Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been an avid reader my whole life. Mostly fiction.

In my mid 40s now and I feel like my desire to read more serious books is mostly gone and I’m enjoying more fluff books. I’m currently enjoying easy to read popular romance novels that end up having similar plot lines. I occasionally pick up a deeper historical fiction novel and I’ll enjoy it, but not quite as much as the other books.

Is this due to a drop in my attention span due to screen use? Or a general change due to age?

Can anyone relate?

Why are you so self-critical? People go through phases in life. If you have a family, you're probably reading fluff because life is otherwise so demanding. When you're in your 70s, you'll have nothing but time to read serious books. Enjoy the phase you're in and quit wasting time worrying about stupid stuff.

You sound more critical of me than I am of myself I’m not worrying about this, just curious as I’ve been a voracious reader since a very young age and I wondered if this change was common for my age (hence why I included how old I was) or if people felt it is a result of screen usage (which has been proven to decrease attention span). I can assure you that I am not losing sleep over this

I’ve been enjoying reading everyone’s thoughts on this!!

—op

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait for someone to say to me at a party: “The books in the last 20 years are trash! Also, did I tell you I only watch films?” 🙄😂 There sure seem to be a lot hanging around here.

Books are not inherently better than movies.

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/

Heck, even Philip Roth had ceased to read fiction in his later years.

What’s a book?

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait for someone to say to me at a party: “The books in the last 20 years are trash! Also, did I tell you I only watch films?” 🙄😂 There sure seem to be a lot hanging around here.

What are you talking about? No one's talked about watching movies your post makes no sense at all.

I can’t wait for someone to say to me at a party: “The books in the last 20 years are trash! Also, did I tell you I only watch films?” 🙄😂 There sure seem to be a lot hanging around here.

So I've had trouble enjoying reading newer books and just had an epiphany recently realizing most if not all the books I've tried reading recently were utter trash. I don't know what happened with the publishing world (although I have a good idea, like they had their own agenda), my husband and I have both started reading books prior to 2002 and we're back to loving reading again. I'm enjoying reading and come across several passages where people would clutch their pearls at now and it's utterly refreshing. I love it. I love the older books. I'm done reading and paying for anything new these days. Sorry NOT sorry.

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of the new books being published are just stupid. I only seem to enjoy non-fiction these days. When I have gotten sucked into fiction it's been some paperback I picked up out of boredom at my mom's or MIL's house and it's ALWAYS from pre-2000. Like "The Accidental Tourist" which I couldn't put down! So it's not reading per se, but the current publishing climate.

Examples? I think there are great books being published. I had an awesome reading year.

But I pick books from imprints I know put out books I love.

I think a lot of the new books being published are just stupid. I only seem to enjoy non-fiction these days. When I have gotten sucked into fiction it's been some paperback I picked up out of boredom at my mom's or MIL's house and it's ALWAYS from pre-2000. Like "The Accidental Tourist" which I couldn't put down! So it's not reading per se, but the current publishing climate.

I went to a debut book party for a friend this year and met a bunch of debut writers in the DMV and just beyond. I’d say half were white (friend is not) and half were 40+. I also know two other 40+ white debut authors this year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It isn't a lie, but an overstatement. It is true that it is very difficult for a straight white, middle-aged man to get published if he isn't already an established thriller writer.

Isn’t it difficult for anyone to get published if they are not already an established author?

Publishing has pretty much been divided into 2 areas: Diverse Voices and Established Bestsellers. It's always been hard for mid-level authors to succeed, but they could get published. Now it's nearly impossible regardless of how good the manuscript is. But if you are young and/or diverse in some way, telling a diverse story, it is fairly easy to get published. That said, so many of these books aren't working, so the wave of money that chased these books and the authors has begun to cut back.

As we are seeing with this thread, many dedicated readers who actually buy books will only spend so much on diverse books. And younger and diverse people are smaller percentages of the population, so already the readership is limited, then add that within any demographic only a small percentage actually buy books.

My guess is we will start to see some renewed purchasing of more mainstream books.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It isn't a lie, but an overstatement. It is true that it is very difficult for a straight white, middle-aged man to get published if he isn't already an established thriller writer.

Isn’t it difficult for anyone to get published if they are not already an established author?

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.

It isn't a lie, but an overstatement. It is true that it is very difficult for a straight white, middle-aged man to get published if he isn't already an established thriller writer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My two cents. It's the internet and easy access to mass media. We're really addicted to mass news media and the hysteria/drama it gives us. The phone give us too easy access to this and therefore makes it harder to consume slower paced but ultimately deeper works. Reading serious works just doesn't supply the drama/dopamine hits we can easily access through the internet.

Hmm. I think it’s the pandemic and politics, more than anything. It’s not an attention span issue if people are still reading. It’s the heaviness of the material.

I don’t think just because people are reading something it’s not an attention span issue. People read the internet too. The short bite size internet hits makes it difficult to focus on meatier texts. But if you are going to pick a book which is just slightly more challenge than your favorite internet site, it will be easier to
Handle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My two cents. It's the internet and easy access to mass media. We're really addicted to mass news media and the hysteria/drama it gives us. The phone give us too easy access to this and therefore makes it harder to consume slower paced but ultimately deeper works. Reading serious works just doesn't supply the drama/dopamine hits we can easily access through the internet.

Hmm. I think it’s the pandemic and politics, more than anything. It’s not an attention span issue if people are still reading. It’s the heaviness of the material.

Yeah, this rings true for me. When I'm under stress, I want light. When I had a newborn and was sleep deprived, I couldn't even watch TV except for the Office. During the pandemic, I was delighted when Ted Lasso came out, just because it was light. Life has been stressful and uncertain. I don't see it getting better in terms of politics & climate and the everyday life of the average person. But my own personal life stress may reduce enough that I can read a bit more broadly. In the mean time, I'm cool with escapism reading.