fuck off, barnes and nobles, if you want me to consult for you then pay me.

get more stephen kings and jk rowlings.

Put chemicals in the water that increases people's IQ and also give them many more hours of free time in each day.

>again
Compared to when and where? The literacy rate today is as high as it's ever been. If people did read more at any point in the past, they were just reading disposable magazines and dime novels while they waited for television to be invented.

why should they?

>>8214837
This. I don't think people read less things then they ever did before.
Amazon sells fucktons of books, e readers are big money.
The proletariat never read books or tried to be informed.

>>8214813
i really don't give a shit

>>8215103
Why not?

>>8214813
Remove electricity.

>>8214813

Nu School Know-Brow YA

>>8215530

>Watching movies and TV is for plebs; it rots your brain
>Reading novels is for patricians; it's gentlemanly and learned

Is the distaste for "merely watching TV/Movies" simply a modern development; a reaction of the disgust reflex against the media addiction that goes hand-in-hand with (and arguably supports) our objectively measurable intellectual and social development? After all, given the choice of reading a novel and watching a film with the same content, most will opt for the film if only because it will take a fraction of the time and energy.

Aren't reading and "watching" both just passively absorbing narratives? On what grounds can we put one on a pedestal and the other in the gutter? Because reading is less efficient it's "better"?

And if we accept that reading is "mere consumption" as well, isn't the critical fault-line actually that between creating new ideas and passively absorbing existing ideas?

give them money

>>8214813
>how do we get people to start watching plays again?

we don't, if more people started reading books then it would ruin books