The decline in serious reading

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the popular YA series are 400-600 pages each and have 2-6 installments.

I’m reading a historical fiction series that on book 18 and each book is 350-400 pages.

There are new books that are destined to be classics.

Also, Charles Dickens was a horrible person and I can’t separate his art from who he was, so I’m fine leaving him behind. Bah humbug.

How exactly was Dickens a horrible person? I'm looking at his wiki biography and don't see anything "horrible" by any stretch of the imagination. His marriage clearly was not fulfilling but that's not tantamount to being horrible. But you make it sound like he hired child labor and was cruel to the women of the slums.

His wife was pregnant almost non-stop for ten years. He was also carrying on affairs and she only found out when he accidentally sent a gift for a mistress to his wife.

Then they separated and he decided he would keep four kids and she would figure out the other six.

There’s more to it, but this is common knowledge among British people. It’s a little strange that Americans don’t know and get mad about it if you tell them.

I’m going to guess the wiki for his wife talks about this.

If Americans find out these things about him, we'd have to ban his books.

[Anonymous]

I've seen people criticize Tolstoy and Dickens for being "too long-winded." Does that just mean too many pages or something else?

[Anonymous]

I agree with the poster who said there has been a serious decline in the quality of the books being written and it’s unfortunate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster who said there has been a serious decline in the quality of the books being written and it’s unfortunate.

What you are harkening back to is what survived. No one is going to hold up James Patterson or Colleen Hoover one hundred from now as a shining example of today's literature just as we don't hold up penny dreadfuls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 45 and almost all of my friends read. My circle of "mom friends" all read, but yes mainly chick lit, mysteries, and best sellers.

A good percentage of my work colleagues read as well (ranging in age from 25-60). I wonder if the fact that we're in an arts field correlates to producing readers? This circle reads more widely - lots of nonfiction and classics, also books in translation.

I read about 80 books a year - a mix of contemporary award winners (Women's Prize for Fiction, Booker, International Booker, National Book Award, etc.), classics (I read all of Proust last year as an example), nonfiction on historical biographies/exploration/etc., and lighter fare like mysteries and historical fiction.

Both of my kids read (they are boys 14 and 12)

how do you have time?

DP, but I'm reading my way through a bunch of books these days. I've "discovered" when you don't watch tv all evening, there's a lot of time to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was surprised to go to Costco today, after many years, and not see a single book. I was so excited to see the book section. That caught me off guard, and frankly, made me worry about trends.

I read a lot, usually 50 books a year, though this year I'll probably only hit 40-42 due to watching more TV.

I hope that is just due to the rise in using Kindles. But that’s probably too pollyannaish.

I have an MFA in creative writing and have always felt great affection towards my actual physical books and the bookshelves they are on. It was like once I read a book, it was a friend, and I didn't want to let it go. But I've finally come around -- they really are just collecting dust. I'm getting a Kindle.

I still prefer a paper book. I've finally decided to use the library more - the books go back instead of eating into space at home. But if it turns out I really, really like the book so much I really want to have my own copy, then i can always buy one for the shelf. Functions just as well as a kindle as far as over-accumulating books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 45 and almost all of my friends read. My circle of "mom friends" all read, but yes mainly chick lit, mysteries, and best sellers.

A good percentage of my work colleagues read as well (ranging in age from 25-60). I wonder if the fact that we're in an arts field correlates to producing readers? This circle reads more widely - lots of nonfiction and classics, also books in translation.

I read about 80 books a year - a mix of contemporary award winners (Women's Prize for Fiction, Booker, International Booker, National Book Award, etc.), classics (I read all of Proust last year as an example), nonfiction on historical biographies/exploration/etc., and lighter fare like mysteries and historical fiction.

Both of my kids read (they are boys 14 and 12)

how do you have time?

I don't watch tv/movies and I spent minimal time on the internet - maybe an hour a day if you add it all up. I read during my kids' sports and music lessons. I read before bed. I probably find about 1.5 hours a day to read. That adds up if you do it every day.

+1

[Anonymous]

What do you consider to be "serious reading?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have a more educated population yet there's been a reduction in the reading level that seems to line up with the rise of social media.

Some Tech guru (Dorsey?) said something about how we don't "need" War and Peace anymore, we can do it briefly with the new advances.

In his day, Charles Dickens was massively popular among factory workers, but in today's much more educated population people say "it's too intellectual, 600 pages is too long" etc. Apparently we don't need great literature anymore because there's Twitter, Tiktok and ChatGPT.

It's a strange phenomenon.

Dickens wasn't read 600 pp at a time. His writing was episodic, for weekly papers. They were read over long amounts of time. How do you not know this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the poster who said there has been a serious decline in the quality of the books being written and it’s unfortunate.

What you are harkening back to is what survived. No one is going to hold up James Patterson or Colleen Hoover one hundred from now as a shining example of today's literature just as we don't hold up penny dreadfuls.

This. A lot of earlier books were also crap. Like, really awful. We just don't read them anymore, because they were ephemeral fluff that didn't survive.