>Would you rather have a kid who ends up with the idea that reading is horrible because they were forced to go through Ulysses and who is never going to read a

>Would you rather have a kid who ends up with the idea that reading is horrible because they were forced to go through Ulysses and who is never going to read a book again, or do you want a kid who thinks reading is fun because they read a dozen Percy Jackson novels and who is going to branch out beyond YA later in life? Boomers already tried that approach with Millennials by promoting Harry Potter as a gateway to lifelong reading and the results suggest that it doesn't work. Instead of branching out into more complex literature, the overwhelming majority of Millennials (still!) remain fixated on the same YA series that they read as kids and teenagers (not to mention films and video games). The assumption that light, enjoyable reading will naturally evolve into more sophisticated tastes in the future due to positive associations in childhood is like saying kids allowed to eat chicken nuggies and french fries for every meal mature into healthy adults with varied diets. No, the majority just eat the same thing, end up stunted, and still hate broccoli as adults. >First with radio, then with television, then with internet, then with games, and now finally with social media. It's wasn't true then, and it's not true now. It was true then and is true now. The reality is that these technologies did, in fact, erode vital skills, habits, and cultural practices essential to maintaining a healthy society. The damage is difficult to notice because each new generation lacks a reference point for what was lost—not just in their own lives but also in their parents' lives. Over time, these losses compound, but no one sees them as losses because they have already been lost. Even focusing solely on literacy, the decline in the complexity of written language over the last century is undeniable. Sentence structures have simplified, vocabulary has shrunk, and the demand for nuanced, layered prose has diminished. You can argue that this isn't inherently negative—perhaps prioritizing accessibility over complexity serves broader audiences—but of course, you'd say that. It's easier to justify a loss when you're acclimated to the diminished standard and lack a frame of reference for what was left behind.