Abstract
The analysis examines how self-identified book readers understand and reflect on their experience of not reading for pleasure for a distinct period of time during their life course. While prior research has identified diverse meanings of leisure reading among avid readers, studies on the fluctuations of reading have thus far been scarce. The study contributes to the cultural sociology of reading, adding to current knowledge on reading books from the viewpoint of those relating to a community of readers. The datasets consist of open-ended responses by Finnish adult readers who participated in an online survey in 2021. Applying thematic analysis, the study produces two types of results. First, the analysis of the reasons for nonreading reveals a wide range of situations, including everyday responsibilities and hardships, active prioritisation and gradual adaptation to one’s social surroundings. Second, the analysis of the readers’ reflections shows that the approaches to the periods of nonreading vary considerably, yielding from strong negativity to nonchalant neutrality. The respondents emphasise their attachment to the social world of book readers by focusing on the personal importance of reading and their reader identities. On the other hand, the periods of nonreading are considered natural, which underlines the readers’ trusting attitudes provided by their past experiences. Further, bookish resources orient the readers towards the world of reading and point to the embodied and symbolic nature of books and reading. Both the reasons for and meanings assigned to nonreading periods involve individual viewpoint and negotiation regarding sociocultural norms.
Introduction
This study explores how readers interpret interruptions in their leisure reading and how their accounts relate to current knowledge of practices and culture of reading books. The focus is on people who are generally inclined to read, who possess sufficient reading skills and who have had an experience of not reading for either a shorter or a longer period, which I refer to by the term period of nonreading (PON).
The examination is based on an online survey comprising responses from 955 Finnish adults who identify as book readers. The research questions are as follows:
(1) What reasons do readers attribute to periods of nonreading?
(2) How do they reflect on their periods of nonreading?
(3) How do the readers’ interpretations enhance our understanding of the contemporary social world of readers?
The analysis touches on leisure reading that is voluntarily chosen by the reader outside the domains of work or studies (see, e.g. Krashen, 1993). Reading books is understood broadly as a cultural practice: it includes reading fiction as well as nonfiction in any book format. It can have variable purposes, such as pleasure or utility (Stebbins, 2013). The participants of the study are self-identified readers – people who define themselves as readers of books by their own standards (see also Merga, 2017a, 2017b; Nolan-Stinson, 2008). The analysis contributes to the cultural sociology of reading, which, according to sociologist María Angélica Thumala Olave (2022), ‘involves placing the experience and agency of readers at the center of the analysis.’ For me, this means an inductive approach where the structure of the analysis is data driven. However, I use the serious leisure perspective (e.g. Stebbins, 2007, 2013) to illustrate my understanding of the ‘social world of book readers’ as the context of the analysis. Additionally, the study draws on interdisciplinary reading research (e.g. Driscoll, 2024; Felski, 2008; Kajander, 2022).
To date, relatively few studies have focused on sporadic reading and the domain between ardent and averted readers. In terms of reading as a cultural practice, sociologists have focused on reading activity and its social stratification, often involving a statistical approach (Atkinson, 2016; Bennett et al., 2009). In contrast, qualitative reading research has foregrounded the question of why reading is found meaningful and beneficial (Merga, 2017b; Ross, 1999; Stebbins, 2013; Thumala Olave, 2022; Usherwood and Toyne, 2002), mostly setting aside its potential fluctuations and deficiencies (see Fuller and Rehberg Sedo, 2019). However, recent studies have provided some additional understanding of, for instance, the diverse reading practices and attitudes among those groups of people who typically read the least (Heikkilä, 2024) and of the discrepancies between reading activity and reader identity (Berglund and Steiner, 2025; Noorda and Berens, 2024), indicating that there is a need for more research on readers’ own interpretations of (non)reading.
Understanding periods of nonreading is increasingly relevant to current research on leisure reading due to the changing nature of reading and media cultures in Finland as well as globally. At a time when reading books is widely recognised as a topic of interest and concern, it is important to consider how readers themselves reflect on their reading habits and what inhibits reading among those who are generally inclined to engage in it. The analysis also discusses reading practices as part of current everyday life characterised by myriad choices, fast-paced free time and individualisation.
Context
This investigation adopts a reader-led viewpoint according to which readers are considered to be subjects in a specific cultural climate but also active constructors of meaning. Therefore, the expression period of nonreading is used as a heuristic tool for further examination of the readers’ interpretations. In the following, I draw on the serious leisure perspective (SLP) coined by Stebbins (e.g. 2007) to shed light on the population studied. 1
Serious leisure is defined as the systematic pursuit of an amateur, hobbyist, or volunteer core activity that people find so substantial, interesting, and fulfilling that, in the typical case, they launch themselves on a (leisure) career centered on acquiring and expressing a combination of its special skills, knowledge, and experience. (Stebbins, 2007: 5)
Casual leisure, in contrast, is ‘immediately, intrinsically rewarding, relatively short-lived pleasurable activity requiring little or no special training to enjoy it’, and project-based leisure includes one-time or occasional activities (Stebbins, 1997: 18, 2007: 37–51). In his study on ‘committed readers’ (Stebbins, 2013), Stebbins presents the motivations for reading within these domains. Whereas Stebbins analyses various types of reading, I focus on book readers and their social world.
The six key qualities of serious leisure (Stebbins, 2007: 11–12, 18–21; 2013: 29–31) are helpful in illuminating that my study involves a specific, selected group, not only in terms of background variables (which are discussed in Data and methods), but also in relation to cultural practices. Of the six qualities, identification is the central vantage point in this analysis which focuses on ‘self-identified’ book readers – people who define themselves as readers of books (see also Hiidenmaa et al., 2024; Merga, 2017a, 2017b; Nolan-Stinson, 2008). A special ethos implies some coherent beliefs and standards among the readership despite the open-ended criteria for identification and is a basis of the social world shared by the readers. Career (a sense of continuity or ‘more or less steady development’) and durable benefits (for instance, self-actualisation and belonging) could describe what the readers have at stake while dealing with the PONs, and their reflections and courses of action could be depicted as perseverance, ‘sticking with [the activity] through thick and thin, […] conquering adversity’. This arguably involves effort, that is, special skills, knowledge and experience.
Stebbins follows David Unruh’s (1980: 276–277) characterisation of social worlds as ‘constellations of actors, organizations, events and practices’ centred around a shared interest. Social worlds are not determined by formal memberships; instead, they allow for either loose or more firm involvement (see Unruh, 1979, 1980). 2 The members are principally connected by mediated communication (Stebbins, 2013: 30; Unruh, 1980: 279), of which my interpretation is rather broad: for readers, this can include a variety of aesthetics, discourses and practices both offline and online, some of which have been referred to by the term ‘bookish’ (Birke, 2021; Pressman, 2020). 3 This complies with Beth Driscoll’s (2024) idea that being a reader in the current ‘post-digital’ world is enacted through a variety of aesthetic and moral practices, judgements and negotiations.
Driscoll argues that ‘readers can be found in the process of creating that identity by affiliating themselves (strongly or weakly) to the category or group “readers”’ (emphasis mine). Affiliation or attachment are useful expressions for illuminating my understanding of the world of readers: Felski (2008) writes about attachment to literature, and Thumala Olave (2020) explores attachment to books – both can be understood as part of the shared ethos, ‘the spirit of the community’ (Stebbins, 2013: 30) for book readers. Addressing the diverse ways in which the readers manifest their affiliation with and discuss the (possible) detachment from this ethos, this study enhances the understanding of ‘the reading lifestyle’, as Stebbins (2013: 99) terms it.
The intermediate terrain between avid reading and nonreading has been understudied, particularly in reference to adult readers. The PONs constitute a phenomenon that has not yet received much scholarly attention; instead, research on book readers has often focused on the experienced influences and advantages of reading (Merga, 2017b; Ross, 1999; Thumala Olave, 2022; Usherwood and Toyne, 2002). Conversely, the costs – ‘disappointments, dislikes, or tensions’ – of leisure have been studied to a much lesser extent than the rewards (Stebbins, 2007: 15; see also Lamont et al., 2014, 2015). The present article also touches on leisure constraints, that is, factors that limit or prohibit an individual’s participation in their leisure activity or activities (e.g. Jackson, 2000), and cultural non-participation (e.g. Heikkilä, 2022). Reading research related to these areas has primarily investigated those groups of people who typically do not read (much) or even reject it, or to whom reading is difficult (Heikkilä, 2024; Ross et al., 2018: 147–149). However, it is known that time-related constraints are experienced frequently, and that the experience and occurrence of constraints vary among individuals and groups as well as across life course (Jackson, 2000: 64; see also Backlund and Kuentzel, 2013).
A recent nationally representative survey of more than 2000 adults in the UK showed that 35% of UK adults can be what is referred to as ‘lapsed readers’, those persons ‘who used to read but have stopped’. Furthermore, 30% ‘struggle to finish what they are reading’ (The Reading Agency, 2024). By comparison, a 2020 survey of Finnish adults presented some parallel results: 60% of the respondents thought that they should read or listen to books more frequently (The Finnish Reading Center, 2020a). The lack of time and the difficulty to focus were cited among the most significant obstacles to reading in both surveys.
Nonreading as a hypothetical idea has been briefly mentioned in previous studies with mutually consistent discoveries – readers suggested that the mere notion of life without reading would be devastating, even impossible to imagine (Ross, 1999; Usherwood and Toyne, 2002). Some scholars have acknowledged nonreading related to specific titles or situations: Benwell et al. (2011) showed that not reading the assigned book in a book group was perceived as ‘morally accountable behaviour’ that elicited apologies or justifications. According to Driscoll (2024: 110–113), this type of nonreading can involve ‘strategic moral conduct’, expressing the misalignment with the ideologies and behaviours certain publications or authors are seen to represent. The culturally predominant perception of reading as ‘a morally weighted activity’ (Driscoll, 2024: 89; see also Furedi, 2016; Heikkilä, 2024: 7–12, 189–190) constitutes a significant context for analysing nonreading, this study included.
The social world of book readers can be understood as a subculture embedded in broader reading culture(s), which encompass all types of reading in our textualised society. These cultures are further surrounded by the historical and social context – in this case, Finnish society. Finland, like the Nordic countries in general, is characterised by relatively small socioeconomical inequalities (Purhonen et al., 2021). Scholars have suggested that the promotion of reading and literacy across social hierarchies has had an exceptionally crucial role in the development of Finnish society due to the far-reaching impact of the Reformation as well as the more recent welfare state project and its cultural policies (for example, see Hiidenmaa et al., 2024; Laine and Salmi-Niklander, 2018). However, in Finland, reading books is a deeply stratified leisure activity, as educated women are the most active readers (Heikkilä, 2024; Purhonen et al., 2014; Statistics Finland, 2017). In this way, Finland resembles other western cultures where reading (books) and literacy adhere to social hierarchies (Bennett et al., 2009; Griswold et al., 2005) and gendered practices (Barton and Hamilton, 1998; Moss, 2007). These distinction mechanisms strongly inform the present analysis, even though the impact of education and gender on (non)reading is not directly analysed.
Data and Methods
The datasets of this study consist of the responses to an online survey by a total of 955 participants. The survey was conducted in Finland in 2021 as part of the research project Reading in Change. The survey did not aim for national representativeness but instead constituted a focused outlook on the characteristics and worlds of experience among self-identified book readers. By ‘readers’, I refer to this specific group, unless stated otherwise.
The link to the survey was disseminated through social media, the most prominent channel being a Facebook group entitled Kirjallisuuden ystävät (‘Friends of literature’). For this reason, it can be assumed that the respondents were generally familiar with digital environments and (social) media discussions about reading.
The cover letter to the survey emphasised that the study would welcome all kinds of people to whom reading books was a part of their life. A consistent or remarkably active reading habit was not required. The aim was to leave room for the participants’ own identification and criteria. Still, the datasets represent a highly selected group that reflects the ways in which reading activity is nationally stratified in Finland. Of the respondents, 80% had a university degree, and 86% identified as female, with the population comprising remarkably active readers based on their own estimation. It is also notable that among this particular group, reading activity is not statistically related to either education or gender (Hiidenmaa et al., 2024). However, the proportions of men and less educated people were small, which should be kept in mind when considering the results.
The respondents were asked questions regarding their perceptions, experiences and habits related to their reading of (or listening to) books, either fiction or nonfiction, in any format. Background information was collected to provide an overview of the data. Only the background questions were mandatory, allowing for ‘I do not want to answer’ as an option. As members of the reading culture the respondents are affected by its conventions, for instance, the above-mentioned notions of reading as morally decent or feminine. Thus, they may have either consciously or unconsciously aligned their responses according to what they consider to be socially acceptable (Bergen and Labonté, 2020). Further, it is essential to note that the author of this study is also part of the sociocultural context of reading.
This study focuses on a total of 1175 responses to three open-ended questions in the survey’s section entitled Continuity of reading (see Table 1):
Description of datasets.
The first analytical section answers research question 1 by exploring the reasons readers attribute to the interruptions – dataset (a). The second analytical section answers research question 2 by investigating the readers’ reflections on nonreading – datasets (b) and (c). The third research question about how the readers’ experiences relate to the social world of book readers is addressed throughout the whole analysis and in the conclusions and discussion.
The responses across all datasets were diverse both in length and specificity. Datasets (a) and (b) contained roughly equally extensive responses, while the responses in dataset (c) were significantly less frequent but slightly longer on average. The responses were originally written and analysed in Finnish and translated for this article. Since the results are not compared based on gender, all respondents are referred to by the pronoun they.
The study was conducted by means of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Particular attention was paid to linguistic and discursive features, such as sentence composition, tone and figures of speech. The first step of the analysis entailed inductive coding of the responses using Atlas.ti software. Subsequently, the data were examined repeatedly to discover consistent patterns and recurrent characteristics using additional manual tools such as notes and mindmaps. This step was followed by the search and development of themes. Following Braun and Clarke (2006: 82), my idea of what is identified as a theme is based on qualitative criteria instead of quantifiable prevalence: each theme constitutes a distinct pattern that ‘captures something important in relation to the overall research question[s]’, making the researcher’s judgement and reflection an especially significant part of the process.
Reasons for the Periods of Nonreading
The survey data revealed that the respondents feel they read on a regular basis: 86% (806, n=939) reported reading books daily. However, 66% (618, n=940) of the respondents answered ‘yes’ to the claim ‘I have stopped reading for a period of time more than once in my life’. There were 422 respondents who elaborated on the reasons for these interruptions, and the analysis of their responses is presented via three themes: challenges, choices and influences.
Challenges: ‘I Did Not Have Time/Energy/Desire to Read’
The first theme encompasses interruptions in reading imposed by everyday responsibilities or difficult life events. These reasons are manifold and cause comparatively compelling restrictions for readers, as the following response indicates:
(1) When the children were small, I could not focus on reading due to tiredness and having only a little free time.
Example (1) demonstrates how different elements of everyday life together contribute to an interruption in reading. This entanglement of reasons significantly permeates the whole dataset, but having small children appeared as an especially relevant factor in terms of the PONs. Since a majority of the respondents were women, this suggests that on top of the gendered features within reading itself (e.g. Griswold et al., 2005; Michelson, 2022; Radway, 1991 [1984]), PONs could be linked to other gendered practices, such as child-rearing (see e.g. Kay, 1998). 4 The declarative tone in accounts like Example (1) reflects the often taken-for-granted nature of such practices.
Some respondents specified that their workload and the extensive reading at work takes a toll on their leisure reading, pointing to the high level of education among the respondents and to the increase of knowledge work in Finland and other post-industrial societies (Pyöriä et al., 2005). The respondent in Example (2) further describes work as part of the interrelated reasons for nonreading. They begin by saying that they had struggled at work at the time, and continue:
(2) [. . .] Then [one] somehow sought an easy way of feeling good, and a few rounds of a mobile game or a reality show on television seemed to offer it more quickly.
The response addresses the common suggestion that the decline in reading has been crucially affected by the increased competition between books and other media. The present data indicate that for people identifying as readers, digital media are a component that relates to the PONs, but as the foregoing response suggests, they are not always prioritised over reading merely because of their allure alone but rather out of necessity: the overall strain of life can encourage the use of digital media which many regard as less demanding.
The accounts reporting practical constraints to reading are interesting in comparison to some previous research where readers reported such a substantial urge to read that they engaged in it almost anywhere in their daily life (Juopperi, 2018: 67–68; Ross, 1999: 787). Regarding this dataset, losing such a desire was included as part of the limitations of reading, sometimes in itself and sometimes as a result of another challenge. One example is studying; some respondents specifically mention studying literature, ‘a definite killer of reading as a hobby’, as one of them postulates. A similar notion is expressed in Example (3):
(3) [. . .] I don’t remember if I read a single book for fun during my years studying at the university [. . .] I tried to study literature as a minor subject: it took away my joy of reading and literature completely. I quit literature studies after maybe a year of struggling, but my desire to read was left with a colossal dent for years. After finishing my master’s degree, I had to seriously learn to read for fun again, and it was not easy. It took a couple of years until it started to feel natural and comfortable again.
For this respondent, the PON involved alienation from a ‘natural’ and ‘comfortable’ reading strategy, reading ‘for fun’, which they juxtapose with ‘struggling’ with academic reading practices. Some scholars have depicted this dichotomy by distinguishing between professional and lay reading (or readers) (e.g. Felski, 2008; Skiveren, 2022). The respondent chose to pursue a reading strategy that does not derive from academic practices, which are often culturally appreciated, but rather represents what Heikkilä (2024) calls a ‘practical’ discourse on reading, emphasising the momentary and subjective enjoyment experienced by the reader. This implies that even enthusiastic readers are not necessarily inclined to adopt or imitate the practices of expert readers.
Some of the challenges described by respondents were more incidental, including sudden crises, such as becoming severely ill, having a near-death experience, getting a divorce, or witnessing the sickness or death of a loved one. 5 In Example (4), the crisis crystallises in the metaphor of reaching ‘a dead end’:
(4) When I was middle-aged, I had a long break from reading fiction, because I came to a dead end in my life, and I could not help it, I could not change things that were negative. I did not have the strength somehow, all my energy was consumed by grief, worry, and mental coping.
This example shows two prominent features in the data: affective stance and occasional confusion. Powerlessness, uncertainty and loneliness are displayed by the first-person descriptions of failed efforts (‘I could not help it’, ‘I could not change things’, ‘I did not have the strength’), the repetitive, out-of-breath sentence composition, and the adverb ‘somehow’. Whether the ‘things that were negative’ depict one specific misfortune or a more complex set of problems, here reading is not primarily considered as a source of self-care and coping (e.g. Thumala Olave, 2022; Usherwood and Toyne, 2002). Instead, it is portrayed as an activity that requires work – a discourse that associates more with nonreaders rather than avid readers (see Ross, 1999: 787).
To sum up, the present theme entwines reasons for nonreading that suggest the effect of the broader impact of contemporary fast-paced lifestyles and the strain of everyday life on reading culture.
Choices: ‘I would Rather do Something Else in My Free Time’
The interruptions were not always entirely unwelcome – some respondents depicted them as phases in life when they had deliberately decided to focus on other activities. The respondents mentioned prioritising, for instance, renovation work, going berry picking, undertaking crafts and playing sports. In other words, their interruptions in reading involved (often notably devoted and time-consuming) participation in other social worlds related to leisure:
(5) [. . .] [W]hen I was a member at different gyms for years alongside my work, I had less time to read since at one time I attended approximately ten gym classes per week.
Besides mentioning the formal gym memberships, the respondent implies a more informal – and based on training frequency, highly active – attachment to the social world of sports. Some scholars have argued that being physically active constitutes a way of embodying a middle- or upper-class identity (Larsson and Larsson, 2023: 226). Moreover, a wide repertoire of leisure activities is generally associated with social structures (Oinas et al., 2010). In this way, attending other pursuits may be linked to the same advantages that reading gives, social status being one of them. Readers may also find fulfilment by redeploying their skills and experience in other contexts (see Backlund and Kuentzel, 2013).
The matter of choice was associated with difficulties in choosing what to read. The readers mentioned feeling that either there were too many options or that suitable books were otherwise difficult to find:
(6) I have never been good at finding new reading material. Although I have a list of interesting books, I feel strongly that different books are interesting in different life situations. If I don’t immediately find something that blows me away, the reading slump is prolonged.
While the respondent has a habit of planning their reading, their interests and impatience point them towards spontaneous and thus more sporadic reading. The ability to make good intuitive reading choices has indeed been shown to be a vital part of grassroots-level strategies inherent to avid readers. For example, in a study done by Ross (1999: 797) it was found that experienced readers have a ‘well-developed heuristic’ for identifying suitable books based on a variety of subtle hints, and this skill helps them to navigate the literary world.
Conversely, the increased repertoire of book formats was also considered an advantage. For example, some respondents with sight problems or tight schedules suspected that they could have continued reading if they had access to audiobooks. Moreover, some respondents implied that their reading habits would in general be drastically different without access to several book formats. Another advantage recognised with regard to audiobooks was that they alleviate the need for prioritising other activities over reading, as discussed in Example (7):
(7) [. . .] Without audiobooks, which you can ‘read’ while jogging or painting the house, I would not read even a fraction of the amount I currently do.
For the respondent, audiobooks are not only a temporary solution but a basic staple of their reading habit. Followed by the audiobook boom especially in the Nordic countries, listening to books while simultaneously engaging in other activities is an increasingly prevalent practice in reading culture, which many readers consider as an integral part of their reading (see, e.g. Lindh and Hiidenmaa, 2023). Even though the evidence is mixed on whether the new digital formats appeal to people who otherwise would be reluctant to participate in reading culture (e.g. Aaltonen, 2019; Heikkilä, 2024), the present data provide some indication that for avid readers, digitalisation has offered additional tools for incorporating reading into their everyday life.
The present theme suggests that some readers are engaged, even ambitious, in several activities besides reading books and that there is variation in the weight given to reading specifically. A large selection of literature and book formats further increases this variability. Both the prioritisation between leisure activities as well as the difficulty and abundance of choice in books could well be closely linked with Beck’s (1992: 88) notion of the modern era and its social surge of individualisation, where people are compelled ‘to make themselves the center of their own planning and conduct of life’. The diversifying ways of being a reader (Driscoll, 2024) thus involve the paradoxical freedom related to leisure: while leisure is a space where one can forge a meaningful personal identity, it entails the responsibility to choose from myriad suggestions (Cohen-Gewerc and Stebbins, 2013). Making these choices and articulating them, often in the pursuit of independence and individuality, require skills and resources.
Influences: ‘A New Relationship Separated Me from Books for Months’
Regarding the third and final theme in this dataset, the deprioritisation of reading is implicitly or gradually induced by social relations and respective values, norms and practices. While the findings overlap somewhat with the challenges section, this theme focuses on the dynamics of personal relationships rather than the more tangible questions pertaining to the use of time or division of everyday responsibilities.
Social influences are known to foster the development of a personally meaningful reading habit (Merga, 2017a). With respect to the present data, social relations appeared two-fold. On the one hand, the respondents described reading as an inherently solitary activity, ‘a protective wall’. For this reason, some reported that a lively social life supersedes the importance of reading due to their mutual incompatibility.
On the other hand, not having someone with whom to share the interest towards reading was also listed as one of the reasons for the periods of nonreading. More specifically, some respondents attributed periods of nonreading to relationships with (a) significant other(s). Finding a new partner and building a life together reportedly affects reading habits. Examples (8) and (9) show how establishing partnerships entailed collisions of reading cultures involving aspects like personal space, privacy and the significance of reading.
(8) [. . .] [B]eginning a new relationship with someone who does not read and does not count reading as a hobby.
(9) [. . .] I read especially in the evenings in bed before going to sleep. When I moved in with my boyfriend, reading in bed did not feel so natural anymore because it was not a private moment. Reading then diminished and finally stopped altogether. [. . .]
The gradual nature of abandoning reading is demonstrated especially by the latter response, with the person advancing from a slight discomfort (‘did not feel so natural anymore’, ‘reading then diminished’) to the endpoint where they completely stopped reading in bed. These examples are at odds with Stebbins’ (2013: 34) notion that serious leisure often involves ‘selfishness’ and that as a consequence, potential partners ‘may soon come to the interpretation that the enthusiast is more enamored of the core leisure activity than of, say, the partner or spouse’. Here the effect seems to be the opposite. These examples again point towards previous knowledge of reading as a socially embedded and heavily gendered activity and raise the question of whether they reflect larger structures where interests deemed as ‘feminine’ are often undermined.
It is also noteworthy that in the few instances when gender is mentioned, it is men or masculinity that associate with discouraging and deprioritising reading as an activity, either explicitly or implicitly: ‘There is too much to do, it feels like reading is consuming all my time, and my husband even points out what I could have done with all this time.’ Another respondent explicitly identifies, in their words, ‘the presumption that men do not read’ as the reason for their nonreading period. These responses deviate from the general line of the data, which predominantly omit explicit information on gender, but they nevertheless align well with prior analyses on the impact of cultural conventions and stereotypes on reading practices (see Espinoza and Strasser, 2020; Lahelma et al., 2020).
Reflections on the Periods of Nonreading
Regarding the readers’ reflections, two overarching approaches towards the PONs were identified. On the one hand, the readers displayed negative and conflicting stances, indicating that the experience was difficult for them: ‘I have felt like life is not at all like I would want it to be [. . .]’; ‘I was “mentally dead”’; or ‘It feels like missing a limb’. On the other hand, there was a relatively neutral stance wherein the respondents describe the interruptions as, for instance, ‘natural’ and ‘not anything specific’. In the following subsections, the dataset is further examined via three themes: resistance, providence and bookishness.
Resistance: ‘I would have Wanted to Read’
Modifying Driscoll’s (2024: 110) argument, not reading is most impactful when reading is expected, and it is evident that these respondents largely represent those people to whom reading is generally a meaningful part of life. With respect to the theme of resistance, the respondents seemed to react to these premises by rejecting the detachment from the social world of reading, and moreover, such judgement of them made by others.
The respondents identified to the social world of readers through positive statements such as ‘I find reading important’. Additionally, depicting negative emotions evoked by not reading (‘sadness’, ‘irritation’, ‘like something essential is missing from my life’) is also a type of identity work signalling appreciation of and commitment to the social world. Both of these discursive patterns are illustrated by Example (10):
(10) Breaks often evoke slight anxiety, although I am responsible for my reading performance only to myself. However, nonreading shakes my reader identity every time, even though I try to remind myself that reading is neither a competition, not even with myself, nor a compulsory performance. I have managed rather well to break free from the guilt and disappointment in myself induced by not reading,
Besides conveying a personal stance, the passage ‘it bothers me, just because I love reading’ is a social act by which the respondent affiliates themselves to the category of readers. Example (10)’s response illustrates the negativity (anxiety, guilt, disappointment, threat to identity) that is largely associated with PONs, but the attention can be drawn to the negotiation concerning these meanings. The repeated concessive expressions ‘although’, ‘however’ and ‘but’ indicate that the respondent tends to waver between conflicting views. The exclusion (‘only to myself’) and negation (‘neither a competition nor a compulsory performance’) imply that certain culturally predominant conceptions need to be specifically contradicted. The response conveys an emancipatory stance entangled with self-management: ‘I try to remind myself’, ‘I have managed [. . .] to break free’.
The personal point of view is even more prominent in the accounts by which the respondents explicitly label themselves as readers, claiming the authority over their situation and self-definition:
(11) I have focused on other things that I have been forced to prioritise.
The expression ‘I have been forced’ demonstrates how involuntariness is cited to underpin one’s connection to reading: the respondents may say that they would have wanted to read if they could have chosen freely or that they tried to but failed. Furthermore, the declaration ‘I consider myself a reading person’ prioritises the respondent’s own viewpoint over others. As a consequence, the category of ‘not-a-reading-person’ is implicitly rejected (see Visakko, 2015: 180–190). Following Visapää (2021), I suggest that through these first-person reflections, the readers emphasise the epistemic and moral right to define themselves and their experiences (on epistemic rights, see Watson, 2021).
Some of the responses challenge – often implicitly – the researchers’ deontic authority, that is, their right to pose questions and make proposals (Stevanovic and Peräkylä, 2012). For example, there is some disagreement about what not reading entails: ‘Books are always available, so I guess I don’t feel like I have actually taken any breaks.’ Therefore, it is important to consider the influence of how the survey was framed and disseminated: despite the cover letter stating that people with all kinds of reading habits were invited to participate, resistance might at least partly result from feeling obligated to defend one’s reader identity in a survey targeted at people who read books. This is supported by Visapää’s (2021: 354) observation that self-descriptions can be used in anticipation of possible criticism.
In conclusion regarding the theme of resistance, the readers in this study attach themselves to the social world of book readers in various ways: by emphasising that reading matters to them, by portraying PONs as strange and unwanted and by putting their personal experience to the fore. It is worth noting that they do not necessarily seem to take the norms of their social world for granted but may contest or adjust them to conform to their individual situations.
Providence: ‘I Have Always Known that the Books Will be There Waiting for Me’
The theme of providence entails a perception of reading as inherent and beyond the reader’s own ability to influence it. The role of the reader is to resign to the circumstances without forcing themselves to read: ‘The desire to read will return on its own, I have not been worried.’
Prior studies suggest that the notion of an ideal reader is characterised by a certain effortlessness and nonchalance. This was discovered by examining both vocational school students with weak literacy skills (Pietilä and Lakka, 2021) as well as highly educated avid readers (Suomalainen, 2022). The theme of providence reflects this ideal by showing how PONs are likewise encountered with a composed and subdued attitude. Some respondents even state that the interruption did not occur to them at the time and that they only came to think about it in retrospect.
The idea of naturalness was evident in a previously introduced example (10) where the spontaneous inclination to read was subject to a kind of ‘meta-willingness’ (‘I would like to have the desire to read’). This is consistent with Mäkinen’s (2018) findings that inherent motivation, ‘the love of reading’, a concept dating back to the European reading discourse of the 18th century, has gained significance in Finnish research and discourse after the Second World War. Inherent, non-instrumental interest, then, is not to be understood only as a characteristic of individual readers but instead as a cultural expectation that holds significance within their social world.
Example (12) further shows how authentic attraction towards reading is put to the fore:
(12) I had years of barely reading anything. That kind of bothered me, because reading has been an important hobby for me, but
Much like in the previous section, the respondent mentions the personal importance of reading and presents conflicting views – acting upon one’s values and accepting an undesirable situation. The central focus of the present theme is on the way in which the respondent depicts the return to reading as a process beyond their power (indicated, for instance, by the expression ‘the time was ripe’). The impression of inevitability is reinforced by the retrospective viewpoint wherein the strategy of waiting has already proved successful. Hence, the readers often refer to the old age or long experience, which enables them to trust that they will return to reading sooner or later, because, quoting one respondent, ‘the books will not disappear anywhere’.
Although the readership studied here constitutes a selected group, the practices analysed within this theme can be described as intuitive rather than performance oriented. Compared to the theme of resistance, respondents discussed the moral code of the social world of leisure reading on a more implicit level. Thus, on the one hand, the theme introduces a softer protest of cultural expectations wherein the morally binding character of reading is eluded by emphasising its inherent and pleasurable qualities (see also Driscoll, 2024: 93) and by portraying it as a process that advances on its own, even for reasons that are beyond the reader’s own understanding. On the other hand, though, it constitutes a skill acquired by experience and tightly integrating oneself with a certain social world and its practices.
Bookishness: ‘There’s a New, Unread Book in Every Corner’
The theme of bookishness comprises references to books as resources through which the respondents oriented themselves towards reading. One example of this is the following excerpt, where the attachment to books is conveyed by focusing on them as physical items (see Kajander, 2022):
(13) I miss books. Even during the breaks, I have been fumbling for the books in my bookshelf, in the library and in flea markets, although I have not read them.
Here, books are ‘on offer’ as crucial elements in the construction of meaning even though they are not used for their most conventional affordance, namely reading. Another reader writes about reminiscing their childhood, when ‘there was always a book in my hand and a pile of them on the table’. The memory itself functions as orientation, and parallel to the previous example, it interestingly coils around the material and bodily aspects of reading: instead of literary worlds (although this symbolic meaning is also present), the respondent remembers how books used to embody reading in their everyday life.
The respondents actively seek out the presence of books: they long for books – or to go ‘to books’, as one reader stated, underlining a specific sense of arriving or dwelling in a place. 6 The reading habit was considered easier to maintain when there are books ‘within arm’s reach’. One respondent even argued that they have never been ‘not reading’ because books are always ‘available’ (see also Resistance).
However, the awareness of books was not always found solely encouraging, as the following examples demonstrate:
(14) [. . .] Nowadays I notice becoming even slightly ‘anxious’ if I have not read for a long time. It feels like
(15) An unread book
Books that ‘pile up’ ‘on the table’ are perceived ambivalently: they represent something new or potentially interesting, a possibility of action, but simultaneously a reminder of what the reader might miss out on – a reading experience itself but also having one’s finger on the pulse of literature, which comprises the core of the social world. These findings illustrate how reading culture is in a constant state of flux, not least due to the rapid publishing cycle, and how readers may thus find it difficult to re-establish their pattern of reading after a disruption. ‘Piling up’, whether interpreted concretely or figuratively, underlines the idea of books as resources or goods, as well as the reader’s awareness of them even when they are not reading. Another example of this was writing down interesting book titles for future reading – an act that reflects Birke’s (2021) and Driscoll’s (2024) interpretations of bookishness: conduct that is not always reading in a concrete sense but nevertheless conveys enthusiasm towards books and reading.
In this dataset, the discourse on bookish resources also stretched out to touch on the continuity of reading in general and overlapped with the accounts concerning the reasons for PONs. For instance, some respondents implied that acquiring books or keeping ‘spare’ books just in case significantly helps them to avoid interruptions. Conversely, the PONs were associated with the situation during COVID-19 pandemic when it was not allowed to ‘wander aimlessly’ in bookstores and flipping through books before borrowing them was not possible. It should be kept in mind that the period of time when the survey was conducted was unique: it is known that reading books increased in Finland during the pandemic (The Finnish Reading Center, 2020b), but presumably there were also some adversities, as these data indicate.
In conclusion, the theme of bookishness illustrates how bookish surroundings, objects and resources suggest, precede or remind readers of reading and thus help – or sometimes urge readers – to maintain contact with the ‘reading self’ and the social world of readers. These findings are linked to the possibilities provided by different book formats, which were discussed with regard to the first dataset (see Choices). The results underpin prior knowledge about the symbolic and iconic meanings of books (Kajander, 2022; Pressman, 2020; Thumala Olave, 2020) and support the idea that public and commercial spaces, both tangible and virtual, play a significant role in maintaining reading culture.
Conclusions and Discussion
In this study, I have analysed readers’ accounts of situations where they have temporarily stopped reading. The analysis focused on self-identified readers in Finland, and the data mostly comprise university-educated women who are in general vastly overrepresented among avid book readers (Heikkilä, 2024; Purhonen et al., 2014). In line with a previous analysis on readers by Stebbins (2013), this group can be understood as a type of a social world related to a particular leisure pursuit. According to the data, interruptions and fluctuations in leisure reading are quite common experiences among this group of relatively active readers: 66% of the respondents had gone through a period of nonreading more than once during their life.
The first research question concerned the reasons attributed to the PONs. In the first section of the analysis, these reasons were examined using the themes of challenges, choices, and influences. According to the respondents’ own interpretations, nonreading was most often associated with family life, work and studies, which were predominantly prioritised over reading at certain times. Moreover, their PONs occurred during unexpected life events such as illness or loss of a loved one. These were analysed in the theme of challenges. In contrast, the theme of choices showed how other activities were chosen over reading more deliberately, indicating that some of the respondents are not only engaged readers but also active in other areas of leisure. Difficulties in choosing suitable books, on the other hand, was the reason that was most clearly linked to reading itself. None of these findings are surprising in the current era of individualisation and diversifying selection. Finally, the theme of influences indicated adaptations to the shifting structures of everyday life and changing social circles and might involve conflicting views about the significance of reading, pointing to the impact of gender stereotypes on reading as well as to the private, intimate nature of reading despite its social dimensions.
Regarding the first research question, the reasons for PONs seem to be manifold and interrelated, involving several areas of life. This aligns with the argument that leisure time is after all ‘an integral part of our total time’ (Cohen-Gewerc and Stebbins, 2013). Judging by previous research, this is particularly true in the case of reading, which many do not consider a separate activity but rather a way of living or being (see Ross, 1999; Suomalainen, 2022). Moreover, Backlund and Kuentzel’s (2013) suggestion that participation in a leisure activity may vary across the life course according to one’s resources and interests seems to apply well to the world of reading.
The second research question concerned the reflections on nonreading. Two main approaches were recognised: one coiling around negative emotions induced by PONs and another emphasising neutrality. The data were further examined through three themes: resistance, providence and bookishness. Resistance refers to how the readers underlined their attachment to the social world of book readers and reacted to presumptions of (non)reading and (not) being a reader. Providence, by contrast, entailed the notion of both reading and nonreading as natural and spontaneous, emphasising the confidence provided by past experiences as a reader. Lastly, with respect to the theme of bookishness, the readers oriented themselves towards reading through presence of books and ‘bookish’ resources.
In conclusion, regarding the second research question, the reflections on PONs seem to react to the premise that reading is expected and appreciated. Not reading was justified, or a cause of dismay or portrayed as unusual, somewhat in line with what Benwell et al. (2011) noted in their study placed in a book group context. On the other hand, permissive, even dismissive stances were also prominent. All in all, the approaches can be characterised by both adaptability and authority in relation to reader identity and reading practices.
The analysis answers the third research question about how the data provide insight on the nature of the social world of readers by noting two things. The first one is the remarkable diversity in the readers’ accounts, especially with regard to the meanings of PONs. The data, even individual responses, contain variable, complex and sometimes conflicting perspectives: claiming authority on one hand and relinquishing it on the other, wanting to read but not feeling the interest to actually do it, labelling reading important but not urgent, taking a break from reading while not deeming it ‘not reading’. This leads to the second conclusion: across all themes, the negotiation about the meanings of reading is at the fore. These conclusions confirm findings from recent research on reading culture, particularly its increasing flexibility and multiformity (e.g. Birke, 2021; Driscoll, 2024; Noorda and Berens, 2024) and the readers’ authority to define and produce it (e.g. Koreman et al., 2024; Linko and Lindh, 2024). In the light of this analysis, much can still be learned about readers and their shared social reality from the viewpoint of the periods of nonreading as well as the changes in one’s leisure reading habits in general.
The clearest limitation of the study is that it focused on a selected group of readers. The participants had all in some way revived their reading routine, while the survey has obviously not reached those who have not managed to do so. Future studies both in sociology and other disciplines could benefit from paying more attention to the sporadic reading among adult readers and, moreover, to lapsed readers. Further research is also needed on nonreading among various groups and on changes in reading across one’s life course. Another limitation is that both the data and the method are strongly based on reflective and interpretative practices. Hence, the analysis focuses more on mapping different types of approaches and experiences than investigating detailed behavioural patterns or structures within the readership, which could be addressed for instance by using statistical methods.
Long-term national trends regarding the time spent on reading, the number of books consumed, and the overall level of literacy are topical subjects in public discussions, and adolescents who are reluctant to read are often the focus of concerned attention. This study illustrated the ways in which nonreading – in some forms – also touches on the social groups that in general read the most. The results suggest that reading can and should be fostered not only by aiming to increase reading behaviour among those who are considered nonreaders but also by, for instance, advancing bookish culture and policies that support balancing one’s family life and work with leisure activities. Moreover, it is crucial to dispel the stereotype of an ever eager and dedicated book reader.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for their helpful and insightful comments. I am also grateful to my colleagues in the Reading in Change project as well as my peers and senior colleagues at the University of Helsinki, especially in the doctoral seminar. Lastly, I would like to thank the readers that participated in this study.
Data availability statement
The data for this article are not currently available because prior to data collection it was determined that to ensure the anonymity of all participants of the study, the data will be archived and opened for purposes of future research only after all substudies of Reading in Change project have been completed.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Finnish Cultural Foundation (research project Reading in Change, grant number 00210378; personal grant, grant number 00250872) and the Alfred Kordelin Foundation (grant number 230262).
Ethical considerations,consent to participate and consent for publication
According to Finnish legislation, an approval by the Research Ethics Committee was not required. Participation to the survey was voluntary and anonymous. Prior to responding to the survey, the participants received written information about the purpose of the survey, the use of acquired data, and their rights to decline or withdraw from the study. By proceeding to respond to the survey, the participants gave consent to use their responses for research and teaching purposes. Direct personal data were not gathered, and the data were processed according to The General Data Protection Regulation and on the basis of public interest including scientific or historical research.
