is a writing and reading medium, would diminish actual reading is ridiculous but I can see how watching movies, TV and zoning out to music might. Probably the fact that leetspeak and text type grammar are being used is what concerns adults but they also probably have conveniently forgotten their own use of slang as a kid and their current adult ability to use proper english. My own daughter used to bug the hell out of me with "k" for "okay" and "wat" for what but then again she just finished reading Romeo and Juliet because she wanted to and with full comprehension of the Shakespearean English, and is currently reading the Odyssey so it appears not to be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by elle on Aug 23, 2007 17:14:38 GMT -5
for some reason i was reminded of president bush carrying on reading to preschoolers after hearing about 9/11. what a great nation.
|
|
0
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by 0 on Aug 23, 2007 19:08:20 GMT -5
LOL - but in all fairness, all that was sure at that moment was that a plane had stuck the World Trade Center. I doubt there was much that could have been done except to await an update. I literally saw it occur and didnt realize it was terrorism until I saw the second plane hit.
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Aug 24, 2007 8:21:17 GMT -5
LOL - but in all fairness, all that was sure at that moment was that a plane had stuck the World Trade Center. I doubt there was much that could have been done except to await an update. I literally saw it occur and didnt realize it was terrorism until I saw the second plane hit. No no no creole. You aren't supposed to use logic when the ills of the world are pointed at his highness the dumbass George. See, it really IS his fault, for everything. He makes hurricanes, and global warming! Gee, I remember the good ol' days, when Optimus Prime aka Bill Clinton was diddlin' errrr Presiding. We never got hurricanes, we never had terrorism, we never had wars. In fact, the world was actually COOLING, to the groovy sound of the saxophone while interns got stogies....nevermind. Anyway, you just shut your mouth CS and stop using logic. It's ALL George Bush's fault. EVERYTHING. Just ask person NOT from the USA. They'll tell you. ;D
|
|
|
Post by xandra on Aug 25, 2007 1:02:05 GMT -5
I take it you voted for Bush?
|
|
|
Post by cruelangel on Aug 27, 2007 8:32:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by cjsdad on Aug 27, 2007 9:01:01 GMT -5
I take it you voted for Bush? Hell no. The only thing I dislike more than a poop-for-brains conservative is an empty skull liberal. ;D Look, I just dislike the rhetoric. From both sides of the aisle. They TALK different but DO the SAME things. Heck, at least the libs tell you up front they are going to tax and spend on ill-advised social programs that will require more money in coming decades to fix. The conservatives just LIE and tell you they will shrink the bloated government, and lower taxes, meanwhile busting out the good ol' USA credit card to shift the debt to my children and my children's children. I'll pass on BOTH options. Harry Browne and Michael Badnarik have been my wasted votes the past 2 elections.
|
|
0
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by 0 on Aug 27, 2007 11:07:52 GMT -5
....wow. At least she looks good
|
|
|
Post by hapalicious on Sept 6, 2007 0:13:25 GMT -5
i start a lot of books but rarely ever finish them. so i didn t read a single book last year...if we re talking cover to cover... but i have in fact started reading at least 7...
|
|
|
Post by Aiko on Sept 6, 2007 8:50:40 GMT -5
Books? Who needs books. I never read them.
|
|