Interesting thought by this expert. If they like reading non-fiction, I'm not seeing it in my small town library, and I'm not seeing a lot of high-quality (or even passable quality) non-fiction books coming around, either. Troubling.

Let's talk from personal experience - what nonfiction interested us? For me, science books (especially well-illustrated books about animals and nature) and SOME history books (mainly well-written stories about historical figures).

I devoured biographies and history books on England when I was my daughter's age. I read a lot of nonfiction, much more so than fiction. Interestingly, my 9 yr old reads very little nonfiction, she much prefers chapter books. She's into sci fi and fantasy, and is big on Rick Riordan's books, as well as the HP books, of course. My attitude: encourage kids to go to the public library. My father took me once a week, and I take my daughter at least twice a week.

I suspect your "expert" disapproves of kids coloring outside the lines, or having an imagination of any sort; hidden agenda, eh, what? That being said, I'd recommend "What Jane Austin Ate & Charles Dickens Knew" by Daniel Poole for nonfiction-reading kids from 12 to 18 who would otherwise be lost in the world of Ms. Austin et.al; also I think that sharply written fiction dialogue is one the fastest ways to pick conversational skills... Possibly your expert owns stock in a cell-phone company, y'think?

What curious, broad statements made by the literary expert you write about. While I do agree that children prefer reading nonfiction, this "expert" definitely should tell people what kind of nonfiction books. For instance, how-to's, bigraphies, history, etc. Also, what age children is she referring to? What a crazy statement: "Part of the problem with kids reading is that they have lost the ability to hold a conversation." I strongly disagree. While TV, cell phones, ipods, computer (and computer games), and so much more are unquestionably responsible for the loss of narrative, reading will only increase a child's ability to have a conversation. What kind of expert is this? How does such an inept expert get the opportunity to address educators?

I think his logic went like this: kids who read are quiet therefore reading causes them not to communicate. It’s faulty logic. I’m a social science major and in my Research Methods 310 class one of the first things they teach us is to avoid faulty logic in our research and in reviewing our peers. If this had been published in a social science journal it would have been a lightning rod. In other words I don’t think he’s a social scientist or has even taken a sociology or psychology class. I think he’s an expert in the same vein that Lou Dobbs is a political scientist; it’s an insult to the field.

P.S. The expert's 'theory' is a social science theory (why a child does or does not communicate) and therefore falls under either sociology or psychology and is why I said the above.