'Harry Potter' series hasn't led to reading revolution

According to experts, the fact that millions of kids read a new Harry Potter book every year or two isn't enough to turn them into inveterate readers -- so says this NYT story just posted.

I was struck by this passage from the story:

Starting when Avram Leierwood was 7, he would read the books aloud with his mother, Mina. "We'd sit in the treehouse in our backyard and take turns," recalled Ms. Leierwood, of South Minneapolis.

But while Ms. Leierwood has remained an avid fan, Avram, now 15, is indifferent. When "Deathly Hallows" comes out, he will be on a canoe trip. As for reading, he said: "I don't really have much time anymore. I like to hang out with my friends, talk, go watch movies and stuff, go to the park and play ultimate Frisbee."

On the one hand, the kid's position is not only perfectly normal, but healthy. He's not just playing video games, he's socializing and even exercising with chums. Then I thought about why, when I was 15, I read all the time. I was never able to say "I don't have much time anymore" for reading, because I had all the time in the world. There were few people who wanted to hang out with me, talk, play frisbee, etc. I didn't really have any friends. When I wasn't reading, I rode my bicycle on long trips to the mall by myself.

I would hate to say that teenagers have to make a firm choice between reading and living normal teenage lives, but I have the feeling it's true. Only social misfits like me really read that much as teenagers. On the other hand, in our society the number of people who can be at the top of any heap, whether it's a corporation or a high school, is pitifully small. So perhaps there are a larger number of social misfits than it might seem. Nowadays, however, I have the feeling most of them are whiling away their lonely hours on the internet and/or playing games, not reading.

technorati: books,Harry Potter, librarians, reading