My personal theory is main reason is that we don't practice reading as much in this era. Some claim it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert at skill. Dumping that many hours alone doesn't get you there though. Just like a weight lifter you need to keep pushing your limit by adding a bit of weight to the bar from time to time to gain muscle rather the just retain what you currently have.
Between Steam, Netflix, and your pick of social media there are no end of ways to keep yourself busy in more immediately gratifying ways. Getting in the hours and stretching that mental muscle a bit in book form no longer happens naturally. To be as literate as the generation before you you almost have to consciously choose to put in an equal effort since boredom is not as plentiful as it once was.
That said there are is no lack of other contributing factors as well, but reduced experience as the reason in my opinion seems to best explain why the average dips without the the whole curve dipping.
“In book form” is a really important part of what you’re saying.
I’d bet that people, on average, read more words per day in 2026 than at any other point in history (unless it peaked slightly pre-TikTok and other video content becoming more primary).
This is a different type of reading, as you say. Its reward pattern is different.
I do think that, relative to how much ‘reading less longform prose’ is bemoaned, there is not enough attention being paid to:
1. How can we post in a more valuable way? The mediums are necessarily different, but have we been too defeatist thus far about the difference in potential value?
It’s difficult to innovate on a new form of writing - is that a question we’re avoiding? What would the Modernists do?
I don’t have an answer, but at least this is an area where each individual might have an impact on other humans’ feeds.
2. Relatedly, when bemoaning ‘reading less longform prose’, are we fundamentally misunderstanding a new and valuable mode of information transfer? Are we living in the old world? How meaningfully relevant is a dead or dying form?
3. Can books themselves take on any qualities of ‘the feed’ that meaningfully improve the way they convey information, either in writing or presentation?
When you have people (maybe) reading more, these feel like potentially more pragmatic and perhaps more optimistic framings, or questions to ask - without denigrating the value of the traditional medium.
There is also very little societal norms promoting traditional culture (literature, music, theater, cinema, not to mention other arts).
In school, children and teens are often being ostracized for not caring about sports, while not caring about culture is much less stigmatizing, if not outright encouraged.
When it comes to undergrads I doubt people (let's say from the 1980s onwards) were ever doing all the reading assigned in the syllabus anyway. Who the heck is reading The Republic word for word in their dorm in between all the other classes and activities and the other stuff assigned by the same Prof
I’m more worried about the lack of writing . Far too much time is spent reading other people’s ideas. And very little of what has been published in the past 15 years has been worthwhile.
Better to encourage more people to solidify & advocate for their own ideas, opinions, beliefs rather than regurgitating someone else’s.
So, you have "Thesis #3: The real threat is the war against the infrastructures and institutions that make all forms of literacy possible". So they're saying things are bad, deeply bad. But they toss darts at everyone with shallower takes along the way. OK but what some darts at those not worrying and some credit to those worrying in a less sophisticated way.
Literacy and reading used to be cool and kids read because successful people around them did. I remember that being the case as recently as the 80s and 90s in my small post-Communist country.
Then culture changed [1]. Now we have different role models with mumble rap and songs about "muh pu*y". Is it a surprise kids don't read anymore?
All the issues with schools, infrastructure and technology are secondary. The spark is gone.
[1] Well, it didn't change all by itself and people that changed it have names and addresses, but that's not a HN post.
I really like the points this post makes about different categories of literacy, but I always let out an enormous sigh every single time I read an article or blog post that rewrites a well-referenced social phenomenon into a different one. I hate that we have to establish different categories to refer to "The Artist Formerly Know As The Literacy Crisis." It feels very scarcely useful.
I really like how the schism between basic literacy, literary culture and the study of literature is examined, though. I was always under the impression, as an engineer, that being able to retrieve needed information from a printed text was tremendously important, until I trained myself in this skill to the point where I have trouble reading linear pieces of fiction (Not to mention nonlinear ones. I am trying to chug through Tropic of Cancer with English being my second language. I'm failing at a consistent and periodic pace). I imagine that now, grammar-school me would be consistently able to out-read me in an "English literature class" kind of way, while I would beat him at engineering-focused knowledge retrieval even without ChatGPT.
> When commentators lament that students “can’t read,” what they often mean (though never specify) is that students are not engaging in texts in ways that resemble the interpretive practices valued within literary studies. That’s why we should ask whether they are literate in a particular discourse instead of asking if they are literate full stop.
This why I find the article insightful. I appreciate how this severance between studying literature and being literate appears to contain the issue to a specific sub-field of The Artist Formerly Know As The Literacy Crisis, but I really am not sure how this is useful to anyone looking to improve the state of things. Even the author himself says that while "[even if he thinks] histrionic op-ed writers in The Atlantic misdiagnose an erosion of literary culture as mass illiteracy doesn’t mean I’m okay with it." I find this somewhat hollow still, because redirecting overarching societal shifts into the context of a very specific sub-field of a science usually just works to sweep it under the carpet.
I have experienced a bunch of well-trained and passionate teachers, which resulted in me obtaining a decent grasp at literature in secondary school. Conversely, a lot of my peers did not and most of the graduates after them did not as well. They all exhibit signs of declining basic literacy (to the point of not being able to read washing machine instructions without LLM assistance). I think that bad grades in literary studies are a decent predictor of bad basic literacy, especially 5 years down the line. And, we have seen a lot of old teachers retiring where I live, with their replacements being just plain dumber, if not stupid outright. I suppose the reason is that undergrads enrolling in paedagogic courses here are mostly people that couldn't get in literally anywhere else (and immigrants seeking fraudulent student visas to work as delivery drivers).
Fixing the infrastructure as the conclusion suggests would do well to maintain the already-reading and curious-to-read students, but would do little to get them interested in it. We desperately need teachers that imprint a sense of nobility or worthiness to the practice of literary culture/study and only then the infrastructure will prove itself useful once the coming generations realize there must be some wealth in making use of it, get them influenced, so to speak.
Whether or not the decline of literacy is a pearl-clutching myth, I don't think anything is gained by laying on a bunch of academic mumbo-jumbo about "literacies" and "problematizing" things and contextualization and how everything is more complex and nuanced than we realize. That kind of theorizing takes us further from knowing about reality rather than closer.
In particular, trying to repurpose words like "literacy" from their typical usage into some kind of broad and encompassing notion is a classic and classically frustrating maneuver of a certain kind of academic. It leads us to a world where we have a bunch of words that are all supposed to mean "a complex interplay between the individual, society, technology, and whatever else I feel like tossing in", and then we can argue about the differences between them. I'd rather skip that.
Saying that "literacy" includes everything people need to do to navigate in society is like saying that "music" includes making armpit noises. Yes, maybe you can stretch it to include that, but that's not what people use it to mean and it's not what people are talking about when they say literacy is declining. No one is going go "Oh gosh, you're right, people are now learning about 'navigating a social media platform' and
'producing a video essay' so I guess there's no literacy crisis at all!" People know that's happening, they just don't consider it literacy, and trying to redefine literacy to include it is just sophistry.
I read the first thesis and saw this section on modern civic engagement:
"Consider the nested and divergent forms of literacy required for a 19-year-old trying to participate in the democratic process as an informed citizen today ... they cross-reference short-form video analysis, parse hyperlinked primary sources, evaluate the credibility and rhetorical posture of algorithmic feeds, and weigh the consensus within a comment section"
which seems like a huge stretch. This may be "literacy" in the sense of being "computer literate" but I see very little connection here to actual literacy as in being able to read. First of all short form video is not reading, full stop. "Parsing hyperlinked primary sources" COULD be, but is that really happening? Most of these feeds are just full of talking heads reacting to other talking heads. The only reading going on is the last point about comment sections, and I think the comparison of that to reading a book only makes the impression more depressing, not less.
14 comments
[ 0.24 ms ] story [ 11.9 ms ] threadBetween Steam, Netflix, and your pick of social media there are no end of ways to keep yourself busy in more immediately gratifying ways. Getting in the hours and stretching that mental muscle a bit in book form no longer happens naturally. To be as literate as the generation before you you almost have to consciously choose to put in an equal effort since boredom is not as plentiful as it once was.
That said there are is no lack of other contributing factors as well, but reduced experience as the reason in my opinion seems to best explain why the average dips without the the whole curve dipping.
I’d bet that people, on average, read more words per day in 2026 than at any other point in history (unless it peaked slightly pre-TikTok and other video content becoming more primary).
This is a different type of reading, as you say. Its reward pattern is different.
I do think that, relative to how much ‘reading less longform prose’ is bemoaned, there is not enough attention being paid to:
1. How can we post in a more valuable way? The mediums are necessarily different, but have we been too defeatist thus far about the difference in potential value?
It’s difficult to innovate on a new form of writing - is that a question we’re avoiding? What would the Modernists do?
I don’t have an answer, but at least this is an area where each individual might have an impact on other humans’ feeds.
2. Relatedly, when bemoaning ‘reading less longform prose’, are we fundamentally misunderstanding a new and valuable mode of information transfer? Are we living in the old world? How meaningfully relevant is a dead or dying form?
3. Can books themselves take on any qualities of ‘the feed’ that meaningfully improve the way they convey information, either in writing or presentation?
When you have people (maybe) reading more, these feel like potentially more pragmatic and perhaps more optimistic framings, or questions to ask - without denigrating the value of the traditional medium.
Perhaps, soon, it will be necessary to phrase it "Zoolander" style. Maybe something like "Top 3 Shocking Reasons Why You Can't Read Good No More!"
Better to encourage more people to solidify & advocate for their own ideas, opinions, beliefs rather than regurgitating someone else’s.
Then culture changed [1]. Now we have different role models with mumble rap and songs about "muh pu*y". Is it a surprise kids don't read anymore?
All the issues with schools, infrastructure and technology are secondary. The spark is gone.
[1] Well, it didn't change all by itself and people that changed it have names and addresses, but that's not a HN post.
I really like how the schism between basic literacy, literary culture and the study of literature is examined, though. I was always under the impression, as an engineer, that being able to retrieve needed information from a printed text was tremendously important, until I trained myself in this skill to the point where I have trouble reading linear pieces of fiction (Not to mention nonlinear ones. I am trying to chug through Tropic of Cancer with English being my second language. I'm failing at a consistent and periodic pace). I imagine that now, grammar-school me would be consistently able to out-read me in an "English literature class" kind of way, while I would beat him at engineering-focused knowledge retrieval even without ChatGPT.
> When commentators lament that students “can’t read,” what they often mean (though never specify) is that students are not engaging in texts in ways that resemble the interpretive practices valued within literary studies. That’s why we should ask whether they are literate in a particular discourse instead of asking if they are literate full stop.
This why I find the article insightful. I appreciate how this severance between studying literature and being literate appears to contain the issue to a specific sub-field of The Artist Formerly Know As The Literacy Crisis, but I really am not sure how this is useful to anyone looking to improve the state of things. Even the author himself says that while "[even if he thinks] histrionic op-ed writers in The Atlantic misdiagnose an erosion of literary culture as mass illiteracy doesn’t mean I’m okay with it." I find this somewhat hollow still, because redirecting overarching societal shifts into the context of a very specific sub-field of a science usually just works to sweep it under the carpet.
I have experienced a bunch of well-trained and passionate teachers, which resulted in me obtaining a decent grasp at literature in secondary school. Conversely, a lot of my peers did not and most of the graduates after them did not as well. They all exhibit signs of declining basic literacy (to the point of not being able to read washing machine instructions without LLM assistance). I think that bad grades in literary studies are a decent predictor of bad basic literacy, especially 5 years down the line. And, we have seen a lot of old teachers retiring where I live, with their replacements being just plain dumber, if not stupid outright. I suppose the reason is that undergrads enrolling in paedagogic courses here are mostly people that couldn't get in literally anywhere else (and immigrants seeking fraudulent student visas to work as delivery drivers).
Fixing the infrastructure as the conclusion suggests would do well to maintain the already-reading and curious-to-read students, but would do little to get them interested in it. We desperately need teachers that imprint a sense of nobility or worthiness to the practice of literary culture/study and only then the infrastructure will prove itself useful once the coming generations realize there must be some wealth in making use of it, get them influenced, so to speak.
In particular, trying to repurpose words like "literacy" from their typical usage into some kind of broad and encompassing notion is a classic and classically frustrating maneuver of a certain kind of academic. It leads us to a world where we have a bunch of words that are all supposed to mean "a complex interplay between the individual, society, technology, and whatever else I feel like tossing in", and then we can argue about the differences between them. I'd rather skip that.
Saying that "literacy" includes everything people need to do to navigate in society is like saying that "music" includes making armpit noises. Yes, maybe you can stretch it to include that, but that's not what people use it to mean and it's not what people are talking about when they say literacy is declining. No one is going go "Oh gosh, you're right, people are now learning about 'navigating a social media platform' and 'producing a video essay' so I guess there's no literacy crisis at all!" People know that's happening, they just don't consider it literacy, and trying to redefine literacy to include it is just sophistry.
"Consider the nested and divergent forms of literacy required for a 19-year-old trying to participate in the democratic process as an informed citizen today ... they cross-reference short-form video analysis, parse hyperlinked primary sources, evaluate the credibility and rhetorical posture of algorithmic feeds, and weigh the consensus within a comment section"
which seems like a huge stretch. This may be "literacy" in the sense of being "computer literate" but I see very little connection here to actual literacy as in being able to read. First of all short form video is not reading, full stop. "Parsing hyperlinked primary sources" COULD be, but is that really happening? Most of these feeds are just full of talking heads reacting to other talking heads. The only reading going on is the last point about comment sections, and I think the comparison of that to reading a book only makes the impression more depressing, not less.