Children who read too much were considered nervous or lazy in that they read to avoid doing real work; those who did not read were potentially evil and suspect. Women of the upper classes who did not read could not be good mothers, but mothers who read too much could be seen to be selfish or neglectful of their responsibilities to their husband and children. Recommended reading practices were tied to gender roles and expectations, both for boys and girls, as well as women. For girls and women, reading was considered beneficial to the extent it contributed to the well-being of their families and children. Boys’ reading practices were to be monitored for their appropriateness in preparing them for public roles, and for curbing excesses and misbehaviour. Child (1831) likened moderate reading of well-chosen books as indicative of a good character and proper feminine behaviour: “A real love of reading is the greatest blessing education can bestow, particularly upon a woman” (p. 80). She observed that reading will “help a woman to pass long periods of illness and infirmity” (p. 81) as well as dissuade her from the habits of gossip and an interest in fashion. Most importantly, however, “reading everyday increases the points of sympathy with an intelligent husband, and it gives a mother materials for furnishing the minds of her children” (p. 86). Child recommended that children read a few “good” works many times instead of reading the latest novels, for the “necessity of fierce excitement in reading is a sort of intellectual intemperance, and like bodily intoxication, it produces weakness and delirium” (p. 93).

Sigourney (1838) was more distrustful of the growing habit of book reading among the growing middle classes in America. Although she maintained that “a taste for reading is an indication of mental health, and a claim on gratitude” (p. 45), she wondered if books were not a replacement for “real” thinking:

This is emphatically the age of book making and miscellaneous reading. Profound thought is becoming obsolete. …[W]ould it not be better for most of us if we read less? ‘Nothing’, says Douglas Stewart, has such a tendency to weaken, not only the power of invention, but the intellectual powers in general, as extensive reading, without reflection. Mere reading books, oppresses, enfeebles, and is with many, a substitute for thinking. (p. 67)