On page 681 of the Tinsley/Kaestle article, they write that “Reading for information is so mundane, so continuous, and so ubiquitous that autobiographers say little about it”. This really struck me and surprised me upon first reading it. In the midst of a discussion about reading for other purposes like “self-improvement” and “cultural maintenance”, I can understand how “reading for information” might hold a little less luster. However, it also occurred to me that almost ALL of the reading I do is, at least primarily, for information. Does this mean that almost all of my reading is mundane? Continuous? Ubiquitous?
Certainly most of my school reading is for information. When I read products around my home, the clock, etc. should I be thinking that these acts are just unavoidable necessities of going about my life? Even when I’m reading a magazine or the Pitts news, I feel like I am primarily reading for information. But I certainly don’t find those reading experiences to be mundane!
If I was writing my own autobiography, I feel like a huge part of my learning to read, and my earliest experiences with reading and writing, would have to do with “informational” reading. When my parents, my friends, my teachers were helping me learn to read, informational reading was not just “not boring” it was in fact extremely exciting! After learning to tell time, every time I read the clock was an adventure. After learning to read the fronts of books, or magazines, any recognition of a title was a treat.
So I guess, my question ultimately becomes; do you really think that reading for information is “mundane, ubiquitous, and continuous”? Do you think this generalization is too broad or just altogether incorrect? And if you do think it’s a correct assessment, then what does it mean to say that such a large portion of our reading is destined to be… mundane?
5 Responses to Reading for information as “mundane”