The New Dark Ages: The Death of Reading and the Dawn of the Post-Literate Society

by James Marriott

Reading built the modern world. It helped create democracy, science and reason.

Now, books are dying, and people everywhere are losing the ability to read deeply or think rationally.

The golden chain of knowledge linking reader to reader through history is breaking.

The screen has replaced the page. Our free time has been colonised by addictive, infantilising slop. A culture of distraction is replacing a culture of reasoned debate.

As reading declines, thought becomes shallower and culture becomes simpler.

Public life is becoming more emotional, more tribal, more irrational.

We are entering a post-literate society. And the world we knew is already beginning to disappear.

Six hundred years after the invention of the printed book, it has never been more threatened or more irreplaceable.

'Without question the most important book of the year' MARINA HYDE

'Superb' TOM HOLLAND

‘Anyone who wants to understand the world today needs to read this book’ NAOMI ALDERMAN

‘One of the most important cultural crises of all. Essential reading’ ANDREW MARR

‘Put down your phone and read this’ HELEN LEWIS

James Marriott 2026 (P) Penguin Audio 2026

Genres: Nonfiction, Sociology, Philosophy, Psychology, History, Politics

208 pages, Hardcover

Expected publication October 6, 2026

Reviews

[Brendan (History Nerds United)]

Of course I am going to enjoy a book called The New Dark Ages which tells us the world is reading books less and it is all going to hell. Granted, author James Marriott doesn't put as fine a point on it as I have, but I want to feel special. Don't we all?

Marriott looks at the world of less book reading and laments. Mainly, the crux of his argument is that a reading world is a more democratic and well-informed one. I don't want to overstate the argument because Marriott himself will point out that jumping literacy rates in a printing press world didn't mean great things across the board, but it did mean everyone got a bit more aware of the world around them.

These days (picture me shaking my fist at a cloud), people are much more likely to not read at all or only in the tiny snippets at the bottom of a TikTok video. Marriott brings out some facts and figures which show that this type of reading is not great for our self-awareness and leads us humans to a shallower understanding of complex topics. Marriott also adds some history of literacy, mainly by recapping the lives of some famous people who talked about how important (and fun!) reading is.

As for how convincing Marriott's argument is, it is hard for me to say. Obviously, I am already well converted to the "read a book constantly" side of the aisle. This feels more like multiple articles which were pulled together and then some connective passages were added. All of it is well written with some funny asides. If you looked at the title and were drawn to this, you will enjoy it. Whether this would hold up under intense scrutiny, I am not sure. Then again, how would I know? Maybe I can read a book about it.

(This book was provided as a review copy by Doubleday Books.)

[Kat]

James Marriott is one of my favourite columnists in The Times, and he often has very interesting views on books, society, and technology, so when he announced that he was writing a book about how technology is fast-tracking the end of reading, I was very excited to read it. Unfortunately, I really didn’t enjoy it. It was split up into six short chapters, as well as an introduction and conclusion. It had some high points - I thought that the introduction was interesting, and I especially enjoyed the chapter about the rise of screens, and how, although TV predates the smartphone, it was also a strong indicator for how technology was going to evolve - but a lot of the writing was very dry, such as the chapter on the rise of reading, and each chapter felt like a slightly new way to say that technology is making us read less, which made it very repetitive. Furthermore, I felt that Marriott was so determined to hammer home that technology is the reason why people read less that he forgot to include some interesting counterpoints, such as the rise of online book communities and that teenagers are no longer reading whole books in English lessons and are instead taught through extracts or play/film versions, even of novels that are written for their age range. I did appreciate that Marriott touched upon how films and TV scripts are being written to spell out what is happening on screen to compensate for people scrolling on their phones whilst a film or show plays in the background, as well as how novels are getting shorter and less complex. But unfortunately those high points were not enough for me to enjoy reading this book. He is best suited to writing columns. Overall, this was a disappointing book that had a lot of potential, but it was ultimately a squandered effort.

[Blathnaid Breslin]

A compelling - and moving! - account of why reading matters & why we should care about its decline

[Robson Siebel]

“Silicon Valley’s devices are designed by highly paid technological and psychological geniuses with the express purpose of colonizing your free time.”

[Hannah U]

Hugely disappointing as I was very excited to read this book, and I broadly agree with its arguments and conclusion, but it’s underpinned by gross overgeneralisations about history and society that baffle me.

[Robert]

James Marriott is one of The Times's more thoughtful columnists liberally using historical and literary references to bolster his arguments (his father, an English teacher, would celebrate Shakespeare's birthday as if he was one of the family). He also has a tendency to pessimism and cultivates a 'young fuddy-duddy' image, refusing to carry a smartphone for example. Things, in his view, were usually better in the old days. In that sense, this book is pure Marriott.

The New Dark Ages essentially updates the arguments of Neil Postman's famous 1985 polemic 'Amusing Ourselves to Death', written about the debilitating effects of TV, for the internet age. But only up to a point as he ducks the potential impact of AI which to me seems the biggest risk (or opportunity) of all. He is most interesting when writing about the societal changes that occurred in the move from oral to literate societies: a culture which no longer has to remember its basic knowledge and history is freed to look forward and innovate, knowing that the lessons from the past have been safely recorded. Ideas can be easily circulated and compete, driving equality and democracy.

Obviously these trends can reverse if literacy goes into decline, but it's in his predictions for the future that the book is at its weakest for two reasons. First, we all know this don't we? That excessive screen time is bad for us and social media can be addictive and toxic? Marriott pads out his thesis with studies and statistics but I don't think I saw any that were a great surprise. This is very much an exercise in preaching to the converted, and there is an irony in writing a literate and well researched book to complain about the decline in book-reading and attention spans. Secondly, it's all rather a council of despair, Marriott does not offer solutions. This seems unduly pessimistic and personally I see grounds for optimism: there is much greater savviness in my children's generation (Z) than my own (X) on the perils of smartphones, and plenty of indications that they are looking to reclaim a more analogue world. Bookshops have sold out of Homer, following Nolan's Odyssey. Glimmers of hope maybe, but it's not all smoking ruins.

Three stars feels a bit harsh as it is beautifully written and argued, but ultimately Marriott is a young old man shouting at the clouds.

[oli]

This book will be read by nobody who needs to read it. But it is good that this book was written.

A journalistic, rather than academic, book, it makes for an easy and enjoyable read which effectively synthesises lots of fascinating literature. I think it would be a great book to gift someone who is just opening their eyes to the implications of this moment in cultural history.

[Rem71090]

Late in the book, Marriott writes "We're used to the idea that people shout at the television. But we tend not to shout at the books we are reading." Reader, at this point in the book I had shouted at it no less than three times.

The book exists, for me, in that agonizing place wherein the author and I probably agree on most topics broadly and few topics specifically. This meant that there were several places where I was inclined to meet the work in a quippy manner which, while I am sure would have been funny, is ultimately unproductive.

So here is what I will say, engaging with this content in the best faith of which I am capable of: What are we doing here? Seriously, what is the goal of writing this book and who is the audience it hopes to reach? I can't answer these questions for the author, but I can think of a couple options. Firstly, this is a book intended to grab the attention of people who already read fairly extensively and who are probably smug about it. In which case, this will work well with good old fashioned confirmation bias, and the ivory tower of academia will remain insular and self-satisfied. Secondly, though, is what I think is the more likely option, the book is intended to increase readership and is intended for the general public. In which case, this book fails.

It fails in both argument and tone. To talk about why, it is important to separate out Marriott's argument into two core parts, the first boils down to "books are good" and the second "screens are bad". Marriott does a good job of articulating the importance of literacy, and both the beginning of the book and conclusion are excellent as a result. Is the tone a little masterbatory? Yes, but that's going to be hard to avoid, and I forgive Marriott for it.

It's when he segues into "screens are bad" that Marriott begins to, if you will permit me the word play, lose the plot. He discusses early in the book, the moral histrionics over mass literacy which emerged when people began reading novels en masse,  but seems resistant to acknowledging that he is doing the same thing with regards to screens. He conflates "screens" with "short form media" in a way which is confusing at best and deliberately misleading at worst. It remains unclear to me if Marriott believes the only way to read is a physical book or if reading a book on a screen is acceptable (I am *sure* I don't want to get him started on audiobooks). And the way these topics are discussed is laden with so much condescension I can't imagine anyone who scrolls tiktok and picked up this book is going to feel particularly receptive to the messaging.

Moreover, I don't know that he ever proved his point to a causative degree. While I think there is something to be said about social media and attention, I don't know that they cause the literacy crisis. At best they seem correlational, and I'd love a discussion of underlying social factors.

[Toby Maclachlan]

A lovely middle class vignette punches pulled polemic. Delightfully ‘balanced’ in favour of the avid reader, and, by nature of being a niche book, hardly likely to disappoint its target market, of which I’m one.

It seems perverse to summarise a book that’s core theme is that some ideas are so complex they cannot be summarised usefully into soundbites, lists or core ideas without losing at least some of their potency and their point. But here goes. Reading is a non obvious and demanding technology which, once widely adopted, led almost inevitably to democracies, as autocrats could no longer control imagery or narratives. Addictive screens have caused the downfall of reading (and its associated complexity, nuance, and evocation) and as a result populists not seen since the 18th century reemerge as the only digestible form of ideas for a post literate society. With video the crafting and consideration of the written form is lost to soundbites and confrontation. We’re back to gladiatorial conflicts and strong men.

The author tries hard not to be superior or assert causal relationships but it’s almost unavoidable. Referring (however correctly) to the new generation as addicted and post literate is always going to sound snobby no matter how often you apologise, and if the relationship of screen to populism isn’t causal then the book is just a fun idea. Which it’s probably not.

I imagine it’ll be well reviewed by the reading classes, questioned by social scientists in the weeds of the data, and roundly ignored by the screen zombies.

I liked it. And, pleasingly ironically, listened to the audiobook version without ever reading a word 😊

[Susan]

I enjoy James Marriott's Substack and went to a talk he did with Dominic Sandbrook about the issues in this book - basically, the lowering rates of reading for pleasure, the increase in people's screen time, and how this is impacting both the individual's attention span and society as a whole.

Although this is something of a depressing read, in many ways I believe that most people who pick this up will agree with the words within it. As such, Marriott may be preaching to the converted, but I believe his argument is quite fair. He understands the lure of a screen - firstly that of cinema, then television and now the smart screen. However, it is the addictive nature of short-form videos and the young ages of children using these devices, which is so concerning.

Reading gives empathy, the ability to explain emotions and to experience other lives. It helps order arguments and allow people to discuss, rather than rant, which is so often seen on social media. It is a salutary lesson to all of us to put down those phones and pick up a book. Not that any of us need telling, but still perhaps worth remembering all that books offer to enrich our lives.

[Sarah]

Picked this up because I am interested in understanding why as a society we seem to be reading less and what we can do about it. I don’t really think this is the type of book you would give to someone who doesn’t read regularly to convince them that they should be reading, although it does make good points about the impact of the decline of reading / rise of social media on the political landscape. I found the chapter on the reading brain the most interesting as it explains what it actually takes for a person to read and why that is so high effort compared to other types of information intake or entertainment.
Overall I found the tone a little bit dry and it confirmed a lot of things I already thought rather than giving lots of new information. This is more like a 3.5 rating and I would recommend this for people who want a concise summary of the history of mass literacy and why that now seems to be on decline.

[Kevin]

The problem with literacy isn't discussed here. Our explanations stem from a folk-scientific grasp of reality: mythological causality. That took us from simple wordless explanations about lightning causing fires to "god causes lightning". Our naming conventions which are entirely arbitrary (again folk science) forced us to combine our simplistic predatory causality of the prefrontal into narratives that inferred the magic of intentions. All of this is illusory, hallucinatory and deceptive and we in turn, used these deceptions for status.
A longer explanation is required here and Alex Rosenberg and Merlin Donald can introduce the problems, Boyd-Richerson can be brought in with their "culture is maladaptive" ideas.

In other words: don't believe the hype, literacy was a phase and not a great look for us.

[Jo]

Ironically, and a little ashamedly, I listened to this rather than read it! But that in itself was interesting to think about how much I absorbed the arguments, and probably in all honesty not as deeply as had I read it. In fact I had to keep rewinding as my attention had wandered due to something else happening around me. It is an interesting book that likely will be read by those who already read and I don't know if all the arguments who hold under intense scrutiny, but I liked the distinction between reading giving access to the interior, whereas the visual is all about the exterior. I particularly liked the conclusion as I thought it gave a very measured assessment of the future and how reading is perceived. Certainly it inspired me to both keep reading and to read more, so that can't be bad!

[Darryl Tomo]

Listened to the aubiobook (it felt a little ironic given the subject matter - in my defence i am reading two other print books at the same time!)
Lots of food for thought here. I am a History teacher who is already noticing the decline in reading and literacy at school. This book offers some interesting context on the rise of literacy in the 18th/19th centuries, which the author argues is inextricably linked to the rise of mass democracy, and then the fall in literacy over the last 50 years or so (accelerated since the smartphone), which he links to the rise of ‘post literate’ politicians such as Trump.
It’s a convincing argument, well made. It doesn’t offer much in the way of comfort.
I’m probably going to try and work it into an assembly in the vain hope someone might want to read a book.

[Dean]

These are my first thoughts on reading this book. I enjoyed reading it a great deal. James writes very well and provides much evidence for his statements. We ignore his claims about the decline of reading at our peril.
I am aware that I’m writing these few thoughts on an app on a smartphone. Does that make me a spy in the enemy’s camp or a defector from the reading class? I think we need both but in moderation and with informed awareness.
I need to give some more thought to how I respond to this book as a Christian. James liked the role Protestantism played in the increase in literacy but seems to not rate some modern believers. He gives the impression that he has moved on from standing with the new atheists but doesn’t say where to. Hopefully a theologian will look into this. I look forward to reading that article and to more from James.

[Cat Cameron]

Preaching to the converted? Sure. But this was an interesting look at the links between literacy and democracy, and the decline of reading.

Unusual for me, but I think it could have been a tiny bit longer and developed the theme of the perceived morality/worth of reading over other forms of entertainment and how people react to that in the 21st Century compared to the past.

My chosen takeaway is Samuel Johnson's endorsement of reading a bit of everything at once. Thanks king - it's not split focus, it's a considered intellectual strategy.

[Keiran Mitchell]

James Marriott laments a time when books built complex arguments with rich prose- in a book with one very simple argument made up of very simple sentences. Book good. Smartphone bad.

This book was interesting, but it could’ve been a long read in a newspaper. The intro alone revealed his argument and the rest of the book didn’t add much.

[John A Berry]

Read it - don't gawp at it.

Smart phones do represent a real threat to leisure, not because they are intrinsically evil, but because they provide no challenge. They are closer to a Mars bar than a meal that is nutritional. James Marriot's BOOK sounds a warning note, without ever being stuck up. I fear that those who should read it are unlikely to.

[Parag]

Good thought!

[Jack Kincade]

It’s a good argument well made with interesting points. It makes a point not to be sneering but it is. How can you avoid that though?

[Stuart Johnson]

Brilliant in all sorts of ways!

[David]

Excellent. Marriott is the only reason I keep my Times subscription, and this book was just as interesting and engaging as his weekly column. Highly recommend.

[Lynne - The Book Squirrel]

Great read! Long live the book! Get your noses out of the screen and pick up a book!

[Milly Percival]

Mostly bleak. Mostly interesting. Didn't quite hit the mark in some areas though.

[Sara Riccabone]

Brilliant in the concept and extremely necessary. However, the writing is sometimes weak and very repetitive.

[Mha]

هل بدأ عصر ما بعد القراءة؟
كتاب (100) لعام 2026
تتمة مراجعة الكتاب على موقعي الرسمي ((( همى الغيث )))
https://www.hma-algaith.com/the-new-d...

[Blathnaid Breslin]

A compelling - and moving! - account of why reading matters & why we should care about its decline