4 ms·

Eh, cry me a river. To put things in contrast: the Russian Empire, home of many great writers, such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Checkhov just to name a few, h

Eh, cry me a river. To put things in contrast: the Russian Empire, home of many great writers, such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Checkhov just to name a few, had a literacy rate of about 24% overall; and at that, less than 13% of women were literate[1]. The truth is, reading has never really been the pastime of the masses, save, possibly, for a brief period in the 20th century. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbez https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likbez

AQuantized 7y ago
Famines and disease were also much more common prior to the late 20th century. If our progress regressed it would still be cause for concern, even if the status quo hasn't lasted so long.
- romwell 7y ago
  My point was that great works don't need everyone to be a reader to exist. If we go back to 20% literacy, we still have to likes of Tolstoy. Arguably famine and disease are bad for those who experience them. Replacing reading books with blogs, games, and video? Not quite so clear. I argue that nothing is lost at all. The bookworms (to which, I hope, I belong) shouldn't be said if 90% don't participate in their favorite hobby.
jhbadger 7y ago
Russia was literally still a medieval feudal society in much of the 19th century, so not really representative of civilization at the time. 19th century Britain was home to the "penny dreadful" (cheap books often with a horror or romance angle designed to attract the working class reader) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_dreadful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_dreadful
- romwell 7y ago
  My point is that literature will be just fine without the participation of the 90%. Penny Dreadful existed because Netflix wasn't there. So it will be gone - again, is this a huge loss to the civilization? I don't think there's a sadness that people aren't reading more literature of the Penny Dreadful kind. And as I said, it's not a slippery slope: you don't need the 90% for great literature to exist. Most people will read fewer books. And it's fine.
  - sifar 6y ago
    A thing doesn't need people to be great. It is in itself. It is the people who need a great thing to inspire/guide them. To paraphrase you, Great literature doesn't need the masses, the masses (present and future) need great literature.
    - romwell 6y ago
      Let's not turn to sophisms. We'll have both plenty of readers and great writers even if most people primarily turn to mediums other than books for entertainment. Dispute this.
andrepd 7y ago
> Eh, cry me a river. Such substance. > To put things in contrast: the Russian Empire, home of many great writers, such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Checkhov just to name a few, had a literacy rate of about 24% overall Like another poster commented, Russia had serfdom until well into the 19th century. Look at central and western Europe, if you want to see a literate society in that time. Also, what is your point with this? Poor societies had bad literacy levels? Illiterate peasants don't care for books? I struggle to see the point with that observation. > The truth is, reading has never really been the pastime of the masses, save, possibly, for a brief period in the 20th century. Not dying of diharrea before the age of 5 has also never been the pasttime of the masses until a hundred years ago. What the hell does that mean? If people start dying of preventable diseases again that we should not worry?? If indices of progress start stagnating, or in this case, regressing, then we must wonder how on earth we are doing so badly.
- romwell 7y ago
  My point was that great literature doesn't need the involvement of 90% of the population to exist. If 90% of the people stop reading books "deeply" (and that's assuming they ever did), we still get to have Tolstoys of our day for the people who want to spend their time that way. This is no loss for humanity. You picked "reading books" as your metric of progress, but that choice needs to be justified. If, instead, you picked "watching programmed television", you could be similarly concerned as more people are cutting cable, but fewer people would take this argument seriously.
keiferski 7y ago
> The truth is, reading has never really been the pastime of the masses, save, possibly, for a brief period in the 20th century. Nor has widespread participation in the political process, yet the benefits of democratic society seem worth preserving/enlarging.
- romwell 7y ago
  If your argument is that new things are worth keeping, then it applies just as well to reading blogs instead of books. Or watching TV, which seems to be going away. Should we fight for the preservation of the TV culture? My point was that great literature doesn't need involvement of the masses (unlike democracy).

AQuantized 7y ago

Famines and disease were also much more common prior to the late 20th century. If our progress regressed it would still be cause for concern, even if the status quo hasn't lasted so long.

romwell 7y ago
My point was that great works don't need everyone to be a reader to exist. If we go back to 20% literacy, we still have to likes of Tolstoy. Arguably famine and disease are bad for those who experience them. Replacing reading books with blogs, games, and video? Not quite so clear. I argue that nothing is lost at all. The bookworms (to which, I hope, I belong) shouldn't be said if 90% don't participate in their favorite hobby.

jhbadger 7y ago

Russia was literally still a medieval feudal society in much of the 19th century, so not really representative of civilization at the time. 19th century Britain was home to the "penny dreadful" (cheap books often with a horror or romance angle designed to attract the working class reader) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_dreadful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_dreadful

romwell 7y ago
My point is that literature will be just fine without the participation of the 90%. Penny Dreadful existed because Netflix wasn't there. So it will be gone - again, is this a huge loss to the civilization? I don't think there's a sadness that people aren't reading more literature of the Penny Dreadful kind. And as I said, it's not a slippery slope: you don't need the 90% for great literature to exist. Most people will read fewer books. And it's fine.
- sifar 6y ago
  A thing doesn't need people to be great. It is in itself. It is the people who need a great thing to inspire/guide them. To paraphrase you, Great literature doesn't need the masses, the masses (present and future) need great literature.
  - romwell 6y ago
    Let's not turn to sophisms. We'll have both plenty of readers and great writers even if most people primarily turn to mediums other than books for entertainment. Dispute this.

andrepd 7y ago

> Eh, cry me a river. Such substance. > To put things in contrast: the Russian Empire, home of many great writers, such as Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, and Checkhov just to name a few, had a literacy rate of about 24% overall Like another poster commented, Russia had serfdom until well into the 19th century. Look at central and western Europe, if you want to see a literate society in that time. Also, what is your point with this? Poor societies had bad literacy levels? Illiterate peasants don't care for books? I struggle to see the point with that observation. > The truth is, reading has never really been the pastime of the masses, save, possibly, for a brief period in the 20th century. Not dying of diharrea before the age of 5 has also never been the pasttime of the masses until a hundred years ago. What the hell does that mean? If people start dying of preventable diseases again that we should not worry?? If indices of progress start stagnating, or in this case, regressing, then we must wonder how on earth we are doing so badly.

romwell 7y ago
My point was that great literature doesn't need the involvement of 90% of the population to exist. If 90% of the people stop reading books "deeply" (and that's assuming they ever did), we still get to have Tolstoys of our day for the people who want to spend their time that way. This is no loss for humanity. You picked "reading books" as your metric of progress, but that choice needs to be justified. If, instead, you picked "watching programmed television", you could be similarly concerned as more people are cutting cable, but fewer people would take this argument seriously.

keiferski 7y ago

> The truth is, reading has never really been the pastime of the masses, save, possibly, for a brief period in the 20th century. Nor has widespread participation in the political process, yet the benefits of democratic society seem worth preserving/enlarging.

romwell 7y ago
If your argument is that new things are worth keeping, then it applies just as well to reading blogs instead of books. Or watching TV, which seems to be going away. Should we fight for the preservation of the TV culture? My point was that great literature doesn't need involvement of the masses (unlike democracy).