Is There a Reading Comprehension Problem?

...in the book community

As I gathered my thoughts and tried to write a cohesive blog post, I realized pretty quickly that, like most online discourse, things aren’t as simple as they seem. And, for prosperity, I want to avoid sweeping generalizations, but literacy and comprehension are recurring concerns, so let’s get into it.

The national data is clear: American adults struggle with literacy.

Is this nationwide issue also occurring in the book community? Well, I’m not 100%, but I found this quote that I think is a good guiding light for this post:

“assumptions can’t be made that readers will approach any text as a proficient reader”¹.

I believe this is important, so my focus will be to highlight threads that suggest a comprehension gap (in ability or expectations) within the book community.

As I mentioned, national data indicate a literacy problem, 54% of adults read below a sixth-grade level². The book community surely has different reading abilities, yet still finds itself at the center of comprehension and literacy discourse. Members voluntarily choose to participate, signaling an interest in reading. Because of this, my gut initially leaned well, we’re all reading, so that’s not the problem, but…

Reading is not a straightforward process of lifting the words off the page. It is a complex process of problem-solving in which the reader works to make sense of a text not just from the words and sentences on the page but also from the ideas, memories, and knowledge evoked by those words and sentences³.

Stay with me, but reading, literacy, and reading comprehension are different, but some people use them interchangeably. If we are going to say there’s a problem, let’s be clear on what the problem really is. Is it literacy, comprehension, or a little of both?

Literacy vs. Reading Comprehension

Literacy refers to the foundational ability to read, write, speak, and interpret information across contexts⁴. Reading comprehension decodes words to understand meaning, integrating prior knowledge, and applying insights⁵. Most members of the bookish community are literate. But comprehension is the ability to make meaning from text.

Comprehension requires more than reading words. It involves grasping explicit meaning, inferring implied ideas, connecting text to prior knowledge, and engaging emotionally and intellectually.

Now, I’m going to complicate the conversation by reminding us that there are different types of comprehension⁶:

• Lexical: Understanding word meanings

• Literal: Grasping explicit information

• Interpretive: Inferring and understanding implied meanings

• Applied: Using information in new or practical contexts

• Affective: Connecting with emotional and personal aspects of the text

When considering the various types of comprehension, it’s essential to recognize that readers might rely on summarizing (likely lexical or literal comprehension), which I think suggests that reading is presented as passive. Think of the types of comprehension as a spectrum from passive reading to deep analysis, and the likelihood of inferring and drawing conclusions increases significantly in applied or affective comprehension.

We are talking about books online, though. Friend, I hate to break it to you…quick reviews, TikToks, and reels favor speed and entertainment over analysis. These formats are designed to capture attention quickly, which often means compressing complex ideas into sound bites. As a result, readers may share summaries (literal) rather than nuanced interpretations, leaving us to make decisions about a book without deeper engagement with the text. Plainly, the community’s social norms are fueling the question: Is there a comprehension issue?

Enjoyment-driven reading often prioritizes plot consumption over comprehension. When readers say things like “turning my brain off” or “reading for escape,” I think it signals passive reading. This does not mean comprehension never happens. Instead, it points to a huge bell curve in comprehension, and I can’t be certain where someone lands if comprehension or critical thinking isn’t the goal. The goal, at least from what I can tell, is: Did the reader like the book?

Full stop.

This is not inherently wrong, but I suspect it is a contributing factor in the broader conversation.

Language matters here.

To further this thread of thinking, statements such as “reading isn’t political” or “I don’t want a think piece” reflect an avoidance of interpretive or applied comprehension. These norms create the narrative: the community values entertainment and avoids critique. In fact, reviewers who provide analysis (a signal of comprehension) often face backlash, making thoughtful engagement less appealing. This dynamic discourages critical conversations and reinforces surface-level reading habits. I frequently find myself scratching my head because critique and critical analysis often seem negative. From an educational perspective, here is where I would be able to gauge reading ability, ala the person’s comprehension.

Another clear example where many readers are flattening our ability to assess comprehension is the heavy reliance on tropes. The use of tropes has become part of the shared language we use to talk about books. Tropes offer shortcuts to understanding and discussing books without explicit analysis. While tropes can be helpful, they also contribute to a culture where quick categorization replaces interpretation. This pattern is not universal, but it is prevalent enough to influence how comprehension questions bubble up in the space.

I don’t have the word space to dive deep with this thought, but I do want to acknowledge that there is also a collective desire for agreement. This might be why we see the same 10 books being “discussed”. We want to reinforce reading, but it’s not necessary to analyze a book that was collectively chosen. We have the fast pass. This book is approved. Turn off the brain, and don’t you dare say it’s not good.

So, Is There a Problem?

Before I answer the question, I want to point out that I couldn’t really find when anyone thought the book community would talk about books beyond enjoyment. Is that what we want from creators, or do we want to help filter through the deluge of available books? Currently, the transactional nature of the space depends on the viewer’s needs, and there is enough variety to curate how your recommendations appear on your timeline. What I’m trying to say here, gently, is: are we asking for something no one signed up for? What is pretty consistent is that people started sharing about books because they-

1. Enjoy reading,

2. Didn’t have people in their lives to talk about books,

3. And the book community increased their chances to meet other readers.

Uhm, so do we have a mismatch in expectations?

Back to the question, is there a reading comprehension problem? Here’s where I landed.

Maybe from a quick glance, but I think there’s more at play.

Remember when I said I don’t want to make generalizations? My overall takeaway from comparing the national trends and the book community is that the book community does not have a “pick up books and talk about them” problem. I can’t discount summarization as a form of comprehension. It feels more appropriate to take the position that reading comprehension varies, and passive reading is prevalent and highly rewarded. Personally, I think this might be closer to the root of the comprehension questions. The community prioritizes enjoyment and collective agreement, and I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that most reviewers and creators prioritize enjoyment first.

If you’re calling BS, let me offer this: I think the secret sauce might be in book clubs and buddy reads. There is a greater opportunity for co-learning and a deeper understanding of the text because it’s not a one-way transmission. Readers get to discuss what they read, how it might differ, and why it might differ. It helps contextualize the text further than reading on your own. In these moments, you are nudged beyond “did I like the book or not?

Also, this is supposed to be a “fun space,” and I wonder what contributions past stressors associated with reading might be creating that separation between for fun and reading deeply (comprehension). Which leads me to think, let’s get clear on the role the space is supposed to serve. The space probably has a higher literacy rate than the rest of the country, but comprehension might be on par with national trends. I have a lot more thoughts on online discourse and getting to the crux of recurring conversations, but I want to wrap this up.

For me, this was an exercise of peeling back an onion. I’m still chewing on how we can collectively support comprehension, particularly when the space is dominated by fiction. I think building the capacity for curiosity and learning might serve as a better test of how people consume their reading. If there is a desire for more analysis and more profound understanding, let’s normalize it and support creators who analyze books. In this regard, might the real issue be the preference for how books are discussed?

In the end, that was a lot of words to say, maybe. I know. But I want to acknowledge that most discourse is not cut-and-dry. Saying yes would discount the vastness of the space, so until we can really assess reading comprehension, I think it’s safer to be anecdotal and infer a passive level of reading, and a higher chance of seeing literal comprehension, with some accounts that go beyond that. With that said, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to make room for more complex interpretive, applied, or even affective comprehension, even if it feels uncomfortable.

We limit this space’s ability to engage critically with any text/art form if we don’t push past, “Did we enjoy the book?”

The book community (in my humble opinion) can be a powerful place for improving literacy, but only if we balance entertainment with analysis to support comprehension. In the end, the problem isn’t that people/the book community aren’t reading. You might not like how people are talking about books. And in this regard, sure, it’s easy to think there is a comprehension problem. But I would challenge you to spend more time finding readers who meet your expectations.

I want to continue this conversation. In 2026, I’m going to curate my content to be helpful. Stay tuned, but for now, I’m going to leave you with a few reflection questions.

• Where do you see yourself on the spectrum of reading engagement, from passive reading to deep analysis? How does that influence your comprehension?

• How do social norms in the book community (e.g., quick reviews, entertainment-driven content) shape your approach to discussing books? Do they limit or enhance your ability to engage critically?

• What strategies could you adopt to move beyond “Did I like the book?” toward interpretive or applied comprehension without losing the enjoyment of reading?

Happy Reading!

1. McGuire, B (2024). Teaching Reading vs. Literacy: A Critical Distinction for Educators. American College of Education.

2. National University. (2025). Adult Literacy Statistics and Facts.

3. Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., & Murphy, L. (2016). Leading for literacy: A Reading Apprenticeship approach. John Wiley & Sons.

4. American Library Association. (2024). Literacy for All Toolkit.

5. Butterfuss, R., Kim, J., & Kendeou, P. (2020). Reading Comprehension. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.

6. Reading Rockets (2023). What Research Tells Us About Reading Comprehension.