Reading in the Age of  Instant Pasta
English

Reading in the Age of Instant Pasta

by

reading

There has been a lot of talk lately about how much reading literature has decreased. I'm not going to go into all the benefits of reading, mainly because you'd probably start yawning before I got to the end of the list. I'm far from being a bookworm, and although I read every day, I have my pet peeves about books, and I'm a slow reader by choice. That must be why I have no qualms about putting a book down if it hasn’t clicked by page 50. I guess that makes me a weird reader, as well as a demanding one.

To understand what polls claim about reading literature, it makes sense to narrow down what exactly "literature" is. Are comics considered literature? What about history books and essays? Yes? No? Why not? Let's take a look at Merriam- Webster's definition:

"Writings in prose or verse, especially : writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest."

Taken literally, that definition would include any journalistic article , or even some cookbooks —no one would argue that food isn't of "permanent universal" interest. So what is the actual problem? Could it be that we have the wrong idea of what literature is? Who decides whether a piece of writing deserves that label?

Sorry for the bombardment of rhetorical questions. I'm clearly puzzled, though I'm positive that the instructions printed on the back of a box of pasta can't be considered literature.

It's easy to point to the canonical giants, but before jumping to conclusions, we need to ask what they're really mourning. Is it the decline of classic novels? If the problem is simply that people read differently now, maybe the tragedy isn’t that reading has changed, but that we still cling to an outdated picture of what “real reading” is supposed to look like and how institutions, like universities, reinforce that idea.

4