Das Ende des Lesens: Über die allmähliche Zerstörung des Denkens, der Demokratie und der Gesellschaft, wie wir sie kennen

by James Marriott, Michael Bischoff (Translator)

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, History, Politics, Sociology, Philosophy, Technology, Audiobook

203 pages, Kindle Edition

Published September 21, 2026

Reviews

[Brendan (History Nerds United) · Rating 4 out of 5]

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 · Rating 2 out of 5]

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 · Rating 5 out of 5]

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

[Nancy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Screens are changing human behavior far more rapidly than the printed book ever did. from The New Dark Ages by James Marriott

I am a lifelong bookish person. Preschool me read my Little Golden Books by nightlight. As a kid I devoured the Classics Illustrated Comics, and I started tackling the classics by six grade. I read twenty-three books this month.

I know that visual entertainment is supplanting the printed page. I understand that the printing press and printing books in the vernacular allowed ideas to spread and fueled revolutions challenging the status quo, making a better and more just world for the common folk. I believe that dictatorships prefer an ignorant population. I hate how media personalities grab viewers through confrontation and negativity. I don’t argue with those ideas.

I came to this book expecting to approve of what I read. But I was dissatisfied. It seemed a jeremiad of complaints meant to fuel fear and trembling. I wanted more nuance. And answers. Sure, we can return to a pre-Internet society, with a little help from climate collapse or a meteor strike. But, in the meantime, what do we do?

Marriott contends that newspapers informed readers politically. Sure they did; Jefferson made sure a newspaper voiced his political criticism of John Adams, and Henry Ford used a newspaper to spread antisemitism. Few news sources were, or are today, unbiased. Ditto today’s social media; you can find support for whatever you want to believe with a quick search.

What I have believed important, ever since working with teenagers in the nineties, is critical thinking and media literacy. How do we teach parents and teachers and children and teens how to think in the world we are living in today?

Thanks to the publisher for a free book through NetGalley.

[oli · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[T · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good polemic against the modern attention economy and a strong defence of book reading over scrolling. Marriott is funny and witty, but he doesn't really advance a novel argument and leans quite heavily on the people he's citing (Ong, McLuhan, Postman, etc). Also, he avoids some of the more difficult issues which I don't think have been answered persuasively by anyone that I'm aware of.

[Hannah U · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Robson Siebel]

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

[Buchdoktor · Rating 3.75 out of 5]

In seinem Abgesang auf literarisch gebildete Gesellschaften im Smartphone-Zeitalter stellt James Marriot entscheidende Schaltstellen auf dem Weg zur lesenden Bevölkerung vor (Buchdruck, Zeitungsdruck, Bildung unabhängig von Klassenzugehörigkeit), nennt soziale Fähigkeiten, die Lesen vermitteln kann, und charakterisiert schließlich markante Wendepunkte auf dem Abstieg zur postliteralen Gesellschaft. „Literate“ bezeichnet im Englischen sowohl die Fertigkeit des Lesens und Schreibens, als auch Belesenheit und literarische Bildung.

Noch im 19. Jahrhundert kannten nur wenige Menschen Angehörige anderer Schichten oder Nationen oder hatten je ihren Heimatort verlassen. Versetzen wir uns in ein Hausmädchen oder einen Arbeiter jener Zeit, dann ermöglichten ihnen erst Geschichten und Zugang zu Büchern die Entwicklung von Empathie für fremde Werte und Einstellungen. Wer lesen konnte, lernte Fragen zu stellen, Kritik zu üben und seine gesellschaftliche Stellung nicht mehr als gottgegeben zu ertragen. Schulbildung und Lesekompetenz waren Basis des Zeitalters der Aufklärung, von Religionskritik, Demokratiebewegungen, Wahlrecht, Abschaffung der Sklaverei und sozialer Absicherung. Lesen machte rebellisch – und während der Sklaverei war Sklaven das Lernen von Lesen und Schreiben verboten.

Auch wenn die Klage, das Fernsehen habe (durch Trivialisierung, Fragmentierung und Personalisierung) zur Verdummung des Volkes beigetragen, polemisch klingen mag, lässt sich anhand von Intelligenztests bei der Musterung von norwegischen Wehrpflichtigen nachvollziehen, dass der Niedergang geistiger Leistung dort an die Einführung des (Kabel-)Fernsehens gekoppelt war, wenn die Ursache auch eher im ausdauernden Fernsehen als Zeitfresser zu liegen scheint zu Lasten anderer Tätigkeiten, die unterbleiben. Marriot benennt als Jahr, in dem zuerst Professoren über die Unfähigkeit ihrer Studenten klagten, komplette Bücher zu lesen und zu begreifen, mit 1992, ein Jahrzehnt, in dem PCs und Computerspiele die Freizeit zu fressen begannen. Marriot führt eine Reihe von Klagen an, vom Internet als Spielwiese für Aberglauben und Wissenschaftsfeindlichkeit, über die Erkenntnis, schriftlose Gesellschaften seien konservativer, beharrlicher und unkritischer an Erzählerfiguren gebunden, bis zur völlig unterschiedlichen Reaktion auf geschriebene und gesprochene Texte. Seine Einschätzung von Podcasts und gehörten Informationen fand ich sehr aufschlussreich.

Der Autor endet mit dem fatalen Urteil, in der Gegenwart seien besonders Politiker (anders als noch Truman und Churchill, die keine Akademiker aber belesen waren) komplexen Texten nicht gewachsen, hielten unterkomplexe Reden für Smartphone-Nutzer und könnten Behauptungen nicht belegen. Was ich dagegen an Marriots Streitschrift unterkomplex fand, ist seine Beschränkung auf die englischsprachige Welt. Gerade wenn es um den Einfluss der Smartphone-Nutzung auf die Lebenstüchtigkeit unserer Jugend geht, hätte ich von ihm gern über die Notwendigkeit europäischer Zusammenarbeit gelesen – es muss ja nicht jedes Land erst eigene Fehler machen, um erst dann mit den Nachbarn an einem Strang zu ziehen.

Fazit
James Marriot zieht einige dramatische Verbindungen, z. B. dass die Tiktok-Nutzung mit dem Hang zu rechtsextremen, populistischen Parteien und „starken Männern“ korreliere, oder die Befürchtung, dass die Marginalisierung des Lesens und Schreibens wieder zur Schreiberkaste mittelalterlicher Klöster führen könnte. „Das Ende des Lesens“ ist kein Buch, das sich beim Fernsehen oder Handy-Checken nebenbei lesen lässt.

.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

Listening to this audiobook was like an interesting podcast episode. I enjoyed the history component about the culture of storytelling and the rise of world literacy, printing and publishing. "The New Dark Ages" reinforces, but I don't feel adds anything new to conversation around the decline of reading.

[Helene Hoiness · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wowowow. A must read. Unfortunately, this will likely only be read by the very people who don’t need to read it.

[Tanja Berg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Humans have been illiterate for most of our existence. After reading and writing did evolve, there was for the longest time only a small elite group that could actually read and write. Writing was developed to keep track of sales and taxes, and enabled bureaucracy, state and government. After the invention of the printing press a few hundred years ago, spreading writing became much easier, be it political pamphlets and books. Martin Luther and his insistence on a personal christianity and reading the bible yourself was a huge boon to publishing. Then came the golden age of reading, when this was the main source of entertainment and spread widely through an increasingly literate population.

In our own day and age, reading started to deteriorate with the dawn of television. Then came phones with internet connection and all seems lost. It will of course take time before reading peters out completely, but the trend is clear, you only need to look at the PISA test results. Many people today do not have the capacity to absorb and understand texts and don't even demand it from our leaders. Books and texts are becoming simpler as a result.

Be a rebel, read!

[Geertje · Rating 2.5 out of 5]

Uuuugh ik weet niet wat ik moet oordelen want ik moet heel erg nadenken door dit boek en dat is het doel, maar ik mis ook echt dingen.

Ik begrijp niet echt hoe dit boek heeft kunnen bestaan zonder enige aandacht voor intersectionaliteit en ik vind het jammer dat eigenlijk alle klassiekers/voorbeelden die James aandraagt als de moeite waard oude witte mannen zijn. Terwijl literatuur ook juist zo emanciperend is geweest voor gemarginaliseerde groepen.

Dit boek is makkelijker in context te plaatsen als je net als ik al wat meer hebt gelezen over de schermen en de invloed daarvan op onze intellectuele capaciteiten en ons gevoelsleven. De statistieken die sommige kritische lezers missen heb ik ergens anders wel gelezen.

Het is goed ons te realiseren dat geschiedenis niet per definitie progressief is en dat dingen verloren gaan, zoals de bibliotheek van Alexandrië gewoon afbrandde. De observaties die deze man doet kunnen gewoon doorzetten. Maar waarom hebben we het niet over klasse, als de conclusie is dat lezen weer iets wordt van de elite?

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

terrified!

rtc

[Sara Riccabone · Rating 2 out of 5]

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

[Keiran Mitchell · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Natalie Beecroft · Rating 4 out of 5]

This probably could have been an article but I learnt a lot about the alternately hopeful and depressing rise and fall of literacy. A lamentation for the state of our attention spans and an impassionated eulogy to reading. A little self-aggrandising in places (we get it James, you're a big reader) which makes the argument a little more frayed as, no matter how many times he says he's working class, he's writing from a position of privilege. But then again so am I!

A very helpful read to inform an article I wrote on the decline of bookshop browsing https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-cul...

[Thomas · Rating 2 out of 5]

In 2024, The Atlantic published 'The Elite College Students Who Can't Read', which confidentially kick started the trend among columnists to produce a rendition of this article each month. Over the course of two years, it has morphed into a comical archetype blaming the unpopularity of "sensible liberal institutions" on the global decline in literacy. The very real issues first raised in The Atlantic such as smartphone addiction, the decline of reading for pleasure, and the gradual omission of the 'Western Literary Canon' in education settings, have been co-opted by "liberal" columnists (including The Atlantic themselves) into being the causes as to why the general population has fallen out of love with the "liberal" establishment. The failure of "liberal" establishment politicians and media comes not from their failure to communicate and provide effective solutions to the massive political and social problems of our day; instead, it can be blamed on the "irrational illiterate public" who have chosen extremism on "both sides" over "rational liberal democratic ideas" due to the fact that this general public no longer reads the literary classics and, more alarmingly to these columnists, the newspaper and the opinion-piece.

To my great disappointment, 'The New Dark Ages' echoes this same establishment hand-wringing: blaming the decline of reading as to why their ineffective politics are no longer electorally popular, and in this plea to return to "rationality in politics", the book suddenly forgets the cultural influences that led to the decline in literacy, and omits the factors that led to the rise of (reactionary) populist politics.

Marriott's book works when he discusses why reading is beneficial, in the medical and intellectual sense, and how important it is to those who want to understand humanity and the world on a deeper level. You cannot be considered intellectually educated if you ignore the great literary, scientific and philosophical works that came before you. Marriott is somewhat correct to be defensive of the Western* Literary Canon, and it doesn't make him a reactionary to highlight the importance of the Western Intellectual Tradition. He's correct that canon has been relatively successful in including women, marginalized racial groups, and those of radical political ideas in its collection. Karl Marx wrote in response to Adam Smith, sent letters of praise to Charles Darwin, and pleaded Abraham Lincoln to listen to the Abolitionists. W. E. B. DuBois, a critic of the retroactive approach to telling the history of the American Civil War and Reconstruction, graduated from Harvard and no doubt spent much of his time engaged in the Western Canon. Even those who hold deep critiques of Liberalism's deference to the Western Canon are only able to do so after seriously studying and engaging with said works. Without that influence, their critique would not hold nearly the same level of intellectual merit. Marriott is correct that anybody who is serious about joining the intellectual tradition, regardless if they approach it from a conservative, liberal, or leftist perspective, must study and seriously engage with the works of the predecessors. Watching video summaries of classical literature, philosophical works, or scientific ideas is not a valid replacement to actually reading the works.

Where 'The New Dark Ages' quickly falls apart is when Marriott tries to equivocate the reasons behind the rise of liberal democracy to the decline of it. I am not hear to argue that increased literacy and access to education did not lead to the promotion of Enlightenment values and helped promote the rise of Liberal Democracies. However, as the book transitions from talking about the benefits of reading and deficiencies of screens, to now discussing the alleged reasons as to why the reactionary right has gained so much power in the 21st century, it is here where Marriott's argument suddenly falls apart.

Marriott's criticism is dominated toward the reactionary right. His examples of a post-literate popular figures are Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump. Yet, he is scared to commit to the reality that the trend of anti-intellectualism overwhelmingly comes from the far-right. However, like the pundits from The Atlantic and The New York Times, he cannot help but "both sides" the issue of illiteracy. While the far-right promotes ideologies such as Holocaust denial and anti-vaccine rhetoric (the former which has become disturbingly popular among reactionary youth, and the latter which has a notable death toll of literal children), Marriott wants to casually remind us that the Left is plagued with equally dangerous ideas such as...thinking some types of Halloween costumes are racist. He ignores the fact that the Buzzfeed-like columnists who seemed to dominate the internet in 2015 are completely irrelevant a decade later, and that this global wave of fascism, anti-science rhetoric, and reactionary populist extremism is backed and promoted by corporations and capitalists from around the world. If there are genuine liberals among the establishment, they have been rendered effectively powerless against the force of global capitalism.

Just like Marriott, I have always loved books, and I have always strove to immerse and connect myself with the 'Western Canon'. Often those who want to promote the importance of the Western Canon, cry out that the reason for its decline in popularity among both casual and academic circles comes from the supposed "oversensitive progressive Left". The influence of Marxist thought and intersectionality have undoubtedly changed how academics have approached these classics, and there is a merit of truth that some Progressives do want to ignore the Western Canon in favor of focusing exclusively on works by marginalized groups. However, in his search to discover why there has been a decline in literacy and a disinterest in the Western Canon, Marriott manages to stick a finger up Leftist academics, but he completely ignores the massive role that school curricula and the general cultural dismissal of the humanities plays in erasing the connection that young students may form with the Western Canon.

When I was in high-school, we seldom read Shakespeare in the proper form. Schools thought it would too difficult for high-school students to read the entirety of a Shakespeare play. Instead, we were taught Shakespeare through reading a simplified version, watching a movie adaption, or we were only given snippets of "raw" Shakespeare. The snippets were just enough to ensure that we would be able to pass the standardized reading comprehension exam. To be fair, some teachers encouraged us to read Shakespeare in our own time; while others were happy to play along with the idea that reading Shakespeare is a punishment, not a gift, to youth. In 2026, it has gotten even worse. My little brother, who is now in high-school, has told me that he has not been assigned any Shakespeare.

Why did this happen? It isn't because the "woke mob" cancelled Shakespeare. The reality is that the education system isn't designed to foster intellectualism, a love of reading, or even effectively ensure critical thinking; instead, the purpose of school, as said by politicians and many parents, is to install the bare minimum into children so they can be effective workers in the, nowadays completely unrewarding, labour market. Reading Shakespeare, I've been told, quite frankly, is a "waste of time", and these sentiments aren't coming from the academic Left. "Studying the Humanities", say allegedly 'reasonable' parents, "is a waste of time and/or money." Many will turn up their nose at the idea of seriously engaging with any sort of literature or philosophy, associating it with "highbrow elitism". Instead reading to their child, many parents would rather spend hours scrolling Facebook rather than play a meaningful and essential role in their child's educational development.

Marriott's attempt to mesh the issue of declining literacy to the rise of reactionary far-right populism shows his lack of curiosity of delving into the truths behind either issue. He is not incorrect to place a relationship of interest between these two issues. However, Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini rose during the age of peak literacy; and social media has been crucial to pushing "Liberal Democracies" to begin at least acknowledging the goings-on in Gaza, even if it is nowhere near acceptable to what a true Liberal Democracy would implement. I have no doubt that if schools, parents and broader society stood committed to fostering a proper intellectual culture, where genuinely thought out liberal, leftist, and even conservative ideas were introduced and developed, then Trump would not have won in 2016. However, as Marriott himself hinted toward, it is the interest of tech bros and capitalists who demonize intellectualism and cultural literacy in all forms, so they can abuse the global population and the earth itself for their own greedy and fatally short-sighed interests.

Democracy cannot survive these conditions, but the reactionary liberal's wet dream to return to "sensible" political figures like George Bush and Margaret Thatcher will not bring back democracy and intellectual culture. It was these very politicians who facilitated this decline. And now, thanks to the changes brought about by unchecked capitalism, a figure by Donald Trump can not only emerge successfully in our "marketplace of ideas" but also be taken seriously by both the illiterate and the illiberal pundit media class.

[Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Meg · Rating 4 out of 5]

James Marriott draws on work from Sven Birkerts (The Gutenberg Elegies) and Maryanne Wolf (Proust and the Squid, Reader Come Home) but even more so, he builds out the claims made in The Atlantic's cover story from this past summer, "The End of Reading is Here" into a compelling narrative that should be of great interest to readers, educators, policy makers, humanitists, academics, parents, really anyone who is trying to understand how exactly it is that we got here, how the ubiquitous cellphone has slowly but decidely replaced the book as the de facto means to enlightenment in our hands.

Also to note, as far as my Rowland research around rebuilding a culture for reading for pleasure, he makes some interesting counter arguments around the push to promote "reading for pleasure", insofar as reading can be difficult. It is a taxing endeavor for the brain, and for many (or depending on the difficulty of the text), it is work, or can oftentimes feel like work. So, in order to revive reading cultures, we also need to speak to the fact that reading offers opportunities for growth, it provides pathways for self-improvement or betterment, it helps us be more critical thinkers, etc., etc. But to sell it as soley "entertainment", Marriott argues it does a disservice both the the role of books in helping to shape our interior selves and it can also alienate "dormant" readers for whom reading is very taxing and difficult.

[Jill · Rating 3 out of 5]

The New Dark Ages: The Death of reading and the Dawn of the Post-Literate Society was one of my most-anticipated fall releases. As a voracious reader and supporter of public libraries, I will eagerly read anything arguing in support of literacy and critical thinking that highlights a growing need for increased attention spans.

I appreciate the historical context this short, tight, text provided, and the connection Marriott drew between the written word, democratic free societies, and reading as a radical, anti-oppressive/anti-fascist act. He sounds an alarm on the current rise of a post-literate society and reverse outlines for readers exactly how we arrived here. I enjoyed the book because of its subject matter and depth of research but wish there had been a greater sense of urgency conveyed throughout. The New Dark Ages tells us we're at risk of losing it all, but readers won't feel the fever of the stakes until the very end.

Thank you to NetGalley and Doubleday/Penguin Randomhouse for the advance reader copy.

[John Martin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Never judge a book by its …. title. I was enthusiastic about reading this having earlier enjoyed ‘Stolen Focus’ and ‘The Anxious Generation’. Although I am very sympathetic to the case, I found this a rather lightly abd poorly evidenced text in comparison with the earlier two. I generally thought it was low on evidence, high on opinion and didn’t really develop into a compelling story. Not bad, but I was hoping to be informed and inspired, and it was just ok.

[Joseph · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author makes his case, arguing that the world is headed towards a post-literate future where smartphones take up more of our leisure time. I found this book hard to put down; in fact, I read through the entire book in one sitting. The narrative was very brisk and nuanced; it was definitely a page-turner!! Kudos to my local library's inter-library loan program for getting a copy to me in such a timely fashion. A worthy effort and well worth the time spent reading it.

[Abigail Rickard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whilst I don’t agree wholeheartedly with the thesis of this book, I also don’t disagree with it. James Marriot makes a concise, engaging and compelling argument about the decline of reading, and how such a decline has come to be represented in our culture. This is incredibly written and well worth anyone’s time.

[Lottie C · Rating 5 out of 5]

6⭐️

Consolidated all the thoughts I’ve had of late regarding the current state of things. The problem isn’t just the wannabe dictators: it’s the strategic undermining of literacy (reading/media etc) that is about to be our undoing

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very timely.

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

An essential read that elegantly connects the history of democracy as institution with reading as a technology. An elegant distillation of why I don’t have a television, streaming subscriptions, or social media.

[Danielle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pithy and radicalizing. I will be thinking about this brilliant book for a long time.

[Olga · Rating 2 out of 5]

I should have been the easiest person in the world to convince with this book.

I am a librarian, I read more than 250 books a year, and I spend a considerable part of my working life trying to persuade teenagers that sustained reading is worth their time. I already believe passionately that reading does something to the human mind that scrolling through thirty-second videos simply cannot replicate.

James Marriott did not need to sell me the importance of books.

Which is probably why I found The New Dark Ages so frustrating.

The central argument is an important one. Marriott believes that we are moving away from a culture shaped by literacy towards something increasingly post-literate, driven by smartphones, social media, video and the fragmentation of our attention. His argument isn't simply that people are reading fewer books and that this is sad. He is interested in what sustained reading has done to human thought itself: our capacity for concentration, abstraction, complex argument, reflection and the ability to follow an idea beyond a slogan. If those habits decline, the consequences extend far beyond publishing. They affect education, politics, culture and ultimately the way we understand the world.

Broadly speaking, I agree with him. The problem is that an argument this large deserves a much more rigorous book.

I particularly enjoyed the historical sections, where Marriott traces the development of literacy and considers how the written word changed not merely the way information was transmitted but the way human beings thought. The movement from oral culture through manuscripts, printing and eventually mass literacy is fascinating, and there are some genuinely interesting observations about what happens to a society when large numbers of people become capable of sustained private reading. Unfortunately, I kept wanting him to go deeper. For a book making a civilisational argument about the decline of literacy, the history often feels surprisingly brief. An interesting idea appears, Marriott gives us an example or anecdote, and before I have really had the opportunity to examine it, we have moved on.

That became a much greater problem once the book reached the present day, because there simply isn't enough data for the size of the claims being made. Marriott is a very readable writer, but this frequently reads like journalism rather than serious analysis: an observation, an anecdote, another observation, a cultural example. I kept waiting for considerably more cognitive research, longitudinal evidence, comparisons between generations and countries, and serious engagement with evidence that might complicate his thesis. Instead, I increasingly felt as though I were reading an extremely long opinion piece.

The political analysis was where the book really began to lose me.

Marriott argues that post-literate culture encourages simplification, emotional reasoning, tribalism, slogans, personality politics and an inability or unwillingness to engage with complicated arguments. Yet when he comes to illustrate this politically, his examples are overwhelmingly drawn from the right: Trump, Bukele, MAGA and right-wing populism. These are perfectly legitimate examples, but the selectivity bothered me enormously because his thesis is supposedly about a transformation in how human beings consume information and think. There is no convincing reason why that process should suddenly stop operating when somebody votes left rather than right. And there are many just as valid examples he could've used from the left side of the political spectrum.

TikTok activism, infographic politics, complicated geopolitical questions reduced to slogans, online pile-ons generated by short clips, political influencers replacing primary sources, viral misinformation and people confidently expressing opinions about books, speeches or legislation they quite clearly haven't read are not phenomena exclusive to one political tribe. I could think of counterexamples almost immediately, and once that happens in a nonfiction book, my confidence in the author's method begins to disappear.

Marriott doesn't even need to demonstrate that post-literacy affects left and right equally. Perhaps it doesn't. If he believes the contemporary right is genuinely more susceptible to post-literate politics, that could be an extremely interesting argument. But then demonstrate it. Compare the evidence. Test the hypothesis across political groups. Show me where the differences lie and why. Selecting examples overwhelmingly from one side and allowing the selection itself to imply the conclusion is not enough, particularly in a book whose entire argument depends upon warning us against simplistic thinking.

Interestingly, Marriott has subsequently acknowledged this imbalance himself, saying on rereading the book that he realised it was considerably harder on Republicans than Democrats. That doesn't invalidate everything he says, but it does rather confirm the problem I had while reading it.

I was also surprised by how little attention was given to phenomena that complicate the straightforward story of technological decline, particularly BookTok. This seems like an extraordinary omission in a book about post-literacy because TikTok represents almost the perfect contradiction to Marriott's thesis. Here is one of the quintessential short-form, attention-fragmenting platforms, and it has simultaneously become an enormously powerful engine of book discovery and sales among young people.

That doesn't mean BookTok has single-handedly saved Western civilisation. Buying a romantasy novel because somebody showed you the sprayed edges in a fifteen-second video is not quite the intellectual equivalent of founding the Library of Alexandria.

But surely the contradiction is fascinating.

The supposedly post-literate medium is sending people back to books. As a librarian, that is exactly the sort of complexity I wanted Marriott to explore. Are young people actually abandoning reading, or are their reading habits changing? Does the type of reading matter? What happens when short-form media becomes the gateway to long-form reading? Can online communities rebuild a culture of reading even while the platforms hosting those communities are simultaneously damaging attention spans? Those questions don't necessarily undermine Marriott's thesis. Properly explored, they might actually make it considerably stronger.

And that is ultimately what frustrated me most about The New Dark Ages. I am not rejecting Marriott's argument because I think the problem is imaginary. I am frustrated because I already think the problem is important.

I see the struggle with sustained concentration in young people. I see the extraordinary pull of phones and short-form content. I believe deeply in the intellectual value of reading and in the particular capacities developed by spending hours inside a complicated argument or a long novel. I also think there are serious cultural consequences when people increasingly consume politics, history and world events through headlines, clips, memes and personalities rather than sustained engagement with primary sources and long-form writing.

So you have me, James. I am already on board.

Now prove it properly.

Give me the data. Give me the cognitive research. Distinguish correlation from causation. Show me the historical evidence in greater depth. Compare countries, generations and political groups. Engage seriously with the counterexamples. Tell me what BookTok means for the thesis. Ask whether all forms of reading develop the same cognitive habits. Examine what is genuinely new about this moment and what is simply another iteration of an anxiety humans have experienced whenever communication technology changes.

Instead, I got something conversational, anecdotal and frustratingly selective.

Two stars.

Not because I think Marriott's central concern is ridiculous, but almost precisely the opposite. I think the decline of sustained reading and the fragmentation of our attention are important enough to deserve a much better book.

For someone who reads 250-plus books a year and spends every working day trying to put books into young people's hands, The New Dark Ages should have been preaching directly to the choir.

Unfortunately, I was sitting in the choir thinking the sermon needed considerably more research.

[Bobby Den · Rating 4.25 out of 5]

The New Dark Ages explores a fascinating and highly topical question: what happens to society when we lose the habit, and perhaps eventually the ability, to read? James Marriott makes the argument that reading has fundamentally shaped not just how we consume information, but how we think. He starts with the reading revolution and the Enlightenment, when literacy gradually spread across society and helped create the intellectual foundations for scientific reasoning, critical thinking and democracy. Written language made it possible to construct, communicate and scrutinise complex and nuanced arguments. Marriott's central concern is that, as we move towards an increasingly post-literate society, we risk losing some of the intellectual capabilities that reading helped cultivate.

What I found particularly interesting was how Marriott traces this development through the rise of television and, eventually, smartphones. Having grown up in a world where television was ubiquitous, I'd never given much thought to its potentially negative intellectual consequences. But Marriott positions television as an early manifestation of the modern attention economy, where capturing and retaining an audience increasingly depends on entertainment, visual stimulation and immediacy rather than intellectual depth. Smartphones have turbocharged this dynamic, creating an environment of continuous distraction and fragmented attention. One of the most thought-provoking observations comes in the conclusion, where Marriott argues that many of the trends first identified during the television age, including fragmentation, triviality and an increasing emphasis on personality, have only been amplified in the smartphone era. And if we gradually lose our ability to sustain attention, we may eventually also lose the capacity to engage with longer, more demanding texts.

Another fascinating argument, particularly in chapters three and four, is what Marriott describes as the "Great Simplification of Culture". As our attention spans become increasingly fragmented, cultural producers may be incentivised to create content that requires less intellectual effort. He points to the declining vocabulary and increasing repetitiveness of popular music, as well as Hollywood's growing reliance on sequels, prequels and familiar fictional universes. The Harry Potter example particularly resonated with me. When we're only half paying attention to a film because we're simultaneously scrolling through our phones, a familiar world like Hogwarts requires much less effort to make sense of than an entirely new one. What's particularly interesting is the potential feedback loop this creates: as audiences become less attentive, cultural producers adapt by making their content easier to consume, potentially reducing the opportunities for audiences to practise sustained attention in the first place. It's a compelling argument that suggests our changing media habits might not just affect how we consume culture, but fundamentally reshape the culture being produced.

Marriott then takes his argument into more provocative territory with his notion of a Disenlightenment. He suggests that the erosion of reading and critical thinking may be contributing to the resurgence of superstition, tribalism and irrational political discourse. His examples from contemporary American politics, including Tucker Carlson and the renewed prominence of supernatural explanations for worldly events, are particularly striking. Yet this is also where I wonder whether Marriott stretches his thesis a little too far. There are countless forces shaping contemporary politics and culture, from declining institutional trust to economic insecurity and polarisation. It's difficult to disentangle correlation from causation, and even harder to establish the decline of reading as a principal driver. After all, the twentieth century was arguably one of the most literate periods in history, yet it also witnessed some of humanity's most destructive ideologies and political movements. Literacy clearly doesn't guarantee rationality.

At the same time, I wonder whether Marriott paints too universally bleak a picture of contemporary reading culture. Book clubs seem to be thriving, celebrities like Reese Witherspoon and Dua Lipa have become influential advocates for literature, and independent bookshops are experiencing something of a renaissance. Perhaps rather than witnessing the universal demise of reading, we're seeing an increasing polarisation. While reading becomes less central to everyday life for large parts of society, another segment might be embracing it more deliberately, as a social activity, a form of cultural identity or even a counterforce to the fragmented attention economy. There's an interesting irony in the fact that platforms like TikTok, which epitomise the attention economy Marriott criticises, have also helped introduce new audiences to books through BookTok. Perhaps reading is becoming less of a universal cultural practice and more of a deliberate choice, an identity and potentially even a privilege.

Overall, I found The New Dark Ages a fascinating and thought-provoking read. I don't think Marriott conclusively establishes that declining literacy is driving a broader societal Disenlightenment, and at times he risks romanticising the intellectual virtues of the reading age. But the book's strength lies in connecting several trends I had previously considered in isolation: the decline of reading, the fragmentation of attention, the simplification of popular culture and the growing prominence of emotionally driven, simplistic narratives in public discourse. Ultimately, Marriott makes a powerful case for reading and writing as something much more important than a pastime. They are intellectual disciplines that train us to concentrate, construct arguments, grapple with complexity and challenge our own assumptions. Whether or not we're truly entering a new Dark Age, the possibility that we're gradually losing these capabilities is an unsettling thought. And perhaps that's the book's greatest achievement: making me reconsider not just what I consume, but how the medium itself might be shaping the way I think.