Why do certain kids hate reading?

[Filiecs]

It's just a different way that kids learn. Instead of reading, some kids learn better by actually DOING stuff and like things read to them. These are right brained thinkers as opposed left brain thinkers who enjoy reading.
For example, Mozart was a right brained thinker. While composing his music he would have his wife read him stories to distract the left side of his brain and allow the right side of his brain more freedom and creativity.
There is actually a REALLY good book about this stuff called "About Learning" by Bernice McCarthy and has been quite an interesting read.

 

[FamoFunk]

I hate reading and hated reading in school. I didn't care for Mice and Men and the fact we had the study it for GCSE. I just can't get into books, at all, there's no appeal for me.

I do read every night for my nearly 3yo, she loves it and I really, really hope She continues and gets more enjoyment out of it than I did as a child in school and places.

 

[Avatar Roku]

*raises hand*
I read Catcher when I was 16 and hated it, honestly. I could see what Salinger was going for, but I actually ended up finding Caulfield less and less relatable as the book went on.

That book is right up there with A Separate Peace as the worst book I ever read, for school or otherwise. Go figure.

The worst book you've ever read?

You either haven't read many books or the books you've read have all been spectacular, because that's ridiculous. I think the worst book I read was probably Tom Clancy's Net Force Explorers: Virtual Vandals or maybe like a Hardy Boys book or something...

I read a lot, and I like most of the books I've read. However, even if I had read a lot of books I dislike, I really don't think it would ridiculous to say that Catcher was among the worst. I mean, usually with classics, I can at least see the merit even if I don't like it, but I just don't see it there. Granted, it's not as bad as A Separate Peace or The Great Gatsby (forgot to mention that one earlier), but that doesn't make it any less devoid of merit in my mind.

You're placing Catcher on such a pedestal, to the extent that disliking it is "ridiculous", but I really struggle to understand why.

 

[Nudu]

I kind of like reading, I just don't like the senastion of holding a book in my hands. I just feel there's just no comfortable way of holding it. That's why buying a kindle was one of the best things I've ever done. Get your kid one of those.

 

[IpunchFaces]

My primary school had a reading program as well. And I remember each class having its own 'mini library' at the back wall, and you were encouraged to pick a book and read after you were done with your assignments. Most of the children in my school didn't fancy reading very much, partly due to fact that they were forced to read the wrong kind of books; the sort that didn't agree to their individual personalities. Needless to say, it became more of a dust trap than anything else. Anyone who even dared approach that section was quickly chastised by the 'cool kids' and labeled as a 'nerd'.

I had to sneak a few books out just so I could read them.

In my secondary school, it was better. Every morning during assembly, everyone HAD to have something to read. A newspaper, a book, a documentary magazine, whatever. As long as it had more words than pictures and you weren't reading any questionable material, it was fine. Everyone had a book they loved, and the library we had was quite well stocked. Everyone scored above average grades for their English exams.

But I digress. The main proponent to this reading crisis is the fact that most kids are not reinforced in their interest to read. One must first crawl before they walk. You need to have a 'base' to build your interest upon first. And to have interest, you must find something that they view interesting to read. Most start with fantasy and teenage fiction. From there they can progress to high fantasy such as Lovecraft or Tolkien, or to the deeper mysteries of science fiction. They then dive into more varied genres until they hit upon the one that never fails to draw them in. For me, my calling was Philosophy.

But some DO embrace ignorance. They will always be these kind of people. Some call it platonic wisdom, but I just call them fucking idiots.

The hardest thing of all, however, is pulling children off the modern machines of quick, meaningless entertainment. Making them do something that takes more effort than sitting blank-eyed with no cerebral activity whatsoever is an achievement in itself.

 

[Deathwatch050]

Parents aren't introducing reading to their child or reinforcing it early enough. I got into reading so early that I was miles ahead of my classmates in year 2 of school and got to skip a year and go straight to 4. I'm still the youngest person in my class and I get very good grades. I know those two things are related.

It's time we had an education revolution. Parents and teachers just aren't putting in the effort anymore. It's a shame. Krosis.

 

[Ledan]

Well, I learned to love to read in school because most of my classmates were dicks.... but yes, the whole literature as a course in school is bull. Not just in forcing people to read 'The Great Gatsby', or continously stating that Shakespeare was the greatest author ever, but in forcing students to overanalyze books to such an extent that they hate anything to do with literature.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" -Freud (or am I mistaken?)

 

[the rye]

Ok look i know you don't always get to read a novel your interested in but schools select those texts for specific reasons, mainly because its damn good literature that you young whippersnappers can't appreciate.

Then why not let them read damn good literature which they can appreciate? Giving them a book, expecting them to like it, then just saying "You're too stupid to like it" when they don't is going to turn them off reading for good.

Therein the responsibility goes to the lecturer to teach why students should care about literature. I think many reasons for students to not like literature is because there not taught why it matters, in a sense they are not taught the full depth of a text and a text can be interpreted in many ways.

 

[the rye]

Nope, screw what the kids want. They're going to learn Shakespeare, they're going to read 'Of Mice and Men'. I was reading 1984 and Great Expectations in my own time at age 14. I don't see why kids would have trouble reading the literature school make them read, sound like laziness to me.

Ok look i know you don't always get to read a novel your interested in but schools select those texts for specific reasons, mainly because its damn good literature that you young whippersnappers can't appreciate.

Opinion much? I am 16 and I love reading! It really is about finding the right book. Not forcing them to read things they aren't interested in. In my opinion, schools should only force kids to read books like 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Night'. Things about horrible events or racism seem to draw kids in. Then you can get them to read other things.

I do agree that kids need to be taught a text they in some sense connect to or can care about. But to me what matters is in the way texts are taught and there seems to be a lack of teaching the student that texts can have a wide range of interpretations.

 

[AlAaraaf74]

Hello there, I got this idea from another topic by trezu (I hope i don't rip you off to much man ) I am a 17 year old high school student and I came up with a reason why kids today aren't a fan of reading. This is just my personal opinion, but I think it's because schools try to force books that kids have no interest for down their throats too often.

I am of this group of people. I've had to read quite a few books I either disliked completely or just wasn't interested in. If more schools let children pick a book they might enjoy reading, they could grow to love it.

Yes, you are probably right. I like reading, but I have never liked a book that I was forced to read for school.

Some examples:
Catcher in the Rye - 200 pages of teenage angst and Holden doesn't kill himself like I wanted him to.
Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress - I learned nothing from this trash.
The Great Gatsby - It was okay, but I probably wasn't interesting enough for me to finish it on my own.
Huck Finn - Outdated and boring. My teacher said, "Read it again when you're older, you'll think it's hilarious". Well, then why did you make us read it now, school board? Cuz now I have no interest in picking up the book again.

Though, it's not only because of the books school makes us read. It's also because kids my age and younger have other means of entertainment that they like better than reading: Video Games, movies, T.V., the internet, sports, etc.

 

[the rye]

Of Mice and Men'.

I hope you've actually read that book. Sure, a lot of high school kids have to read it (I first read it when I was 13), but it was actually insanely good. Just because it's lighter than things like The Picture of Dorian Gray or 1984 doesn't mean it isn't as good.

Steinbeck was a very talented author.

And Shakespeare is a sort of "have-to" read. Even if you don't like it, Shakespeare was a massive influence on the English language.

(I apologise in advance if I have interpreted your post; my Sarcasm Sense was tingling).

Wait i do like 'of mice and men' and i do like Steinbeck. And Shakespeare.

 

[Suicidejim]

I would argue that it takes more effort to absorb yourself in a story than it does a film or cartoon or even game, especially when you're young and haven't already got a well of enthusiasm for reading, and a lot of kids who aren't proficient at reading aren't willing to put the time and effort into it.