Did you notice that you put up the Kindle ebook best-seller list?
And that the book best-seller list is quite different?
amazon.com/best-sellers-book … g_bs_nav_0
What could it mean?
That vampires care about their mental health and losing weight?
I just read some comments from someone that is not yet convinced to switch to an e-reader.
adjunctnation.com/2012/11/09 … t-not-yet/
I think there’s at least one category of books that an e-reader will never be of much use–children’s picture books.
According to comments in a blog, parents interact with their children differently when reading an actual book.
Yes. It meant nothing, proved nothing. The fact that something is top of the bestsellers list doesn’t mean that its what most people are reading.
It comes as no surprise to me, however, that it is the only evidence you have for your statement.
Did you happen to look at the list phyllo posted? People read but, you cant tell me those lists are just chock- full- o intellectualism. Do you have proof of your position?
Best seller lists are based on numbers. Books with broad appeal will make the list. Five people may each be reading a different book about politics, one about history, one biography, one about science, one about music. If two of those people also buy a fluffy work of fiction which was discussed around the coffee machine… Which book will appear on the best-seller list?
Ok but, only two out of five? Have you met this country? Look at the other media, and at social internet sites, what has the most numbers? The intellectual sites? nooo.
It’s not just books, Dan. Information is just information regardless the venue. You’ve hit it dead nut. It’s about our intent. What do we plan to DO with information? If we have no need, then it is just passing the time. Friend Gamer posted awhile ago that the biggest problem for humanity is that we have too much time on our hands. I suspect he is right. Worrying about books, or the internet, or screens is a sign of inactivity. People who are busy living haven’t time for any of that. I read, watch, or listen to information in all forms when I choose to make time for that. I assume need, or I wouldn’t being engaged. My focus is on doing, and gathering information is part of that. Whether for “elevated” thought, technical information, or just pure entertainment, it comes as it is needed. I’m not concerned about all the whys. It’s just fulfilling needs at the appropriate times.
The lists are literally worthless. The items on the list have sold - on average - just over about 1 million copies. 50 Shades of Grey - the ‘best selling book of all time’, sold about 10 million copies in the UK. But overall book sales were over 250 million books, making 50 shades account for less than 5% of sales. Add to that the fact that books over 100 years old are all free for e readers, and many people still use libraries and share books. Therefore, many of the ‘intellectual books’ you refer to wouldn’t even possibly feature on the bestseller list, because they aren’t sold but given away. Also, many books can be obtained illegally for free online
The besteller lists posted so far simple list the types of books that a lot of people all buy at the same time. Obviously, these will mainly be books which are a)new and b) surrounded by hype. But they don’t tell you about what most people are reading, not even close.
More to the point, the idea that in the past everybody read heaps of intellectual books, and no crap at all, is just silly. Most Victorian literature is barely fit to wipe an arse on (thankfully most of it is confined to university library collections nowadays). Read through an issue of The Strand and you’ll find an abundance of crap vaguely around the same level as 50 shades and the Da Vinci Code.
You do realize that article and the gallup poll leans more towards my stance of quality. Reading may be more but, the quality is most likely down.
Actually the article addresses the point specifically, it says:
.
Agreeing with my point precisely - the onus of proof is on you. You have no proof/evidence because its just a baseless prejudice you have.
It does not, it goes to my point.
We may need a few arbitrators on this. Agreed? I will abide by two out of three opinions that are neutral. Will you?
I don’t see how the quote supports Kris: “the onus is on those who think there has been a decline” is unequivocal, no?
Thats one but, I disagree with that quote. Two more
Yes, although It seems odd. Your only evidence that the quality of books read has dropped is a survey that shows the amount of reading has gone up? What???
I’d be astonished if anyone apart from you thought this was sufficient evidence for your point.
This probably isn’t a neutral comment, but I’ve made it a habit to not buy best-sellers. Sometimes it’s the subject matter, sometimes it’s the writing style. Books are expensive–too expensive to buy if you can’t get through them for whatever reason.
The only evidence? Are you high? There are those links to top books. If you look at your link , the, gallup poll, the other links embedded, lean towards quality going down. And I did not say it had anything to do with more people reading.
I already pointed out that these lists only account for a small percentage of books sold, and therefore tell you nothing. People who read older than brand new books are unlikely to all go out and buy the same book at the same time, so most good books won’t appear on the bestseller lists.
Where?
I have get to work so I will just repost your quote from it
::
After I posted this chart, Twitter friends made some good points: 1) This chart does not establish that high-quality literature readers have increased. That is true. 2) There are a lot of factors that go into these numbers and variables that are unaccounted for. 3) The big spike is partially driven by higher levels of higher education attainment. 4) Perhaps the quality of books has fallen, even as the number of readers has grown.
Point four comes with an embedded assumption that the books of the past were, on average, better than the ones today. But we tend to judge the past by the very best books (Nabokov!) and the present day by the worst books (Snooki!). The bad ones of yesteryear have gone out of print while the bad ones of today are alive and being sold in supermarkets
T
Work on a saturday! Unlucky 
Maybe when you have more time, you should actually read the quote you just posted!
After I posted this chart, Twitter friends made some good points: 1) This chart does not establish that high-quality literature readers have increased. That is true. 2) There are a lot of factors that go into these numbers and variables that are unaccounted for. 3) The big spike is partially driven by higher levels of higher education attainment. 4) Perhaps the quality of books has fallen, even as the number of readers has grown.
Point four comes with an embedded assumption that the books of the past were, on average, better than the ones today. But we tend to judge the past by the very best books (Nabokov!) and the present day by the worst books (Snooki!). The bad ones of yesteryear have gone out of print while the bad ones of today are alive and being sold in supermarkets
!