[Max Goodman]

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?

[Christine P'legion]

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.

[Roger Slater]

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?

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

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

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.

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

Do you have a Little Free Library?

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.)

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

Do people use it?

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

[Nick McRae]

Originally Posted by Max Goodman

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?

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.

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Nick McRae

why read much if you find it unexciting?

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.

[Nick McRae]

Originally Posted by Max Goodman

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.

[Max Goodman]

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

Originally Posted by Nick McRae

why read much if you find it unexciting?

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.)

[Nick McRae]

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.

[Shaun J. Russell]

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.