We’re in another round of concern about the “death of the book”, and, in particular, the claimed inability or unwillingness of young people to read full-length books. I’m not going to push too far on the argument that this complaint is ancient, but I can’t resist mentioning the response of my younger brother, who, when asked if he wanted a book for Christmas, answered “thanks, but I already have one”). That was around 50 years ago, and he went on to a very successful legal career.
Fifty years ago, the main competitors for books were TV and radio. Critics at the time decried the passive mode of consuming these broadcast media, compared to the active engagement required by reading. Now, in many respects, the complaint is the opposite. The various services available on the Internet are interactive, and engrossing, finely tuned to keep our attention.
The most notable feature of the Internet, in this context, is the still-central role of reading and writing. That’s diminished a bit as it’s become easier to share video and images on sites like TikTok and YouTube, but there’s still a huge amount of text out there. Lots of people who would probably never have picked up a pen after leaving school fifty years ago are now tapping out messages of various kinds on Facebook, What’sApp and so on.
Then there is the essentially limitless array of online newspapers, magazines, blogs, newsletters and so on. At every level of quality and complexity, and in every imaginable form, the amount of text that’s easily available to read is massively greater than it used to be. And time is finite. Even though I don’t watch much TV, and avoid online video completely, and even though I’m a very fast reader, I don’t have as much time for books as I used to. I’m hoping to change that as I go into retirement, but we’ll have to wait and see.
In these circumstances, the surprise is that books (and newspapers for that matter) have held on as well as they have.
Text has even reconquered territory from video. It’s now commonplace, particularly for young people, to watch video with the subtitles on, apparently so that they can “flick their eyes up and read ahead, then take in the whole scene quickly, and look back down at their phone”. I imagine we will soon be hearing from auteur-style directors complaining that the ubiquity of such subtitles means that the true visual genius of their work is not fully appreciated.
Rather than bemoan the decline of books, this might be a good time to consider why we read (and write) books and what they are good for. Are they essential, or just a specific technology which is less needed now, but for which there is a lot of nostalgia (like cursive handwriting).
I’ll focus on academic work, since it’s what I know best. In this context, it’s striking that some disciplines, like economics, have largely given up on books in favour of journal articles (I’m an exception, but I mostly write “trade” books aimed at a general educated public). In others, like history, having at least one book seems to be essential for tenure. And, in sociology, it’s claimed, there are “book departments” and “article departments”
Are these differences cultural and path-dependent, or do they reflect fundamentally different ways of undertaking and communicating research. I can see arguments for both views, but I’ll leave that up for discussion. Regardless, it seems likely that the shift away from books will continue. Fields where books have been the traditional way of communicating will either have to change, or to treat book reading as a research skill that can’t be assumed and needs to be taught/inculcated.
John Quiggin 
In marketing the claim is made that the market IS the medium. Books replaced the ancient scrolls. They had the advantage of being flat. Now that is a disadvantage. People want pictures and videos. The words are just the ad ons. Video books are not a big thing. But streamed movies and series are the new medium. It’s hard to hold back progress. Scroll lovers held out against books for as long as they could. But books won out. Now streaming is winning the battle against books. The war is still to be won but it is not looking good fir books as literacy levels fall in many schools.
I was once asked by a peer to recommend a book for him to read. He was an action man, a former professional footballer, so I searched for a book filled with action. Finally I went to Alexander Dumas and chose THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO. In hindsight I should have suggested THE THREE MUSKETEERS.
He read the book but got bored early. Then he got angry when he complained to a friend, who then responded by asking him why he did not just watch the movie on his streamed service. That peer has not spoken to me since that day. I have given up recommending books to friends. Even ones I wrote myself.
“TikTok brain”. “Online brain”. “Social Media brain”. Do they exist? I argue they do in persons heavily using Tiktok, Social Media and some other online resources, due to the processes and operations of neural plasticity, neural patterning and the brain reward / endocrine systems. There is a hijack of attention, credulity and reward system operations.
Older cultures and recent 20th culture developed other “brains” too. I think we could point to “fundamentalist brain” as a pretty big one. Or maybe we could call it “Faith brain” or “Ideology brain” depending on the flavour. “Neoliberal brain” is a pernicious condition and it arose before the social media era. Despite this, the contemporary “online brain” feeding on endless cheap lies and rapid dopamine hits marks both a quantitative and a qualitative change for the worse, IMHO.
How have the “speed of truth” and the “speed of falsehood” evolved relatively? Truth as research, proofs and communications may have increased its speed a thousand-fold from the days of the early enlightenment until now . I would argue that the speed (and volume)of falsehood has increased a million-fold; to pick ball-park numbers for each. Falsehoods can be invented as fast as people can confabulate and that as we know is frighteningly fast. One just has to listen to the Donald, for an example.
We are swamped with floods of misinformation, disinformation and propaganda. The critical skills to resist the relentless onslaught (especially with empirical facts, with logic and without motivated reasoning) are in ever shorter supply.
The market is the medium or so gies the claim by marketing experts. Books once were the medium and there was once a vibrant market for books. Just look at the great libraries in the world today. If they are filled up with first edition books then they are highly valued. But are they read? I went into the British Library in 2012. More books were there than I could read in many lifetimes. But it was not crowded with readers, only sightseers. Look but don’t read, this seemed to be the mantra of all these book spectators.
The same thing happens in local libraries. Unless it is one of those toddler reading mornings, where books are read out to two and three year old children, the library is sort on actual readers. Now this could be a pandemic learnt response. But I noticed this trend back in 2014. People go into council libraries to: read newspapers and magazines; to look at the new books on display ( but never touch them); to study for important exams; to have meetings in special rooms; and to talk to someone ( even if it is a stranger).
But when I make my way to the silent room, I enter a place of absent readers. Sitting down with a book I had taken off one of the many shelves, I read it alone. It seems that I am the exception to the BRITISH library mantra.
I cherish reading a book because I could not do it until I was fourteen years old. Some sort of imbalance in my mind stopped me from reading a sentence let alone a book. Years of remedial reading lessons got me to a place where I could read a book. I have loved reading books ever since that time.
Others take their reading ability for granted. In doing so they set the example for their children. The levels of literacy in schools are suffering from indifference not from poor teaching. When I was a teacher I made my students read out aloud. But I knew the students who were functionally illiterate and they were excused to attend their remedial reading lessons. One mother of one of these students came up to me on the day here fifteen year old boy left school. She was crying. She told me that her son could still not read a book. He struggled to read at all. Ten years of schooling and this young male could not read above a third grade level, if that. So sad.
The battle against streaming services has been lost. The war against books goes on. We may be seeing a change similar to the one that consigned scrolls to museums. The libraries of today may already be book museums. This will only be known in hindsight.
But in some poor countries, those where streaming services see no profit in extending any services, books are cherished. In one library somewhere in Africa, books cannot be given out on loan because the librarian knows they will never return. So locals go to that library to read a book. Then there are the book ships that go to very poor port towns and allow residents to have access to books. In these places, books have a vital role to play. Every teacher knows that the more senses that are engaged, the more is learned. Books can be felt, smelt, hugged and then read. Try doing that to your streaming service.
I am now an author of books. I know how hard it is just to get someone to buy a book. Even when you give a relative a free book, they place it in their small library and it never moves from that spot. Like John Quiggin I have written an economics book. But it sold very poorly. My fiction books sell better in Europe than they do in Australia. Especially in countries where English is a second language. I write not to sell books; but to keep books out there in the battle for people’s affection.
Will books disappear?
Probably not.
But will they be read?
Nobody knows.
I would think that the uptick in journal articles ie peer reviewed quality publications would be of general benefit. Instead of relying on rhetoric and polemics to make a point authors would have to demonstrate, by application of the scientific method, an argument that would be appealing to critical thinkers.
As I said, it’s what I think 😊