What happened to readers who like to read?

[reni]

As one who has been writing for over a decade, I'm always still reading up, seeking advice, and looking for ways to improve my craft. That said, I'm becoming more and more frustrated with the "less is more" mantra. Is it a reflection of our increasingly televised mentality? No one wants to read any more. No one wants to get to know a character. No one wants to appreciate the prose. It's all about the first line and "knock my socks off immediately or you're not worth my time, you hack, because who wants to read more than a page when I can read one line and judge the whole work?"

Forgive my rant, but I'm honestly curious if there are any readers who read for the sake of reading any more. In this world of instant gratification, I feel like the art of writing has fallen by the wayside, replaced by fast thrills and easily digestible pieces. Note that I am also an editor, so I do play by the rules .... I just don't like them sometimes. Call me a hypocrite if you will; I need a paycheck same as anyone else.

[WriterInChains]

Hi reni,

I give a book 50 pages, or until I wonder why I'm reading & not spending that time writing (in that order, not whichever comes first or I'd miss out on some wonderful books!). And when I'm not in school I usually read 1-2 books a week in addition to writing & working full time.

Just my $0.02, but I love to read & read in just about every genre -- I skip category romance simply because I've never been surprised by anything that happened in one.

Don't despair, we're still out here & if my r/l crit group & beta reading circle are any indication there are a lot of us. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

Hope the rest of your week goes better than today must've!
caren

[Mistook]

I think people do still have attention spans, it's just a matter of getting them to care somehow.

I've come to the conclusion that it's not TV or the Hollywood that is to blame for this problem, because the worst writing is the kind that tries to adapt a Hollywood approach to getting the story out.

Opening with an interview, where the MC relates tons of backstory - it's done all the time on the silver screen. It falls flat in a novel. Scenes of dialogue, where the only purpose is to sum and explain a complex situation to the viewer (watch Law and Order, they do it ALL the time) works on TV, but absolutely sucks in a novel.

Hollywood switches POV with wild abandon, they have whatever character they feel like step up and narrate a trasition if it suits the needs of the moment. They can head hop, with that reverbed voice in the background as they jump between headshots of characters. They can start any movie they like with an omnicient narrator saying "Once upon a time..." and then you never hear from the narrator again.

The movies use whatever dirty trick is easiest at the moment, with absolutely no regard for consistency, and it works, because we're staring at pictures, and actors making gestures. But none of that stuff works in a novel. That's the stuff you get crucified for trying to pull.

Yet at the same time, the short attention span has made it impossible to go on for three pages of exposition, or to spend a chapter just nuttering around getting to know the character. So you're right in that respect. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place as writers in the 21st century.

[WannabeWriter]

I love to read. There's still some true book lovers left. :)

Speaking of which, I do complain about one thing with regards to books. I posted about film adaptations before, and I want to say that I think way too many people are uninterested in books, and the only way for them to even start reading is to watch a movie based on a book. Sometimes, they watch a film adaptation of a book and don't even care what the original source is.

[icerose]

This reminds me of a book I just finished. "The Kingless Land" by Ed Greenwood. At first I was really put off by his writing because it had far too many adverbs and such cluttering up the prose and making it difficult to picture some of the images he was trying to convey. I always give a book at least 30 pages unless it absolutely disgusts me. By that time I have given myself a chance to get used to the writers unique voice and have gotten to know the characters and story more.

I was very glad I did and although his prose still does bother me a little, his storytelling is rather intriguing and I find myself looking forward to reading the next book in the "Band of Four" series. I love to read, always have and know that some authors I just need some time to warm up to before I start to love them.

If they haven't won me by thirty pages, like if I am bored out of my mind, the story line makes me sick, or they just haven't won me, then I put the book down. If they can't get me in thirty, they aren't going to get me at all.

So yes, there are still people who love to read. :)

[reni]

Well, I feel a little better now. :) Personally, I'll give any book its fair chance. I can't say I have a specific page count I give to a dubious author. Basically, if I find myself giggling over the quality, I stop.

Do you feel the short attention span is a product of short schedules? It seems I hear from everyone, "I don't have time for this, I don't have time for that." Are we simply a busier race of people than we were in Charles Dickens' day?

[brokenfingers]

Sorry to interrupt your posts, but I'm currently listening to this thread with my Forum Verbulator program while taking a break from listening to the latest Dan Brown novel and your smilies are causing my Verbulator to crash.

Now what were you saying about readers reading again?

[scarletpeaches]

I'm a bookworm, always have been. Lord knows where I get it from because no one else in my family is - except for Uncle Charles, the only one to go to university. And besides accountancy text books, all he reads is Harry Potter - and he's 45!

I am thinking of moving house soon - downsizing to a one bed flat, and my main worry is where do I put all my books? I could happily (ish) do without the internet for a little while, television too, but when my aunt suggested giving some books away to create space, I nearly had a heart attack! I read about 100-150 books a year, never go anywhere without a paperback - they're like my security blanket; I never carried teddy-bears with me as a child.

History, biography, literary, anything, you name it, I'll give it a go. I tend to stick to the 50-page rule as well, but it takes an extra specially awful book to make me throw it at the wall. I believe you can learn from bad writing as well as good.

People do say we live in a busier society these days, but there are 24 hours in everyone's day and it's all about what you really want to do with your spare time. Some people like to watch telly - but it's so passive. Many of those who say they don't have any time to read are slumped in front of the idiot-box, or say they're too tired after work - well, aren't we all? My television hasn't been switched on more than a few hours in the past week. I love the sound of silence, and the smell of a new book.

I love to learn, I love to be enlightened, challenged, amused, entertained...and what does all of this better than a book?

I know, I'm gushing, but hey...I'm a bookworm.

[brainstrains]

Reni,

You made me want to cry! I remember reading for the sake of reading. Loving it. Reading 100 books on summer vacation and still thirsting for more.

Now, all I ever do when I read is analyze the author's writing. I never just enjoy the story. I wish I could, but I'm too busy doing a mental critique.

Maybe if I found a book that was so absorbing, it would make me forget to be analytical. Haven't yet, though.



BT

[StoryG27]

I am a book addict!!! I read everything I can get my hands on...spanning all genres...(though not so much poetry or non-fiction). Here's something that may play into my reading habbits...I don't have TV.

I'll talk about a book I read to friends and they'll say, "Gee, must be nice to have the time to just sit around and read," and I want to strangle them because they'll have just finished talking about this or that TV show. I feel like a lone crusader, traveling the world, trying to convince people to spend time reading...I don't even care what they read...just turn off the tube and pick up a book every once in a while. I have turned a few of my friends onto certain authors and genres I knew would be good fits, so at least I've made a litte progress. I'm not against TV and not saying people should stop watching completely, but c'mon, can't they balance the two forms of entertainment?

*Stepping off soapbox*

Anyway, readers love to read...I think we just have a lot of people who don't realize they are readers because they haven't been matched with the right books yet and haven't learned the joy of reading.

[Aconite]

I'll talk about a book I read to friends and they'll say, "Gee, must be nice to have the time to just sit around and read,"
*groan*
Yes, those of us who read are blessed with an extra two hours in the day. Those with a mere 24 will simply have to make do with watching TV shows, going to the mall, and maintaining their lawns as putting greens.

[tjwriter]

I'll talk about a book I read to friends and they'll say, "Gee, must be nice to have the time to just sit around and read," and I want to strangle them because they'll have just finished talking about this or that TV show.

Of course, that would be the point that the snide, anal side of me (which has appeared with increasing frequency since I became pregnant) would point out that if they have time to watch TV, they have time to read, be they a friend or not.

I read like there is no tomorrow. I love books. Drives my husband crazy because once I go to the library I will spend two whole days reading the five books I just got or something stupid like that. I can't put one down once I pick it up. My personal library is small and while I can't contribute to it regularly, I do often reread what I own for some stimulation of the book persuasion.

[Mistook]

I lived for four blissfull years without a TV set, and I did get a lot of reading done in those days. Then I met my current girlfriend. When she moved in, she brought her TV.

Some days I can actually feel the thing physically sucking my strength away. Even if I hate what I'm watching, and there's nothing on, it can be a huge struggle just to turn the thing off and get off the couch. TV's are evil.

[rhymegirl]

This is a very good topic.

I would say that I do a lot of reading in the summer. I find television has gone downhill quite a bit, and there are fewer and fewer programs I watch anymore. I can't stand reality TV, the sitcoms are pretty stupid, so I only watch a few dramas. Summertime is filled with reruns, so I don't watch TV at all.

But as far as I'm concerned that is good news for writers. Perhaps frustrated TV viewers will return to books. While my son is doing his summer reading for school, I'm doing mine for my own pleasure and enlightenment.

Oprah had a great idea when she started her book club. When that started, I tried to get every book. The only thing that bugged me about it was that when she had the show where a particular book was discussed, the discussions were not that great. But still, I was inspired to read and so were a lot of other people.

[maestrowork]

I know a few people who read at least one or two books a weak, maybe more, and they love to read, and they read everything from nutrition labels to price tags.

I'm a visual person so I tend to like movies or TV more. I try to finish at least one novel a month -- I'm a slow reader and I get easily distracted. Non-fiction and magazines and newspapers? I read tons. I also read online...

[Jaycinth]

I love books with long complicated plots and subplots, detailed and developed characters and descriptions of where the charaters are!. I like to know if the horse is a paint, appaloosa, or chestnut. I want to know if a character is twirling her hair. I like a nice series that carries characters through several books. I like to look up new words when I find them.

I always carry a book with me. I really thought no one understood.

And, as my kids have learned, If a movie was made from a book, the books has to be read before we see the movie. Period.

(reality shows: GRRRRR GRRRRRR GRRRRRR!)

[Danger Jane]

I don't set a limit on a bad book...either I finish (most cases), or I simply can't get through it. But when a book becomes too much WORK to read when it is meant as a novel, I just can't force myself through.

[ANNIE]

Oh Reni, I can relate! I love to read. I alawys have a book on hand, cause you never know when you might have soem free time. I would rather read than do almost anything else(I did say almost- I do have two kids!)

I agree that books have changed over the years and that's not all bad however, I think a lot of good fiction isn't being published because of the reasons you mentioned in your original post. For example, can you imagine anyone publishing Tolkien today? I don't think so.

[Danger Jane]

With as much stimulation as there is today, it's hard to sit and read. Especially with a TV in your room, which is what happened to my mother.

[JerseyGirl1962]

The only 2 books in the past year that I couldn't, wouldn't finish I gave up on about a 1/3 of the way in. What got to me about these 2 particular books (I'd never not finished a book before these, even ones I couldn't stand) was that I noticed things that irritated me: in the 4th Wheel of Time book, one character endlessly pulled on her braid to signify her annoyance or something; (*beginning of rant*) the other, American Gods, drove me insane with all the brand names of cars, etc., and overuse of curse words.

Now, I use curse words, sometimes a lot (esp. if I'm in a really bad mood). But although I think I understand what Neil Gaiman was trying to do (lowlife scumbag leads a tawdry life), IMHO I just think he overdid it. Seemed disjointed. It wasn't as interesting and satisfying as Neverwhere (which I liked). (*end of rant*)

Anyhoo, I've been a voracious reader almost all my life. Fortunately for me, my mother's the same way. She instilled that in me very early on, reading a lot of mysteries. I've been reading mostly fantasy lately, but I just recently got hooked on the Stephanie Plum novels by Janet Evanovitch (and I think she's got the Jersey thing down pat, heh, heh).

I don't decide on a page number either in deciding whether I continue with a story. I'll keep at it until the story draaaags unmercifully, or I want to spit at the wall or something. No set amount of pages, probably because I always hope the story gets better by turning the page...

As to reading while the TV's on...I do it all the time. Not only can I zone out the TV, I can zone out a radio, a vacuum cleaner, other people's conversations (just ask my hubby ;)).

So there are still plenty of us who, despite long commutes, etc., love to read and will do almost anything to have a book in hand.

~Nancy

[Danger Jane]

I can zone out pretty much anything while I am reading, unless it is a dull/required reading book.

Mm, I didn't mean to imply that my mom doesn't read anymore. She reads less than she used to when my sister and I were very young, but more than she did like, last year. I think it's easier when we aren't constantly making demands of her, like, "Turn on the TV because I'm too young to use the remote" or "Make me a snack because I can't reach the cabinet."

Senseless cursing drives me nuts. Used right, it can set a tone for a book, but too much is sloppy and says that the author doesn't know enough words to describe things any differently.

[WriterInChains]

It's a matter of priorities, I think -- everyone can make time for what's important to them whether it's reading, sleeping, eating, playing with our kids or whatever -- you just have to be deliberate & take control of your own time. Not always easy, but it has tremendous benefits!

I love just about any kind of story & watch a lot of TV, movies & plays when I can -- I just refuse to even try anything that didn't have a writer involved [read: Reality TV], with the exception of some concert videos, they're good background for writing sometimes.

[reni]

I'll admit, I don't always have enough hours in my day. Working full-time with a six-year-old boy and a significant other to take care of (LoL), most days are spent doing things for other people. But when it comes to my time, I'm almost always either reading or writing. Usually while my honey sits in front of the TV. *grr*

Of course, I could certainly use an extra six hours or so at night to unwind after work and really get into whatever project I'm currently writing. But I don't have that luxury, no more than anyone else does. There are times when I'll start reading a book, go to bed, and don't have a chance to pick it up again for a week or more. But still, when I come back to that book, I expect it to be complex, thought-provoking, and involved. I don't care if it takes me two days or two months to finish reading a book--I want the same quality either way.

[HapiSofi]

There are plenty of readers who love to read. Right now, more books are being bought and read by more people, in more places, earlier and later in life, than ever before -- and I'm talking proportion of population, not absolute numbers.

But I'll bet that's not what you're really asking, because all it takes is a glance around a big bookstore to tell you that people are in fact quite happy to buy and read long, chewy, discursive books. I expect that what you're really saying is that you want to be able to write long, discursive chapters in whatever fashion pleases you best, and somehow wind up having the readers like them too.

It could happen.

In the meantime, you must never blame the readers. Nothing is ever their fault. If you're writing commercial fiction, you are their slave. If they don't like what you're doing, you can either do something else, or find a different hobby.

[maestrowork]

Long, chewy, discursive books have their audience (just don't expect numbers in the Grisham column). You just need to write a good one, and find the right agent/publisher for it.

[reni]

I expect that what you're really saying is that you want to be able to write long, discursive chapters in whatever fashion pleases you best, and somehow wind up having the readers like them too.

Actually, no. What I'm really saying is what I really said.

And, considering I make a living off my writing, I wouldn't say it's a "hobby."

As mentioned in my original post, I'm always reading up on how to improve my writing--which means, making my writing more sellable for current markets (in case you were wondering what I'm really saying). I believe every writer, no matter how successful, can always still improve. Adapting my writing style to fit publishers' wants and likes is something I have to do in order to continue making a living. Adapting my personal reading tastes is not something I have to do. The contemporary directive to aspiring authors which states, to exaggerate a bit, "sterilize it or die"--that just depresses me a little.

[DiscoDan]

Less is not always more. If you have a good story and write well the length shouldn't matter. Take Harry Potter for example, those things are HUGE but people can't get enough! You have to be able to get things started quick though, reading can become a chore for even the biggest book worm if you're story is too slow-paced.

I don't think Television or Internet really changes what people like in a story, essentially it's just a time matter. If you have to Go to work, watch American Idol, check e-mail, and etc. you have less time for reading, that's why you have to be able to hook a reader after they read the first chapter. If they're not devoted to it instantly, the second they stop reading to watch Desperate Housewives odds are they won't go back to the book.

[gp101]

Do you feel the short attention span is a product of short schedules? It seems I hear from everyone, "I don't have time for this, I don't have time for that." Are we simply a busier race of people than we were in Charles Dickens' day?

Dickens didn't have to compete with TV, Hollywood, or the internet. What kind of entertainment did they have back then besides books (for those who could read anyway)? Plays and state fairs are the only things that come to mind. Also, I heard about a study at the beginning of the year that we--the American public--just surpassed Japan as the hardest working nation on earth, based, I think, on work hours per week. Another study recently suggested that most Americans are afraid to even take their two weeks off a year for fear of losing their job. We work hard and we party hard, so maybe there's less time for solitary moments of fun (no, not those kind of solitary moments) like those spent reading. I'm not sure we're busier today than in Dickens time; most people then lived in rural areas and probably had no electric light to stay up reading into the night, but they surely worked the fields or the factories for most of the day. There's certainly more competition for our entertainment dollar and time today than there was back then.

Add to this the price of hardbacks and I totally understand why people (including myself) will only read a couple pages before buying a book. But even when I buy a paperback, if I find myself wondering why I bought the damn thing even before ending the first chapter, well then I'm done and will give the book to a co-worker I don't particularly like and say "here, this is great" (one of my secret guilty pleasures).

Don't forget that most of us here are writers or writers-in-the-making and a lot of us will be more tolerant of giving a book more time IMHO; maybe hoping that karma will produce the same results in readers for our own material. But me? I want to read the first four or five pages and be so spellbound I can't wait to pay for the damn hardcover. Paperbacks get more slack, but if I can't finish it I'll probably never buy another one from that particular author. Time's too short, and choices are too abundant.

[SeanDSchaffer]

....No one wants to read any more. No one wants to get to know a character. No one wants to appreciate the prose. It's all about the first line and "knock my socks off immediately or you're not worth my time, you hack, because who wants to read more than a page when I can read one line and judge the whole work?"

Forgive my rant, but I'm honestly curious if there are any readers who read for the sake of reading any more....


I can say that I myself enjoy reading for the pure sake of reading. But there is, in my opinion, a lack of time in which to read. Even in my own life, (Disabled, seemingly having plenty of time,) I find that time is fleeting, because I have so much to do. There is television, of course, but there is also email, checking up on forums I belong to, going out to check the mail, Church, etc. Add to these things the fact that I'm a writer, as well, and you have a pretty hefty load even for a disabled man like myself.

When I get the chance to read, I enjoy it very much. But if the book doesn't get going after the first couple pages, I get bored, wondering where the book is going to begin.

Of course, I've always been one who likes stories that don't take seventy-five pages to start. That's just my personal reading preference.


I noticed you said that you play by the rules but don't like the rules. Then you said, "Call me a hypocrite, if you will...."

I don't see you as a hypocrite. If you obey rules you haven't set, you have no obligation to like them, only to follow them. I see nothing hypocritical about disliking rules you feel obligated to obey.

[MarkPettus]

Dickens was not great because of his era. He was great because of his writing. Most of us can't name one of Dickens's contemporaries, the best of us probably can't name ten. Dickens stands out because he told magnificent stories that were true and real...and popular. The hacks who shared his commercial success are forgotten, along with the "literary" writers who groused about and envied his sales figures.

Dickensian writers still exist. John Irving tells luxuriant tales about common people. His stories span entire lifetimes and beyond, and enough people buy them to earn him 3 feet of shelf space at Books-A-Million. There are successful movies based on his books, a sign that even our shallow, soulless (and bookless) popular culture will still embrace a good story, if it truly is good.

We can't all be Dickens, but that isn't our reader's fault. Blame Darwin.