I can’t read serious books anymore

[Anonymous]

And God forbid I pick up a book and there’s a family tree at the beginning. I know not to even bother. Russian novels fall in the same category. Maybe reading chapters and using cliff notes along the way might help me through.

[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.

Oh my gosh, you've really cast yourself as a victim. So you're a white guy trying to get published and have decided that instead of your books just not being all that good, it's some sort of conspiracy against white guys? Mediocre white guys have gotten the lion's share of publishing contracts for centuries. In modern times, James Paterson, Stephen King, John Grisham, David Baldacci, Dan Brown, Dean Koontz, and the like have been rolling in dough and some of their books have been formulaic trash. The bar for white, male writers is LOW.


Women buy most of the books and we want more diverse stories than what the white guys are writing.

James Patterson is a machine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure some people think the genre fiction I read is fluff, but historical mysteries and historical romances have taught me more history that sticks in my head than other kinds of books.

England's Vagrancy Act of 1824? Don't even get me started.

Anthony Comstock? My god, if you told me I'd have a least-favorite postmaster general, I'd think you were nuts.

France's extortion after Haiti's Revolution and the US's role? I will never, ever bank with CitiBank.

The East India Company? ARGH!

Seriously, though, don't let anyone tell you what you're reading isn't worthy.

The problem with some historical fiction (Like Phillipa Gregory) is they just make shit up. Gregory's particularly bad about this.

Well, it's FICTION. They can make up characters while still informing readers about events, politics, etc.

I reserve the right to think the Ricardians are big ol weirdos.

[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.

Oh my gosh, you've really cast yourself as a victim. So you're a white guy trying to get published and have decided that instead of your books just not being all that good, it's some sort of conspiracy against white guys? Mediocre white guys have gotten the lion's share of publishing contracts for centuries. In modern times, James Paterson, Stephen King, John Grisham, David Baldacci, Dan Brown, Dean Koontz, and the like have been rolling in dough and some of their books have been formulaic trash. The bar for white, male writers is LOW.


Women buy most of the books and we want more diverse stories than what the white guys are writing.

James Patterson is a machine.

James Patterson has an army of ghost writers. He has come right out and said that he doesn’t write his books. I writes basic plot ideas and outlines.

He’s an egomaniac that puts his name on other people’s work. And he has definitely cried over white, male authors not getting movie deals. He’s nuts.

[Anonymous]

I don't want to read serious books because I like to read for escapism. Same for movies.

I do read articles and watch documentaries that help me learn and expand my perspective, so I think that balances out my reading and watching for entertainment versus enlightenment. I also like memoirs and biographies.

I agree that the internet and phone usage have decreased my attention span, but I can usually get past that if the book is interesting.

[Anonymous]

This discussion is funny to me as the only books I have really loved in the last several years are by white men: A Gentleman in Moscow and All the Light You Cannot See. I think these authors are brilliant. I will read anything by them.

It was a travesty that neither book was on the NYT list of best books of the 21st Century yet those were the two top books that readers voted as the best books. That list was full of depressing books that the list makers bent over backwards to make diverse and woke.

I’m so over those books and glad to have found this thread because it’s made me feel better about picking fluff books over ones I think I should read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure some people think the genre fiction I read is fluff, but historical mysteries and historical romances have taught me more history that sticks in my head than other kinds of books.

England's Vagrancy Act of 1824? Don't even get me started.

Anthony Comstock? My god, if you told me I'd have a least-favorite postmaster general, I'd think you were nuts.

France's extortion after Haiti's Revolution and the US's role? I will never, ever bank with CitiBank.

The East India Company? ARGH!

Seriously, though, don't let anyone tell you what you're reading isn't worthy.

What's the book with Comstock?

[Anonymous]

I used to love to read and ready everyday even if a just a few pages. As I’ve gotten older I am finding I can’t concentrate on it much anymore. Maybe due to stress but the escape would be helpful. The irony.

[Anonymous]

I can’t get into most books. I force myself to read Lessons in Chemistry and thought it was dumb. That’s what I think of most books nowadays… stupid, dumb and not at all clever.

[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 couldn't agree with you more. Ive been struggling with reading newer books and thinking I just don't like to read anymore. I picked up a few books from the 1990's and I'm back to enjoying reading. The crap the last few decades mind boggling.

This makes total and complete sense. I am going to see if I enjoy older books more.

[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'm glad it's not just me who thinks this. I feel like most recent-ish books that people gush about as "must reads" have been disappointing. Fortunately, there are plenty of old books still waiting for me to read them.

It's not just you. This is a major epidemic of horrid literature.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Today, in this "landscape" it is not a lie. Go check the authors of the latest new releases.

[Anonymous]

For me it’s not so much “serious” books but it is emotionally manipulative and/or depressing books. I feel like every “serious” piece of literature feels like it needs to throw in a rape just for drama. Like I really liked the Lite Rummer but it was just too much, too sad. I was so depressed after I read it — for weeks and weeks. I can’t do that anymore. For whatever reason I can still read non-fiction where awful things happen — I think it’s just not as much of an emotional rollercoaster for me as fiction where awful things happen. I had a thread a while back looking for non depressing literature and got a few suggestions like The House in the Cerulean Sea. I need more of those.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure some people think the genre fiction I read is fluff, but historical mysteries and historical romances have taught me more history that sticks in my head than other kinds of books.

England's Vagrancy Act of 1824? Don't even get me started.

Anthony Comstock? My god, if you told me I'd have a least-favorite postmaster general, I'd think you were nuts.

France's extortion after Haiti's Revolution and the US's role? I will never, ever bank with CitiBank.

The East India Company? ARGH!

Seriously, though, don't let anyone tell you what you're reading isn't worthy.

The problem with some historical fiction (Like Phillipa Gregory) is they just make shit up. Gregory's particularly bad about this.

Well, it's FICTION. They can make up characters while still informing readers about events, politics, etc.

The Hilary Manyel Wolf Hall series is one of the best things I’ve read in the past few years. Loved it.

One of my rules is that I don’t want to read anything that seems like it could be made into a Netflix movie with Reese Witherspoon or Nicole Kidman, eg Bog Little Lies.

[Anonymous]

I'm going back to 1970's Judy Blume books.