WHO READS LITERATURE?
 
WHO READS LITERATURE?
 

The Future of the United States
 

as a Nation of Readers 

Nicholas Zili
 

and
 

Marianne Winglee
 

Foreword by
 

Jonathan Yardley
 

SEVEN LOCKS PRESS
 

Cabin John, Md / Washington, DC
 
Who Reads Literature? is Report ~22 in a series on matters of interest to the arts 

community commissioned by the Research Division of the National Endowment 

for the Arts. 

Foreword © by The Washington Post. It originally appeared in The Washington 

Post on August 28, 1989. It is reprinted here with permission of the author and 

The Washington Post. 

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 

Zill, Nicholas. 

Who reads literature? : the future of the United States as a nation of readers / 

Nicholas Zill and Marianne Winglee : foreword by Jonathan Yardley. 

p. cm. -- (Research Division report / National Endowment for the Arts ; 22) 

ISBN 0-932020-86-0 : $9.95 

1. Books and reading--United States--Forecasting. 2. Literature-­

Appreciation--United States--Forecasting. 1. Winglee, Marianne. I1. Title. 

1II. Series: Research Division report (National Endowment for the Arts. Research 

Division): 22. 

Z1003.2.Z54 1990 90-33699 

028’.9’093--dc20 CIP 

Manufactured in the United States of America 

Designed by Giles Bayley 

Cover design by Betsy Bayley 

Typeset by Bets, LTD, Ithaca, NY 

Printed by McNaughton & Gunn, Saline, MI 

Seven Locks Press is a Washington-based book publisher of nonfiction works on 

social, political and cultural issues. It takes its name from a series of lift locks 

on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. 

For more information or a catalog: 

Seven Locks Press 

P.O. Box 27 

Cabin John, MD 20818 

(301) 320-2130 
Contents 

Foreword vii
 

Introduction 1
 

Chapter 1: 7
 

Readers of Fiction, Poetry and Drama: 

How Many and Who Are They? 

Chapter 2: 23
 

What the Readers Are Reading
 

Chapter 3: 35
 

Factors That Affect Literary Participation
 

Chapter 4: 

Expanding the Audience: 

What Can Be Done? 

Technical Appendix 87
 

Notes 99
 
Foreword 

Several years ago Walker Percy wondered aloud, in the pages of 

a national magazine, about the number of Americans who actually buy, read, and discuss serious contemporary literature. It was, 

he thought, a pathetically small number, perhaps one percent of 

the adult population or even less: a serious literary community, 

that is, of somewhere between one and two million Americans, 

scarcely a consequential quantity in a culture where audiences in 

the tens of millions are routinely tuned into television sitcoms and 

sporting events. 

This gloomy assessment caused a flurry of controversy among 

the lit’ry folk; they had assumed themselves to be a far larger crowd, 

if not indeed a horde, so not merely to be disabused of this notion 

but to have the message brought by one of their own was anything 

except pleasant. But the stir came and went quickly, in the main 

because no one had any hard evidence to refute Percy’s complaint 

and also because, let’s face it, not many outside the literary community were interested. 
viii Who Reads Literature? 

Still, the questions won’t go away: Who reads serious literature in the United States, and how many of them are there? These 

are matters of continuing interest to authors, scholars, and others 

whose careers are predicated on the existence of a viable literary 

community, and they are of interest as well to those whose investment is more overtly commercial: publishers, booksellers and 

wholesalers, journalists, and other media folk. Like any other group 

in our economy, the literary community is a market to be identified and exploited by those with something to sell to it; thus its 

size and character are matters of more than passing interest to some 

persons and institutions that are not, themselves, necessarily members of it. 

In these circumstances it is useful to have a Who Reads Literature: The Future of the United States as a Nation of Readers. As 

one can quickly surmise, it is the work of people who specialize 

in the jargon of the social sciences: Nicholas Zill, a social psychologist, and Marianne Winglee, a statistical analyst. They have 

assembled a good deal of valuable information and they have 

managed to make a degree of sense out of it. 

As so often happens when the voodoo priests of sociology, psychology and statistics work their solemn magic on human behavior, 

what this survey does is tell us, in statistics and analysis, what we 

know already through empirical observation: that Walker Percy was 

right. Zill and Winglee have their hearts in the right place and earnestly wish the evidence told them otherwise, but what their numbers add up to is that (a) "the proportion [of Americans] who read 

serious literature of all forms in the course of a year seems to be 

about 7 to 12 percent of the adult population" and that (b) "literature reading" is "stagnant or even declining, when various demographic factors indicate that it should be increasing." 

Even that figure of 7 to 12 percent is shaky at best, for people 

who claim to be regular readers often admit, when pressed for 

specifics, that they are regular readers not of Saul Bellow and Eudora Welty but of Stephen King and Danielle Steele; if we restrict 

readers of literature to "those familliar with excellent but not widely 

known authors, such as poets Adrienne Rich or James Merrill, then 

the size of the audience for contemporary literature would become 

minuscule indeed?’ Not merely that but--as anyone keeping a close 
eye on literary matters should realize--to a striking degree this 

readership is defined by sex, education and income: 

 ̄.. if we had to put together a picture of a typical reader 

of literature in the United States today, the survey data 

indicate that the person would be a middle-aged white 

female living in the suburbs of a Western or Midwestern 

city. She would have a college education, and a middleto upper-middle class income that was not derived from 

her literary activities. She would be an active and involved 

individual, not a passive or reclusive one. She would not 

only read books and magazines, and occasionally try her 

hand at poetry or fiction, but also participate in a variety of indoor, outdoor and community activities. 

And authors wonder why they’re sent to book-and-author 

luncheons in Cleveland and Minneapolis! The explanation is simple: That’s where the readers are--not merely the readers of Judith 

Krantz and Belva Plain, but also the readers of Laurie Colwin and 

Gloria Naylor. The perceived image of the "literary" American 

reader as a bearded male academic in a tweed jacket with leather 

patches bears only scant connection to reality; the reader who really 

supports serious American literature, such of it as there still may 

be, is far more likely to be an educated woman of a certain age 

who belongs to a neighborhood book club, buys her clothes through 

the mail from Talbots, contributes to Greenpeace, and does volunteer work at the House of Ruth. 

Though Zill and Winglee do not say so, there is a reason to 

believe that this has been so for a couple of generations. But now 

literature is beginning to catch up with its readers. "It can be argued," Zill and Winglee claim, "that the kinds of works being published by literary presses in the United States today are very much 

a reflection of the interests and concerns of this typical reader," 

and they are absolutely right. 

If a single generalization can be made about contemporary 

American literature, apart from its roots in the creative-writing 

schools, it would be that it is the province of middle- and uppermiddle-class women. If in the past they were the readers, now they 

are the writers as well. The point has been made before, but it 
x Who Reads Literature? 

is worth making again: While male writers of serious literature 

under the age of 40 are notable in the United States largely for 

their absence or their lack of consequence, female writers of their 

generation are notable both for their numbers and for the quality 

of their work. Unquestionably, Zill and Winglee are right: 

The women’s movement may be stimulating female involvement with literature. Whenever norms and values 

are in flux, literature has a special role to play. Literature can explore new patterns of behavior, provide characters that serve as role models, and give voice to both the 

exhilaration and the frustrations that pioneers experience. 

The drive for women’s rights has helped to draw attention to outstanding women writers of the past and present, and to open more opportunities for women in the 

publishing and promotion of literature. 

How large those opportunities will be is questionable at best: 

The world of American literature is small by any standard, and 

over the long haul is most unlikely to grow larger, in real if not 

numerical terms. But it’s a woman’s world now, and if we are to 

have in the next generation a literature of any consequence, it will 

be because women make it so. 

Jonathan Yardley 

This article originally appeared in The Washington Post on August 28, 1989.
 

It is reprinted with the permission of the author and The Washington Post.
 
Introduction 

Because the art of literature is inextricably linked to a country’s 

language and history, it has traditionally played a central role in 

the culture of most nations. It is difficult to think of England without thinking of Shakespeare and Dickens, or Russia without Pushkin, Tolstoy, Chekhov, and Dostoyevsky. So it has been in the United 

States, at least in the past. The American cultural heritage includes 

characters, scenes, and phrases from the works of such authors 

as Washington Irving, Edgar Allan Poe, Henry David Thoreau, 

Herman Melville, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, Mark Twain, 

Ernest Hemingway, and Eugene O’Neill, among others. 

Today, however, there is a widespread sense that the reading 

of literature does not occupy a prominent place in the lives of most 

Americans. Many observers feel that we are no longer "a nation 

of readers," but a nation of watchers: watchers of movies, television, videocassettes, and computer displays. Literary critic and 

newspaper columnist Jonathan Yardley complains about the "increasing irrelevance of writing," and laments the fact that contem­
2 Who Reads Literature? 

porary American poets, from the laureate on down, are all but unknown to the American people.~ University of Chicago professor 

Allan Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind, asserts that "our students have lost the practice of and taste for reading. They have not learned how to read, nor do they have the 

expectation of delight or improvement from reading.’’2 University of Virginia professor E. D. Hirsch sounds a similar theme in 

his book Cultural Literacy, contending that writers and speakers 

can no longer take it for granted that young readers and listeners 

will be familiar with works, characters, and authors that used to 

be known by all educated people.3 There is even a new term, 

"aliteracy," that has been coined to describe the phenomenon of 

people who know how to read but choose not to do so.4 

There is empirical evidence that seems to support these contentions. For example, one national study found that U.S. adults 

spend four times as much leisure time watching television or listening to the radio as they do reading books, magazines, or 

newspapers.5 There are also survey results showing the American 

public to be ignorant about basic literary matters. A 1984 University of Maryland survey found that only one quarter of American 

adults knew who George Orwell, the celebrated author of the novel 

1984, was.6 In 1986, the Educational Testing Service conducted 

a national assessment of the literary and historical knowledge of 

high school juniors. The Service found that less than 30 percent 

of them could identify Tennessee Wdliams as the author of A Streetcar Named Desire, and less than a quarter knew something about 

the plot of A Catcher in the Rye. 7 Indeed, it seems possible that 

students in the Soviet Union, who are known to be avid readers 

of American literature, would do better at recognizing the works 

of these and other modern American writers than students in the 

United States. 

Other evidence indicates, however, that for both reading in 

general and literature reading in particular the situation may not 

be quite so bleak. To begin with, there are a lot of books sold in 

the United States: more than two billion each year during the 

mid-1980s, or about nine books for every person over five years 

of age. About 500 million of these are relatively inexpensive, "mass 

market" paperbacks.8 Many of the paperbacks contain works of 
fiction, even if most of the titles might not qualify as what literary 

critics would call literature. 

Furthermore, the Educational Testing Service’s assessment 

found that virtually all high school students received some training in the appreciation of literature and are made to read at least 

a few classic works by English and American authors. As a consequence, today’s students are still likely to know something about 

Shakespeare, Dickens, Hawthorne, and E Scott Fitzgerald.9 By 

contrast, relatively few receive formal training in the visual arts, 

music, or dance, and usually have only the foggiest of notions about 

Jackson Pollock, George Gershwin, Charlie Parker, or Martha 

Graham. 10 

But do young people go on to read literature when they leave 

school and are no longer required to do so? Of all the arts, literature should be the one with the widest following. Only a minority 

of young people learn to read music or play an instrument, draw 

or paint proficiently, or act or dance on stage. But everyone who 

is educable is expected to learn to read and write. 11 

Assessing the State of Literature Reading 

We can infer from bestseller lists that American adults read real 

estate investment guides, personal computer manuals, diet cookbooks, and the like. Do they also read novels, poetry, and plays? 

The number of works of fiction published in the U.S. each year-­

about 5,100 new titles or new editions12--suggests that some people still read novels and short stories. This inference is reinforced 

by the large number of fiction books sold each year--some 400 

million copies through general retail outlets alone. 13 To be sure, 

many of the fiction titles published and sold are works of genre 

fiction--thrillers, romances, science fiction, and the like--most 

of which would not be considered works of high literature. 

Nevertheless, even among the genre titles there are works written 

with considerable craft and imagination, and read with enthusiasm 

by people who could be spending their time watching movies or 

television. In addition to the large output of fiction, there are about 

1,000 volumes of poetry and drama published each year, and nearly 

2,000 books of literary criticism and literary commentary.14 
4 Who Reads Literature? 

Clearly, the writing and reading of literature are not yet defunct. 

But we need more than publication and sales figures to form 

an accurate picture of how much literature reading is going on in 

the United States. A person can buy a book without ever getting 

around to reading it, or read a book that has not been bought, but 

borrowed from a friend or a library. And literature is published 

in periodicals as well as books. Thus we need information about 

the reading habits of representative samples of American citizens, 

including specifics about the kinds of books they read. Several large 

surveys on participation in the arts or on book reading were carried out in the United States during the 1980s for exactly this 

purpose. 

One of the most notable of these is the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA), which was a nationwide survey, 

designed and sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts 

and conducted in 1982 and 1985 by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Issues not covered in the SPPA are examined in data drawn 

from book industry publication and sales statistics, and from two 

other national surveys: the Arts-Related Trend Study (ARTS) carried out in 1983-1984 by the Survey Research Center at the University of Maryland, and the Consumer Research Study on Reading 

and Book Purchasing done in 1983 for the Book Industry Study 

Group (BISG). 15 

There are, of course, problems in using survey data to study 

literature reading. Some of these problems are common to all surveys that ask people to report on their own behavior, while others 

are unique to studies of reading. British sociologist Peter Mann 

points out that there are problems associated with research into 

reading "which arise from the difficulty in determining what is 

meant by ’reading’ and what constitutes a ’book’. "16 Research on 

the reading of literature is even more problematic because of disagreements among experts on what should be included under the 

rubric of "literature" and the difficulty of framing general and easily 

understood questions about such reading. 

Here, the reading of literature or what we will simply call 

"reading" means the reading of novels, short stories, poetry, and 

plays. As usually defined, literature also subsumes such high-quality, 

non-fiction writing as essays, literary criticism, literary commen­
tary, "belles lettres," biographies, and the so-called "non-fiction 

novel." However, these forms of literature were not explicitly covered in the surveys discussed here. In addition, distinctions between art and entertainment, based on the quality or seriousness 

of the written work, are very important. Unfortunately, most of 

these surveys do not include information that permits one to say 

something about the quality of the books and magazine pieces that 

American adults are reading. This kind of information was collected in two of the other surveys described, but, even with these 

data, drawing the line between literature and mere amusement is 

no simple matter. 

Because of the great expense and practical difficulties involved 

in trying to observe directly the reading habits of large numbers 

of Americans, the survey results presented here rely on people’s 

reports about the kinds of works they have read or not read within 

broad intervals of time (the last 12 months or the last 6 months). 

These reports are subject to both systematic bias and random error. To the extent that reading literature is perceived as something 

that one "ought" to be doing, people will tend to say they have 

read a novel or short story when, in fact, they have not. They may 

also "telescope" events that happened in the past, such as reading 

a book more than a year ago, and remember them as having occurred within the reference period in question. On the other hand, 

people tend to forget about things they did more than a few weeks 

ago, especially if the event was not very important to them, and 

this could result in underreporting. Accurate reporting also depends 

on the respondent’s understanding of what is meant by terms such 

as "novel" and "short story," which may pose problems for less 

educated individuals. 

Two of the surveys described here attempted to get a sense 

of the seriousness of some of these problems by asking respondents follow-up questions. The answers to these questions provide 

both further information about the works the survey respondents 

have read, and a basis for adjusting estimates of the size of the 

literature audience. 

The survey situation does, however, have certain advantageous 

aspects that are rarely encountered in everyday life: the respondent is offered anonymity; honest reporting is explicitly encouraged; 
6 Who Reads Hterat~e? 

and there is no overt praise or criticism for saying that one has 

or has not done something. Moreover, a survey that uses scientific sampling procedures and achieves a high response rate provides 

a picture of a real cross-section of the population, not just of a 

limited and self-selected subset of people. 

Even when there is an overall bias in survey reporting on an 

activity, surveys can still provide an accurate reading of the comparative commonness of different forms of the activity, or of the 

relative frequency of the activity among different groups, or of 

changes in the frequency of the activity over time. It is known, 

for example, that people tend to overreport voting in local or national elections: there are more people who say they voted than 

the total number of ballots cast. Yet surveys of voting behavior still 

give a good sense of the relative voting rates of different age, sex, 

educational, ethnic, and residential groups, and show how these 

patterns have changed over the last several decades. 

In any event, self-report surveys, with all their limitations, are 

the best source of information on literature reading that we have. 

They will remain so until government or private groups invest in 

studies that use direct observations of reading or ask for self-reports 

that cover shorter time intervals and include more people in the 

sample, and that elicit more extensive follow-up information on 

the specific titles read. 
Chapter 1 

Readers of Fiction, 

Poetry, and Drama: 

How Many and 

Who Are They? 

The 1982 and 1985 rounds of the Survey of Public Participation 

in the Arts (SPPA) took national probability samples of adults aged 

18 and over living in households in the United States. These arts 

surveys were done as supplements to larger survey programs involving panels of respondents who were interviewed every six 

months over a three-year period. In 1982, the SPPA interviewed 

17,254 people, or 89 percent of the target sample. The sample was 

about 20 percent smaller in 1985, when 13,675 people were interviewed, or 85 percent of the target sample. Three quarters of the 

interviews were done in person and the remainder by telephone.17 

The SPPA interviews focused on attendance at arts exhibitions 

and performances, including art museum shows, classical music 

concerts, opera, jazz, plays, and musicals, and on other forms of 

arts participation, including reading literature. In addition to a core 

set of questions that were asked of all respondents, subsamples were 

asked about training in the arts, mass media usage, and other forms 

of leisure activity. A basic question on the reading of novels, short 
8 Who Reads Literature? 

stories, poetry, and plays was put to the entire sample in both surveys, but questions on other forms of literature participation and 

socialization were asked only of subsamples of about 4,200 to 5,500 

respondents in 1982, and about 2,300 respondents in 1985. 

In 1985, the SPPA found that 56 percent of a national sample 

of adults aged 18 and over, representing 95.2 million people, reported that they had read novels, short stories, poetry, or plays during 

the last 12 months. The estimated number of readers was up by 

nearly three million from the number in the 1982 SPPA. However, this increase was the result of population growth only. The 

proportion of adults who said they read literature was about the 

same in both years. 

The 1985 survey also asked whether respondents had read any 

kind of book or magazine during the previous 12 months. Eightysix percent--representing some 146 million adults--said that they 

had. If we divide the number of people who reported reading literature by the number who reported reading any kind of book or 

magazine, we have an estimate of literature readers as a fraction 

of all readers. In 1985, 65 percent of all adult readers in the U.S. 

read some fiction, poetry, or drama in the course of a year. 18 This 

was slightly lower than the 67 percent found in the 1982 survey, 

but the difference was within the margin of sampling error. 

The SPPA collected additional information on public participation in one particular form of literature--poetry. In the 1985 survey, 19 percent of the respondents--representing 32 million 

adults--reported that they had read or listened to a reading of poetry during the previous 12 months. For the 1982 survey, these 

figures were 20 percent and 30 million, respectively. Again, the 

differences were not statistically significant. 

In addition to questions about reading literature, the SPPA asked 

respondents if they had worked on "any creative writings, such 

as stories, poems, plays, and the like" during the last 12 months. 

There was no requirement that the writing had been published, 

and the results of an independent follow-up study indicate that most 

of it probably was not. In the 1985 survey, 6 percent of the 

respondents--representing 10.6 million adults--said that they had 

tried to do some creative writing. This was about the same as the 

1982 results, when 7 percent--representing 10.7 million adults-­
Readers of FictiH, Poetry, Hd I)ramna 9 

answered the question affirmatively. The apparent decline in the 

proportion of writers was not statistically significant. 

Comparing SPPA Results with Other Surveys and Sales Figures 

The levels of reading reported in the SPPA are in at least approximate agreement with the results of other nationwide surveys. 

For example, the Consumer Research Study on Reading and Book 

Purchasing conducted in 1983 for the Book Industry Study Group 

(BISG) found that 39 percent of all adult respondents had read a 

book of fiction in the last six months and half had read a book 

of some sort; and 92 percent had read magazines, periodicals, or 

newspapers over the same period. 19 Similar results have been obtained in other countries. In Britain, for instance, a number of national studies done in the late 1970s and early 1980s found that, 

as in the U.S., roughly half the adult population reported reading 

books of one sort or another. In a 1981 Euromonitor survey of about 

2,000 people aged 16 and over, 45 percent said they were reading 

a book (any book) at the time of the survey and about 30 percent 

said they were reading a work of fiction.2° 

Despite the general agreement among readership studies, their 

estimates are typically met with incredulity by those involved with 

the writing, publishing, or support of contemporary literature. What 

literary people point out is that it is not uncommon for a work of 

serious fiction to sell fewer than 5,000 copies nowadays. Likewise, 

the circulation of most poetry magazines is counted in the low thousands or even hundreds. In 1987, the Los Angeles Times Book Review announced that it would no longer be reviewing new volumes 

of poetry because there was so little reader interest in them. Even 

the most widely read magazines that publish first-rate fiction and 

poetry--magazines like The New Yorker and The Atlantic--have 

circulations in only the 400,000-600,000 range.2~ 

John P. Dessauer, a leading expert on book industry sales 

trends, has estimated that a total of 3.2 million copies of contemporary literary fiction and poetry books were sold through general retailers in 1985, representing just 0.3 percent of all books sold 

through these outlets. Sales of classic works of literature made up 

another 9.1 million units, or 0.9 percent of books sold. Thus, contemporary and classic literature together constituted little more than 
IO Wl~o leads Literature? 

one percent of bookstore sales.22 If there are so many readers of 

literature out there, why do the literary books and magazines not 

sell better? 

Of course, people get reading material from friends and relatives, from public libraries, in doctors’ and dentists’ offices, and 

from their own stock of books acquired over the years. When fiction readers surveyed in the BISG study were asked where they 

had obtained the last book they had read, less than half--45 

percent--said they had purchased it themselves. More than a quarter 

said they borrowed the book from a friend or relative or traded 

it for another book. Another fifth had borrowed the book from 

a library, and 5 percent had received it as a gift.23 However, even 

doubling or tripling the estimated number of literature books sold 

to account for books borrowed and exchanged would not bring the 

total close to the 95 million readers that the SPPA found. 

What does bring the survey and book sales figures into line 

with one another is incorporating the large numbers of copies of 

romances, thrillers, science fiction novels, and other works of popular or genre fiction that are sold each year. John Dessauer estimates that total sales of "popular fiction" books through general 

retail outlets amounted to more than 322 million copies in 1985. 

And that does not include nearly 124 million in "bestseller" sales. 

(Assuming that about two-thirds of the bestsellers were fiction would 

bring the total number of popular fiction books sold through general 

retail outlets to about 400 million.)24 

Thus, what most of the survey respondents seem to be talking 

about when they report that they have read novels or short stories 

are works of relatively light, genre fiction. Inasmuch as many of 

these works would not qualify as literature in the eyes of most literary critics, the implication is that the adult audience for serious 

contemporary literature is probably a good deal smaller than the 

56 percent found in the SPPA. These impressions are strengthened 

by survey information on the specific titles or the kinds of works 

to which people are referring when they report that they have read 

fiction, poetry, or drama. Information on works read was not collected in the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, but relevant data are available from the Arts-Related Trend Study (ARTS) 

conducted by the University of Maryland and the Consumer Re­
Ileaden~ of F1~tiom, loeb?, amd Drama I I 

search Study on Reading and Book Purchasing done for the Book 

Industry Study Group. These data are examined later. 

What Kinds of People Read Literature? 

Demographic Characteristics 

People who report reading fiction, poetry, and drama are a 

diverse group. They are found in every segment of the U.S. population, except those subgroups who do not read at all. However, 

some segments of the population are overrepresented among readers 

(and writers) of literature: 

 ̄ those who have at least some college education (who make 

up 49 percent of literature readers, as opposed to 36 percent of the general population); 

 ̄ those with incomes of $25,000 and over (who comprise 

48 percent of literature readers, but 40 percent of the general 

population); 

 ̄ females (59 percent of literature readers, but 53 percent 

of the general population); 

 ̄ the middle-aged (40 percent of literature readers, but 36 

percent of the general adult population); 

 ̄ whites (85 percent of literature readers, but 81 percent of 

the general population). 

Conversely, groups that are underrepresented among literature readers include the following: 

 ̄	 those with less than a high-school education (who comprise 14 percent of literature readers, but 25 percent of the 

general population); 

 ̄ those with incomes under $10,000 (16 percent of literature 

readers, 21 percent of the general population); 

 ̄ males (41 percent of literature readers, 47 percent of the 

adult population); 

 ̄ those aged 50 and older (32 percent of literature readers, 

35 percent of the general adult population); 
12 Who Reads Literature? 

 ̄	 Blacks and Hispanics (13 percent of literature readers, 17 

percent of the general population). 

As one goes from the overall population, to those who read 

books and magazines, to those who read literature, to those who 

read or listen to poetry, and to those who try to produce creative 

writing, the groups become progressively more college-educated, 

more female, and more middle-income. (Table 1.) Thus, of the selfdescribed writers in the 1985 SPPA, 69 percent were collegeeducated, 63 percent were female, and 51 percent had incomes of 

$25,000 or more. (Given that most of the writing reported in the 

SPPA was probably unpublished, and that even when published, 

writing is usually not handsomely rewarded, we can be confident 

that the income of these creative writers came primarily from 

sources other than their writings.) 

The relationships between literary participation and personal 

characteristics, such as education, income, age, sex, and race, as 

well as the reasons behind the observed relationships, are examined in greater detail later. 

Geographic Distribution 

The writing, publishing, and reading of literature are often 

thought of as Northeastern, big-city enterprises. But the arts survey data show that these readers and writers are spread throughout the four major regions of the country, pretty much in line with 

the distribution of the total adult population. (Table 1.) If any region was overrepresented, it was the West. In 1985, for example, 

the West contained 19 percent of the overall adult population, but 

had 22 percent of the readers and 33 percent of the writers of literature. The Midwest, with 25 percent of the adult population, had 

26 percent of readers and 30 percent of writers. The South tended 

to be underrepresented in this regard. But, being the largest region in terms of overall population, the South contained nearly a 

third of all readers and almost a quarter of all writers. 

The majority of readers and writers do live in the large 

metropolitan areas of the country. But, like the rest of the more 

educated and affluent population, most of them live in the suburbs, 

not the central cities. In 1985, the suburbs held 41 percent of the 
 

Readers of Fiction, Poetry, and Drama 13 

TABLE I. Size and Composition of U.S. Population of Adult Readers and 

Writers of Literature, by Age, Gender, Ethnic Group, Education, Income, 

Region, and Metropolitan Residence, U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 1985. 

Total Creative 

Adult All Literature Poetry Literature 

Population Readers Readers Readers Writers 

No. in population 

(in millions) 170.6 146.0 95.2 31.8 10.6 

% of Adult Pop. 100% 86% 56% 19% 6% 

% of All Readers -- 100% 65% 22% 7% 

TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 

Percent Distribution 

AGE 

Young (18-29) 28% 29% 29% 30% 39% 

Middle (30-49) 36% 38% 40% 38% 44% 

Older (50 +) 35% 33% 32% 32% 17% 

GENDER 

Female 53% 54% 59% 60% 63% 

Male 47% 46% 41% 40% 37% 

ETHNIC GROUP 

White 81% 85% 85% 86% 87% 

Black II % 8% 8% 8% 8% 

Hispanic 7% 5% 5% 5% 4% 

Asian, Other 2% 2% 2% 2% I% 

EDUCATION 

Some College 36% 42% 49% 56% 69% 

High School Grad 39% 38% 37% 30% 23% 

Less than HS 25% 20% 14% 15% 8% 

INCOME 

$25K & over 40% 45% 48% 47% 51% 

$10-25K 39% 38% 36% 39% 39% 

Under $10K 21% 17% 16% 15% 10% 

REGION 

Northeast 21% 19% 21% 17% 13% 

Midwest 25% 27% 26% 32% 30% 

South 34% 32% 31% 33 % 24% 

West 19% 23% 22% 19% 33% 

RESIDENCE 

Central City 27% 25% 27% 26% 32% 

Suburbs 41% 45% 45% 45% 53% 

Non-Metro 32% 30% 28% 29% 15% 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1985 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations by N. 

Zill and M. Winglee from public use data files. 
14 Who Reads Literature? 

general adult population, but 45 percent of the readers and 53 percent of the writers. The comparable figures for the central cities, 

with 27 percent of the population, are 27 and 32 percent, respectively. People living outside of metropolitan areas were underrepresented: these areas contained 32 percent of the adult population 

in 1985, but only 28 percent of the literature readers and just 15  ̄ 

percent of the writers. 

Leisure Activity Profile 

In the report on the 1983 Book Industry Study Group (BISG)
 

survey of book reading habits, the following note was made:
 

Book readers are often portrayed in literature, films, or 

on stage as solitary, somewhat aloof, self-absorbed personalities whose devotion to their books seems to take 

the place of interaction with the rest of the world. This 

study, however, proves the stereotype to be nothing more 

than a myth. Far from being introverted or social outcasts, book readers emerge as well-rounded individuals 

active in a wide range of social and cultural activities.25 

The BISG study found that book readers were more active than 

non-book readers in many areas, including that of socializing with 

others. 

The SPPA obtained a very similar result. In addition to information about literature reading and arts attendance, the SPPA collected data on participation in a variety of other leisure activities 

during the 12 months prior to the survey. When the reports on 

recreational activities were cross-tabulated with the measures of 

literary participation, it was found that people who had read fiction, poetry, and drama in the last year were more active in virtually all areas than people who had done reading, but not of literature. 

The latter group was more active, in turn, than those who had not 

read any books or magazines at all. (Table 2.) 

Literature readers were not only more active in areas where 

one might expect them to be (e.g., visiting arts fairs, historic sites, 

and museums; doing gardening or gourmet cooking; or taking part 

in arts and crafts activities), they were also more active in going 

to less refined amusement events: playing games and sports; tak­
Readers ot Fiction, Poetry, and Drama 15 

TABLE 2. Leisure Activity Profile of Total Adult Population, Literature Readers, Non-Literature Readers, and Non-Readers, U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 

1982. 

READERSHIP GROUPS 

Total Readers, 

Adult Literature But Not of NonPopulation Readers Literature Readers 

Proportion of Group That Has Done 

LEISURE ACTIVITIES Activity in Last 12 Months 

Amusements 

Play card, board games 65% 77% 62% 27% 

Attend movies 63 % 75 % 59 % 25% 

Visit amusement park 49% 57% 49% 19% 

Attend sports events 48 % 59 % 43 % 17% 

Exero~e, Sports 

Jog, exercise 52% 65% 43% 18% 

Play sports 39% 48% 36% 14% 

Camping, hiking 37% 43% 34% 14% 

Home-Based Activities 

Repair home, car 60% 66% 60% 28% 

Gardening 61% 69% 53 % 34% 

Gourmet cooking 29% 38% 22% 8% 

Collect stamps, coins 15% 20% 10% 3% 

Charitable Activities 

Volunteer, charity work 28% 30% 21% 9% 

Cultural Attendance 

Visit art/crafts fairs 39% 54% 28% O% 

Visit historic sites 37% 50% 28% 8% 

Go to zoo 32% 41% 25% I% 

Visit science, natural 

history museums 23 % 32 % I 5 % 4% 

Art & Crafts Activities 

Weaving, needlework 33% 42% 29% 8% 

Pottery, ceramics 13 % 17 % 9 % 3% 

Photography, video 10% 14% 6% 2% 

Painting, drawing, 

sculpture, printmaking 10% 14% 6% 2% 

Backstage theatre help 3% 4% I% 0% 

READERSHIP GROUP SIZE
 

% of Adult Population 100% 57% 26% 5%
 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census,
 

1982 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations by N. 

Zill and M. Winglee from public use data files. 
16 Who Reads Literalure? 

ing part in outdoor activities; doing home and car repairs; and contributing their time to charity. For example, three quarters of the 

literature readers had gone to the movies in the last year, whereas 

less than 60 percent of the non-literature readers and only a quarter of the non-readers had done so. Two thirds of the literature readers had done jogging or other similar exercise, whereas less than 

half of the non-literature readers, and less than a fifth of the nonreaders, had participated in some form of exercise program. More 

than a third of the literature readers had done volunteer or charity 

work, compared with a fifth of the non-literature readers and a 

tenth of the non-readers. 

The higher activity levels of the literature readers were partly 

a function of their being better educated, more affluent, and younger, on the average, than their counterparts. There may also have 

been an element of shared reporting bias in the associations, in 

the sense that respondents who were more likely to remember and 

report one kind of activity were more apt to remember and report 

other kinds as well. Nonetheless, there does seem to be a genuine 

link between literature reading and other cultural and recreational 

activities. 

It is not that reading literature caused the other activities, or 

vice versa. Rather, individuals seem to differ in their overall curiosity and activity levels, and those who have the interests and energy 

to do one kind of cultural or recreational activity are more likely 

to do others also. In some cases, there is a common thread linking 

literature reading with other activities, as when an individual has 

an interest in the Civil War, and reads historical novels about that 

period, visits Civil War battle sites, and goes to military museums. Even lacking a common interest, however, the operative principle seems to be the more, the more, rather than one activity versus 

the other.26 

Thumbnail Sketch of the Literature Reader 

In sum, if we had to put together a picture of a typical reader 

of literature in the United States today, the survey data indicate that 

the person would be a middle-aged white female living in the 

suburbs of a Western or Midwestern city. She would have a college education, and a middle- to upper-middle class income that 
Readers of FicUom, Poetry, and Drama I’/ 

was not derived from her literary activities. She would be an active and involved individual, not a passive or reclusive one. She 

would not only read books and magazines, and occasionally try 

her hand at poetry or fiction, but also participate in a variety of 

indoor, outdoor, and community activities. 

Obviously, there are many readers and creative writers who 

do not conform to this stereotype. Indeed, one of the heartening 

aspects of the contemporary literary scene is its ethnic and cultural diversity. Nonetheless, it can be argued that the kinds of works 

that are being published by literary presses in the U.S. today are 

very much a reflection of the interests and concerns of this typical 

reader. 

Is Literature Reading Growing or Diminishing? 

There are a number of reasons for believing that the audience for 

literature should be growing. As the U.S. population gradually 

changes, older cohorts are being replaced by those whose parents 

had more education and were more apt to have encouraged their 

children to read. The younger cohorts have also had more years 

of schooling and are more likely to have been exposed to creative 

writing courses. As shown later, all of these factors are positively 

associated with literature reading as an adult. Thus, while we could 

expect that there should be more literature reading occurring in 

the future, it is not clear that this growth will really take place. 

Taken together, the 1982 and 1985 rounds of the SPPA indicate 

that the proportion of literature readers is holding steady, while 

the number of readers is growing with the overall population. However, because the two rounds of the survey are separated by just 

three years, we can glean only a limited picture of the longer-range 

changes that may be taking place. It should be possible to get a 

clearer view of long-term trends by viewing the SPPA findings in 

conjunction with the results of other surveys and book sales data 

from the publishing industry. 

Book Reading: Past Growth, Recent Decline 

It does seem to be the case that a greater proportion of the 

public reads books now than did so several decades ago. Data from 
18 Who Reads Literature? 

Gallup polls conducted in 1955 and 1984 show a 50 percent increase over that period in the proportion of respondents who reported that they had read a book (other than the Bible) "yesterday." 

The proportion grew from 14 to 21 percent, with much of the increase attributable to the expansion in the portion of the population that was college educated.27 Data from the SPPA also show 

that middle-aged adults do more general reading and more literature reading than older adults. (Table 3.) As demonstrated later, 

these differences seem to represent an historical increase in reading over successive generations rather than a decline in reading 

with age. But is the increase continuing? Although reading in general still seems to be growing, there is evidence to indicate that book 

and literature reading are not. Indeed, among young adults these 

forms of reading may actually be on the decline. 

Evidence of a recent decline in book reading comes from two 

national surveys sponsored by the Book Industry Study Group 

(BISG). The surveys were conducted in 1978 and 1983. Whereas 

overall reading (including newspapers and magazines) was stable 

over that period, there was a 5 percentage point reduction in the 

proportion of adults who had read books in the previous six months. 

More ominously, the proportion of book readers among young 

adults (ages 16-20) dropped by 13 points, from 75 to 62 percent.28 

Trends in Book Sales 

Indications that literature reading represents a diminishing share 

of all book reading can be found in sales figures from the publishing industry. Whereas the total number of books sold each year 

in the U.S. grew from 1.5 billion copies in the mid-1970s to more 

than 2 billion in the mid-1980s, unit sales of mass market paperbacks remained fairly stationary, at about 500 million copies annually.29 Mass-market paperbound books are, of course, the form 

in which much popular fiction is published or reprinted. Although 

sales of higher-priced "trade" paperbounds* have grown, Wade books 

in general are capturing a decreasing share of the U.S. book market. Technical, scientific, professional, and reference works are 

*As used here, the term "trade books" includes fiction and general-interest nonfiction in hard cover and higher-priced paperbound editions, juvenile books, and 

mass market paperbacks. 
Readers of Fiction, Poetry, and Drama 19 

capturing an increasing share of the market. While total annual 

book sales in the U.S. grew from $2.3 billion in 1968 to a projected $12.8 billion in 1988, the trade book segment of the market 

declined from 30 to 23 percent over the same period.3° 

Declining Reading by Young Adults 

Figures from the two SPPA studies indicated constancy, rather than decreases, in the overall proportion of literature readers 

in the population. (Table 3.) Their data suggested declines in poetry and writing, but the observed changes may be due to sampling fluctuations. Among those under 30, however, there were 

statistically significant changes between the two surveys: literature 

reading dropped from 61 to 57 percent; poetry reading fell from 

24 to 20 percent; and overall reading declined from 89 to 87 percent. Although these differences may seem small, they would become considerable if the same rates of decrease were to continue 

over a longer period. 

The data from the SPPA and BISG findings reported above 

are not the only signs of less frequent reading among young adults. 

Data from an annual, school-based survey of high school seniors 

called Monitoring the Future shows a gradual diminution in the 

proportion who report reading books, magazines, or newspapers 

"almost every day," from 62 percent in 1977 to 46 percent in 

1988.3~ Thus, evidence from three different survey programs 

points to the conclusion that a decline in reading is occurring among 

successive cohorts of young adults in the United States. 

A Fluid Situation 

Why is literature reading remaining stagnant or even declining, when various demographic factors indicate that it should be 

increasing? Reasons for the lack of growth are examined at the conclusion of this monograph. We note here, though, that the situation is a fluid one, especially as far as sales of literature are 

concerned. With so many potential readers in the population, and 

such a small fraction of them needed to make a bestseller, there 

could be short-term increases in literature sales even while a longterm decline in literature reading was in progress. Book sales also 

depend on economic conditions, the popularity of the current crop 
 

 

 

20 Who Reads Literature? 

TABLE 3. Change in Proportion of Adult Population and Population Subgroups 

That Have Read Literature, Read Books or Magazines, Read Poetry, and Done 

Creative Writing in the Last 12 Months, U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 1982 

to 1985. 

Literature Readers All Readers 

Differ- DifferAll Adults (18+) 1985 1982 ence 1985 1982 ence 

No. in population 

(in millions) 95.2 92.5 2.7 146.0 138.0 8.0 

% of Adult Pop. 56.0% 56.4% -0.4% 85.6% 84.1% 1.4% 

% of All Readers 65.2% 67.0% -I.8% 100.0% 100.0% -­

Population Subgroups 

AGE 

Young (18-29) 56.8% 60.9% -4.1% 87.0% 89.4% -2.4% 

Middle (30-49) 60.8% 59.7% I.I % 88.6% 87.4% 1.2% 

Older (50 +) 50.3% 49.6% 0.7% 81.5% 75.9% 5.6% 

GENDER 

Female 63.0% 63.0% 0.0% 88.3% 85.6% 2.7% 

Male 48.1% 49.1% -I.0% 82.7% 81.8% 0.9% 

ETHNIC GROUP 

White 59.0% 59.8% -0.8% 89.9% 86.4% 3.5% 

Black 43.0% 42.3% 0.7% 66.3% 71.3%-5.0% 

Hispanic 41.5% 36.4% 5.1% 66.0% 72.2%-.6.2% 

Asian, Other 51.9% 50.2% 1.7% 85.3% 80.2% 5.1% 

EDUCATION 

Some College 75.4% 77.7% -2.3% 97.2% 96.6% 0.6% 

High School Grad 53,4% 55.4% -2.0% 85.9% 88.0% -2. I% 

Less than HS 32.6% 31.2% 1.4% 68.4% 63.7% 4.7% 

INCOME 

$25K & over 66.5% 69.1% -2.6% 92.3% 94.2% -I.9% 

$10-25K 51.8% 55.0% -3.2% 85.3% 85.4%-0.1% 

Under$10K 43.6% 43.2% 0.4% 72.3% 69.6% 2.7% 

REGION 

Northeast 57.0% 58.3% -I.3% 86.4% 84. I% 2.3% 

Midwest 56.7% 58.4% -I.7% 90.3% 88.8% 1.5% 

South 

West 

50.4% 

63.7% 

49.0% 

63.9% 

1.4% 80.6% 

-0.2% 87.2% 

76,6% 4.0% 

89.0%-I.8% 

RESIDENCE 

Central City 56.5% 56.5% 0.0% 85.5% 83.4% 2.1% 

Suburbs 61.0% 60.2% 0.8% 91.2% 88.5% 2.7% 

Non-Metro 48.9% 51.7% -2.8% 78.4% 78.5%-0.1% 

(continued) 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1982 and 1985 Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations by N. Zill and M. Winglee from public use data files. 
 

 

 

Readers of Fiction, Poetry, and Drama 21 

TABLE 3. (Continued) Change in Proportion of Adult Population and Population Subgroups That Have Read Literature, Read Books or Magazines, Read 

Poetry, and Done Creative Writing in the Last 12 Months, U.S. Adults Aged 

18 and Over, 1982 to 1985. 

Poetry Readers Creative Writers 

Differ- DifferAll Adults (18+) 1985 1982 ence 1985 1982 ence 

No. in population 

(in millions) 31.8 32.5 -0.7 10.6 10.7 -0.1 

% of Adult Pop. 18.6% 19.8% -I.2% 6.2% 6.5% 0.3% 

% of All Readers 21.8% 23.6% -I.8% 7.3% 7.8% -0,5% 

Population Subgroups 

AGE 

Young (18-29) 19.7% 24.0% -4.3% 8.5% 10.5% -2.0% 

Middle (30-49) 20.1% 21.1% -I.0% 7.6% 6.6% 1.0% 

Older(50 +) 17.4% 15.2% 2.2% 3.0% 3.1% -0.1% 

GENDER 

Female 21.5% 23.0% -I.5% 7.4% 8. I% 0.7% 

Male 16.2% 16.2% 0.0% 4.9% 4.7% 0.2% 

ETHNIC GROUP 

White 20.0% 20.5% -0.5% 6.7% 6.6% 0.1% 

Black 13.8% 15.1% -I.3% 4.5% 5.7%-I.2% 

Hispanic 14.8% 16.9% -2.1% 4.0% 7.0%-3.0% 

Asian, Other 16.0% 23.1% -7.1% 2.4% 6,1% -3.7% 

EDUCATION 

Some College 28.1% 31.0% -2.9% 11.5% 11.6% -0.1% 

High School Grad 14.6% 17.9% 3.3% 3.8% 4,7% -0.9% 

Less than HS 12.1% 8.0% 4.1% 2.0% 2.6% -0.6% 

INCOME 

$25K& over 22.6% 24.1% -I.5% 8.0% 7.4% 0.6% 

$10-25K 19.6% 18.8% 0.8% 6.4% 6.0% 0.4% 

Under $10K 14.1% 16.6% 2.S% 3.2% 5.5% -2.3% 

REGION 

Northeast 17.1% 19.5% -2.4% 4.6% 6.5%-I.9% 

Midwest 21.0% 20.7% 0.3% 6.6% 5,5% 1,1% 

South 18.5% 17.0% 1.5% 4.6% 5.6%-I.0% 

West 17.0% 23.3% -6.3% 1010% 9.4% 0.6% 

RESIDENCE 

Central City 18.5% 20.7% -2.2% 7.5% 8.4% -0.9% 

Suburbs 21.2% 20.0% 1.2% 8.2% 6.6% 

Non-Metro 16.7% 18.9% -2.2% 2.8% 4.9% -2. I% 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1982 and 1985 Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations by N. Zill and M. Winglee from public use data files. 
22 Who Reads Literature? 

of authors and titles, and promotional and marketing factors. Partly 

because of the positive demographic omens mentioned above, the 

U.S. Department of Commerce is forecasting healthy growth in 

the book publishing industry through the early 1990s.32 

The prospects for literature readership depend on whether the 

observed declines in reading among young adults continue, and 

on the balance between the older portion of the population (where 

literature reading seems to be growing) and the younger portion 

(where it seems to be declining). The current middle-aged population (who were products of the post-war "baby boom") is relatively large, and the young adult population (who were products 

of the "birth dearth" years) relatively small. Thus, although there 

is cause for concern about the long-term future of literature, there 

is reason for guarded optimism in the short run. 
Chapter 2 

What the Readers Are Reading 

Two studies gathered information not only on whether people had 

read fiction, poetry, or drama, but also on the specific kinds of 

works they read. The Arts-Related Trend Study asked respondents 

for specific examples of works they had read, and classified these 

according to their literary quality, and how appropriate and contemporary they were. The other study, a survey done for the Book 

Industry Study Group, did not ask for specific titles, but inquired 

whether the respondent’s reading included various forms and genres 

of fiction, such as mysteries, romances, science fiction, etc. These 

studies give a more detailed picture of the kinds of reading Americans are doing, and they permit us to make a rough estimate of 

the size of the audience for serious, as opposed to popular, literature. 

Asking for Titles 

The Arts-Relatexl Trend Study (ARTS), a nationwide telephone 

survey on arts knowledge and participation, was conducted by the 

Survey Research Center at the University of Maryland in June 1983 
24 Who Reads Literature? 

and January 1984.33 The sample interviewed for this study (1,077 

adults) was considerably smaller than the samples surveyed in the 

1982 and 1985 rounds of the SPPA, and its completion rate (70 

percent) was lower. But the study collected illuminating follow-up 

information on the kinds of arts-related activities reported by the 

SPPA respondents, including the titles and authors of some of the 

works of literature that each respondent had read during the previous 12 months. When categorized and tabulated, this sample of 

works read begins to give us a picture of what people mean when 

they report that they have read literature recently. 

The proportion of respondents reporting that they had read one 

or more works of fiction, poetry, or drama during the previous 

12 months was similar to that found in the 1982 SPPA, although 

about 4 percentage points lower. In addition to the combined question about reading novels, short stories, poetry, or plays, the University of Maryland surveys asked separately about each of these 

categories of literature. 

Novel Reading 

Forty percent of the respondents reported that they had read 

one or more novels during the last 12 months. When asked to give 

some examples of novels they had read, however, nearly a quarter 

of the self-described readers could not come up with the name of 

a specific book or author, or gave the name of a work that was 

not a novel, but a biography, self-help book, or other non-fiction 

title. Another 30 percent named only works of light, popular fiction, such as a "blockbuster" by Judith Krantz or Sidney Sheldon, a horror story by Stephen King, a romance by Victoria Holt, 

a western by Louis L’ Amour, a novelization of one of the "Star 

Wars" films, etc. Ten percent of the novel readers named a classic 

work, such as a novel by Dickens, Tolstoy, Henry James, Mark 

Twain, or Hemingway. Seventeen percent reported reading a contemporary work of some literary merit, such as William Styron’s 

Sophie’s Choice, Norman Mailer’s Ancient Evenings, Alice Walker’s The Color Purple, or John Updike’s Couples. 

In terms of overall percentages, 30 percent of all U.S. adults 

reported reading novels in the last 12 months and could give at 

least one name that qualified as a title or author of an actual nov­
What the Readers are Reading 2 5 

el. Only about 11 percent of all adults seemed to have read a work 

of some literary distinction,* however, and only 7 percent had read 

a meritorious contemporary work. The latter figure is remarkably 

close to a figure reported by Peter Mann, namely, that 6 percent 

of British adults who were found to be reading "modern novels" 

in the 1981 Euromonitor readership survey in Great Britain.34 

Short Story Reading 

Twenty-eight percent of the respondents to the ARTS survey 

reported reading short stories during the previous twelve months. 

However, when asked to recall the authors or titles of some of these 

stories, or the name of the magazine or book in which the stories 

appeared, many had difficulty. More than a quarter of the ostensible story readers could not provide any descriptive information 

about the stories, or gave the titles of inappropriate works. Another 10 percent gave responses that could not be classified. Nearly 

45 percent more gave only the name of the magazine in which the 

story appeared, and many of these magazines were ones which conmined non-fiction as well as fiction (e.g., Reader’s Digest, Redbook, Family Circle), or non-fiction feature stories only (Newsweek, 

National Geographic). Thus, there seemed to be confusion in some 

respondents’ minds as to what the term "short story" signified. 

Less than 20 percent of the story readers named authors, stories, 

or anthologies of stories that could be classified as "serious" literature; only 5 percent named contemporary writers or stories of 

literary merit. 

In terms of overall percentages, 20 percent of all U.S. adults 

reported reading short stories and could give some descriptive information about the stories. But only 5 percent of all adults had 

read stories that could be ascertained to be of literary quality, and 

less than two percent had read contemporary short stories of literary value. 

*Judgments about the literary merit of various works are arguable, of course. 

The categorizations reported here are those made by the staff of the Maryland 

Survey Research Center, presumably after some consultation with faculty experts 

on literature. For the most part, these categorizations seem reasonable, although 

a perusal of the actual responses, which are listed in an appendix to the survey 

report, reveals some anomalous classifications and a few coding errors. 
26 Who Reads Literature? 

Poetry Reading 

Fifteen percent of the adults surveyed in the Arts-Related Trends 

Study reported reading poetry during the past 12 months. This was 

5 percentage points lower than the proportion reported in the 1982 

SPPA.* When asked to provide the names of poets or poems read, 

or the title of the magazine or book in which the poems were found, 

nearly 70 percent of the poetry readers were able to provide some 

corroborative detail. But almost a quarter gave only the name of 

a mass-circulation magazine such as Parade or Reader’s Digest, 

or named examples of less serious forms of verse, such as "Gross 

Limericks," popular song lyrics, or poems written for children. 

On the other hand, close to 40 percent of the poetry readers named 

poets, poems, and/or poetry anthologies of literary distinction, including works by T.S. Eliot, Robert Frost, Emily Dickinson, Carl 

Sandburg, Ezra Pound, Edgar Allan Poe, Robert W. Service, Henry 

Wadsworth Longfellow, and William Carlos Williams. Very few 

of the names or poems mentioned were those of serious living poets, 

however. 

As a proportion of the total population, 10 percent of U.S. adults 

reported reading poetry and could provide some information on 

what or where poems were read. Six percent had read poems of 

clear literary merit, mostly modern or traditional classics. One percent or less had read serious contemporary poetry. 

Play Reading 

Although only 5 percent of the adults surveyed in the ARTS 

reported reading a play during the previous 12 months, 91 percent 

of them could name a specific play or dramatist, or both. Moreover, 80 percent of the authors and works mentioned seemed to 

have literary merit, although less than 10 percent of them were works 

of living playwrights. Examples of names or plays mentioned include those of Shakespeare, Shaw, Tennessee Williams, Brecht, 

Lillian Hellman, Tom Stoppard, and Ntozake Shange. In terms of 

the total adult population, 5 percent reported reading plays and could 

*The difference suggests that follow-up questions may have had a suppressing
 

effect on the reporting of literary participation. Because this kind of effect is common in survey research, it is good practice to ask all screening questions before
 

asking any follow-up questions. This was not done in the ARTS survey.
 
What the Readers are Reading 27 

give the name of a specific play or playwright read. Four percent 

had read drama of literary merit, but less than one percent had 

read serious contemporary dramas. 

Table 4 summarizes the ARTS findings on novel, short story, 

poetry, and play reading. Unfortunately, the published results do 

not indicate how much overlap there was across these types of reading, so estimates of the total size of the audience for works of literary 

merit can only be approximate. Depending on the degree of overlap assumed, the total proportion of people reading works of merit could range from a little more than 10 percent up to 25 percent 

or more, whereas the proportion reading contemporary works of 

merit could range from 7 to about 10 percent. 

Creative Writing 

The ARTS survey also asked more detailed questions than the 

SPPA about creative writing activity. The initial question was, "In 

the last 12 months, have you taken any lessons in creative writing 

or done any creative writing for your own pleasure"? If the respondents indicated that they had, they were asked what types of work 

they had tried to write (stories, novels, poetry, or plays) and whether 

they had written anything that had been published. All ARTS 

respondents were also asked if they felt they were able to do creative writing. 

Nine percent of the arts respondents said they had written or 

taken writing lessons in the last 12 months. This was higher than 

the 7 percent who reported doing creative writing in the 1982 SPPA, 

but the comparable SPPA question did not include writing lessons. 

Poetry writing was the most common form mentioned; it was attempted by 6 percent of adults (or 62 percent of those who did 

some writing). Work on stories or novels was reported by 4 percent of adults (or 38 percent of the writers). Playwriting, which 

was reported by one percent of the adults (or 9 percent of the 

writers), was least common. 

Only about a quarter of the writers, or 2 percent of all respondents, said they had had something published. This included publication in relatively informal outlets such as school magazines, 

organizational newsletters, etc. More than a fifth of all the ARTS 
28 Who Reads Literature? 

TABLE 4. Proportions of U.S. Adult Population That Report Reading Various 

Forms of Literature in Last 12 Months, and Proportions Reading Works of 

Literary Merit, U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 1983-84. 

Have Read 

Works in This Can Provide Mention Mention ConForm in Information Work or temporary 

Last 12 About Author of Work of 

Literary Form Months Works Read Literary Merit Merit 

Novels 40% 30% l i % 7% 

Short Stories 28% 20% 5% I% 

Poetry 15% 10% 6% I% 

Plays 5% 5% 4% >1% 

SOURCE: Developed from data in: Robinson, John R. et al., Americans’ Partiopation In The Arts: A 1983-8~t Arts-Related Trend Study. Final 

Report, College Park, MD: University of Maryland Survey Research 

Center, 1986. 
What the Readers are Reading 29 

respondents--22 percent--felt that they had the ability to do creative writing. 

Varieties of Fiction 

Information about the kinds of works that are read by literature 

readers was also collected in the 1983 Consumer Research Study 

on Reading and Book Purchasing conducted for the Book Industry Study Group.35 Instead of asking for specific titles and 

authors, the BISG survey inquired about categories of fiction read, 

covering various genres of novels, as well as short stories, poetry, 

and drama under the fiction rubric. There was no attempt to evaluate 

the literary quality of the works. The survey used a six-month 

reporting period, as opposed to the 12-month period used in the 

SPPA or ARTS questionnaires. The BISG questions about the types 

of fiction read were only asked of those who reported reading at 

least one fiction book during the reference period. 

Genre Fiction 

The BISG survey found that the novel was the most widely 

read form of fiction. However, much of the novel reading was spread 

across a variety of popular genres that are not usually thought of 

as "literary," though they occasionally produce individual works 

or authors of enduring quality. Each genre accounted for between 

10 and 40 percent of all fiction readers, or about 4 to 15 percent 

of all adults. As indicated in Table 5, many readers had read works 

in more than one genre during the previous six months. 

Classics, Historical, and Modem Novels 

The survey also asked about the reading of classic works of 

fiction, "historical novels," and "modern dramatic novels" that 

did not fall into one of the genre categories. Classics had been read 

by 19 percent of fiction readers, or about 7 percent of all adults. 

Comparable figures for historical novels were 35 percent of fiction readers, or 14 percent of adults, and for modem dramatic novels, 31 percent of fiction readers, or 12 percent of adults. Of course, 

the latter two categories encompass commercial bestsellers as well 

as works with serious literary intentions. 
30 Who Reads Literature? 

TABLE 5. Proportions of U.S. Adult Population That Report Reading Various 

Forms or Genres of Fiction Books in Last Six Months, U.S. Adults Aged 16 

and Over, 1983. 

Have Read Books of This Form or 

Genre in the Last Six Months 

Percent of All Percent of All 

Literary Form Fiction Readers Adults (16+) 

All Forms/Genres 100% 39% 

Novels 

Action/Adventure 37 % 14%
 

Mystery/Detective 35 % 14%
 

Historical 35 % 14%
 

Modern Dramatic 31% 12%
 

Romance (Traditional) 28% II %
 

Science Fiction 21% 8%
 

Spy/Internat. Intrigue 19% 7%
 

Classics 19% 7%
 

Fantasy 17 % 7 %
 

Romance (Sexy) 13 % 5 %
 

Romance (Gothic/Hist,) 13 % 5 %
 

Occult/Supernatural 12% 5%
 

Westerns 10% 4%
 

War Books 10% 4%
 

Juvenile/Children’s 26% 10%
 

Short Stories 22% 9%
 

Humor/Satire 20% 8%
 

Poetry I 1% 4%
 

Plays 8 % 3 %
 

SOURCE: Market Facts, Inc. & Research & Forecasts, Inc. 1983 Consumer Research Study On Reading And Book Purchasing. Vol. I: Focus On 

Adults. New York: Book Industry Study Group, Inc., 1984. 
What the Readers are Reading 31 

Poetry, Short Stories, Drama 

The BISG study found that 22 percent of fiction readers had 

read a book of short stories in the previous six months. Eleven 

percent had read one or more poetry books and 8 percent, one 

or more books of plays. As a fraction of all respondents, the proportions were about 9 percent for short stories, 4 percent for poetry, 

and 3 percent for drama. The latter percentages are in reasonably 

good agreement with those found in the ARTS survey to have read 

works of literary merit, especially if the difference in reference 

periods is taken into account. 

Audience Size Reconsidered 

The results summarized above indicate that literature experts are 

correct when they say that the proportion of people who read fine 

literature is far smaller than the 56 percent who report reading fiction, poetry, or drama in the course of a year. If the SPPA estimate of the number of literature readers were taken at face value, 

it would mean that literature had a substantially larger audience 

than most of the other arts. For example, the SPPA estimated that 

some 95 million people read literature in 1985. This was over twoand-a-half times more than the number projected to have visited 

art museums (37 million), and over four times more than the estimated number of people who attended classical music performances 

(22 million). Indeed, the ostensible number of literature readers 

was nearly as great as the 101 million who reported attending movies within a year. (Interestingly, the combined number of adult 

trade books and mass market paperbacks sold yearly in the U.S.-­

some 1.1 billion in 1985--is about the same as the total number 

of movie tickets sold annually.)36 

What the ARTS and BISG findings show, however, is that many 

of the professed literature readers read only genre fiction or sentimental verse, the literary equivalents of TV "shoot’em-ups" and 

sitcoms, or "Top 40" popular music. The proportion who read 

serious contemporary literature of all forms in the course of a year 

seems to be about 7 to 12 percent of the adult population (the 12 

percent figure coming from the proportion who reported they had 

read "modern dramatic novels" in the BISG survey). This would 
32 Who Reads Literature? 

still make the audience for literature comparable to that for some 

of the other arts, roughly the equivalent of the 16 million people 

who attend jazz performances or the 20 million who see live drama each year. 

At the same time, the size of the audience for literature could 

be two-to-three times larger, depending on where one draws the 

line between "entertainment" and "art." If one is prepared to take 

seriously popular authors, such as horror-story writer Stephen King, 

poet-illustrator Shel Silverstein, humorist Garrison Keillor, or mystery writer John D. MacDonald, as at least some critics are, then 

the public for literature might be more like a fifth to a quarter, 

rather than a tenth, of the adult population. If, on the other hand, 

one restricted the approved following to those familiar with excellent but not widely known authors, such as poets Adrienne Rich 

or James Merrill, then the size of the audience for contemporary 

literature would become minuscule indeed. 

A few points should be made here. First, it is difficult to make 

a precise estimate of the overall size of the literary audience from 

the ARTS and BISG studies, because their published reports do 

not contain necessary summary tabulations, and because of ambiguities and flaws in the coding and tabulation procedures used 

in the studies. It would certainly be desirable to conduct a survey 

that made more careful use of the follow-up questions developed 

in these studies, with a larger sample and expert advice on the coding of various works and authors. Such a study, however, would 

not resolve arguments over what is art and what is mere entertainment. 

Second, in attempting to gauge the size of the audience for 

literature, it does not seem appropriate to limit the audience to those 

who read serious contemporary works, any more than one would 

wish to limit one’s definition of the audience for classical music 

to those who attend Steve Reich or Milton Babbitt concerts, or the 

audience for visual art to those who come out for the latest exhibit 

at the Hirshhorn or Guggenheim. In each of these publics, there 

is a substantial segment of followers who stick with time-honored 

works and are not terribly receptive to the new and challenging. 

It hardly seems fair or wise to exclude these individuals from the 

audience counts. Their skeptical judgments about the worth of con­
What the Readers are lieadiuK 33 

temporary writers, composers, and painters will, if past experience 

is any guide, be supported in many instances by art historians of 

the future. In other cases, of course, the new and sometimes difficult works of today will become part of tomorrow’s established 

canon. 

Third, in estimating the size of the audience for poetry, the 

distinction between those who read classic works only and those 

who read contemporary as well as classic literature makes a substantial difference. If one includes those who read well-established 

poetry, then the ARTS and BISG surveys indicate that the audience 

for serious poetry is about six percent of the adult population. This 

is larger than the sizes of the audiences for ballet or opera. On 

the other hand, if one restricts the audience to those who read contemporary "literary" poetry, then, as noted above, the poetry audience amounts to one percent or less of the population. 

Finally, looking at the empty rather than the full portion of 

the glass, it is striking how many adults there are in the American 

public who can read, are reasonably educated, and have been exposed to at least some literature in the course of their schooling, 

but who read nothing or virtually nothing in the way of fiction, 

poetry, or drama on even an occasional basis. The 1985 SPPA found 

that at least 44 percent of the adult population had not read a single literary work in the course of a year. The majority of these 

people--62 percent--were high school graduates, and one in five 

had some college education. Similarly, the BISG study found that 

42 percent of the adult population were non-book readers, in the 

sense that they had read newspapers or magazines, but not a single fiction or non-fiction book during the previous six months. Unfortunately, as noted earlier, the non-book-reading segment of the 

population appears to be growing. 
Chapter 3 

Factors That Affect 

Literary Participation 

There are, from the start, a number of demographic characteristics that affect a person’s level of participation in the literary arts. 

Education 

In the 1985 SPPA data, if someone had not completed high 

school, the odds were about two-to-one that he or she had not read 

a novel, short story, poem, or play in the last 12 months. If the 

person bad a high school diploma, then the chances became slightly 

better than fifty-fifty. But if the person had completed one or more 

years of college, the odds were three-to-one in favor of him or her 

being a literature reader. 

Obviously, education was not a perfect predictor of literary 

participation. Some people with relatively little education were regular readers of fiction, poetry, or drama, whereas a significant 

minority of those with college training did not ordinarily read any 

works of literature. Nevertheless, of the basic background variables, education was the one most closely correlated with literature 

reading. 
36 Who Reads Literature? 

Education was also associated with poetry reading and creative writing, but not as strongly. (Table 6.) The proportion of people who had read or listened to poetry was more than twice as large 

among the college educated as among those with less than a high 

school education. And the proportion who had tried to do creative writing was five times greater. But even among those with 

graduate degrees, only a minority had read any poetry, and an even 

smaller minority had done any creative writing in the last 12 months. 

A person’s educational attainment tends to be associated with 

other social characteristics, such as his or her income level and 

ethnic background. Thus, when education was combined with these 

and other factors in an equation, the unique contribution of education to the prediction of literary participation was somewhat 

diminished.* But education still remained the premier predictor, surpassing income and race, as well as age, sex, and residence. It 

was also the leading predictor of poetry reading and creative writing. 

There are a number of reasons why education should be a good 

predictor of literary participation. The more years of education a 

person has had, the more likely it is that he or she has been exposed to literature in school and has had instruction in its appreciation. 

In addition, years of educational attainment could be used as 

a proxy measure for intelligence. More intelligent individuals are 

more likely to be avid and adept readers, to recognize and enjoy 

good writing, and to share the interests and concerns of those who 

write literature. Educated persons are also more likely to be exposed to reviews, magazine and newspaper articles, public television and radio programs, and the recommendations of friends. 

Finally, more educated persons may feel social pressure to read 

works of literature in order to be able to converse knowledgeably 

about them with colleagues and friends. 

As noted earlier, the association between educational attainment and literature reading, and the rising levels of general education in the United States, would lead one to expect that the amount 

of literature reading is increasing. But other influences can over­

*Results of the predictive equations, which made use of a technique called logistic regression analysis, are shown in greater detail in the Technical Appendix. 
Faclors That Affect Lilerary Participation 37 

TABLE 6. Relationship Between Education and Income Levels and Literature 

Reading, Poetry Reading, Creative Writing, and Book or Magazine Reading 

in Last 12 Months, U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 1985. 

Proportion of Population Group Who... 

Did Read 

Read Read Creative Books, 

Literature Poetry Writing Magazines 

ALL ADULTS 56.0% 18.6% 6.2% 85.6% 

EDUCATION GROUPS 

Some College 75.4% 28, I% II .5% 97.2% 

High School Grad 53.4% 14.6% 3.8% 85.9% 

Less than HS 32.6% 12.1% 2,0% 68.4% 

INCOME GROUPS 

$25K & over 66,5% 22.6% 8,0% 92.3% 

$10--25K 51.8% 19.6% 6.4% 85.3% 

Under $10K 43.6% 14.1% 3.2% 72,3% 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1985 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations by N. 

Zill and M. Winglee from public use data files. 
38 Who Reads Literature? 

ride the effects of education on social behavior and produce trends 

that are different from the expected ones. Voting is a good example of this. As with the propensity to read literature, the propensity to vote is positively correlated with educational attainment. But 

rising education levels have not resulted in increased levels of voter turnout, at least not in recent decades. Moreover, as critics of 

the educational system are quick to point out, the rise in general 

education levels has been accompanied by some decay in educational quality. A high school diploma does not necessarily mean 

as much as it once did in terms of skills mastered and knowledge 

gained. 

Income 

Like education, an individual’s income level is significantly 

associated with literary participation. Among persons in the 1985 

SPPA who had annual incomes of $25,000 or more, the odds were 

about two-to-one that they had read a work of fiction, poetry, or 

drama in the previous twelve months. For those with incomes between $10,000 and $25,000, the odds dropped to just over fiftyfifty. And among those with incomes below $10,000, the chances 

were about six-to-four against their being literature readers. 

Income level was also correlated with the general reading of 

books and magazines, and with the reading of poetry and creative 

writing. (Table 6.) However, the relationships between income and 

poetry reading, and income and creative writing, were considerably weaker than the relationship with overall literature reading. For 

example, those with incomes of $25,000 and over were only about 

one-and-a-half times more likely to have read poetry than those 

with incomes below $10,000. 

A person’s income is associated with his or her education level 

and ethnic group, so some of the correlation between income and 

literary participation could be due to these factors, rather than to 

income per se. When income was combined with the other demographic factors in a logistic regression equation,* the amount of 

predictive power contributed by income, over and above that provid­

*This equation allows a "better fit" of the data by fitting them into a curve rather 

than a straight line. 
Factors That Affect Literary Participation 39 

ed by education, turned out to be slight. Income was still a significant, though weak, predictor of overall literature reading, but 

not of poetry reading or creative writing. 

Thus, those with higher incomes are more likely to be literature readers than those with lower incomes, primarily because the 

former tend to be more educated than the latter. The fact that they 

also have more money to buy books and more leisure time to enjoy them may also play a role, but apparently not a major one. 

Gender 

Another basic characteristic that has a bearing on literary participation is a person’s gender. If a respondent in the 1985 SPPA 

was a woman, the odds were nearly two-to-one that she had read 

a novel, short story, poem, or play in the previous 12 months. For 

men, by contrast, the odds were less than fifty-fifty. Women were 

also more likely to have read books and magazines in general, to 

have read poetry, and to have done creative writing, though all of 

these relationships were considerably weaker than the association 

with literature reading. (Table 7.) 

When the demographic variables were combined in predictive equations, gender proved to be the second-strongest factor (after 

education) in separating literature readers and poetry readers from 

non-readers. It was the fourth-strongest factor (after education, age, 

and non-metropolitan residence) in differentiating creative writers 

from non-writers. 

In the BISG survey on reading, women were found to be much 

more likely than men to be frequent book readers. Gender was 

also associated with the amount of reading done: women were more 

likely to be readers of fiction, and men of non-fiction. Men were 

more apt to be readers of newspapers and magazines, but not books. 

As might be expected, certain genres of fiction, such as romances, 

had a largely female following, whereas other genres, such as action/adventure stories and science fiction, had readerships that were 

predominantly male.37 

It would seem that both cultural and biological factors are at 

work in accounting for the gender differences in literary participation. As discussed later, there is evidence that girls get more 

encouragement to read from their parents. But there is also evi­
 

40 Who Reads Literature? 

TABLE 7. Relationship Between Gender and Age/Year of Birth and Literature Reading, Poetry Reading, Creative Writing, and Book or Magazine Reading 

in Last 12 Months, U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 1985. 

Proportion of Population Group Who... 

Did Read 

Read Read Creative Books, 

Literature Poetry Writing Magazines 

ALL ADULTS 56.0% 18.6% 6.2% 85,6% 

GENDER 

Female 63.0% 21.5% 7.4% 88.3% 

Male 48, 1% 16.2% 4.9% 82.7% 

AGE/BIRTH YEAR 

Young (18-29) 

Middle (30-49) 

Older (50 +) 

56.8% 

60.8% 

50.3% 

19.7% 

20. 1% 

17.4% 

8.5% 

7.6% 

3.0% 

87.0% 

88.6% 

81.5% 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1985 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations by N. 

Zill and M. Winglee from public use data files. 
Factors That Affect literary Participation 41 

dence of innate differences between the sexes in the development 

of reading skills and interests. Studies of standardized reading tests 

given to elementary-school children have found that, on the average, girls read earlier, better, and more than boys do. Girls do not 

surpass boys in all verbal areas: boys do as well or even slightly 

better on vocabulary tests. But girls excel on tests of reading proficiency, and fewer girls encounter difficulties in learning to read.38 

Girls also write letters earlier and express more positive attitudes 

toward reading stories.39 

For reasons that are not well understood, women lose much 

of their advantage over men on reading tests by late adolescence 

and young adulthood.4° Among college-bound high school students, for example, men score slightly higher than women on the 

verbal portion of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), including the 

reading comprehension subtest. On the other hand, women do 

slightly better on the Test of Standard Written English that is given as part of the SAT, as well as on the English Composition 

Achievement Test. Young women in high school and college continue to do more reading than men, especially reading for pleasure, and to know more about literature. Thus, nearly twice as many 

women as men take the College Board Achievement Test in Literature, and the mean score attained by women is significantly higher 

than that for men.4~ 

It might also be argued that women may be drawn to literature because of a greater interest in human character development 

and social interaction patterns. In the past, women were raised in 

a manner that called for sensitivity to other people’s feelings and 

motivations, and for getting one’s way through persuasion rather 

than assertiveness. Obviously, much of literature is concerned 

with how people behave in various situations and why they act as 

they do. 

It is interesting to speculate about what effects the women’s 

movement has had and will have on female involvement with literature. Certainly, the drive for women’s rights has helped to draw 

attention to outstanding women writers, and to open more opportunities for women in the publication and promotion of literature. 

One would also think, given the changes that women as a group 

have been undergoing, that many would want to read or write about 
42 Who Reads Literature? 

their experiences and feelings in fictional, poetic, or dramatic forms. 

Whenever norms and values are in flux, literature has a special role to play. Literature can be a vehicle for exploring new patterns of behavior and interaction. It can provide fictional characters 

that serve as role models to real people going through similar struggles. And it can give voice to both the exhilaration and the frustrations that many pioneers experience. Although many of the 

best-known feminist authors, such as Betty Friedan and Germaine 

Greer, are non-fiction writers, feminist issues and themes appear 

in a broad range of contemporary fiction, including the works of 

writers as disparate as Mary Gordon, Erica Jong, and Francine 

du Plessix Gray. 

Even the emergence of a new type of popular romance novels 

with a more overtly sexual content can be at least partly attributed 

to the women’s movement, in the sense that the movement has made 

it easier for women to be open about their sexuality. However, as 

more women become involved in traditionally male career paths, 

one wonders whether their reading patterns will become more like 

the instrumental, non-fiction oriented reading of men. 

Age 

The year in which a person was born has relevance to literary 

participation, both because it represents where the individual is 

in his or her life cycle and because it indicates the historical period in which the person was raised. If literary participation patterns are changing over time, the change should be reflected in 

differences between age groups. The problem is in disentangling 

historical change from aging effects. This is not completely possible with data from a single point in time, or even from two closely 

spaced surveys. Some reasonable inferences can usually be drawn 

about what is occurring, however, depending on the pattern of 

change actually observed. 

The wide range of birth years represented in the 1985 SPPA 

was broken down into three broad groups: young adults (ages 18-29, 

or birth years 1956-1967); middle-aged adults (ages 30-49, or birth 

years 1936-1955); and older adults (ages 50 and older, or birth years 

1935 and earlier). When this division was made, a relatively weak 

relationship was found between age and literary participation: par­
Factors That Affect Literary Participation 43 

ticipation declined from the middle to the older years. The proportion reading literature, for example, decreased from 61 percent in 

the middle years to 50 percent in the older years. Similar declines 

were observed in creative writing, general reading, and poetry reading, although the last difference was very slight. (Table 7.) Differences between the middle-aged and younger groups were so small 

as not to be statistically significant, but were generally in the direction of the middle-aged reading more than young adults. Creative 

writing was an exception, being higher in the young group, but 

by very little. 

Because education levels have been rising over time, age and 

year of birth are correlated with educational attainment. Older 

groups have lower education levels, on the average, than younger 

age groups. Age and birth year are also somewhat correlated with 

income levels (because middle-aged individuals tend to earn more 

money than younger or older people) and with the sexual composition of the group (because women tend to live longer than men). 

When education and other demographic variables were entered into 

predictive equations along with age (which was treated as a continuous variable in the equations), the unique contribution of age 

to the process of differentiating readers from non-readers was essentially eliminated. 

Thus, the decline in literature reading with age can be explained 

by the correlation between birth year and education level. Older 

people read less than younger ones, not because they are older (and 

hence more infirm, or less energetic, or some such), but primarily because they are less educated. This finding has an important 

implication for future consumption. Future cohorts of older Americans, being more educated than the senior citizens of today, will 

presumably be reading more literature. It may also be that the total volume of literature reading will increase, although the increase 

in reading among the elderly may be offset by declines in reading 

among young adults. 

The apparent negative effect of age on literary participation 

was not eliminated in the equation that differentiated creative writers 

from non-writers. Although the effect of age was still quite weak, 

it was the second-best predictor in the equation, after education. 

This suggests that age as such has some debilitating or discourag­
44 Who Reads Literature? 

ing effect on the production of imaginative writing. In her book 

The Coming of Age, Simone de Beauvoir concludes that great age 

is generally not conducive to literary creation, especially to the 

writing of novels. She attributes this to the waning with age of the 

"alacrity" and strength that imaginative writing requires. But de 

Beauvoir also mentions notable exceptions to the rule, famous 

authors like Sophocles, Cervantes, Voltaire, Victor Hugo, and Henry 

James, who created some of their finest works in later life.42 

The decline in amateur writing with age seems unfortunate 

because older individuals, having experienced more, should have 

more to write about. Once retired, they also have more time to 

practice the craft of writing. Perhaps, as attitudes about what is 

possible and appropriate for older people to do change, the decline in writing associated with increased age will change as well. 

Race/Ethnicity 

Blacks and Hispanics are less likely to have read literature than 

whites. The 1985 SPPA data show that the odds on someone who 

was Black or Hispanic having read a novel, short story, poem, or 

play in the previous 12 months were about 40-60 against. For nonminority whites, on the other hand, the odds were nearly 60-40 

in favor. In addition, whites were about 50 percent more likely than 

Blacks or Hispanics to have read poetry or done some creative writing. (Table 8.) The rates for individuals from other minority groups 

(predominantly Asians) generally fell between those of whites and 

Blacks and Hispanics. 

Educational Handicaps. Especially among older adults, 

minority ethnic status is associated with lower educational attainment and income levels in our society, despite the dramatic improvement in educational and employment opportunities for 

minorities in the last three decades. Substantial fractions of Black 

and Hispanic adults are either illiterate or "aliterate." Many 

Hispanic-Americans and some Asian-Americans are literate in their 

native languages, but not in English. A finding from the 1985 SPPA 

illustrates these problems: one third of Blacks and Hispanics had 

not read any kind of book or magazine in the last year. The comparable proportion among white adults was one tenth. 

But when education, income, and other demographic factors 
Facl~rs That Affect Lilerary Participation 45 

TABLE 8. Relationship Between Ethnic Group Membership and Literature 

Reading, Poetry Reading, Creative Writing, and Book or Magazine Reading 

in Last 12 Months, U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 1985. 

Proportion of Population Group Who... 

Did Read 

Read Read Creative Books, 

Literature Poetry Writing Magazines 

ALL ADULTS 56.0% 18.6% 6.2% 85.6% 

ETHNIC GROUPS 

Whites 59.0% 20.0% 6.7% 89.9% 

Blacks 43.0% 13.8% 4.5% 66.3 % 

Hispanics 41.5% 14.8% 4.0% 66.0% 

Asians, Others 51.9% 16.0% 2.4% 85.3% 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1985 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations by N. 

Zill and M. Winglee from public use data files. 
46 Who Reads Literature? 

were entered along with race into equations predicting literary participation, the predictive power of race was considerably reduced. 

(Because of the relatively small size of the Hispanic and Asian subsamples, only a variable differentiating Black from non-Black 

respondents was entered into the predictive equations.) In the equations differentiating poetry readers from non-readers, and creative writers from non-writers, race added nothing to the prediction. 

In the equation predicting overall literature reading, race remained 

a significant, though weak, predictor. Similar results were obtained 

in analyses with the data from the 1982 SPPA. 

Socialization and skill differences. Minority individuals are 

less likely to have been exposed to literature as children. Educational research studies have found that minority children, especially Hispanics, tend to have fewer reading materials in their homes 

than non-minority youngsters, and are less apt to have been read 

to by their parents.43 Consistent with this, Hispanic adults in the 

SPPA reported that their parents generally had not encouraged them 

to read books that were not required for school. In addition, the 

quality of the formal education many minority individuals receive 

is inferior to that received by the typical non-minority individual. 

Thus, in the SPPA, fewer Black and Hispanic respondents reported that they had been exposed to lessons in creative writing. 

Furthermore, even though the basic reading skills and educational attainment levels of minority young people have risen substantially since the 1960s, standardized tests still show that the 

reading proficiency of both Black and Hispanic youths lags behind 

that of non-minority youths with equivalent years of education. In 

1988, for example, the National Assessment of Educational Progress found that only about one-quarter of Black or Hispanic 

17-year-olds could read on an adept level, whereas nearly half of 

the white 17-year-olds were adept readers.44 

Availability of minority literature. In addition to these educational barriers, there is the question of the availability of fiction, 

poetry, and drama that is of interest to minority adults and reflects 

their concerns and cultural traditions. The works of a few contemporary Black writers, such as Alex Haley, Toni Morrison, 

Ntozake Shange, Alice Walker, and August Wilson, have received 

widespread public attention in recent years. And some older Black 
Factors That Affect Literary Participation 47 

writers like Langston Hughes, James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, 

Richard Wright, and Lorraine Hansberry, have received recognition because of the enduring value of their work, and as a result 

of "Black History Month" and other efforts to raise public consciousness about the contributions of Blacks to American culture. 

The sad truth, though, is that many Black young people are ignorant of these authors and their works. Moreover, although the 

situation is far better than it was in the past, it could hardly be 

said that there is as yet an extensive body of literary works by and 

for Black Americans. 

The situation is worse for Hispanic Americans. For one thing, 

the Hispanic community is not a unified whole. It is divided into 

Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Cuban-Americans, those from 

Spain, and those from the different Central or South American 

countries. Each of these groups has somewhat different traditions 

and concerns. Most Hispanic-American authors are not well known 

within their own communities and are virtually unknown to a broader audience. Although there has been a surge of interest in Latin 

American writers of late, this has had little carryover to Hispanic 

authors writing in the U.S. Many of the latter continue to have difficulty getting their works published and disseminated to appropriate 

audiences. 

Residence 

There is significant variation in literary participation across 

different regions of the country and from urban to rural communities. These differences, however, are relatively modest and are 

probably due mostly to differences in average educational level 

across areas, or to the likely tendency of people who have literary 

inclinations to prefer living in some areas over others. 

Regional variations. In the data from the 1985 SPPA, the odds 

that someone who lived in the West had read a novel, short story, 

poem, or play in the last 12 months were almost two-to-one. By 

contrast, the odds that someone from the South had done so were 

only about 50-50. The odds for residents of the Northeast and Midwest were just slightly better than those for the nation as a whole. 

(Table 9.) A similar pattern of regional variation was visible in the 

data from the 1982 SPPA. Poetry reading and creative writing 
48 Who Reads Literature? 

TABLE 9. Relationship Between Region and Metropolitan Residence and Literature Reading, Poetry Reading, Creative Writing, and Book or Magazine Reading in Last 12 Months, U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 1985. 

Proportion of Population Group Who... 

Did Read 

Read Read Creative Books, 

Literature Poetry Writing Magazines 

ALL ADULTS 56.0% 18.6% 6.2% 85.6% 

REGION 

Northeast 57.0% 17. 1%0 4.6% 86.4% 

Midwest 56.7% 21.0% 6.6% 90.3% 

South 50.4% 18.5% 4.6% 80.6% 

West 63.7% 17.0% 10.0% 87.2% 

RESIDENCE 

Central City 

Suburbs 

56.5% 

61.0% 

18.5% 

21.2% 

7.5% 

8.2% 

85.5% 

91.2% 

Non-Metro 48.9% 16.7% 2.8% 78.4% 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1985 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations by N. 

Zill and M. Winglee from public use data files. 
Factors That Aftert Literary Participation 49 

showed weaker and somewhat different patterns of regional variation, although the West was still the leading region as far as the 

proportion doing creative writing was concerned. It was not possible to evaluate the predictive power of region after other factors 

were controlled because the Census Bureau does not release both 

geographic identifiers and household socioeconomic data in the 

same public use files. 

Urban-rural variations. The 1985 SPPA data showed that the 

odds were about 60-40 that someone living in the suburbs of the 

major metropolitan areas had read a work of literature in the previous 12 months. By contrast, the odds for a person living outside 

of the metropolitan areas were less than 50-50. Residents of nonmetropolitan areas were also below average in rates of general reading, creative writing, and poetry reading, although the differences 

with respect to poetry were relatively slight. Residents of the central cities of metropolitan areas were close to the national average 

on each of the participation variables. Similar patterns of urbanrural variation were found in the data from the 1982 SPPA. 

The metropolitan residential factor was entered into predictive equations by means of two variables, one identifying those who 

lived in central cities, and the other, those who lived in nonmetropolitan areas. Only the latter added significantly to the predictions. When education, income, age, and other demographic variables were taken into account, the contribution of non-metropolitan 

residence was considerably reduced. Residence was, however, the 

third-strongest predictor of creative writing (after education and 

age). It was also a significant though weak predictor of overall literature reading. Thus, most of the negative effect of non-metropolitan 

residence on literary participation is due to other characteristics 

of the residents, such as their education levels and ages. There is, 

however, some residual effect or correlate of residence that is not 

accounted for by the demographic characteristics of the residents. 

Predicting Participation from Demographics 

In sum, the likelihood that a person will or will not be a reader of literature is significantly related to a number of basic background characteristics, the foremost being his or her education level. 

While gender, age, ethnic background, income level, and place 
50 Who Reads Literature? 

of residence are also related, they tell only a limited amount about 

the person’s propensity to read. Other, more specific factors in the 

individual’s history and current life situation, such as parental encouragement to read, also come into play, and are examined in the 

next section. But first, it is useful to see how well literary participation can be predicted when the basic background characteristics are combined into predictive equations. 

Literature reading. Five variables were entered into the equation for discriminating literature readers from non-readers. (In this 

case, as in each of the later equations, differing numbers of variables were relevant and entered into the equation.) For the 1985 

SPPA, education and gender were the predominant predictors, with 

income, race, and non-metropolitan residence adding tiny but 

statistically significant increments of predictive power. The equation was able to classify 68 percent of the survey respondents correctly. (Bear in mind that one would get about a 50 percent correct 

classification by simply alternating between predictions of "reader" and "non-reader," and 56 percent correct by predicting that 

everyone was a literature reader.) There was also a moderately good 

correlation between the predicted probability of being a reader and 

the actual response. The model did somewhat better at identifying 

those who were readers (71 percent correct) than those who were 

not (63 percent correct). An almost identical equation and similar 

predictive results were obtained with the data from the 1982 SPPA. 

Poetry reading. Only two variables--education and gender-­

were entered into the equation for differentiating poetry readers 

from non-readers. The equation classified 75 percent of the respondents correctly, but given the relatively small proportion of poetry 

readers in the survey, one would get about 80 percent correct by 

predicting that no one had read a poem. Of course, the latter strategy 

would lead to a complete misidentification of those who actually 

did read poetry (a zero "hit rate"). On the other hand, the equation correctly identified 35 percent of those who had read poetry 

and 83 percent of those who had not. The rank-order correlation 

between predicted probability and response (r = .32) was moderate, but weaker than that obtained with the literature reading equation. The equation and predictive accuracy obtained with the 1982 

data were similar, although the additional (but weak) predictors 
Factors That Affect Literary Participation 51 

of age and non-metropolitan residence figured into the 1982 

equation. 

Creative writing. Four variables were entered into the equation for discriminating creative writers from non-writers. Once 

again, education was the leading predictor, but this time age was 

the second-best predictor. Non-metropolitan residence and gender also figured into the equation. The equation classified 92 percent of the respondents correctly, about the same overall proportion 

correct that one would get by predicting that no one had done any 

creative writing in the last 12 months. However, the equation was 

able to identify correctly 21 percent of the actual writers, as well 

as 95 percent of the non-writers. The rank-order correlation between predicted probability and actual response (r = .54) was 

moderately good. The predictive accuracy obtained with the 1982 

SPPA data was nearly identical, and the equation similar, although 

central city residence (rather than non-metropolitan residence) and 

income figured into the 1982 equation. 

Socialization and Training 

Early Encouragement of Reading 

One factor that markedly increases an adult’s chances of being a regular reader of literature is having grown up in a family 

where reading was practiced and encouraged. Studies of academic achievement in children consistently find that the parents’ education level and the academic orientation of the home are among 

the best predictors of how well a child will do in school.45 

Aspects of the home environment that correlate with achievement 

include the number of books and other reading materials in the 

home, whether the child was read to regularly, and whether the 

parents encouraged the child to read books not required for school. 

Similarly, the SPPA has found that one’s participation in the arts 

as an adult is correlated with the education level of one’s parents 

and with recollections of having been exposed to the arts by one’s 

parents when one was a child.46 Of the various relationships between childhood socialization indicators and measures of adult arts 

participation that are covered in the survey, those involving participation in literature are among the strongest. 
52 Who Reads Literature? 

Parents’ education level. The SPPA asked respondents to report the highest grade or year of regular school their fathers and 

mothers had completed according to six categories ranging from 

"7th grade or less" to "completed college (4+ years)." Although 

17 percent of the respondents in the 1985 survey could not recall 

their father’s education level and 13 percent could not recall their 

mother’s, most were able to come up with at least an approximation. For the purpose of the analyses reported here, the higher of 

the two education levels was used; if only one parent’s education 

level was known, it was used. The proportion of respondents whose 

parents attained each education level is shown in Table 10. 

Respondents with college-educated parents were considerably 

more likely to be literature readers than those whose parents had 

less than a high school education. If the respondent’s parents were 

college graduates, the odds on the person having read literature 

in the past 12 months were about four-to-one. However, if the parents had only an elementary school education, the odds were 

reduced to less than 50-50. Parent education was also related to 

the chances of having read poetry or done creative writing, though 

not as strongly. 

As might be expected, the relationships between the literary participation measures and parent’s education were not as strong as 

those with the respondent’s own educational attainment. This is 

partly because there is less recall error in the measure of the respondent’s own education. But it is mainly because the respondent’s 

education is a better indicator of his or her intelligence and educational experiences. Of course, parent’s education and own education are significantly correlated. Parent’s education was also related 

to the respondent’s year of birth (with respondents born in more 

recent years having better educated parents) and ethnic group (with 

Black and Hispanic respondents having less educated parents than 

non-minority respondents). 

Parental encouragement of reading. SPPA participants were 

asked: "Did your parents--or other adult members of the 

household--encourage you to read books which were not required 

for school or religious studies: often, occasionally, or never?" Of 

those in the 1985 SPPA, 37 percent reported that their parents encouraged them to read often; 29 percent were encouraged occa­
 

Factors That Affect Literary Participation 53 

TABLE 10. Relationship Between Parent Education Level and Literature Reading, Poetry Reading, Creative Writing, and Book or Magazine Reading in Last 

12 Months, and Proportion of Adults with Parents at Each Education Level, 

U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 1982 and 1985. 

Proportion of Population Group Who... 

Did Read 

Read Read Creative Books, 

Literature Poetry Writing Magazines 

1982 Data 

ALL ADULTS 56.4% 19.8% 6.5% 84, 1°/0 

PARENT’S EDUCATION 

College grad plus 81.0% 35.9% 13.0% 97.9°/c 

Some college 76.0% 33.4% 12.0% 96.8%0 

High school grad. 64.9% 22,0% 9. 1%c 91. 1% 

Some high school 56.9% 20,0% 4,6% 82_. 1% 

Grade school only 43,1% 14.4% 2.6% 71.5% 

Proportion of Adults 

with Parents at Each 

1985 Data Education Level 

ALL ADULTS 56.0% 

1985 1982 

PARENT’S EDUCATION 

College grad plus 78.3% 15,4% 15.0% 

Some college 78.3 % t 2.2°4 9.4% 

High school grad. 61,7% 35,2~2 34.2% 

Some high school 50.8% 10.4% II ,7% 

Grade school only 42.9% 26.7% 29,7% 

100.0% 100.0% 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1982 and 1985 Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations by N. Zill and M. Winglee from public use data files. 
54 Who Reads Literature? 

sionally; and 34 percent, never. 

The relationship between parental encouragement to read and 

adult literature reading was quite strong, stronger even than the 

relationship between the respondent’s education level and literature reading. For persons who were frequently encouraged to read 

as children, the odds were nearly four-to-one that they had read 

a novel, short story, poem, or play in the last 12 months. For those 

who were never encouraged to read, on the other hand, the odds 

were more than two-to-one against them having read literature in 

the last year. Parental encouragement was also related to the chances 

of having done other types of reading or creative writing, though 

not as strongly. (Table 11.) 

As would be expected, reports that the parents encouraged the 

respondent to read were related to the parents’ education level. If 

the parents were college graduates, 61 percent of the respondents 

said they were often encouraged to read. On the other hand, if the 

parents had an elementary education, only 25 percent were often 

encouraged to read, and more than half were never encouraged. 

Parental encouragement also varied across ethnic groups. It was 

less common among Hispanics than among Blacks, whites, or Asians. Only 20 percent of Hispanic respondents reported that they 

were often encouraged to read, and 54 percent said they were never 

encouraged. (Table 12.) 

Women were more likely than men to report that they had been 

encouraged to read as children (42 percent of the women, as opposed to 32 percent of the men). Parental encouragement also varied 

by year of birth, with those born more recently being considerably more apt to have been encouraged as children. Only 26 percent of those born in 1910 or earlier reported that they had often 

been encouraged to read, and less than half had been encouraged 

even occasionally. By contrast, 40 percent or more of those born 

since World War II were given frequent encouragement, and 70 

percent or more received at least occasional encouragement. 

Limitations of the evidence of socialization effects. The data 

just reported seem to provide evidence that the encouragement of 

reading in childhood helps to form an abiding habit of reading for 

pleasure and enlightenment. The differences across groups in parental encouragement are also generally consistent with the group 
 

Faclors That Affect Uterary Participation 55 

TABLE II. Relationship Between Socialization Factors (Parental Encouragement of Reading, Respondent’s Exposure to Creative Writing Lessons) and 

Literature Reading, Poetry Reading, Creative Writing, and Book or Magazine 

Reading in Last 12 Months, U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 1982 and 1985. 

Proportion of Population Group Who... 

Did Read 

Read 

Literature 

Read 

Poetry 

Creative 

Writing 

Books, 

Magazines 

--1985 1982­

ALL ADULTS 56.0% 19.8% 6.5% 84. I% 

PARENTS ENCOURAGED READING 

Often 79.0% 32.8% t0.4% 94.6% 

Occasionally 57.0% 17. I% 6,0% 87.6% 

Never 32.0% 9.1% 2.8% 64,8% 

R HAD CREATIVE WRITING LESSONS* 

Yes 

No 

88.2% 46.8% 

49.6% 15.2% 

25.2% 

2.7% 

98,5% 

79.9% 

*R denotes respondent. 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts, and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1982 and 1985 Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations by N. Zill and M. Winglee from public use data files. 
56 Who Reads Literature? 

TABLE 12. Frequency with Which Parents Encouraged Reading by Parent Education Level, Year of Respondent’s Birth, Ethnic Group, and Gender, U.S. Adults 

Aged 18 and Over, 1985. 

Parents Encouraged Reading...
 

Often Occasionally Never Total
 

Percent Distributions
 

ALL ADULTS 37.3% 2%0% 33.7% 100.0% 

PARENT’S EDUCATION 

College graduate 

Some college 

60.5% 

52.7% 

28.0% 

30.4% 

II .S% 

16.8% 

100.0% 

99.9% 

High school grad. 40.7% 36. I% 23.2% 100.0% 

Some high school 35.4% 32.8% 31.8% 100.0% 

Grade school only 24.9% 23.6% 51.4% 99.9% 

YEAR OF R’S BIRTH* 

1956-1967 40. 1% 32.3% 27.6% 100.0% 

1936-1955 38.6% 32.8% 28.6% 100.0% 

1935 or earlier 33.6% 22.4% 44.0% 100.0% 

ETHNIC GROUP 

White 38.8% 29.7% 31.5% I00.0% 

Black 37.9% 27. I% 34,9% 99.9% 

Hispanic 20.2% 25.5% 54,3% 100,0% 

Asian, other 43.6% 22.9% 33.5% 100.0% 

GENDER 

Female 42.3% 26.9% 30.8% 100.0% 

Male 31.7% 31.3 % 37.0% 100.0% 

*R denotes respondent. 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1985 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations by N. 

Zill and M. Winglee from public use data files. 
Factors That Affect Literary Participation 57 

differences in literary participation that were reported earlier. A 

few caveats are in order, however. To begin with, the evidence on 

socialization effects is based on retrospective recall of parental education levels and encouragement, rather than on observations or 

reports made at the time. With such distant recall, there is the possibility that memory is distorting the past to make it consistent with 

present behavior, or that reports of literature reading and parental 

encouragement are related because of common response bias. Thus, 

to be properly cautious, the evidence should really be seen as suggestive rather than definitive. 

Furthermore, even if the relationships between parental characteristics and adult literary participation prove to be genuine, the 

mechanism involved might be at least partly genetic, rather than 

wholly environmental. The same criticism applies here as has been 

applied to studies of family influences on children’s school achievement.47 High parental education levels and encouragement of 

reading could be seen as markers of high IQ, or of literary talent 

and interest, which may be passed on to the child as much or more 

through shared genes as through a nurturing home environment. 

It should also be noted that while growing up in a home where 

parents read a lot and reading materials are readily available is conducive to later literary participation, it is not essential. In the past, 

when educational opportunities were more limited, many individuals who became well-read adults were raised by parents who could 

not or did not read themselves. It does seem possible for schools 

and libraries to make up for what the home does not provide. On 

the other hand, the findings on parental encouragement of reading 

suggest that, in trying to teach young people to develop a lifelong 

appreciation for literature, the emotional context in which the learning occurs is important. 

Creative Writing Classes 

In addition to family influences, adult reading habits are shaped 

by the formal training a person has received. The SPPA found that 

adults who had taken lessons in music, art, acting, ballet, or classes 

in music or art appreciation, were more likely to attend or take 

part in related artistic activities than people who had not taken lessons or classes,as As described below, a similar relationship was 
58 Who Reads Literature? 

obtained between creative writing classes and literary participation. Here again, the issue arises of whether having taken a class 

is a cause of later participation or merely an indicator that the person 

has a predilection for the subject. Probably both mechanisms contribute to the observed relationships. 

Respondents in the arts surveys were asked whether they had 

ever taken lessons or a class in creative writing. Those who said 

they had were asked to specify in which of four age ranges (elementary school, secondary school, college, later adulthood) the classes were taken. In the 1985 SPPA, 18 percent of all adults said they 

had taken creative writing lessons or classes at some point. Most 

had received such instruction when they were of high school or 

college age. (Table 13.) Only 3 percent had taken writing classes 

when they were 25 or older. Practically identical proportions were 

obtained in the 1982 SPPA. 

Creative writing lessons were less common than music lessons (which had been taken by nearly half of all adults), crafts lessons (about a third had received these at some point), or visual 

arts lessons (one quarter had taken these). They were about as frequent as music appreciation or art appreciation classes, and more 

common than acting or ballet lessons (each of which had been taken 

by about one tenth of all respondents). 

If the person had taken a lesson or class in creative writing, 

the odds were nearly nine-to-one that he or she had read a novel, 

short story, poem, or play in the last 12 months. For those who 

had not taken such a class, the odds were about 50-50. Adults who 

had taken writing classes were also more likely to have read poetry and books and magazines in general. (Table 11.) As might be 

expected, there was a moderately strong relationship between taking writing classes and doing creative writing. Although only a 

quarter of those who had ever taken a class in creative writing had 

done such writing within the last year, this rate was eight times 

higher than that for adults who had not taken such courses. 

Significant correlations between writing instruction and literary participation were found no matter at what ages the writing 

classes had been taken. However, courses taken in the college years 

(18-24) seemed to make slightly more of a difference than those 

at other ages. 
 

Factors That Affect Literary Participation 59 

TABLE 13. Number and Proportion of Adults Who Had Creative Writing
 

Lessons at Various Ages, U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 1982 and 1985.
 

Number Proportion 

t985 1982 1985 982 

Age at Which 

Lessons Were Taken 

ALL AGES 30.6 mil. 29.7 mil. 18% 8% 

Less than 12 yrs. t.6 1.3 I% I% 

12-17 years 14.6 12.7 9% 8% 

18 24 years 16.5 16.6 10% 0% 

25 yrs. or more 5.0 S,O 3% 3% 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1982 and 1985 Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations from public use data files. 
60 Who Reads Literature? 

The more education a person had, the more likely he or she 

was to have taken a course in creative writing. Nearly 40 percent 

of those with some college education had done so, as contrasted 

to about 10 percent of those who stopped at high school, and only 

3 percent of those who did not complete high school. Writing training was also more common among those with more educated parents and parents who had encouraged reading. (Table 14.) The 

chances of having had formal training in creative writing as part 

of one’s education have increased markedly in this century. Only 

3 percent of those born in 1910 or earlier received such instruction, as opposed to about 15 percent of those born in the late 1930s 

or early 1940s, and nearly 30 percent of those born since the 

mid-1950s. Non-Hispanic white respondents were twice as likely 

to have received some creative writing training as Black or Asian 

respondents, and five times more likely than Hispanic respondents. 

Women were slightly more likely than men to have taken such a 

course. 

Current Life Style 

It seems plausible that people’s literature reading habits are influenced by major aspects of their daily lives, such as their jobs, 

marital situations, and family responsibilities. What people do for 

a living shapes their interest, affects the amount of time and money they have for reading and book purchasing, and exposes them 

to other people who may encourage or discourage certain types 

of reading. Similarly, a person’s marital status and family situation have effects on interests, discretionary time and money, and 

exposure to different types of people. Job, marital, and family circumstances also have a good deal to do with a person’s need for 

stimulation, solace, or escape. 

As shown below, there were indeed associations in the arts 

survey data between literature reading and aspects of daily life. 

The associations proved to be weaker than one might expect, however, especially after controlling for related factors such as education, income, age, and gender. These findings suggest that literature 

reading is a fairly robust habit that can persist in the face of time 

pressures and competition from other activities. The other side of 
Factors That Affect Uterary Participation 61 

TABLE 14. Proportion of Adults Who Have Ever Taken Creative Writing Lessons by Respondent’s Education Level, Year of Birth, Ethnic Group, Gender, 

Parent’s Education Level, and Parental Encouragement of Reading, U.S. Adults 

Aged 18 and Over, 1985. 

Have Had Lessons In Creative Writing:
 

Yes No Total
 

Percent Distributions
 

ALL ADULTS 18.0% 82.0% 100,0% 

EDUCATION LEVEL 

Some college 38.7 % 61.3 % 100.0% 

High school graduate 10.6% 89.4% 100.0% 

Less than high school 2.6% 97.4% 100.0% 

YEAR OF R’S BIRTH 

1956-1967 28.4% 71.6% 100.0% 

1936-1955 20. 1% 79.9% 100.0% 

1935 or earlier 7.5% 92.5% 100.0% 

ETHNIC GROUP 

White 20.4% 79.6% 100.0% 

Black 2.1% 87.9% 100.0% 

Hispanic 4.1% 95.9% 100.0% 

Asian, other 9.0% 91.0% 100.0% 

GENDER 

Female 9.0% 81.0% 00.0% 

Male 6.9% 83. 1% 00.0% 

PARENT’S EDUCATION 

College graduate 40.9% 59. 1% 00.0% 

Some college 36.2% 63.8% 00.0% 

High school graduate 19.7% 80.3% 00.0% 

Some high school II .3% 88.7% 100.0% 

Grade school only 5. 1% 94.9% 100.0% 

PARENTS ENCOURAGED READING 

Often 32.7% 67.3% 100.0% 

Occasionally 14.4% 85.6% 100.0% 

Never 5.7% 94.3% 100.0% 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1985 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations by 

N. Zill and M. Winglee from public use data files. 
62 Who Reads Literature? 

this coin is that those who are non-readers of literature do not suddenly take it up when placed in circumstances that would seem 

to give them the opportunity to do so. 

Employment and Student Status 

The Survey of Public Participation in the Arts collected information about whether the respondent was currently employed, 

and, if so, at what job and for how many hours per week. The 

respondent’s current employment status was significantly related 

to all types of reading surveyed, as well as to creative writing. (Table 

15.) 

In general, those in the labor force (i.e., those working or looking for paid work) were more likely than those not in the labor 

force to have read literature. Students were a notable exception to 

this rule. They showed the highest rates of literary participation 

of all the employment groups. For students in the 1985 SPPA, for 

example, the odds were about three-to-one that they had read fiction, poetry, or drama in the last 12 months. More than a third 

had read poems and nearly a fifth had done some creative writing 

in that period. 

Of course, the high participation rates of students are partly 

due to their being required to read works of literature for courses 

they are taking. In addition, students tend to be immersed in the 

world of books and to associate with others who read, recommend, 

and talk about books. What many will find remarkable about the 

SPPA findings, however, is not that students’ reading rates are so 

high, but that they are not higher. 

Of men and women in the labor force, those who worked parttime had somewhat higher rates of literary participation than those 

who worked full-time. Those who had a job but were not at work 

(because of illness, maternity leave, a labor dispute, etc.) also had 

above-average rates of literature reading, but not of poetry reading 

or writing. These differences support the notion that having more 

non-work time available results in more reading of literature. However, people who work part-time are more likely to be female and 

younger than those who work full-time. Thus, the factors of gender and age contribute to the observed differences as well. 

In contrast, those who were unemployed (i.e., without jobs 
Factors That Affect Literary Participation 63 

TABLE 15. Relationship Between Current Employment Status and Literature 

Reading, Poetry Reading, Creative Writing, and Book or Magazine Reading 

in Last 12 Months, U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 1985. 

Proportion of Population Group Who... 

Did Read 

Read Read Creative Books, 

Literature Poetry Writing Magazines 

ALL ADULTS 56.0% 18.6% 6,2% 85.6% 

CURRENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS 

In Labor Force 

Working full time 56.0% 17.8% 7,0% 88.5% 

Working part time 61,0% 29.2% 10.1% 90.0% 

With job, not at work 64.5% t9.2% 4.8% 88.2% 

Unemployed S0.S% 13.3% 3.9% 76.7% 

Not In Labor Force 

Student 74.5% 35.3% 19.2% 93.6% 

Keeping house 55.4% 16.4% 3.2% 83.5% 

Retired, other 49. 1% 17.5% 2.5% 76.5% 

Disabled 33.7% 14.4% 0,0% 67.2% 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1985 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations by N. 

Zill and M. Winglee from public use data files. 
64 Who Reads Literat~e? 

and/or looking for work) showed below-average levels of literary 

participation and reading in general. In this case, the factor of time 

available to read was apparently negated by the generally lower 

education and income levels, and higher concentrations of ethnic 

minorities among the unemployed. Lower education levels were 

also the dominant factor in the below-average reading and writing 

rates shown by those who had retired from the labor force. 

Those who were full-time homemakers had average rates of 

literature reading, about the same as those who worked full-time 

at paid jobs. Given that most of the homemakers were women, 

however, the literary participation rates were lower than would be 

expected. The demands of homemaking and childrearing may have 

played a role here. 

The small group that was not in the labor force because they 

were disabled showed the lowest rates of literary participation. This 

group had high proportions of older members with little education and members of minority ethnic groups. In addition, some 

of the people in this group had disabilities that made it difficult 

or impossible for them to read. 

Occupational Group 

The type of occupation at which a person worked showed a 

moderately strong relationship with literature reading. White collar workers were generally above average in their reading habits, 

whereas blue collar workers were below average. For those in 

professional occupations, such as medicine, law, and college teaching, for example, the odds were about three-to-one that they had 

read a work of literature in the past 12 months. For sales and clerical workers, the odds were about two-to-one. On the other hand, 

for those in the skilled crafts, such as electricians, machinists, 

mechanics, and tool and die makers, the odds were about six-tofour against their having read literature. And for laborers, the odds 

were two-to-one against. Service workers, such as waiters, barbers, 

dental assistants, and flight attendants, were intermediate. The odds 

that they had read some literature were slightly better than 50-50, 

about the same as the national average. Similar relationships were 

found with poetry reading and creative writing. (Table 16.) 

Of course, a person’s occupation is closely related to his or 
Factors That Affect Literary Participation 65 

TABLE 16. Relationship Between Occupational Class and Literature Reading, 

Poetry Reading, Creative Writing, and Book or Magazine Reading in Last 12 

Months, U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 1985. 

Proportion of Population Group Who... 

Did Read 

Read Read Creative Books, 

Literature Poetry Writing Magazines 

ALL ADULTS 56% 19% 6% 86% 

Observed Proportions 

OCCUPATIONAL CLASS 

Professional 76% 34% 19% 98% 

Managerial 71% 22% I I% 93% 

Sales, Clerical 67% 22% 5% 94% 

Service Workers 54% 21% II % 86% 

Craftsmen 42% 13% 3% 86% 

Operatives 37% 9% 2% 68 % 

Laborers 36% 7% 0% 81% 

Adjusted Proportions 

OCCUPATIONAL CLASS 

Professional 60% 26% 14% 90% 

Managerial 62% 16% 8% 87% 

Sales, Clerical 60% 18% 3% 90% 

Service Workers 57% 20% 10% 90% 

Craftsmen 53 % 18 % 5 % 90% 

Operatives 48 % 13 % 4 % 76 % 

Laborers 48% I I% 2% 88% 

Note: Adjusted proportions derived through multiple classification analysis.
 

Proportions adjusted to compensate for variations across groups in age, sex,
 

education, income, ethnic composition, and other background characteristics.
 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1985 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts. MCA analysis results 

derived from: Robinson, John R, et al., Public Participation in the 

Arts: Final Report on the 1985 Survey, College Park, MD: University of Maryland Survey Research Center, December 1986, Tables 3.3, 

3.4, 5.3a & b, and 5.4a & b. 
66 Who Reads Literature? 

her educational attainment and income level. Thus, much of the 

variation in reading habits across occupational classes could be 

attributed to these factors, rather than to occupation per se. When 

education, income, and other background factors were taken into 

account, the differences among occupational classes were considerably reduced. Some significant variation remained, though. The 

adjusted odds were about six-to-four in favor of a person having 

read literature if he or she were a professional, manager, or clerical employee, whereas they were slightly less than 50-50 if the 

person were an operative (such as a truck driver) or a laborer. 

Marital Status 

At first glance, there seemed to be only a weak and somewhat inconsistent relationship between a person’s marital situation 

and his or her literature reading habits. Marital categories that contained a predominance of younger persons, namely the never married and separated, were slightly higher in literary participation, 

whereas the widowed, a group comprising mostly older persons, 

showed relatively low rates of reading and writing. The observed 

differences, however, appeared to be more a matter of age and education than of nuptial status. (Table 17.) After controlling for age, 

education, and race, a small but interesting difference emerged: 

people who were separated (but not those who were divorced) had 

slightly higher rates of literature reading, poetry reading, and creative writing, than people in the other marital categories. These findings suggest that people tend to turn to literature to help deal with 

the personal crisis of marital separation. 

Presence of Children 

Taking care of children can be time consuming. Time use surveys have shown that parents of young children, especially mothers, 

spend less time in eating, sleeping, and non-child-related recreational activities than adults without children.49 In the 1985 SPPA 

data, however, there seemed to be little difference between the literature reading habits of adults with children and those of adults without children. After controlling for education, age, and other 

demographic factors, a small but significant difference did emerge, 

with parents of children under 6 years of age showing slightly lower 
Factors That Affect Literary Participation 67 

TABLE 17. Relationship Between Marital Status and Literature Reading, Poetry Reading, Creative Writing, and Book or Magazine Reading in Last 12 

Months, U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 1985. 

Proportion of Population Group Who... 

Did Read 

Read Read Creative Books, 

Literature Poetry Writing Magazines 

ALL ADULTS 56% 19% 6% 86% 

Observed Proportions 

MARITAL STATUS 

Never Married 57% 22% It % 86%
 

Married 56% 18% S% 87%
 

Separated 55 % 27 % I 0 % 84 %
 

Divorced 57 % 13 % 6 % 87 %
 

Widowed 49% IS% 0% 80%
 

Adjusted Proportions 

MARITAL STATUS 

Never Married 55% 19% 9% 83 % 

Married 56% 19% 6% 86% 

Separated 60% 29% 10% 89% 

Divorced 56% 14% 6% 89% 

Widowed 57% 19% 4°/0 87% 

Note: Adjusted proportions derived through multiple classification analysis. 

Proportions adjusted to compensate for variations across groups in age, sex, 

education, income, ethnic composition, and other background characteristics. 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts, and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1985 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts. MCA analysis results 

derived from: Robinson, John R, et al., Public Partiopation in the 

Arts: Final Report on the 1985 Survey, College Park, MD: University of Maryland Survey Research Center, December 1986, Tables 3.3, 

3.4, 5.3a & b, and 5.4a & b. 
68 Who Reads Literature? 

TABLE 18. Relationship Between Parental Status and Literature Reading, Poetry Reading, Creative Writing, and Book or Magazine Reading in Last 12 

Months, U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 1985. 

Proportion of Population Group Who... 

Did Read 

Read Read Creative Books, 

Literature Poetry Writing Magazines 

ALL ADULTS 56% 19% 6% 86% 

PRESENCE AND Observed Proportions 

AGE OF CHILDREN 

No children at home 56% 19% 6% 85% 

One child under 6 53% 15% 7% 90% 

Two children under 6 54% 18% 5% 87% 

One child 6-11 57% 17% 8% 84% 

Two children 6-11 61% 20% 9% 92% 

PRESENCE AND Adjusted Proportions 

AGE OF CHILDREN 

No children at home 57% 20% 6% 85% 

One child under 6 50% 13% 5% 88% 

Two children under 6 51% 18% 5% 83% 

One child 6-11 55% 17% 8% 84% 

Two children 6-11 57% 19% 10% 89% 

Note: Adjusted proportions derived through multiple classification analysis. 

Proportions adjusted to compensate for variations across groups in age, sex, 

education, income, ethnic composition, and other background characteristics. 

For simplicity, groups with older children have been omitted. 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1985 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts. MCA analysis results 

derived from: Robinson, John R, et al., Public Partiopation in the 

Arts." Final Report on the 1985 Survey, College Park, MD: University of Maryland Survey Research Center, December 1986, Tables 3.3, 

3.4, 5.3a & b, and 5.4a & b. 
Factors That Mfect Literary Participation 69 

rates of literature and poetry reading than parents of children 6 

and older, or non-parents. (Table 18.) The differences might have 

been greater if the survey had measured the number of books read, 

rather than just the fact of having read literature or not. 

Of course, for some adults, having children serves to bring 

them back into contact with literature or to increase their reading, 

at least of children’s and youth-oriented books. In the BISG survey of book reading, more than a quarter of all adult fiction 

readers--or 10 percent of all adults--had read a juvenile or children’s book in the last six months. Presumably much of this was 

parents reading to young children or reading aloud with older children. Reading to a child was also the third leading reason (after 

reading for pleasure and general knowledge) that fiction readers 

gave for reading. This reason was cited by 29 percent of the fiction readers.5° 

The Role of Television 

Television watching is often cited as an activity that competes 

with reading and as a major reason why people do not read more 

literature. Yet television can be a spur to purchasing books and 

reading, as when an author appears on a talk show, a book is made 

into a television program or movie, or is advertised on television 

or mentioned or reviewed on a cultural program. In the BISG survey on book reading, respondents were asked to rate the importance of various factors in selecting books to read and purchase. 

"Seeing a movie or TV show based on the book" was among the 

top eight reasons for selecting a book, rated as "very important" 

by more than a quarter of the readers, and at least "somewhat important" by 60 percent of them.5~ 

Adults interviewed in the SPPA were asked to report the number 

of hours they watched television on an average day. In the 1985 

survey, close to 30 percent of all respondents reported that they 

watched 4 or more hours per day, which is here categorized as a 

"heavy" viewing pattern. About a quarter said they watched less 

than 2 hours per day ("light" viewing). The remainder, about 45 

percent, watched between 2 and 4 hours ("moderate" viewing). 

A similar viewing breakdown was obtained in the 1982 SPPA. (Table 

19.) 
 

70 Who Reads Literature? 

TABLE 19. Amounts of Daily Television Viewing Reported by U.S. ~lults Aged 

18 and Over, 1982 and 1985. 

Estimated Number of 

Percent Distribution Viewers in Population 

1985 1982 1985 1982 

TELEVISION VIEWING 

Light (<2 Hrs/Day) 25.6% 24.0% 43.5 mil. 39.3 mil. 

Moderate /2-3 Hrs) 45.9% 44.8% 78. I 73.3 

Heavy (4 Hrs plus) 28.5% 31.2% 48.5 51.1 

Total 100.0% 100.0% 170.1 mil. 163.7 mil. 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts andU.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1982 and 1985 Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations by N. Zill and M. Winglee from public use data files. 

TABLE 20. Relationship Between Television Viewing and Literature Reading, 

Poetry Reading, Creative Writing, and Book or Magazine Reading in Last 12 

Months, U.S. Adults Aged 18 and Over, 1982 and 1985. 

Proportion of Population Group Who... 

Did Read 

Read Read Creative Books, 

Literature Poetry Writing Magazines 

1982 Data 

ALL ADULTS 56.4% 19.8% 6.5% 84. 1% 

TELEVISION VIEWING 

Light (<2 Hrs/Day) 

Moderate (2-3 Hrs) 

61.9% 

58.8% 

28.8% 

21. 1% 

9.5% 

6.7% 

81.2% 

86.5% 

Heavy (4 Hrs plus) 49.9% 14.6% 4.8% 79.3% 

1985 Data 

ALL ADULTS 56.0% 

TELEVISION VIEWING
 

Light (< 2 Hrs/Day) 59.6%
 

Moderate (2-3 Hrs) 56.4%
 n.a. n.a. n.a. 

Heavy (4 Hrs plus) 52.9% 

SOURCE: National Endowment for the Arts and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 

1982 and 1985 Surveys of Public Participation in the Arts, tabulations by N, Zill and P1. Winglee from public use data files. 
Faclors That Affect Literary Participation 71 

When the reports of TV watching were cross-tabulated with 

reports of literature reading, a negative but relatively weak relationship between reading and viewing emerged. In the 1985 data, 

the odds that "light" TV viewers had read a work of literature in 

the last 12 months were slightly better than average, about six-tofour. For "heavy" viewers, on the other hand, the odds were slightly 

below average, about 50-50. "Moderate" television viewers were 

about average in their literature reading propensity. 

A similar but slightly stronger relationship was obtained with 

the 1982 survey data. (Table 20.) These data also permitted an analysis of the association between TV viewing and the other literary 

participation measures, which was not possible with the 1985 survey. Both poetry reading and creative writing showed negative relationships with time watching television, with the relationship for 

poetry being slightly stronger. Light TV viewers were twice as likely 

to have read poetry or done some creative writing as heavy viewers. Interestingly, the relationship between TV viewing and the reading of books and magazines was curvilinear, with the moderate 

viewing group showing a slightly higher proportion of readers than 

either the light or heavy viewing groups. This could be because 

poorly educated non-readers are apt to be either heavy viewers of 

television or non-viewers. 

Countervailing tendencies. It may be that the overall association between TV viewing and literature reading is not stronger because there are opposing tendencies at work. As noted earlier, those 

who are active in one type of leisure activity tend to be active in 

other types as well. Some people simply do more than others, even 

though everyone is constrained by the number of hours in the day. 

This phenomenon is recognized in the saying, "If you want something done, ask the busy person to do it." We also know that there 

are large individual differences in reading speed. Moreover, timeuse studies tell us that television watching is often done as a secondary activity; i.e., something that goes on while other activities 

are occurring.52 

At some level, however, there must be a trade-off between one 

form of media participation and other forms. It seems likely that 

the trade-off between television and literature reading would be 

more visible if additional information about the types and quanti­
72 Who Reads Literature? 

ty of reading done were available in the survey, or if the television 

viewers were further subdivided, into selective and non-selective 

viewers, for example. 
Chapter 4
 

Expanding the Audience.
 

What Can Be Done?
 

The State of Literature Reading 

The survey results reported here contain both good and bad news 

for those who would like to see literature in America not only survive but flourish. The major piece of good news is that despite 

concerns about illiteracy and aliteracy in the United States, more 

than half of all American adults report that they have read some 

fiction, poetry, or drama within the last year. Levels of reading 

in the U.S. seem to be comparable to those in Great Britain and, 

as far as can be determined, other industrialized countries. In addition, general education levels have risen, recent generations of 

adults are more likely than older generations to have been encouraged to read as children, and growing numbers of people have 

been exposed to creative writing classes. 

The surveys indicate that older adults are less likely to be readers of literature than middle-aged or young adults. However, the 

differences in reading propensities appear to be more a function 

of older citizens’ lower education levels than of age per se, imply­
74 Who Reads Literature? 

ing that literature reading levels among the elderly should go up 

in the future as the current cohorts of elders are replaced by the 

more educated senior citizens of tomorrow. 

Other aspects of the survey results are less heartening. Followup questions asking what people meant when they said they had 

read novels or short stories revealed that some of the reports were 

erroneous and most involved the reading of lightweight, genre fiction (thrillers, romances, science fiction, horror stories, etc.) as 

opposed to more significant and enduring works. Of the 56 percent of adults who reported reading fiction, poetry, or drama within 

a 12-month period, less than half had read works of literary merit, 

comprising between a tenth and a quarter of the adult population. 

Moreover, the audience for meritorious contemporary works appeared to be smaller still, constituting something like 7 to 12 percent of all adults. Thus, although most Americans can and do read, 

followers of serious literature are distinctly in the minority. 

Another discouraging finding is that while literature reading 

is likely to increase among older Americans, it seems to be decreasing among young adults. Data from several surveys point to a decline during the 1970s and 1980s in the frequency of reading among 

those under the age of 30. Literature has also become an art that 

is neglected by men and dominated by women. As of the mid-1980s, 

women made up nearly 60 percent of the readers, and almost twothirds of the would-be writers of literature. 

Whereas women are overrepresented, ethnic minorities continue to be underrepresented in the audience for literature. Despite 

the growing visibility and influence of Black and Hispanic writers, 

less than 45 percent of Black or Hispanic adults reported reading 

fiction, poetry, or drama. Their lower reading rates are largely attributable to their lower average education levels. But even when 

they have equivalent years of schooling, national testing programs 

have found that Black and Hispanic youths are less adept readers 

than non-minority young people. Blacks and Hispanic adults have 

had less exposure to creative writing classes than white adults, and, 

as children, Hispanics were less apt to have been encouraged to 

read by their parents. 

The survey finding that may be most disappointing, however, 

is the simple fact that large numbers of American adults--44 
Expanding the Audience: What Can Be Done? 75 

percent--do not read literature at all. Most of the non-readers of 

literature know how to read. They have completed high school and 

been exposed to at least some instruction in literature appreciation. Yet they read nothing in the way of fiction, poetry, or drama. 

Why is it that literature in general and quality literature in particular are not read more widely? What can be done to encourage such 

reading? 

Why Quality Literature Is Not Read More Widely 

Three broad explanations can be suggested for why literature of 

merit is not read more widely: a shortage of readers who appreciate good literature, a dearth of writers who can communicate to 

a mass audience while maintaining high literary standards, and a 

need for more resources and knowledge to be applied to the promotion of literary works. Much attention has been paid of late to 

developments relevant to the first category; i.e., to changes in our 

educational system and broader society that may be producing fewer 

citizens who appreciate good literature and free art. These developments are of legitimate concern to all who value the arts and humanities. When it comes to recommending steps to increase the 

audience for literature, however, the suggestions that seem most 

feasible to carry out fall mainly in the third category. 

Readers Who Don’t Appreciate 

Is American society turning out fewer adults nowadays who 

have the skills and inclination to appreciate serious literature? Commentators on the U.S. cultural scene have pointed to a number of 

social trends that may be having stultifying effects on the enjoyment of literature, and on the appreciation of other arts and humanities as well. 

Educational deterioration. Many critics claim that the U.S. 

educational system has deteriorated, and that high schools and colleges are doing a poor job of transmitting the Western cultural heritage to students. The schools have been accused of not teaching 

the skills required to appreciate great literature and art, not giving 

students a solid grounding in the classics, not nurturing a love for 

language, not requiring memorization of great poetry and prose, 
76 Who Reads Literature? 

allowing students to get away with careless writing, and other failings.53 Research findings lend some support to these criticisms, 

but the picture is more complex than usually portrayed. 

As is now well known, the College Entrance Examination 

Board’s Scholastic Aptitude Tests and other nationwide testing programs gave evidence of significant deterioration in student knowledge and proficiency during the late 1960s and 1970s. Not only 

did average test scores go down but also fewer students displayed 

high levels of achievement in either verbal or quantitative skills. 

Test scores have recovered somewhat during the 1980s, but the 

achievement levels of today’s college-bound students are still significantly lower than those of comparable students in the early 

1960s.54 

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has 

found that today’s high school students know relatively little about 

modem American literature, even though most have received instruction in literature appreciation.55 Earlier assessments showed 

that student attitudes about reading literature become progressively 

more negative as one goes from elementary school to junior high 

to high school students.56 In 1985, NAEP assessed the literacy 

skills of young adults (ages 21-25) and found that 95 percent could 

read and understand the printed word, but only a small percentage 

could understand complex material. For example, only 9 percent 

of the young adults could understand an unfamiliar and rather subtle 

short poem by Emily Dickinson well enough to explain what the 

poet was trying to express.57 

There is other research evidence, however, that casts literature instruction in U.S. schools in a more favorable light. For one 

thing, U.S. schools are now at least trying to educate minority students who were written off in the past and are still relatively neglected by educational systems in other nations. NAEP and other testing 

programs have shown that significant progress has been made during 

the last two decades in raising the basic reading and writing skills 

of Black and Hispanic students.58 In an international comparison 

of literature education in ten countries, Alan Purves and his colleagues found that "The United States brings a higher proportion 

of its age cohort farther along in reading than any other country 

in the sample without the best students suffering.’’59 Overall, U.S. 
Expanding the Audience: What Cau Be Done? 77 

students did not fare badly in international tests of literature achievement, although their achievement was not quite as good as that 

of British students in some areas and the U.S. students displayed 

more negative attitudes toward literature than students in other countries. Analyses of the international test results showed that home 

background was at least as important as school factors in accounting for individual differences in literature achievement. The analyses also called into question some of the prescriptions that have 

been made for improving literature instruction. It was found, for 

example, that students who did not frequently have to recite literature from memory performed better than those who did.6° 

Evidence from the College Board Achievement Testing Program indicates that the study of literature may be growing more 

popular, and U.S. high schools seem to be holding their own in 

teaching literature appreciation to the best students. The number 

of students who took the Literature Achievement Test increased 

by nearly 50 percent between 1980-1981 and 1985-1986 (going from 

15,556 to 22,955 students), and the mean score on the test increased 

slightly (from 516 to 524) over the same interval.* However, only 

a small and rather select fraction of college bound students take 

the Literature Test. (In 1985-1986 there were more than 1.6 million who took the Scholastic Aptitude Test, 191 thousand, the English Composition Test, and more than 40 thousand, the American 

History Test.)6l 

Technological change and cultural decay. In contrast to those 

who blame our educational system for failing to maintain interest 

in literature, other observers point to profound cultural and technological changes that have occurred in our society and say it is 

unfair to expect the schools to overcome the negative effects of these 

developments.62 Among the trends that may be working to the 

detriment of literature appreciation are: 

the increased availability of alternative forms of entertainment, not only television and movies, but also newspapers 

with a variety of feature articles, specialty magazines, electronic games and personal computers, music videos, etc.; 

*Changes in test composition make it inadvisable to compare mean scores from 

the 1980s with those from Literature Achievement Tests given in earlier years. 
78 Who Reads Literature? 

 ̄ the explosion of scientific and technical knowledge, which 

has caused jargon to proliferate and compels the citizen 

who wants to be reasonably well-informed to spend more 

time reading factual material rather than literature; 

 ̄ the breakdown of generally-accepted standards of artistic 

quality and taste in the face of challenges by avant-garde 

writers and artists, civil libertarians, ethnic minorities, 

feminists, and others;63 

 ̄ the emergence of a youth-oriented entertainment industry 

that is blatantly vulgar and anti-intellectual, and that 

produces and promotes rock music, movies, and television 

shows aimed explicitly at the teenage and young adult audience;64 

 ̄ the advent of a so-called "lite era," in which the mass media and commercial advertising have trained viewers and 

readers of all ages to be impatient with any work that requires serious and sustained attention. 

Although it certainly seems plausible that some or all of these 

developments could have an effect on the reading and appreciation of literature, there has been no systematic research demonstrating connections between these trends and changes in literary 

participation. 

The influence of television. Aside from the deterioration of the 

educational system, the emergence of television as the dominant 

medium of U.S. mass communication is most often cited as having a degrading influence on American civilization. Television 

programming has been described as addictive fare that is designed 

primarily to keep viewers watching through the commercials, thus 

taking up time that might otherwise be spent in reading or other 

more constructive pursuits. Television has also been accused of 

satiating the public appetite for narrative with "empty calories" 

instead of intellectual substance, of reducing public taste to the 

lowest common denominator, and of failing to challenge, inspire, 

or enlighten the viewer. It could be argued as well that television 

has lured writers who might produce works of broad and enduring appeal away from serious writing and into more lucrative but 

ephemeral projects, such as scripts for soap operas, situation come­
Expauding the Audience: What Can Be Done? 79 

dies, and made-for-TV movies. 

Only a weak negative association was found in the SPPA data 

between television viewing and literature reading, but there is little doubt that the advent of television has had profound effects on 

our cultural life.65 Again, however, research that convincingly 

demonstrates links between television and trends in literary participation remains to be done. 

Writers Who Don’t Communicate 

Some have argued that at least part of the blame for the relatively small audiences that contemporary literature and art command must be laid at the feet of the writers and artists themselves. 

The popular appeal of literature and the other arts has certainly 

been affected by the separation of the serious writer, painter, or 

composer from any sort of integral role in the operation or 

ceremonial life of the society. 

Just how far artistic alienation has come is illustrated by a recent incident in which the late Robert Penn Warren, who was then 

serving as poet laureate of the United States, expressed indignation at the suggestion that he might produce a poem or two on national or patriotic themes during his tenure as laureate.66 Instead 

of feeling honored that he was being called on to be the poetic voice 

of the nation, he apparently felt affronted by the notion. Warren 

is certainly not alone in rejecting the role of people’s spokesman. 

Many contemporary writers and artists feel no obligation to deal 

with themes that might be of concern and interest to large numbers of their fellow citizens, or to make their work understandable, let alone entertaining, to any but the cognoscenti. It is scarcely 

surprising then, that the public chooses to stay away in droves from 

the work of these writers and artists. 

The current situation was eloquently summarized by publisher Dan Lacy in a 1980 talk at the Center for the Book in the Library of Congress. Lacy observed that: 

The achievement of that communion between author and 

reader, artist and viewer, composer and audience by which 

creation is consummated depends on the possession of 

a common vocabulary of words and forms and structures 
80 Who Reads Literature? 

of meaning. Over the years this common coin grows worn 

with use so that the freshness and force of communication is blurred and dimmed. Young writers and painters 

and composers yearn to shatter them for new forms that, 

they feel, will better express their meaning. Better express indeed, but not better convey that meaning if the 

new-minted forms are not part of the audience’s currency. Communion fails, full creation is aborted, and the artist’s work in whatever field becomes a solipsism, to which 

he retreats with a greater willingness because of his growing contempt for and alienation from society. 

One senses today how few are the artists in any field, 

at any adequate level of competence, who feel the strong 

central currents of society surge through them to shape 

their work--in the sense that Shakespeare and Haydn and 

da Vinci felt at one with their times. In another day even 

those creators and thinkers who felt most alienated and 

hostile to the dominant forces of their times--such as Karl 

Marx, Zola, or Brecht--yet felt society itself important-­

quite literally terribly important--and themselves and their 

work important in challenging it. They were therefore 

called forth to their utmost not only to express but to convey their meanings, to reach minds, to engage themselves 

to the fullest with the life of their time--whether as its 

voice or its foe. I do not find it so today.67 

Publishers Who Don’t Promote 

In addition to the large-scale social changes described above, 

there are more mundane reasons why contemporary literature is 

not more widely read. These reasons have to do with a lack of 

resources devoted to the promotion of literary books and deficiencies in their packaging, advertising, and distribution. In these areas, 

there are actions available to private firms and public organizations that might help to boost the sales and readership of contemporary works of merit. 

As things now stand, relatively little money or effort is spent 

on publishing literary books, especially in comparison to the large 

amounts spent promoting television programs, movies, popular 
Expanding the Audience: Wha! Can Be Done? 81 

magazines, and other mass media products that compete with books 

for the reader’s attention. The modest resources that are invested 

in promotion tend to be spent in standard ways: sending the author on a book tour, distributing free copies to reviewers and prominent individuals who might provide testimonials, placing 

advertisements in literary magazines or the book review sections 

of newspapers, etc. Most of these methods consist largely of preaching to the converted rather than trying to make new disciples from 

among those who read only popular fiction, those who do not read 

literature at all, or those from ethnic minorities and other social 

groups who are underrepresented in the literary audience. 

There is, to be sure, a good commercial reason why more promotion is not done: the money to support it is not there. As mentioned earlier, most volumes of serious fiction, poetry, and drama 

do not sell many copies, even if they have received excellent reviews. 

Publishing these works is typically a losing or marginally profitable proposition. More promotion might lead to more sales, but in 

most cases the risks involved seem to be too great or the projected 

sales too small to warrant the investment of additional resources. 

Efforts to publicize literary works more widely could, of course, be 

subsidized by the profits (if any) that publishers make on their more 

successful books, or through promotional campaigns conducted 

by libraries and booksellers, by cash and in-kind contributions from 

corporations, and by grants from private foundations or public agencies.* All of these forms of subsidy are now customary in the performing arts, and there seems little reason why they should not 

be applied more widely to the art of literature. In addition to the 

need for more resources devoted to promotion, however, promotional efforts should be better informed by knowledge about why 

people read and how they go about selecting the particular books 

they do. 

Applying Research to Encourage Literature Reading 

A number of steps could be taken to apply research findings to 

the process of disseminating information about new and classic 

*The NEA’s Literature Program does provide a small amount of support, on an 

annual basis through matching grants, for "audience development projects". These 

include literary promotion projects, small press bookfairs, radio programs, etc. 
82 Who Reads Literature? 

books. Illustrative suggestions are offered in the following paragraphs. 

Paying attention to subject matter. One research result that has 

received insufficient attention from those who sell and lend books 

is that one of the main reasons people choose to read the books 

they do is because they are interested in the subject matter dealt 

with in the books and are seeking to expand their general information about the time, place, people, or events in question.68 This 

finding applies to the reading of both fiction and non-fiction. Yet 

most bookstores and libraries are organized as if the reasons for 

reading fiction were entirely separate and distinct from those for 

reading non-fiction. Fiction and non-fiction works are kept in different areas and there is no easy way for someone who is interested 

in, say, browsing through novels about the U.S. Civil War to do 

so. A display or shelving system that brought together fiction and 

non-fiction books on given topics might well tempt the person who 

is interested in a subject, but who does not ordinarily read fiction, 

to buy or borrow a novel that deals with the subject. Likewise, 

in advertising a new work of fiction that deals with a given subject or period, publishers could make use of special interest periodicals and mailing lists that would reach those with a proven 

interest in the subject or period. At present, this is rarely done. 

Guiding readers to books they are likely to enjoy. Book research has shown that fiction readers could use more information 

to help guide their selection of books to read. For example, a study 

by Nicholas Spenceley and Peter Mann found that it was not uncommon for library patrons to borrow a novel just because it looked 

interesting on the shelf, without prior knowledge of the author or 

title. When they did this, however, they wound up having a positive reaction to the book only 40 percent of the time.69 This was 

well below the satisfaction levels of readers who had more specific information about the title or author prior to borrowing a book. 

This suggests that in order to increase the chances of reader satisfaction, which would, in turn, lead to more reading of contemporary literature, librarians, publishers, and literature programs 

should be providing potential readers with more guidance of the 

following sort: "If you enjoyed (Book A), you’re likely to enjoy 

(Books B, C, and D)." Moreover, it would be preferable if this gui­
Expanding the Audience: What Can Be Done? 83 

dance were based on actual surveys of reader satisfaction, rather 

than on the judgment of individual experts or the desires of publishers to plug particular titles in their catalogs. 

Getting genre fans to read quality fiction. It would appear that 

more could be done to encourage the readers of genre fiction to 

explore more serious literary works. One way of doing this is to 

establish, through research, which works of quality literature are 

apt to appeal to readers of a particular genre, and then to publicize 

those works through advertisements and outlets that are likely to 

reach the genre readers. Other steps that might be taken are to give 

public recognition to those writers of thrillers, romances, science 

fiction, etc., whose novels or short stories evince superior literary 

qualities, and to encourage good writers who are not widely read 

to attempt some genre or genre-like writing in order to build a bigger 

following for their work. 

Using newspapers to reach non-readers of literature. Surveys 

show that one way to reach people who read but do not read literature is through newspapers and news magazines, suggesting that 

more should be done to publicize new books and promote literature reading in general through newspapers.* Books could also be 

advertised more extensively in newspapers, and not just in the book 

review sections. As is done for the performing arts, newspapers 

might be persuaded to run a regular literary "billboard" that combined small advertisements for a number of different books in one 

section, with the advertising space being sold at reduced rates. Literature programs could also encourage newspapers to run more feature articles about books and authors, to bring back the serialization 

of quality fiction in their pages, and to print more poems, particularly ones that are relatively accessible to readers who have not 

been steeped in Ezra Pound and Wallace Stevens. 

Employing television more effectively. Increasing the amount 

of television publicity for serious literature does not mean simply 

getting more authors on talk shows, for authors’ appearances do 

not always enhance book sales. Valuable principles can be learned, though, from programs that have been successful at encourag­

*One attempt to do this is the PEN Syndicated Fiction Project, which has placed 

short stories in major newspapers across the country since 1978. 
84 Who Reads Literature? 

ing reading and stimulating book sales. These include the children’s 

reading series Cover to Cover and Reading Rainbow, and the adultoriented book review program, Bookmark. Among the lessons these 

shows teach are to select the books to be featured carefully, choosing ones that have both high quality and wide appeal, to present 

excerpts from the books’ stories on the show, with illustrations or 

dramatizations that help to involve the viewer, and to ensure that 

the viewer can obtain the books without great difficulty. (The last 

point includes making certain that the book is still in print.) 

Supporting promising developments in book marketing. Literature support programs should also be making efforts to identify, 

encourage, and disseminate information about promising innovations in the marketing and distribution of literary books. Two recent examples of developments that may make a difference in the 

sales and readership of today’s literature are the proliferation of 

book discussion groups and the emergence of the trade paperback 

series. 

Book discussion groups are small gatherings of adults who 

assign themselves a series of common readings and get together 

regularly to discuss the books and socialize. These groups, which 

have apparently become fairly popular in a number of metropolitan areas, are a perfect mechanism for expanding the range of people 

who read modern literature as well as the number of books read. 

Libraries and publishers could help to suggest and supply reading 

matter for these groups and stimulate the formation of more such 

groups. 

Trade paperback series, such as Vintage Contemporaries, 

Scribners Signature Editions, and Penguin Contemporary American Fiction, are a group of original or reprinted novels by different contemporary authors that are published in higher-priced 

paperbound editions with an imprint name and a uniform cover 

format. Books in the series also appear together in special bookstore displays, and these displays are often prominently exhibited 

in both local literary bookstores and in chain stores. Novels published in these series have sold 10-to-20 times as many copies as 

the typical literary novel that comes out in an individual hard-cover 

edition. Although some critics have qualms about books being 

bought and sold by "brand name" rather than on their individual 
Expanding the Audience: What Cam Be Done? 85 

merits, this marketing innovation seems to have given a number 

of serious authors a substantial boost in readership.7° 

Promoting both established and developing authors. It might 

seem logical to focus publicity efforts for contemporary literature 

on authors whose works have artistic distinction but little hope of 

commercial success. Promotional efforts for writers like John Barth, 

Joan Didion, Joseph Heller, Anne Tyler, John Updike, Gore Vidal, or Tom Wolfe seem unnecessary because their names are widely 

known in literary circles and their books usually sell quite well 

in comparison with most works of serious fiction. Yet, if the goal 

is to expand the audience for contemporary literature beyond its 

current bounds, promoting established as well as struggling authors 

might well be in order. It is likely that the aforementioned writers 

and their works are not familiar to most members of the public 

at large, as demonstrated by the 1984 poll showing that most Americans did not recognize the name George Orwell. Moreover, the 

number of people who buy or borrow even a best-selling book by 

one of these authors is small in comparison with the number of 

college-educated adults in the U.S. or the number of people who 

watch a prime-time television show. Thus, the notion of including 

such prominent authors in literature promotion campaigns is far 

from ridiculous. Indeed, their inclusion would seem to be a sensible way to get more people reading quality literature. 

In conclusion, it seems possible that the readership of contemporary fiction, poetry, and drama could be greatly increased 

if more private and public resources were devoted to the encouragement of literature reading and if promotional efforts made better 

use of research knowledge about why people read and how they 

select the books that they do. Ways in which research fmdings could 

be applied include paying more attention to the importance of subject matter in people’s selections of books to read, providing potential buyers and borrowers with guidance about books they are likely 

to enjoy, encouraging fans of genre fiction to explore more serious literary works, using newspapers to reach a wide array of readers 

(including those who do not currently read literature), employing 

television more effectively to promote books, supporting such 
86 Who Reads hil~rature? 

promising new developments as book discussion groups and trade 

paperback series, and promoting works by established as well as 

developing authors. 

The actions suggested above will not work wonders. In the 

long run, the viability and reach of the literary enterprise depends 

less on marketing techniques than on how well our society can cultivate readers with the skills and sensibilities to appreciate great 

literature and writers with the craft and imagination to entertain, 

challenge, and enlighten large numbers of their compatriots. Given the current situation, however, with many potential readers in 

the population but few reading serious works on any but an occasional basis, it does seem that increased investment in promotional efforts would produce a notable and much needed expansion in 

the audience for literature. 
TECHNICAL APPENDIX 

How well can we predict whether a person will be a literature reader, 

knowing basic facts about him or her such as age, sex, race, education, income, and place of residence? The statistical method used 

to answer this question was logistic regression analysis. 1 Like linear discriminant analysis, logistic regression finds a weighted combination of characteristics that best accounts for the observed 

distribution of people into two mutually exclusive classes (in this 

case, readers and non-readers). Unlike linear models, however, 

logistic regression fits the data to a curve or, in multiple dimensions, a curved solid, rather than a straight line or rectilinear 

solid.2 

Specifically, let the dependent variable, Y, be equal to one if 

the person is a reader, and zero if he or she is not. Then the probability, Pi, that the ith individual is a reader, is represented by the 

equation: 

Pi = 1/{1 + eI-~ -=j~xij,~j)l} 

where e is the base of the natural logarithms, alpha is the intercept 

term, and ~j is the regression weight for the jth predictor varia­
88 Who Reads Literature? 

ble. The optimal values of the a and/~ weights are derived using 

the modified Gauss-Newton method of maximum-likelihood estimation. (The LOGIST computer program in the SAS statistical 

software package was used to develop the models.)3 

Logistic regression has several advantages over linear regression for predicting dichotomous outcomes like literature reading. 

First, the logistic model is inherently interactive in its depiction 

of the relationships among the predictor and criterion variable and, 

as such, is probably closer to the underlying reality than is the 

simple additive model of linear regression.4 Second, it is often 

more difficult to achieve an increase in the probability of occurrence of an outcome at the extremes of its probability distribution 

(i.e., when the probability is very low or very high). The logistic 

model is able to accomodate such "floor and ceiling" effects. Linear 

regression, by contrast, assumes that a unit change in the value 

of the predictor variable will produce a constant level of change 

regardless of where one is on the probability distribution of the 

dependent variable.5 

Third, logistic regression always yields predicted probabilities between 0 and 1. Linear regression, on the other hand, can 

produce predicted values beyond 0 and 1, in effect predicting probabilities below zero and in excess of 100 percent. Finally, the logistic 

model makes fewer assumptions about the underlying distributions 

of variables (e.g., no multivariate normality assumption for covariates). When distributional assumptions are violated, logistic regression still yields unbiased estimates of the standard errors of 

coefficients, whereas ordinary least squares regression may not. 

Appendix Table I summarizes the restflts of multiple logistic 

regressions performed on data from the 1982 and 1985 Survey of 

Public Participation in the Arts. The dependent variable was whether 

or not the respondent reported reading literature during the previous twelve months. The independent variables were the respondent’s age (in single years), sex (coded "1" if female, "0" if male), 

race (coded "1" if black, "0" if non-black), educational attainment (years of regular school completed), income (total dollars, 

broken down into 14 categories), central city residence (coded ’T’ 

if the respondent lived in the central city of a metropolitan area, 

"0" otherwise), and non-metropolitan residence (coded ’T’ if the 
respondent lived outside any metropolitan area, "0" if inside the 

suburbs or central city of a metropolitan area). Independent models 

were developed for the 1982 and 1985 surveys. 

The top panel of the table shows the contribution of each demographic characteristic to the prediction of literature reading. The 

middle panel gives the computed regression coefficients and their 

standard errors. The bottom panel presents several measures of the 

predictive accuracy of the model. 

A chi-square test was performed to assess whether the logisticregression model gave a discernibly better prediction than a model based on the presumption of no association between the predictors and the criterion. A statistic called R, derived from the model 

chi-square, is one measure of the overall predictive ability of the 

model. The R statistic is similar to the multiple correlation coefficient in the normal setting, and incorporates a correction for the 

number of parameters being estimated. 

Individual r statistics ("partial rs") were computed for each 

predictor variable. Ranging in value from -1 to +1, the partial 

r provides a measure of the contribution of each variable to the 

prediction, net of the effects of the other predictors. In the top panel 

of Appendix Table I, the independent variables are listed in rank 

order, based on the relative sizes of their partial correlation coefficients. Rank correlation coefficients showing the unadjusted relationship between each predictor and the criterion are presented for 

comparison. 

Once the best-fitting logistic model has been determined, the 

observed cases can be classsified as readers or non-readers based 

on the model. A case is predicted to be 1 on the dependent variable if the estimated probability for that case is greater than a chosen value. The proportion of cases correctly classified is another 

measure of the predictive ability of the model presented in Table 

I, as are the false positive rate and the false negative rate. The 

former is the proportion of predicted positives (readers) who were 

actually negatives (non-readers). The latter is the proportion of 

predicted negatives (non-readers) who were actually positives 

(readers). 

Because the predicted probabilities are continuous, the point 

at which they are divided into positives and negatives is somewhat 
90 Who Reads Literature? 

arbitrary. An alternative way of assessing the predictive ability of 

the model, one which is independent of a specific cut-point, is to 

calculate an index of rank-order correlation between the predicted 

probabilities and the dependent variable. This measure is also shown 

for each model. 

Appendix Table II summarizes the results of multiple-logistic 

regressions in which the dependent variable was whether the respondent had read poetry or attended a poetry reading during the previous 12 months, as reported in the 1982 and 1985 SPPA. The 

predictor variables were the same as those in Table I. Appendix 

Table III summarizes regression models in which the criterion was 

whether the respondent reported doing any creative writing during the previous 12 months, and the predictor variables were again 

the same. 

Substantive conclusions derived from these regression analyses 

are described at appropriate points in the main text. 

NOTES 

S.H. Walker and D.B. Duncan, "Estimation of the Probability of 

an Event as a Function of Several Independent Variables," Biometrika, 

54 (1967): 167-179. 

S.J. Press and S. Wilson, "Choosing Between Logistic Regression 

and Discriminant Analysis," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73 (1978): 699-705. 

o	 Frank E. Harrell, Jr., "The LOGIST Procedure," in SUGI Supplemental Library User’s Guide, 1983 Edition, (Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute, Inc., 1983), 181-202.
 

o	 Alfred DeMaris, "Interpreting Logistic Regression Results: A Critical Commentary," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52 (February 1990): 271-277.
 

S. Philip Morgan and Jay D. Teachman, "Logistic Regression: 

Description, Examples, and Comparisons," Journal of Marriage and 

the Family, 50 (November 1988): 929-936. 
TABLES TO THE APPENDIX
 
 

 

 

92 Who Reads Literature? 

TABLE I. Multiple Logistic Models Predicting Whether Adults Have Read Literature in Last Year, Based on their Demographic Characteristics (Age, Sex, 

Race, Education, Income, and Metropolitan Residence), U.S. Adults 18 and 

Over, 1982 and 1985. 

Contribution of Individual Predictors 

1982 1985 

Variable Rank Obs. r Adj. r Rank Adj. r 

Education I .39 .27"* I .26* 

Gender 2 .14 .16"* 2 .16"* 

Income 3 .20 .05~ 3 .06** 

Race 4 -. 10 -.05** 4 -.05** 

Age 5 -. I I -.02"* -- .00 

Non-Metro Residence 6 - .07 - .01 * 5 - .03" 

Central City Residence -- .00 .00 -- .00 

Regression Coefficients 

1982 1985 

Standard Standard
 

Variable Beta Error Beta Error
 

Intercept -2.48 .109 -2.33 .105 

Education 

(years attained) .13 .003 .12 .004 

Sex (Hale = 0, 

Female = I) .87 .037 .86 .041 

Income .05 .007 .04 .006 

Race (Non-Black = 0, 

Black = I) - .45 .063 - .46 .069 

Age (in years) - .003 .001 .000 .001 

Non-Metro Residence 

(= I, else -- 0) - .09 .043 - .18 .049
 

Central City Residence
 

(= I, else = 0) .02 .046 .003 .O5O
 

Predictive Accuracy
 

Index 1982 1985 

Proportion of Cases 

Correctly Classified 69% 68% 

False Positive Rate 26% 27% 

False Negative Rate 37% 38% 

Multiple Correlation Coefficient (R) .38** .36** 

Rank Correlation Between Predicted 

Probability and Response .49"* .48** 

Number of Cases 15,667 12,361 
** p < .01 

" p < .05 

+p < .10 

Obs. r = Observed correlation between predictor and criterion. 

Adj. r = Partial correlation between predictor and criterion, net of effects 

of other predictors in model. 

Source:	 N. Zill and M. Winglee, analysis of public use tapes from 1982 and 

1985 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, National Endowment 

for the Arts, and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1987. 
 

 

 

94 Who Reads Literature? 

TABLE II. Multiple Logistic Models Predicting Whether Adults Have Read Poetry in Last Year, Based on their Demographic Characteristics (Age, Gender, 

Race, Education, Income, and Metropolitan Residence), U.S. Adults 18 and 

Over, 1982 and 1985. 

Contribution of Individual Predictors 

1982 1985 

Variable Rank Obs. r Adj. r Rank Adj. r 

Education I .27 .24** I .18"* 

Gender 2 .08 . I I ** 2 .09* 

Age 3 -.11 -.05** -­ .00 

Non-Metro Residence 4 -.02 .03* -­ .00 

Central City Residence 5 .01 .02+ -­ .00 

Income 6 .07 .02+ -­ .00 

Race -­ -.04 -.01 3 -.03 + 

Regression Coefficients 

1982 1985 

Standard Standard 

Vanable Beta Error Beta Error 

Intercept - 3.02 .248 -2.89 .305 

Education 

(years attained) . II .007 .08 .009 

Gender (Male = 0, 

Female = I) .59 .088 .49 .115 

ABe (in years) - .009 .003 - .001 .003 

Non-Metro Residence 

(= I, else = 0) .21 .103 - .09 .137 

Central City Residence 

(= I, else = 0) .18 .106 - .09 .139 

Income - .03 .015 .009 .017 

Race (Non-Black = 0, 

Black = I) - .23 .156 - .41 .216 

Predictive Accuracy 

Index 1982 1985 

Proportion of Cases 

Correctly Classified 76% 75% 

False Positive Rate 68% 71% 

False Negative Rate 13 % 14% 

Multiple Correlation Coefficient (R) .29"* .21"* 

Rank Correlation Between Predicted 

Probability and Response .41 ** 

Number of Cases 3,849 
Technical Appendix 95 

~ p ~ .01 

~ p ~ .05 

÷p ~ .10 

Obs. r ~ Observed correlation between predictor and criterion. 

Adj. r -- Partial correlation between predictor and criterion, net of effects 

of other predictors in model. 

Source: N. Zill and M. Winglee, analysis of public use tapes from 1982 and 

1985 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, National Endowment 

for the Arts, and U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1987. 
 

 

 

96 Who Reads Literature? 

TABLE III. Multiple Logistic Models Predicting Whether Adults Have Done 

Creative Writing in Last Year, Based on their Demographic Characteristics 

(Age, Gender, Race, Education, Income, and Metropolitan Residence), U.S. 

Adults 18 and Over, 1982 and 1985. 

Contribution of Individual Predictors 

1982 1985 

Variable Rank Obs. r Adj. r Rank Adj. r 

Education I .17 .22** I .22** 

Age 2 -,14 -.14"* 2 -.12"* 

Gender 3 .06 .10"* 4 .08** 

Central City Residence 4 .04 .05* -­ .00 

Income 5 .03 -.03+ .00 

Non-Metro Residence -.04 .00 3 -.09** 

Race -.01 .00 -­ .00 

Regression Coe~cients 

1982 1985 

Standard Standard 

Variable Beta Error Beta Error 

Intercept -3.54 .400 -3,93 .523 

Education 

(years attained) .12 .012 .12 .017 

Age (in years) - .03 .005 - .03 .007 

Gender (Male = 0, 

Female = I) .65 .144 .55 .189 

Central City Residence 

(= I, else = 0) .41 .164 - .03 .208 

Income - .05 .024 .003 .028 

Non-Metro Residence 

(= I, else = 0) - .07 .179 - .84 .273 

Race (Non-Black = 0, 

Black = I) -.30 .253 -.31 .346 

Predictive Accuracy 

Index 1982 1985 

Proportion of Cases 

Correctly Classified 92% 92% 

False Positive Rate 88% 87% 

False Negative Rate 3% 3% 

Multiple Correlation Coefficient (R) .32** .32** 

Rank Correlation Between Predicted 

Probability and Response .51 ** 

Number of Cases 3,848 
Technical Appendix 97 

*" p ~ .01 

" p ~ ,05 

÷ p ~ .10 

Obs. r z Observed correlation between predictor and criterion. 

Adj. r z Partial correlation between predictor and criterion, net of effects 

of other predictors in model. 

Source:	 N. Zill and M. Winglee, analysis of public use tapes from 1982 and 

1985 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, National Endowment 

for the Arts, and U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1987. 
Notes 

1.	 Jonathan Yardley, "The Increasing Irrelevance of Writing," The Washington Post (Monday, December 8, 1986), D2. Idem, "Blanking Verse in 

the L.A. Times," The Washington Post (Monday, May 11, 1987), B2. 

2. Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon 

and Schuster, 1987), 62. 

3. E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs To Know 

(Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1987). 

4. Nick Thimmesch, (Ed.), Aliteracy: People Who Can Read But Won’t
 

(Washington, DC: The American Enterprise Institute, 1984).
 

5. Martha S. Hill, "Patterns of Time Use," in: Time, Goods, and WellBeing, F. Thomas Juster and Frank P. Stafford, Eds. (Ann Arbor, MI: 

Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1985), 138. 

6. John P. Robinson, et al., Americans ’Participation in the Arts: A 1983-84 

Arts-Related Trend Study, Final Report (College Park, MD: University 

of Maryland Survey Research Center, 1986), 86-87. 

7.	 National Assessment of Educational Progress, Literature and U.S. History: The Instructional Experience and Factual Knowledge of High 
I O0 Who Reads Literature? 

11. 

12. 

13. 

15. 

School Juniors, by A.N. Applebee, J.A. Langner, and Ina V.S. Mullis 

(Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, October 1987), 10-13. See 

also: Lynne V. Cheney, American Memory: A Report on the Humanities in the Nation’s Public Schools, National Endowment for the Humanities Report No. NEH-636 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 1987). Diane Ravitch and Chester E. Finn, Jr., What 

Do Our 17-Year Olds Know? A Report on the First National Assessment 

of History and Literature (New York: Harper & Row, 1987). 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1987 

(107th edition), Table No. 368, "Quantity of Books Sold and Value of 

U.S. Domestic Consumer Expenditures, by Type of Publication and Market Area: 1974 to 1985." (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office, 1986). 

National Assessment of Educational Progress, Literature and U.S. History. Lynne V. Cheney, American Memory: A Report on the Humanities in the Nation’s Public Schools. Diane Ravitch and Chester E. Finn, 

Jr., What Do Our 17-Year Olds Know? 

J.P. Robinson, C.A. Keegan, T. Hanford, and T.A. Triplett, Public Participation in the Arts: Final Report on the 1982 Survey, prepared under 

Grant No. 12-4050-003 from the National Endowment for the Arts (College Park, MD: University of Maryland Survey Research Center, October 1985), Chapter 7. See also R.J. Orend, Socialization And 

Participation in the Arts, (National Endowment for the Arts, 1989). 

National Assessment of Educational Progress, Music 1971-79: Results 

from the Second National Music Assessment, Report No. 10-Mu-01 (Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States, November 1981). Idem, 

Art and Young Americans, 1974-79: Results from the Second National 

Art Assessment, Report No. 10-A-01 (Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States, December 1981). 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1987 

(107th edition), Table No. 370, "New Books and New Editions Published 

by Subject, 1970 to 1985 ....," (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986). 

John P. Dessauer, "U.S. Retail Book Sales by Subject: A First Estimate," 

Book Research Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 4, Winter 1986-1987, 15-17. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1987 

(107th edition), Table No. 370, "New Books and New Editions Published 

by Subject, 1970 to 1985,...". 

For methodology of the SPPA studies see Robinson et al., Public Participation in the Arts: Final Report on the 1982 Survey. John P. Robin­
Notes 101 

son, Carol A. Keegan, Marcia Karth and Timothy A. Triplett, Public 

Participation in the Arts: Final Report on the 1985 Survey (College Park, 

MD: University of Maryland Survey Research Center, December 1986), 

Chapter 2 and Appendix A. For methodology of the ARTS survey see 

John P. Robinson et al., Americans’ Participation in the Arts: A 1983-84 

Arts-Related Trend Study. For methodology of the BISG study see Market 

Facts, Inc.and Research & Forecasts, Inc., 1983 Consumer Research 

Study on Reading and Book Purchasing. Vol.l: Focus on Adults (New 

York: Book Industry Study Group, Inc., 1984), 219. 

16. Peter Mann, From Author to Reader: A Social Study of Books (London: 

Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982), 147. 

17. See Robinson et al., Final Report on the 1982 Survey, Final Report on 

the 1985 Survey. 

18.	 The 65-percent figure represents the projected number of readers of literature divided by the projected number of readers of books and magazines. When the two survey items were actually cross-tabulated against 

one another, a small percentage of respondents were found to have given inconsistent responses. That is, they said that they read literature in 

the previous 12 months, but did not read books or magazines. Thus, 

the proportion derived from cross-tabulation is slightly lower than the 

figure cited. 

19.	 The BISG figures on fiction book readership (39 percent) and overall 

book readership (50 percent) were lower than the SPPA figure on literature readership (56 percent). This is probably because the BISG used 

a 6-month reference period, and the SPPA, a 12-month reference period. Also, the BISG questions referred only to books, whereas the SPPA 

question included fiction, poetry, and plays in magazines as well as in 

books. The BISG figure on overall readership (92 percent) was higher 

than the SPPA figure (86 percent), probably because the BISG question included newspapers, which were not mentioned by the SPPA. 

20. Mann, From Author to Reader: A Social Study of Books, pp. 14%148. 

Idem, "The Novel in British Society," Poetics, Vol. 12,435-448, 1983, 

442). 

21.	 Kay Gill and Donald E Boyden, (Eds.), Gale Directory of Publications, 

120th Edition (Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1988). The Standard 

Periodical Directory, Tenth Edition (New York: Oxbridge Communications, 1987). Yardley, "Blanking Verse in the L.A. Times." 

22.	 Dessauer, "U.S. Retail Book Sales by Subject." 

23.	 Market Facts, Inc., 1983 Consumer Research Study, 1: 16%168. 

24.	 Dessauer, "U.S. Retail Book Sales by Subject." 
102 Who Reads Literature? 

25.	 Market Facts, Inc., 1983 Consumer Research Study, 1: 71. 

26.	 Robinson et al., Final Report on the 1982 Survey, Chapter 3. 

27.	 L.A. Wood, "Demographics of Mass Market Consumers," Book Research Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring 1987, 31-39. 

28. Market Facts, Inc., 1983 Consumer Research Study, 1: 64-68. 

29. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1987 

(107th edition), Table No. 368, "Quantity of Books Sold and Value of 

U.S. Domestic Consumer Expenditures, by Type of Publication and Market Area: 1974 to 1985." 

30.	 William S. Lofquist, "Book Publishing," U.S. Department of Commerce,

U.S. Industrial Outlook -- 1988, 1988, 29-9. 

31.	 J.G. Bachman, L.D. Johnston, and P.M. O’Malley, Monitoring the Future (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, annual volumes, 1975-1986). See also: "Daily Activity Patterns 

of High School Seniors," Select Committee on Children, Youth, and 

Families, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Children and Their Families: Current Conditions and Recent Trends, 1989 (Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office, September 1989).; 226-227. 

32.	 Lofquist, "Book Publishing," 29-7--29-11. 

33.	 Robinson et al., Americans’ Participation in the Arts. 

34.	 Mann, "The Novel in British Society," 443. 

35.	 Market Facts, Inc., 1983 Consumer Research Study, 1: passim. 

36.	 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1987 

(107th edition), Table No. 368, "Quantity of Books Sold and Value of 

U.S. Domestic Consumer Expenditures, by Type of Publication and Market Area: 1974 to 1985;" and Table No. 376, "Selected Recreational Activities: 1970 to 1985." 

Market Facts, Inc., 1983 Consumer Research Study, 1: passim. 

Eleanor E. Maccoby and Carol N. Jacklin, The Psychology of Sex Differences (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1974), 83-87. National 

Center for Health Statistics, K.W. Schaie and J. Roberts, "School 

Achievement of Children 6-11 Years, as Measured by the Reading and 

Arithmetic Subtests of the Wide Range Achievement Test, United States," 

Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 103, Public Health Service 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1970). Idem, 

"School Achievement of Children by Demographic and Socioeconomic Factors, United States," Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 

109, DHEW Publication No. (HSM) 72-1011, Public Health Service 
103 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 1971). 

National Center for Health Statistics, J. Roberts, "Intellectual Development of Children as Measured by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for 

Children, United States," Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 107, 

DHEW Publication No. (HSM) 72-1004, Public Health Service 

(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1971). Idem, 

"Intellectual Development of Children by Demographic and Socioeconomic Factors, United States," Vital and Health Statistics, Series 11, 

No. 110, DHEW Publication No. (HSM) 72-1012, Public Health Service (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1971). 

National Center for Health Statistics, D.K. Vogt, "Literacy Among 

Youths 12-17 Years, United States," Vital and Health Statistics, Series 

ll, No. 131, DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 74-1613, Public Health Service (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 

1973). National Assessment of Educational Progress, "Males Dominate 

in Educational Success," Spotlight: NAEP Newsletter, Vol. VIII, No. 

5, October 1975 (Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States). 

Alan Feingold, "Cognitive Gender Differences Are Disappearing," 

American Psychologist, Vol. 43, No. 2, February 1988, 95-103. 

39.	 Nicholas Zill and James L. Peterson, "Learning to Do Things Without 

Help," in Luis M. Laosa & Irving E. Sigel (Eds.), Families As Learning Environments for Children (New York: Plenum Publishing, 1982), 

343-374. 

40.	 National Center for Health Statistics, D.C. Hitchcock and G.D. Pinder, 

"Reading and Arithmetic Achievement Among Youths 12-17 Years, as 

Measured by the Wide Range Achievement Test, United States," Vital 

and Health Statistics, Series 11, No. 136, DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 

74-1618, Public Health Service (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1974). 

41. L. Ramist and S. Arbeiter, Profiles, College-Bound Seniors, 1985 (New 

York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1986), 12-13, 22-23, 102, 

and 14, 24. 

42. deBeauvoir, Simone, The Coming of Age, (translation by Patrick O’Brian 

of	La Vieillesse), (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1972), 398-404. 

"Writing is...a complex activity: it means a simultaneous preference for the imaginary and a desire to communicate...The project of writing therefore implies a tension between a refusal of 

the world in which men live and a certain appeal to men themselves: the writer is both for and against them. This is a difficult 

position: it implies very lively passions; and to be maintained for 

a considerable length of time it calls for strength. 

"Old age reduces strength; it deadens emotion...The ten­
104 Who Reads Literature? 

sion born of the reconciliation of two projects that are if not contradictory then at least divergent, slackens. The elderly writer finds 

himself deprived of that quality which Flaubert called alacritk." 

(pp. 400-401) 

43.	 Edward C. Bryant, Ezra Glaser, Morris H. Hansen, and Arthur Kirsch, 

Associations Between Educational Outcomes and Background Variables: 

A Review of Selected Literature, Contract Report by Westat, Inc., A 

Monograph of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States, 1974). 

44.	 National Assessment of Educational Progress, The Reading Report Card, 

1971-88: Trends from the Nation’s Report Card, by Ina V.S. Mullis and 

Lynn B. Jenkins, Report No. 19-R-01, (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, January 1990), 64. 

45.	 Edward C. Bryant, Ezra Glaser, Morris H. Hansen, and Arthur Kirsch, 

Associations Between Educational Outcomes and Background Variables: 

A Review of Selected Literature. Alison Clarke-Stewart, Child Care in 

the Family: A Review of Research and Some Propositions for Policy (New 

York: Academic Press, 1977). Lee Willerman, "Effects of Families on 

Intellectual Development," American Psychologist, Vol. 34, No. 10, October 1979, 923-929. 

46.	 Robinson et al., Final Report on the 1982 Survey, Chapter 7. Orend,
 

Socialization and Participation In The Arts.
 

47.	 Lee Willerman, "Effects of Families on Intellectual Development." 

48.	 Robinson et al., Final Report on the 1982 Survey, Chapter 7. Orend,
 

Socialization and Participation In The Arts.
 

49.	 Susan G. Timmer, Jacquelynne Eccles, and Kerth O’Brien, "How Children Use Time;" and Martha S. Hill, "Patterns of Time Use," in E Thomas Juster and Frank P. Stafford (Eds.), 7~me, Goods, and Well-Being 

(Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 

1985). John P. Robinson, How Americans Use Time: A SocialPsychological Analysis of Everyday Behavior (New York: Praeger, 1977). 

50.	 Market Facts, Inc., 1983 Consumer Research Study, 143-145. 

51.	 Ibid., pp. 133-137. 

52.	 Hill, "Patterns of Time Use," Table 7.1, 141. 

53.	 William J. Bennett, American Education: Making It Work (Washington, 

DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1988). Bloom, Closing 

of the American Mind, Cheney, American Memory, Hirsch, Cultural 

Literacy. Elizabeth Castor, "The Day of the Laureate: Warren Assumes 

His Mantle & Braves the Press, for Love of Poetry," The Washington 
Post, October 7, 1986, D1. Ravitch, Finn, What Do Our 17-Year-Olds 

Know?; The National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office, April 1983). 

54. Bennett, American Education, 8-14. Congressional Budget Office, 1987, 

Educational Achievement: Explanations and Implications of Recent 

Trends (Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, 1987). Nicholas Zill and C.C. Rogers, "Recent Trends in the Well-Being of Children 

in the United States and their Implications for Public Policy," in Andrew Chedin (Ed.), Family Change and Public Policy (Washington, DC: 

The Urban Institute Press, 1988), Chapter 2. 

55. National Assessment of Educational Progress, Literature and U.S.
 

History.
 

56.	 National Assessment of Educational Progress, Reading, Thinking, and
 

Writing: Results from the 1979-80 National Assessment of Reading and
 

Literature (Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States, October
 

1981).
 

57.	 National Assessment of Educational Progress, Literacy: Profiles of
 

America’s Young Adults, by Irwin S. Kirsch and Ann Jungeblut, Report
 

No. 16-PL-02 (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, 1986).
 

58. National Assessment of Educational Progress, The Reading Report Card, 

1971-88: Trends from the Nation’s Report Card, by Ina V.S. Mullis and 

Lynn B. Jenkins, Report No. 19-R-O1, (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service, January 1990). Idem., The Writing Report Card, 1984-88, 

by Arthur N. Applebee, Judith A. Langer, Ina V.S. Mullis, and Lynn 

B. Jenkins, Report No. 19-W-01, (Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing 

Service, January 1990). 

59. Alan C. Purves et al., Reading and Literature: American Achievement 

in International Perspective, NCTE Research Report No. 20 (Urbana, 

IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1981). 

60. Alan C. Purves, Literature Education in Ten Countries, International 

Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, International 

Studies in Evaluation II (Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell; New York: 

John Wiley, 1973). 

61.	 College Board Admissions Testing Program, Statistical Summaries for 

Academic Years 1980-1981 through 1985-1986, unpublished tabulations 

supplied by Alicia Schmitt, Educational Testing Service, (Princeton, 

NJ, February 1987). 

62. Yardley, "The Increasing Irrelevance of Writing." 
106 Who Reads Literature? 

63.	 Hilton Kramer, The New Criterion Reader: The First Five Years (New 

York: The Free Press, 1988). Jonathan Yardley, "Paradise Tossed: The 

Fall of Literary Standards;’ The Washington Post, January 11, 1988, B2. 

64. Robert Pattison, The Triumph of Vulgarity: Rock Music in the Mirror 

of Romanticism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987). 

65.	 Rubenstein, E.A., G.A. Comstock, and J.P. Murray (Eds.), Television 

and Social Behavior, (Vol. 4): Television in Day-to-Day Life: Patterns 

of Use, (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1972). 

Schramm, Wilbur, Big Media, Little Media: Tools and Technologies for 

Instruction, (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1977). 

66.	 Heard, Alex, "Out There: Versed Things First;’ The Washington Post 

Magazine, April 17, 1988, 9-10. 

67. Dan Lacy, "Publishing Enters the Eighties," in The State of the Book 

WorM, 1980, The Center for the Book Viewpoint Series, No. 4 (Washington, DC: The Library of Congress, 1980) 11-25; 23. 

68.	 Market Facts, Inc., 1983 Consumer Research Study, 133-136; 145. 

69.	 Nicholas Spenceley, "The Readership of Literary Fiction: A Survey of 

Library Users in the Sheffield Area," M.A. Dissertation, Postgraduate 

School of Librarianship, Sheffield University, 1980. As described in Peter 

H. Mann, "The Novel in British Society." 

Jonathan Yardley, "The Soft-Cover Salvation of Modern Fiction," The 

Washington Post, February 16, 1987, D2. 
Index
 
Index
 

A 

A ncien t Evenings, 24 

age, as a factor determining reading habits, 42-44 

Atlantic, The, 9 

Arts-Related Trend Study (ARTS), 4, 10, 23, 25 

B 

Bellow, Saul, viii 

Bestseller lists, 3 

Bloom, Allan, 2 

Book Industry Study Group (BISG), 4, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19 

book sales, trends, 18 

Brecht, Bertol, 26 

C 

Chekhov, Anton, 1 

Children, as a factor determining reading habits, 66, 68 

Catcher in the Rye, 2 

Color Purple, The, 24 

Colwin, Laurie, ix 

Couples, 24
 

Closing of the American Mind, The, 2
 

creating writing, 27, 61 

Cultural Literacy, 2 

D 

demographic characteristics of readers, 11; predicting participation 

based on demographics, 49 

Dessauer, John P., 9, 10 

Dickens, Charles, 1, 3, 24 

Dickinson, Emily, 1, 26 

Dostoyevsky, 1 

drama, 3 
E 

Eliot, T.S., 26 

education, as a factor determining reading habits, 35-37, 52, 53; 

deterioration, 75-77 

Educational Testing Service, 3 

employment, as a factor determining reading habits, 62-66 

F 

Family Circle, 25 

fiction, see also novels, short stories, 29 

Fitzgerald, F. Scott, 3 

Frost, Robert, 26 

G 

gender, as a factor determining reading habits, 39-42 

geography, distribution of readers, 12; variation in literary participation, 47-49 

Gershwin, George, 3 

Graham, Martha, 3 

H 

Hawthorne, Nathianel, 3 

Hellman, Lillian, 26 

Hemingway, Ernest, 1, 24 

Hirsch, E.D., 2 

Holt, Victoria, 24 

I 

income, as a factor determining reading habits, 38 

Irvine, Washington, 1 

J 

James, Henry, 24 

K 

Keillor, Garrison, 32 

King, Stephen, viii, 24, 32 

Krantz, Judith, ix, 24 

L 

L’Amour, Louis, 24 

leisure activities of readers, 14, 60 

literature reading, past growth 17; decline 18; literary criticism, 3 
Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth, 26 

Los Angeles Times Book Review, 9 

M 

MacDonald, John D., 32 

Mann, Peter, 25 

Mailer, Norman, 24 

marital status, as a factor determining reading habits, 66-67 

mass market books, 31 

Melville, Herman, 1 

Merrill, James, viii, 32 

minority writers, 74 

movies, 31 

N 

nation of readers, 1 

National Geographic, 25 

Naylor, Gloria, ix 

New Yorker, The, 9 

Newsweek, 25 

novels, reading, 24, 28; classical, historical, and modern, 29 

O 

O’Neil, Eugene, 1 

Orwell, George, 2 

P 

Parade, 26 

Parker, Charlie, 3 

Percy, Walker, vii 

Plain, Belva, ix
 

plays, reading of, 26, 28, 31
 

Poe, Edgar Allan, 1, 26
 

Pound, Ezra, 26
 

poetry, 3, 9; sale of, 9; reading of, 26, 28, 30
 

Pollock, Jackson, 3
 

publishers, promotion, 80-81
 

Pushkin, Alexander, 1
 

R 

race/ethnicity, as a factor determining reading habits, 44-47; see also 

minority writers
 

radio, see television
 

reader, typical profiled, 1, 6
 
Reader’s Digest, 25, 25 

reading, encouraging, 81-86 

Redbook, 25 

Rich, Adrienne, viii, 32 

S 

Sandburg, Carl, 26
 

Service, Robert W., 26
 

Shakespeare, William, 1, 3, 26
 

Shange, Ntozake, 26
 

Shaw, Bernard, 26 

Sheldon, Sidney, 24 

short story, 25, 28 

Silverstein, Shel, 32 

Sophie’s Choice, 24 

Soviet Union, 2 

Steele, Danielle, viii 

Streetcar Named Desire, 2 

Stoppars, Tom, 26 

Styron, William, 24 

Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA), 4, 7-22 

T 

television and radio, 2; role of, 69-72; influence of, 78-79 

technological change, 77 

Thoreau, Henry David, 1 

Tolstoy, Alexei,1, 24 

Twain, Mark, 1, 24 

U 

Updike, John, 24 

United Kingdom, 25 

W 

Walker, Alice, 24 

Whitman, Walt, 1 

Welty, Eudora, viii 

Williams, Tennessee, 2, 26 

Williams, William Carlos, 26 

women’s movement, x 

Y 

Yardley, Jonathan, 1 

young adults, reading habits, 19 
"A BOOK THAT SHOULD BE OF INTEREST TO
 

ANYONE IN THE LITERARY BUSINESS."
 

--Booklist 

Nicholas Ziil and Marianne Winglee present a revealing portrait of the nation’s 

reading habits. In addition to the well-publicized discovery that a frightening 

number of Americans can’t read, it turns out that many who can--don’t. 

Focusing on who reads serious modern American literature--works by such 

writers as Ann Beattie, Gloria Naylor, David Mamet and Saul Bellow--the 

authors draw on extensive demographic information to report that the reading 

of contemporary works is the pastime of a distinct minority. According to Who 

Reads Literature, the proportion of Americans who read serious literature is 

between 10 and 25 percent; contemporary fiction, poetry, and drama attracts 

at best between 7 and 12 

percent of adults ̄ "The perceived image of the ’literary’ "The typical reader of 

literature in the United American reader as a bearded male 

States today.., is a middle academic in a tweed jacket with leather 

aged, white woman, living patches bears only scant connection in the midwestern suburbs," to reality .... It’s a woman’s world say the authors. And they now, and if we are to have in the next are more involved than non- generation a literature of any con- readers in activities that
 

traditionally are not sequence, it will be because women
 

thought of as "cultural"
 make it so." 

pursuits--watching tele- mFrom the foreword 

vision, going to the movies, by Jonathan Yardley* 

* Adapted from Yardley’s column "Readership Down" published playing sports, and doing 

 ̄ volunteer or activist work. in The Washington Post 8/20/90. Used by permission. In addition to pinpointing 

just who is and isn’t reading 

Adrienne Rich, Eudora Welty, and John Updike, Zill and Winglee suggest ways 

in which publishers, booksellers, and libraries might reach a wider audience by 

changing their marketing and promotion strategies. 

Who Reads Literature raises important questions about the vitality of our 

culture and education system. It tells us more about the United States as a 

nation of readers than simply what we have stacked up on our bedside table. 

NICHOLAS ZILL is a social psychologist and
 

executive director of Child Trends. a non-profit
 

research organization in Washington, D.C.
 

MARIANNE WINGLEE is a senior statistical analyst
 

at Decision Resource .Corporation in Washington, D.C.