[itsybitsycoder]

It would look strange and lonely if they shopped books into these photos where the smartphones used to be. Two of those pictures take place during a barbecue and one is at the dinner table. Before smartphones it was considered rude to do that.

[dalke]

What I meant was, if you take a set of pictures, like http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/e96051ca2891859fb3168521f... http://iew2012.ercblogs.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/peo... http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-images-spouses-... or http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/brand-connect/wp-content/up... , where there are several people reading books, and remove the books, then it would also look like a lonely world.

Your reply is a bit different, which is that we do certain practices now that would not have been socially acceptable (say) 20 years ago, had it been replaced by a book.

First, I did read books at the table 20 years ago. Going back a generation more, President Carter also read at the table, as did his daughter. Quoting from http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1998-03-18/features/1998077... :

> I've been reading ever since I was a child. My mother read day and night when she was nursing, whenever she could. And all of our family have read at the table. Amy got caught reading at the table at a state banquet...So books have been a part of our life."

While some certainly thought it was rude, others did not.

Just like smartphones now.

Second, replace books with newspapers for a closer equivalent. Here are couples reading the paper at breakfast - http://static9.depositphotos.com/1729220/1228/i/950/depositp... and http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/nyhetsfoto/american-astron... .

Third, replace books with TV for an alternative older equivalent for the dinner table. After TV we as a culture rearranged our living rooms so the TV was the center of attention, not each other. We invented special tables so we could eat in front of the TV. Remove the TV in http://epicpew.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/television_wat... and leave a blank wall, then wonder why everyone is staring at the wall. Which is why it was called the boob tube.

[itsybitsycoder]

I don't know, in those stock photos I can picture them without the books and it doesn't seem as bad. They're all pictures of people in public places minding their own business. The pictures in the OP are families and friends, often in what looks like what's meant to be a social setting, staring at their feet instead of interacting.

Of course you can find examples of people reading at the table, but that doesn't mean it wasn't considered rude. Notice he says Amy was "caught" reading at the table. When you read at the table you're sending the message that the other people at the table are boring and unworthy of your attention. Not that I was never guilty of it, I was a pretty rude kid. :)

[dalke]

"They're all pictures of people in public places"

The third one was of a husband and wife at home.

Here are ones that are even less public; people reading in bed: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3203/3035922303_1cfa0001d6_o.... http://cdn1.stocksy.com/a/nuW000/z0/126529.jpg http://citizented.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Reading-in-... and https://41.media.tumblr.com/f46e012a1002708a99852d2acb5f4ae8... .

When I compare them to the first image of the qz page, I get the sense that it's the back-to-back composition which gives the sense of loneliness, not the lack of a smartphone. I couldn't find the same composition through an image search, but the last of these is head to foot, which is close.

You are reading too much into the "caught", and not enough into the present day equivalent. The sense with Amy Carter is identical to what would happen now if Malia Obama were "caught" using a smartphone during a state dinner. (Or do you really think that no one now would consider that rude?)

BTW, here's Art Buchwald poking fun at the 1977 event: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1913&dat=19770303&id=... . The lead starts out by essentially saying it's dogshedding.

Then again, I may be reading too much into Carter's practice. According to https://books.google.com/books?id=3M1KlBNm7WcC&pg=PA46&dq=%2... , reading was allowed at the Carter table, but talking was not. So I checked with a Google Book search.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Lq9IKuhf24MC&pg=PA158&dq=%... says that the author's father would read at the lunch table, as would the children, and it took years before finding out that others considered it impolite.

https://books.google.com/books?id=0Cihcn_W0bsC&pg=PA111&dq=%... has someone reading at the table, and whose mother complains about the practice.

In checking a few more, I'm willing to accept that many people considered it rude, but a substantial minority did not.

Oooh! Here's a neat snippet from "The Marlburian" (1882) from https://books.google.com/books?id=HQUIAAAAQAAJ&q=%22read+dur... :

> Dear Sir - I wish to enter a humble but hearty protest against a practice which I believe have increased of late throughout the school. I refer to that of bringing books to read during dinner. It certainly does not aid digestion and is in may ways injurious to health. At dinner more than at other meals it is usual to relax the hard worked brain by conversation on general subjects, alias "shop" ...

Perhaps the rudeness level for books at dinner hasn't changed in 150 years?

Interesting question - which is more rude now; pulling out a book, or pulling out a phone?

[lsaferite]

I still consider it rude personally.

[itsybitsycoder]

Me too, but it does seem to be more accepted generally. I know people who would have never dreamed of reading at the table who routinely use their smartphones now.