There's discussion over at Erin O'Connor's about this new report that's come out, saying people are reading less.

Supposedly, something like 95% of people would rather watch television than read a book.

(My immediate response to that is: even with all the reality-drek shows on? And the lame sit-coms?)

I've said before, I'm sort of a literary snob. I do think reading is a good thing. I do think reading complex books that have something to say about the Human Condition is a good thing.

I can't imagine NOT reading. I always have a couple of books going. Almost every day of my life ends with at least a chapter or two read in bed before I sleep.

Granted, I'm probably freer in terms of time - at least, after the workday - than most people. I don't have a spouse demanding I turn the light off, or slobbering over me to close the book and "let's get busy." I don't have children needing to be put to bed (which makes me wonder: did they count reading books to your children as reading? But then again, I suspect adults who don't read themselves aren't big on reading to their children, which is sad). It's an active delight to me to crawl between the covers at 8:30 or 9 and crack open whatever I feel like reading that particular evening.

It's such a part of my life that it's hard for me to picture it not being a part of someone else's. Although, I suppose, it is. I suppose some people have collections of movies on DVD that rival my book collection (and then you come up with the inevitable question, is a good movie better than a bad book? Aren't there movies that could be considered literature?)

But I wonder if perhaps it's actually more of a polarization in our culture, between people who are wealthy enough and who don't have to work three jobs, so they have the time to spend on reading, and people who are just scraping by and can't spare anything more than a few minutes looking glazed-eyed at "Big Brother" because they're so beat from their work...I'd like to see some socioeconomic comparisons. It makes me sad, regardless of whether it's folks so much under the economic gun that they don't have the energy to do anything with what little free time they have, or if they're people with more free time but who choose not to read, but it makes me sad for different reasons.

I don't know. I do know some of the most memorable and interesting insights I've had about dealing with my fellow humans, and being one myself, have developed out of thoughts I've had as a result of reading. Two books that had a big impact on me were George Eliot's "Middlemarch" and Madeline L'Engle's "A Severed Wasp." Both of them included people making difficult, or bad, or ill-advised choices in life, and then having to live with those choices - to endure. And yet, at the end, they had the hope of happiness, despite all they'd been through.

Other books that I remember as having an impact on me include Aldo Leopold's "A Sand County Almanac" (which proves to me that one can be a citizen of both of The Two Cultures), Willa Cather's "My Antonia" (her descriptions of the prairie world are so lovely, and the line where Jim Burden talks about dissolving into things in nature always gives me chills), Anne Lamott's "Bird by Bird" (I may be messed up, but everyone else is messed up too, I'm just seeing the calm outer exteriors. Also, the permission to write sh*tty first drafts), Kathleen Norris' "The Cloister Walk" (What is of this world is not all there is; the slick Hollywood representation of things is not what is vital and important), and Gary Zukav's "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" (opened up a whole new realm for me, and reminded me that there is more in heaven and earth than was dreamt of in my philosophy. Actually, in an odd way, the book reinforced my belief in God at a time when I was doubting, simply because if things that were so weird and so contradictory could yet be supported by experimentation - well, then, there could be all kinds of things out there that don't seem to fit and don't seem understandable).

And you know, as I look back over those choices, I see that four of the seven books - four! would be considered non-fiction. (One of the other things that is being made a lot of is that the study focused solely on fiction; some are claiming that people are reading more non-fiction and less fiction. I don't know if that is true or not. And I'm not sure I'd count it as "reading" if you were using a cookbook or a pattern book to help you make things...)

That said, I don't read solely for enlightenment. Probably 80% of the reading I do is to amuse myself, to let the little movie director in my head make up actors and actresses to fit how I imagine the book characters look, and build sets like the places in the book, and move the actors and actresses through the story...I often have the surprisingly meta realization as I read that I'm picturing the action in my head, that I can feel what it's like to be there, that I "know" what species of tree is planted beside the front door of the house or what kind of perfume the female lead wears, even though none of that detail is given in the text.

Perhaps that's part of why I like reading - it allows me to take an active part in what's going on, by imagining what characters look like and how their voices sound.

Could it simply come down to the fact that I'm a control freak, and that I prefer books because I can direct what's going on, whereas with films and television, it's already mostly laid out?

But, back to the reading-for-pleasure thing. The vast majority of reading I do is for entertainment and relaxation, rather than for edification. I like a good story. One of the reasons I love Anthony Trollope and read many of his novels (even though I haven't yet read one I'd count as part of the tiny group of Books that have Changed my Life) is that they ARE good stories - there are entertaining characters, and long extended scenes at society parties and foxhunts and balls. Nothing too terrible happens in Trollope-world - people almost never die unless they are very, very old and it will somehow benefit their heirs. Good characters are sympathetic and bad characters are despicable. There are lots of subplots, lots of sub-stories you can go haring off after if you choose.

For similar reasons I like mystery novels. Oh, people do die in mysteries, sometimes, in fact, very sympathetic and likeable characters. But I still like them. I like the idea that the truth will out, that the person who did the deed will be caught and brought to justice (or bring themselves to justice; a number of the Nero Wolfe novels feature the murderer committing suicide before he or she can be apprehended). I like that the world can seemingly return back to a steady state after the disruption caused by the murder. And I like the detective characters. I enjoy the banter between Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin, I have a sort of schoolgirl crush on Hercule Poirot, I like Inspector Alleyn, I'm charmed by Adam Dalgleish, even Betsy Devonshire makes me smile.

I especially like mysteries because they're often part of a series. You get to know the detective, and then you can look in on what he or she is doing later, with other books. (I do not like the cases where the author kills off his or her detective. There is a certain Christie novel I will never read. I prefer to think of Hercule Poirot as remaining alive and well and using his little grey cells in the world that Christie has created for him).

And you know, I think that sums up my fondness of a lot of novels - I like the idea of thinking of them as little, self-contained worlds (Trollope is especially good for this) where the characters live on eternally and you can go back and visit them whenever you wish. Perhaps that's a childish view, I don't really care. It makes me happy to think that somewhere, somehow, in an alternate universe, Wolfe is working among his orchids or Mr. Arabin is writing a sermon or Betsy is running her needlework shop. (At one time I was trying to work up a short story based on the idea that the Afterlife was actually the spirit of the deceased getting to visit and participate in the lives of the characters in the books he or she had read while alive, but I never really got anywhere with it).

my goodness, but I do ramble on these days. But this is something I feel passionate about, maybe even a little anorakish - books and reading and our relationships to them.