Pleasure Reading: Exploring a New Definition

I've taken on a new challenge this past January. At the beginning of the new year, I began teaching a reading and reading practices course at Dalhousie University. With my background in readers' services, practical experience, and attendance at numerous readers' advisory conference sessions, webcasts, and talks, I knew I was up for the challenge. However, devoting twelve weeks to the theory of reading, reading behaviours and models, practices in readers' services, and more, I realized that the learning opportunities provided to practicing professionals on reading and reading practices only manage to capture the top of the reading iceberg. Why do I compare reading, readers, and readers' advisory services to an iceberg? Icebergs seem relatively simple and straightforward when viewed from the shore or the deck of a boat. They are recognizable, easy to identify and navigate around, and appear--ahem--harmless. But we know better. Lurking beneath the water is a massive, complex, and unseen mass of ice much larger and difficult to navigate than what we observe on the surface. Unfortunately, in our busy professional lives, the one-hour webinar or two-day readers' advisory course offered by our library systems are often the only formal training opportunity we have to expand our skills and find out about to new ideas or resources. In essence, we are only glimpsing the top of the iceberg. But what if we had the chance to think about, consider, and theorize as students do? What if we had twelve weeks to devote to learning about reading, readers, and readers' advisory services? As I sit here writing this article, I am halfway through the semester and am taking the opportunity to reflect on key points and issues we've discussed in class. Trying to narrow down the topic for this article has been difficult. With such a wealth of rich information and theory to explore (that hulking mass of iceberg that lies beneath the surface of the water), I've decided that some of the easiest questions are often the most difficult to answer. As such, I've decided to explore the idea of reading, readers, and what, in this age of technology, defines pleasure reading. How do we determine what is pleasure reading when there is such a mash-up of formats and reading opportunities? The goal of this article is to examine the definition of what a reader is and to challenge the traditional definition of a reader. In addition, I will seek to push the boundaries of pleasure reading, briefly touching on the shortcomings and strengths of our current readers' advisory tools to address different forms of pleasure reading. Finally, considering perhaps a new definition of reader and pleasure reading, a brief exploration as to whether pleasure reading is declining will be presented. SEEKING A NEW DEFINITION OF READING AND PLEASURE READING I'm not a reader! We often hear this from friends and family members who don't like to read books. But what makes a reader? What do we define as reading? Do you have to read books to be considered a reader? As readers' advisors, we are put to the task of suggesting titles to readers who enjoy an ever-growing number of genres for both fiction and nonfiction. We rely on experience and knowledge, as well as print and web-based tools to help guide us in providing suggestions that offer options to our readers. But how often do we reflect on the definition of a reader and what constitutes pleasure reading? Do we include this in our staff training and manuals, or is it something we take for granted: pleasure readers read fiction or nonfiction books and we seek to connect each reader with another great read. IS THAT NECESSARILY ACCURATE? Let's take a look at some scenarios. For example, Iris considers herself an avid reader. Two of her favorite authors are Rosamunde Pilcher and Maeve Binchy Never having learned to read, she listens to books and absorbs the reading experience aurally Eddie, on the other hand, can't remember the last time he read a book. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.