Is It OK to Not Be a Reader?

First off, I freely admit to my bias. I am what you could call a reader, although not as avid as I'd like to be. In fact, I'm rather conservative regarding language in general, as I'd like to return to a curriculum that encourages learning either Greek or Latin in addition to a selection from modern languages like Spanish, French, Japanese, Chinese, etc. This kind of immersion, in addition to reading a great deal, makes one understand English or language in general at a much deeper level, and I believe this facility seeps out into other areas of study. But I'll try to not let that cloud this topic. I'm honestly asking the question: is it OK these days to not be a reader?

To be clear, a person not being a "reader" is not meant to imply that the person is illiterate or doesn't read at all: it simply means that what the person reads is essential, tied to their personal education needs (e.g. only reads textbooks and articles for class), or the person in general doesn't spend time reading for pleasure.

I don't believe my original question is trivial. Much has been made in recent years about the appalling state of young boys' literacy and educational involvement. However, If it's OK to not be a reader, shouldn't we just sit on our hands, keep them at an average reading level, and encourage our young boys to study hard in math and science? Because apparently that's all that matters these days regarding America's education crisis, given the voluminous attention math and science receive when compared to the paltry mention of the humanities.

It's not just a problem with "kids these days." My generation is also dealing with these problems, especially concerning the gender divide in education and other aspects of the American experience. Men are trending down in college attendance, jobs, and other areas. One could argue such systemic problems have nothing to do with them being non-readers, and I agree, the two are not necessarily causally linked. But I do believe that being a young non-reader and the compromised status of males today stem from a common cause: the state of our education system.

Since coming to Syracuse, I have come across fellow would-be librarians—typically thought of as a rather bookish profession—who openly admit to not being readers. I can totally understand where they are coming from. Life these days consists of information bombardments for all of your waking hours. Isn't it a waste of time to add non-essential reading to the thousands of lines of text? Who has time for that? Isn't reading text throughout the day on the internet a perfect substitute?

In a word: no. I am loath to critique the modern conception of the 21st century digital being, but you cannot multi-task. I know you think you can, but you can't. You do not require the same level of reading comprehension when reading normal internet fare when compared to literature. In other words, not all text is created equal.

I think it's a worthy mission to try to turn young boys into readers. I was surprised to learn this is a somewhat controversial stance within the library community. I fully enjoy and have no quarrels with video games, graphic novels/comics, movies, multimedia, etc. I just think these could be harnessed as tools to show people the power of the written word. Some boys are quite frankly averse to reading because they haven't been shown books that might appeal to them. They don't make the association between the movie and the novel it was based on. They might not realize that graphic novels and comics borrow themes heavily from modern and classical literature. Instead, all they see is the boring Moby Dick that the English teacher is making them read, and it makes them associate books with monotony.

To wrap up this somewhat snobbish rant, yes, I think it is perfectly fine to be an adult and not be a reader. But I want that to be the case after years of self-weaning, not a result of artificially low expectations and unimaginative education.