Apparently, the age of reading is over, or so screams The Atlantic's rage-baity August cover. The cover story itself is headlined thusly: "The End of Reading Is Here." Both of these headlines are, of course, purposefully provocative. The Atlantic knows what it's doing. They want to stir us up. They want to create a commotion. And a commotion they have created.
Honestly, the piece is solid and I would encourage you to read it. The author, Rose Horowitch, cites all the statistics and studies we've seen before -- yes, fewer adults read for pleasure now than even 20 years ago. Yes, many kids these days have trouble extracting information from and summarizing complex texts. Yes, we're in age where it's easier to ask ChatGPT and get wildly inaccurate information than it is to read an article. So yes, there are definite cracks in the foundation of our literate society.
I went into the story with my hackles up because of the rage-baity headlines. And then about two-thirds of the way through reading the piece, I fired off this Note on Substack. I didn't want to still be mad at it, but I was. If the story is meant as a warning, good on you The Atlantic. But the tenor of the story actually does match the headlines: Reading IS over now and forever, it argues. And there's nothing we can do to stop the descent into dumbassery.
Of course, that's absurd. Reading is not over. We are not at the end of reading. And in addition to rejecting the general premise, there are also several parts of the piece that hit my brain sideways. So below, I included some excerpts of the article that sore-thumbed me. As in stuck out.
Sideshow Bob from The Simpsons famously recognized the irony of going on TV to decry it. I also think it's funny to give you short snippets of a nearly 10,000-word article purporting to herald the end of reading. But let's agree to move on and enjoy each other's company. What do you say?
The books that people do read are simpler than they used to be. New York Times best sellers today have sentences that are about one-third shorter than they were a century ago. Longer sentences aren’t inherently better. But their former ubiquity suggests an age when Americans had the inclination and ability to read serious works of literature.
This is kind of snooty paragraph, isn't it? Horowitch argues that in 1958, Doctor Zhivago, with its complex sentences and even more complex plot, was the bestselling book of the year. Last year, it was Sunrise on the Reaping, by Suzanne Collins, a book already part of an established series with simple sentences and a straightforward plot. Lots of teens and GenZers are reading not just this book, but tons of YA books. And apparently that's a harbinger for the end of reading? Wait, what? I thought the problem was teens AREN'T reading. Maybe it's just that tastes have shifted, as they naturally do. What if reading is just changing, not going away?
Trump is our first postliterate president. It is difficult to imagine him being elected leader of a country where information is primarily spread through text.
Literally nothing about these sentences is true. Trump himself may be postliterate (or never was in the first place) but that doesn't mean the rest of us are. And this so-called postliteracy is only one of about 23,328 reasons Trump won (the second time). Were we also postliterate in 2016?
Reading books is a workout for the attention span. The more you read, the easier it is to read, and the more you’re rewarded with new understanding. Eventually the process is more pleasurable than it is challenging.
Agreed on all counts here. But this is true for just about anything -- running, writing, developing any virtuous habit. Maybe the issue, then, isn't isolated to reading. Maybe the larger issue is teaching young people to find things they love and to convincing them of the value of continuing to do them.
Writing is the way people figure out what they think, and how to convey those thoughts to someone who doesn’t already share them. Writing is hard because the writer is learning. If AI eliminates the challenge, it also eliminates the learning. Early studies have suggested that this is exactly what happens when people use AI to write. The process is easier. The product is often better than what someone could compose on their own.
BARF. The product of AI writing is often better? Maybe my head is firmly buried in the sand here, but let me just say definitively: No it's not. AI writing is not better. What AI does ISN'T actually writing, to be clear. Also, this paragraph makes it seem like AI is inevitable. AI is not inevitable. I liked this paragraph a lot, until those last two sentences.
By some measures at least, books continue to thrive. Last year, print-book sales were higher than they were a decade ago. Barnes & Noble opened more than 60 new stores. Almost 400 independent bookstores sprung up in 2025. Substack has seen an explosion of subscriptions for long-form writing. Celebrities such as Dua Lipa and Reese Witherspoon have used their fame and influence to launch wildly successful book clubs. Audiobooks have become a billion-dollar industry.
"By some measures at least..." LOL! This whole paragraph, which is near the bottom of the story, is just the tip of the iceberg of evidence we could offer for reading and reading culture's popularity. But it feels like just a tossed-off way of "both sidesing" the argument she's so carefully crafted until this point. Also, independent bookstores don't "spring up" as if someone just waved a magic wand. Minor detail, I know, but word choice here is very important.
The notion of a popular literary figure appearing on the cover of a print newsweekly read by millions of Americans is impossible to imagine today.
Taylor Jenkins Reid was on the cover of Time last May. 🙄
In the years since—I’m not quite sure when—the habit slipped. The change was subtle. I became busier. I started scrolling on my phone before bed instead of reading. My attention began to wander every few pages. What did it matter if I read less? No one was checking on my progress. And the books would always be there. I could pick them up later.”
Horowitch says she used to love reading, but now doesn't...or just doesn't do it as much. If I were Horowitch's editor, I would've deleted this paragraph with such extreme prejudice that the paragraphs around it would've quivered in fear. This paragraph, which appears near the end of the piece, makes it seem like the whole article is one long justification for why Horowitch herself has stopped reading. Anecdotal evidence is evidence, but not convincing evidence.
So, in conclusion, are we squarely now in a "postliterate society," as the article claims? No. No we are not. Do we have some work to do? Yes. Yes we do. So let's do it. Let's read books!
