A recent study reveals that people especially young people are reading far less literature—novels, plays, and poems—than they used to. This is troubling because the trend has unfortunate effects for the reading public, for culture in general, and for the future of literature itself.
While there has been a decline in book reading generally, the decline has been especially sharp for literature. This is unfortunate because nothing else provides the intellectual stimulation that literature does. Literature encourages us to exercise our imaginations, empathize with others, and expand our understanding of language. So by reading less literature, the reading public is missing out on important benefits.
Unfortunately, missing out on the benefits of literature is not the only problem. What are people reading instead? Consider the prevalence of self-help books on lists of best sellers. These are usually superficial poorly written, and intellectually undemanding. Additionally, instead of sitting down with a challenging novel, many persons are now more likely to turn on the television, watch a music video, or read a Web page. Clearly, diverting time previously spent in reading literature to trivial forms of entertainment has lowered the level of culture in general.
The trend of reading less literature is all the more regrettable because it is taking place during a period when good literature is being written. There are many talented writers today, but they lack an audience. This fact is bound to lead publishers to invest less in literature and so support fewer serious writers. Thus, the writing as well as the reading of literature is likely to decline because of the poor standards of today's readers.
The reading claims that there is less audience for reading literature today than they used to be and points out the benefits of literature and the demerits that occurred to mankind when they lost its cultural value. However, the professor in the lecture challenges all these explanations. She is of the opinion that these explanations are faulty.
First, the reading posits that a literature review will stimulate one's intellectual ability, but if they read less the public may miss out on its important benefits. The lecturer disproves this argument. She says that the literature books are not the only source that stimulates the brain. Science, history, and political books enhance the creative thinking ability of humans. Moreover, these books are of high quality and creativity.
Second, the reading doubts that the books that replace literature are usually poorly written and intellectually undemanding. It also highlights that people use other modes of entertainment, eventually lowers the culture of society. On the other hand, the professor argues that using other modes of entertainment like watching a movie, songs will never reduce the intellectuality of an individual, instead these non-literary activities boost one's ability to react to the evils in the society and raise voice to protect the culture.
Finally, the author of the reading states that this a period of good literature writing but the talented writers had reduced demand and number of readers. The professor contradicts this argument by contending that before blaming a reader, it's better to look at the writing of the authors which are tenacious to understand. Furthermore, she points out that the culture is changing, so the literature should accustom according to it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 442, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...ead these non-literary activities boost ones ability to react to the evils in the so...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, look, may, moreover, second, so, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 10.4613686534 86% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 5.04856512141 79% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 7.30242825607 123% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 12.0772626932 124% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 22.412803532 138% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 31.0 30.3222958057 102% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 5.01324503311 120% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1487.0 1373.03311258 108% => OK
No of words: 276.0 270.72406181 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38768115942 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07593519647 4.04702891845 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85919615023 2.5805825403 111% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 145.348785872 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.583333333333 0.540411800872 108% => OK
syllable_count: 466.2 419.366225166 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 3.25607064018 184% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.23620309051 97% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 1.25165562914 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 13.0662251656 107% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 21.2450331126 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.5467589552 49.2860985944 139% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.214285714 110.228320801 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7142857143 21.698381199 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.35714285714 7.06452816374 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 4.33554083885 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 4.45695364238 67% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.27373068433 23% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216139399497 0.272083759551 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0616726335632 0.0996497079465 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0766349057255 0.0662205650399 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126348884528 0.162205337803 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0573764583206 0.0443174109184 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 13.3589403974 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 53.8541721854 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 11.0289183223 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.98 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.16 8.42419426049 109% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 63.6247240618 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 10.7273730684 84% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 10.498013245 91% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 81.6666666667 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 24.5 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.