Week 4 reading response

I enjoyed both readings, but I have trouble with some of the statistics about American readership and literacy rates put forth in “The Company of Readers”. Based on the title and statistics given in the first section “Henny Penny”, I believe the author is indicating that we are saying the “sky is falling”, when in fact they see no crisis. I worry that it is sugar-coating the reality. I would like to see who they got their statistics from; was it really an accurate cross-section of Americans? I say this as someone who grew up in a very literate household, but I spent a great deal of time with people who have extremely limited reading skills. Actually, I currently work two jobs which offer a very interesting cross-section on American readers. One of my jobs is in a library in a fairy affluent neighborhood on Madison’s west side. I would say at least half of the patrons are middle-class, and probably seventy five percent of them know how to use a computer with little or no assistance. My second job is an outreach worker for benefits programs. Basically I go to neighborhoods/areas of high poverty and help people apply for food stamps, health care and get them hooked up with other resources. This population group is very different than the west side library patrons. At least half of them do not know how to use a computer (which is required to apply for the programs which can assist them), and a great deal of them have limited literacy. Some cannot correctly spell the name of the city they were born in (often Madison or Chicago). They may take up to half an hour to read one page of a computer screen, probably about 100 words total. I see them get stuck as they try to navigate the application and often they are too afraid or embarrassed to ask for help. Many cannot type at all. I don’t know how big of a group this is, but I think it is larger than many middle-class, literate people are aware of. “The Company of Readers” mentioned more than once that it was pulling the statistics on readership from “high-income” countries such as the US, Great Britain and Australia. The very poor may be underrepresented in these statistics.
That thought leads me to point out that Pawley mentions how documents are passed down, and it that if some of us read and write less, there is probably less information being passed on about us, at least in that medium. On pages 83-84 she talks about how the less literate may only have dry documents claiming their existence. In place of letters, diaries and poetry may only be birth certificates and applications. It is another reminder that when we look at readership statistics, it is important to note that those most struggling with literacy may not have been included to the full extent. Again, I say this as someone who has daily interactions with what I fear is a largely undocumented and misunderstood class of people.
Both articles touched on “the fiction problem” although “The Company of Readers” pointed out that some more recent studies on literature completely excluded nonfiction, which is an interesting change since the late 1800’s when the use of fiction in public libraries was in hot debate. I would be interested in what the class thinks on a question Pawley brings up: is any reading better than none at all? If we say yes, are we hoping some of the readers will move on to a “higher” level of reading? Who decides what is “better” reading and why? When we answer these questions, I hope we keep in mind topics we have already discussed and read about, such as the power dynamics between men and women, white privilege and the concept of racial neutrality (which I don’t believe exists) and other related topics. Let us keep in mind the point made on page 25 that questions the theory that the poor are too stupid or lazy to do much reading or reading of a certain kind. I subscribe more to the theory that the poor have often less time and energy to spend on activities such as reading, as they are putting much more energy in to everyday survival.