I can’t read serious books anymore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not you. Most modern literary fiction is awful. There has been a lot written about this; if you're a white man, e.g., you can't get published. The big publishers and the reviewers have built a cabal that recycles only women / BIPOC authors who write about social justice-type issues, and a lot of what passes for "serious" writing is just YA fiction with bigger words. Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow was a great example of this--a terrible book, essentially YA, with a character list that could have been AI-generated for intersectional relevance. Go back to anything serious written between 1920 and 2000; there is a huge well of amazing writing that will make you realize that modern "literature" is a barren wasteland.

I agree. There are still a couple of the old guard still writing who are doing a good job of it. John Banville is great and he's been going for decades.

[Anonymous]

Same here, but for me it's definitely because real life/the wider world is too depressing. To me it even extends into what others think of as less serious fiction already. I can't read near future post-apocalypic sci fi any more because it hits too close to home. Fantasy with serious moral/ethical dilemmas is right out. Pretty much all I enjoy any more are romance and comedy where you're guaranteed some laughs and a happy ending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not you. Most modern literary fiction is awful. There has been a lot written about this; if you're a white man, e.g., you can't get published. The big publishers and the reviewers have built a cabal that recycles only women / BIPOC authors who write about social justice-type issues, and a lot of what passes for "serious" writing is just YA fiction with bigger words. Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow was a great example of this--a terrible book, essentially YA, with a character list that could have been AI-generated for intersectional relevance. Go back to anything serious written between 1920 and 2000; there is a huge well of amazing writing that will make you realize that modern "literature" is a barren wasteland.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not you. Most modern literary fiction is awful. There has been a lot written about this; if you're a white man, e.g., you can't get published. The big publishers and the reviewers have built a cabal that recycles only women / BIPOC authors who write about social justice-type issues, and a lot of what passes for "serious" writing is just YA fiction with bigger words. Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow was a great example of this--a terrible book, essentially YA, with a character list that could have been AI-generated for intersectional relevance. Go back to anything serious written between 1920 and 2000; there is a huge well of amazing writing that will make you realize that modern "literature" is a barren wasteland.

I agree. There are still a couple of the old guard still writing who are doing a good job of it. John Banville is great and he's been going for decades.

What an odd take. Women and writers of color only write about social justice? And white people only write about "serious" topics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not you. Most modern literary fiction is awful. There has been a lot written about this; if you're a white man, e.g., you can't get published. The big publishers and the reviewers have built a cabal that recycles only women / BIPOC authors who write about social justice-type issues, and a lot of what passes for "serious" writing is just YA fiction with bigger words. Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow was a great example of this--a terrible book, essentially YA, with a character list that could have been AI-generated for intersectional relevance. Go back to anything serious written between 1920 and 2000; there is a huge well of amazing writing that will make you realize that modern "literature" is a barren wasteland.

I agree. There are still a couple of the old guard still writing who are doing a good job of it. John Banville is great and he's been going for decades.

What an odd take. Women and writers of color only write about social justice? And white people only write about "serious" topics?

I think you're over-reaching here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not you. Most modern literary fiction is awful. There has been a lot written about this; if you're a white man, e.g., you can't get published. The big publishers and the reviewers have built a cabal that recycles only women / BIPOC authors who write about social justice-type issues, and a lot of what passes for "serious" writing is just YA fiction with bigger words. Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow was a great example of this--a terrible book, essentially YA, with a character list that could have been AI-generated for intersectional relevance. Go back to anything serious written between 1920 and 2000; there is a huge well of amazing writing that will make you realize that modern "literature" is a barren wasteland.

I agree. There are still a couple of the old guard still writing who are doing a good job of it. John Banville is great and he's been going for decades.

What an odd take. Women and writers of color only write about social justice? And white people only write about "serious" topics?

I think you're over-reaching here.

Stating "if you're a white man you can't get published" is literally a lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is interesting... I am the exact opposite as I have grown older. I am an avid reader and pretty much now only consume non-fiction. I just find actual lives and events so much more interesting. I get bored quickly of fiction, especially formulaic romance stuff, and won't finish. I wondered if that was due to my declining attention span. I can't stand to read any anything depressing having to do with children though. I made it all of thirty pages into Demon Copperhead before I have to put it down, for instance. A lot of fiction now is horribly depressing or about very dysfunctional sad families.

I read somewhere that as people get older, they tend to read more non-fiction but that it's actually good for memory to read fiction. Can't find the study but here is a related blog post: https://olderbutwiser.com/seniors-read-less-fiction/

[Anonymous]

I used read fluff when I was younger, but I’m late 40s now and can’t stomach it.

I think you need to retrain your brain. Read memoirs. They are usually light and imminently readable. Transition to other types of non fiction - like Erik Larson books. Splendid and the Vile, for example. Try Wave, a memoir of the 2003 tsunami. So many great books that are engaging and not difficult.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used read fluff when I was younger, but I’m late 40s now and can’t stomach it.

I think you need to retrain your brain. Read memoirs. They are usually light and imminently readable. Transition to other types of non fiction - like Erik Larson books. Splendid and the Vile, for example. Try Wave, a memoir of the 2003 tsunami. So many great books that are engaging and not difficult.

Me again. I just read through the comments and it seems people are actively trying to avoid sad books because they themselves are depressed! Please skip Wave if this is the case. It’s one of the most powerful books I’ve ever read, but not for those who are feeling down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is interesting... I am the exact opposite as I have grown older. I am an avid reader and pretty much now only consume non-fiction. I just find actual lives and events so much more interesting. I get bored quickly of fiction, especially formulaic romance stuff, and won't finish. I wondered if that was due to my declining attention span. I can't stand to read any anything depressing having to do with children though. I made it all of thirty pages into Demon Copperhead before I have to put it down, for instance. A lot of fiction now is horribly depressing or about very dysfunctional sad families.

I read somewhere that as people get older, they tend to read more non-fiction but that it's actually good for memory to read fiction. Can't find the study but here is a related blog post: https://olderbutwiser.com/seniors-read-less-fiction/

I’ve heard that too. I gravitate to nonfiction generally but have made a real effort to keep up with fiction as I get older. That said, I feel like my brain can’t really handle science fiction and magical realism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used read fluff when I was younger, but I’m late 40s now and can’t stomach it.

I think you need to retrain your brain. Read memoirs. They are usually light and imminently readable. Transition to other types of non fiction - like Erik Larson books. Splendid and the Vile, for example. Try Wave, a memoir of the 2003 tsunami. So many great books that are engaging and not difficult.

Me again. I just read through the comments and it seems people are actively trying to avoid sad books because they themselves are depressed! Please skip Wave if this is the case. It’s one of the most powerful books I’ve ever read, but not for those who are feeling down.

+1. Wave is one of the most depressing stories told. I’m glad I read it, but no it is not “light and imminently readable.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is interesting... I am the exact opposite as I have grown older. I am an avid reader and pretty much now only consume non-fiction. I just find actual lives and events so much more interesting. I get bored quickly of fiction, especially formulaic romance stuff, and won't finish. I wondered if that was due to my declining attention span. I can't stand to read any anything depressing having to do with children though. I made it all of thirty pages into Demon Copperhead before I have to put it down, for instance. A lot of fiction now is horribly depressing or about very dysfunctional sad families.

Agree 99% with this. I much prefer nonfiction. Truth is so much stranger than fiction and it's fun to look up real events to see what the people and places really looked like.
The 1% is that Demon Copperhead is the only fiction book I have read recently that I didn't feel was overwritten crap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not you. Most modern literary fiction is awful. There has been a lot written about this; if you're a white man, e.g., you can't get published. The big publishers and the reviewers have built a cabal that recycles only women / BIPOC authors who write about social justice-type issues, and a lot of what passes for "serious" writing is just YA fiction with bigger words. Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow was a great example of this--a terrible book, essentially YA, with a character list that could have been AI-generated for intersectional relevance. Go back to anything serious written between 1920 and 2000; there is a huge well of amazing writing that will make you realize that modern "literature" is a barren wasteland.

+100

The trend in fiction, like in other areas (e.g., college admission essays) is to place more value on who can tell or has to tell the biggest hardship story.

[Anonymous]

Interesting. I find myself picking up non-fiction books much more than I used to. I want to really understand the world in a way I didn't care about when I was younger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not you. Most modern literary fiction is awful. There has been a lot written about this; if you're a white man, e.g., you can't get published. The big publishers and the reviewers have built a cabal that recycles only women / BIPOC authors who write about social justice-type issues, and a lot of what passes for "serious" writing is just YA fiction with bigger words. Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow was a great example of this--a terrible book, essentially YA, with a character list that could have been AI-generated for intersectional relevance. Go back to anything serious written between 1920 and 2000; there is a huge well of amazing writing that will make you realize that modern "literature" is a barren wasteland.

Exactly this. It's why the consolidation among publishing houses has been so tragic. It really is a small cabal of purchasing fiction editors in Manhattan who all subscribe to the same identity, progressive blah blah groupthink. And the result is a lot of tired and tedious words and not much literature. Pre-2000 literary fiction was much, much better.