Little Free Libraries (and reading in our culture)
 

Have you all got Little Free Libraries in your areas? Have we ever discussed them here? There's a lot to discuss. Do they undercut bookstores? Have they led to interactions or connections with the hosts? Do you notice patterns in their offerings?

Currently I notice that boxes that used to have books for adults or a mix of books for adults and for kids are getting overrun by children's books. This may only be evidence that people are more prone to pass on to others children's books (which their families quickly outgrow) than other books, but I can't help wondering whether its another sign of something I see elsewhere: that our culture highly values reading as an activity for kids, and much less for the rest of us.

Thoughts?

There are three or four in walking distance of my house, although I don't frequent them often. I've used them more as a place to leave books than to borrow, although I have found a few good reads now and again. I think they fill a similar niche as do the bookstores at thrift shops: if you don't want to pay for the latest bestseller, simply wait a month or two and pick it up at Goodwill for a dollar.

LFLs are good for serendipitous reads, but I don't imagine they undercut bookstores or full-size libraries very much, since people who head to those places are most often looking for a specific book or at least a wide selection from which to choose.

I don't think I've ever seen one in my neighborhood.

But yes, "our culture highly values reading as an activity for kids, and much less for the rest of us." I don't think there's any question about that. Even among parents who don't read, reading is considered a virtue that they want to cultivate in their children.

Do you have a Little Free Library? Do people use it?

That's surprising, but I guess I my own experience of being surrounded by them might be misleading me about how common they are elsewhere. There is a map at the site, if you're interested in seeing whether there are any near ones you haven't happened past.


I don't have one (I'm a renter), but there are a lot near me. Five or six that I pass frequently on walks, many that I pass on bike rides, and within a short drive... (Some years ago I got rid of a bunch of books by mapping out the boxes and making short drives in various directions. It was a big job--and I never did hit them all.)

Some of the near ones seem to get a lot of use, with a lot of turnover in the contents. Some much less.

It makes sense. Kids are in the process of learning how to read, really important. For adults reading is a form of entertainment.

As a wide reader myself I feel we get reading all wrong. It's an activity, and like any activity it hits the sweet spot for some people, and not so much for others. Some can read for hours, for others 20 minutes of it is too dull. For the latter group: why read much if you find it unexciting?

And many cultures treat reading like a vitamin that we're supposed to take, and not entertainment in it's own right. When you frame it that way it's going to have the opposite effect as intended.

As for little libraries, we have one nearby that my boys and wife use. I'll drop a book in there sometimes, but don't take many out.

For the same reason you should get regular physical exercise.

I agree that few if any non-readers are going to start reading because it's good for them (exercises the brain, increases empathy by exposing readers to others' points of view, among other benefits)--but it is.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. I don't think reading is ever going to be harmful. But there are a lot of variables - cost of books, time, energy, transport to a library etc etc. It's usually a hobby of the wealthy.

Are the benefits of reading significant enough to convince someone who doesn't like reading or who can't afford it to actually read? The writing is pretty much on the wall. For others it'd be better, but for them not really.

I don't think we disagree about much here, Nick. But you have changed the subject. (Changing the subject is fine, of course, but your post seems to imply that it's disagreeing with my answer to your question.) You asked

I may have misunderstood the tenor of the question. I doubt my answer said anything you didn't already know.

I agree that telling non-readers that reading is good for them is a poor way of helping them. Showing that it can be entertaining may be better.

"Entertainment" doesn't well express very much of what we get from reading. Not that reading for entertainment is a bad thing; it's more enriching than most other forms of entertainment and can be a gateway drug to more reading.

As an undergrad, I was taken to task by a professor for using "entertaining" to describe King Lear (or something in it). I don't remember what I meant; probably I was too lazy when I wrote the paper to figure out what I meant. Writing, reading, and thinking are overlapping activities. (Now I've, in a way, changed the subject.)

I just don't know about the entertainment angle. I can tell you that it's why I read, and I read a lot. Of course a lot of what I read also helps me in many areas of my life, but most of the drive comes from curiosity. If you really dig there are fascinating books out there, eons more interesting and entertaining than almost anything else, at least IMO.

My wife might be a good example of a non-reader. We've been together for 11 years and in that time she's maybe read about 10-20 books. She appreciates reading, but she'd rather be gardening, moving, or doing things that are more stimulating. The 20 books she has read have all served a very specific purpose. I've read.. many more, but it's mostly because I find them entertaining and interesting.

I love little free libraries. There are four that I know of within a very short walk of where I live (a mostly nice urban neighborhood in south Columbus). My fiancee and I stop by them regularly -- usually to donate, but of course we take a look at what's there when we do. She has picked up at least a couple of novels that way. Mainly, I love that they exist. They're little repositories of education, joy, and entertainment. And for what it's worth, there's certainly nothing wrong with reading for entertainment (and I wouldn't have balked if a student told me King Lear was "entertaining"). My fiancee probably reads more than me for entertainment purposes -- indeed, that's why she reads fiction at all. This past summer I managed to read a whopping six novels for entertainment purposes, and that's the most I have read in a good long while. My career naturally requires me to read extensively for professional reasons (be that for teaching or research), though I certainly enjoy most of what I read regardless. There's a difference, though, between that kind of heavily analytical reading and reading because you just want to sit down with a good, entertaining book. They're not always mutually exclusive, but sometimes have to be.

I'm confused. It never occurred to me that reading for entertainment had any negative connotations, or that I would ever want to read a book or a poem that I didn't find entertaining. Sure, there are other qualities that also count, and not all entertaining things are alike, but if it's not at least entertaining I don't want to read it. When the audience claps at the end of Hamlet, it's not because they weren't entertained but are appreciative of some non-entertaining depth they picked up along the boring way.

Every now and then I'll run into a book that I don't just want to read, but to study. I'll read them slowly and carefully, and at the most extreme take notes. But even in those cases I'm usually still having a good time.

Most of the other stuff it's because of curiosity, and there is very often a purpose. But there's almost always a backbone of enjoyment there.

My assumption is that a lot of the non-readers don't engage with books this way. To them they're tools with a specific purpose. They'll read in college, or to improve a skill they're interested in, then go back to what they were doing. Very clearly defined, practical goals. For my part there is often a goal, but most of the time the goal is so removed from everyday life that to most people it'd be considered irrelevant.

I like the randomness of what the boxes bring to my attention. They've become the most frequent way I discover a book or author I wasn't intentionally seeking out.

.
In my town alone there are at least a dozen LFL. The elementary schools in our home town all have LPL. It's a kind of grassroots approach to putting books in the hands of the masses — especially children. One LFL close to me is in a park where there are a variety of sports playing fields, a large outdoor swimming pool, an ice skating pond, a playground, etc. We use it quite a bit with the grandkids. Sometimes we bring books to leave and most times we find a book or two to take home with us.

I sometimes leave a book somewhere random for someone else to find and take home. Like in a hotel room, a restaurant, a park bench, etc. I'll also "steal" a book from the shelf of a place I am visiting. For example, I was in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia not long ago staying in an Airbnb and there was a bookshelf wall a great selection of books. I took a paperback copy of Kafka's Complete Stories. I also left a book.

In my mind, the single most influential factor in promoting a love of reading is the degree to which parents develop in their children a love of reading. It's easier said than done. Many times parents themselves are not avid readers. But there is a difference between being an avid reader and instilling in a child a love of reading. It's crucial. Not just in terms of academic learning, but just as importantly (and maybe more) to the dynamic learning that books provide as a catalyst to awaking and strengthening the imagination.


.