This absolutely smacks of privilege. As a former teacher there can be so many barriers to people picking up a book for the first time and sometimes, these “easy reads” are the hook that can get them started, and they aren’t easy to all people! What can be a challenging read for some is very different to what might be a challenging read for someone with a completely different upbringing. This kind of attitude can really turn people off reading or even scare them from even trying it in the first place because they’re worried they’re not reading “good enough” books.
This article does not make a point against someone getting into literature through “easy reads”. It argues that these easy reads shouldn’t make up all of what you consume.
“It's literary dessert, and dessert serves a purpose. But when dessert becomes your entire intellectual diet, malnutrition follows.”
You really don’t, though. You said it quite clearly: “It's literary dessert, and dessert serves a purpose. But when dessert becomes your entire intellectual diet, malnutrition follows.” It’s not your fault this person completely missed your point.
Excellent piece, by the way. You said everything that needed to be said.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. I’ve found myself coming back to read this article multiple times given how good and truthful it is. It feels like a salve to the frustrations I’ve had within this community, and it’s quite ironic that some people misconstrued him.
What you lament in your essay is another instance of epistemic flattening as a reactionary attempt to tame heightened informational entropy. Reading is always good, empathy should be maximised, everyone should get better at symbolic manipulation and narrow abstraction so they can score high on something called an IQ test. The comments on your post here allude to a bigger picture I believe you are missing: people no longer have the *psychic stability* to deal with *epistemic entropy*. They *want* to be infantilised; told that it's okay to seek comfort and analgesia (Han's *palliative society*). There are many for whom CTAs like this will work, and that's excellent, and they should fight to see the eclectic range of factors that have led to the destitution of the modern psyche, what Han calls the *agony of Eros*. There is no fix, no utopia awaiting; there is only a continuous decline into insanity, and the fact that so many in your comments here can't see why that's a bad thing exemplifies this. I suppose this is a roundabout way of saying that it's better that people at least *try* to get others to open to the unvarnished horror of the Real, and shifting norms *by definition* comes with friction, but the real solution is also the impossible one of reviving social ties and community and presence in the world, the parasympathetic response, so that we may return to our long-lost curiosity and epistemic adventure, in praise of risk. I elaborate on my essays here if anyone is interested:
I don't think it's about whether a book is the best book and the most challenging book of all, but what is a challenging book for the reader in question.
It's about reading from diverse genres and themes, about not reading a slight variation of the same book again and again.
Of course that what I, a 32 yo woman, find challenging won't be the same than for a 15 yo girl who has only read what school deems interesting, if that.
It's about reading to change yourself, let the books alter you.
Not about a specific list of books that need to be read.
So if reading a very entry level, easy to understand book is what's honestly challenging, then that's perfectly ok.
We just have to be honest. Because we definitely know whether we're reading for comfort or for growth.
P.S.: I don't think reading for comfort is bad. I think it's bad if it comprises all your reading.
Why is it bad for someone to only have "comfort reads"? This is a genuine question - I'd like to examine and push back against the instinct to label that as "wrong".
There are many people who expend all of their energy on labour (whether that be employment or otherwise) throughout the day, to the point where they are mentally and physically exhausted when they steal some small time for themselves before bed. Should we tell those people they are wrong for seeking entertainment rather than dragging their exhausted brains through something that requires real effort to get through?
Moreover, even if we suppose a person has no such circumstances, and reads purely for pleasure and entertainment alone - why are we supposing that works must be *challenging* to be enriching? Why are we assuming that art alone and literature in specific are the only ways someone might learn or change or grow? And perhaps most importantly - who are we to be judge and jury on what they should do with their life?
If at any point in this reply I sound too harsh I apologise, sincerely. Because I trust that it's a genuine question. I'll be as quick as I can be:
I am a very low/working class woman in the global south. My whole family is working class. All my ancestors were working class. We struggle. We're all in debt.
We also are readers. We love literature and talk about books. We don't just watch Marvel movies and enjoy beach reads because we're trying to get away from reality. My grandfather would always take my mother to the library. My grandmother, mother at nineteen, worked as a janitor and there wasn't a book you could ask her about she hadn't read.
My mother taught me how to read at four. We didn't have paint on our walls but we had books and movies.
Poor people are people and they also benefit and can take so much from engaging meaningfully with literature. I'd argue it's even more important for us to do so. I think the fact that people are tired or overworked is an argument for reading challenging books and not the other way around.
And I think it's a bit paternalistic to say they (us) can't, should be expected to or can't truly understand great works of art.
I think saying you're too tired to read a difficult book is kind of an excuse. Which is weird because at the end of the day, everyone can truly do whatever in the privacy of their own homes.
However, what if instead of reading a thousand beach reads you read a challenging book slowly? And you could even stop when it gets too hard and read a comfort book in between.
I don't like when people use "the poor and overworked" like they're less than. And that's what that argument does.
I apologize for any paternalism - it was unintentional on my part, but I can see how my comment might have incorporated some of my own privilege. However, I want to be clear that I was using one example of someone in a situation who might not *want* to engage with something that takes more energy, not that they *couldn't* do so. I'm also trying to push back a little on the idea that something *must* be challenging - in a traditional sense - to be a great work of art, or to be enriching or stimulating.
Basically, my intention was to start with a concrete example that many people may not have thought about and might find more "acceptable", and then broaden that out to question the whole premise of assigning a moral aspect and judging others' free time in the first place (something I think you're at least somewhat sympathetic to, given your "in the privacy of their own homes" comment?). I apologize if that didn't come across clearly - it sounds like to you it seemed more as though I was singling out the poor in particular, which was absolutely not my intention.
(I'll note that I'm also approaching this from a disabled perspective, so I tried to be broad with my example - "labour" and "using up all one's energy" can look very different for different people, especially from the outside - but maybe I should have been clearer about that.)
Oh, I have so much to say. Firstly, i wasn't trying to call you paternalistic, sorry.
About the matter at hand, I don't think it's necessarily judging people for not knowing what's out there either, though. I also think saying a book is bad, easy or merely a product is not (and should never be) a moral observation on the reader. Like, if you don't want to do something, then you don't. It doesn't mean it's beyond analysis from others, mostly if you choose to make it public.
Also, sorry if it sounded like I was using my struggles as tools to win an argument. I just wanted to illustrate that the people who struggle also benefit from and can enjoy challenging art.
Like, I completely understand the need to turn off your brain sometimes. I do it with movies from childhood, sometimes with books. I've read the whole Twilight saga. However, it wouldn't be beneficial for my growth as an adult to only get my morals and my stories in the form of Shrek and Quest for Camelot. For someone to evolve, they have to go through the annoying process of things being difficult.
My opinion on the matter is you do whatever makes you happy, just maybe don't feel like it's entirely beneficial or beyond criticism.
Because the people who are saying 'hey, maybe read something other than a romance specifically design to numb you, you could read this more complex romance that was written by an actual person out of their necessity to create art and not just to sell', those are the people who are trying to help you, not shame you. Not you literally, you know this. (?) I hope I've made myself clear.
No problem at all - I didn't think you were doing so, but I wanted to make sure my meaning was clear!
I think we're both essentially coming at this from similar perspectives - my point is, essentially, that the essay unfortunately totalized and denigrated (purposefully or not!) the practice of reading for comfort/not reading something considered "challenging" as being worse somehow and not what books are "meant" for. I totally agree that there is value in both, and that there *is* a point to be made in that one should at least consider pushing one's boundaries and challenging oneself in ways *like* reading something "difficult" - but my argument is that the essay as written casts this as the *only* reading we should be doing, and denigrates other kinds (as well as, even as it criticizes the practice, implicitly holding literature as somehow above other art forms).
Yes, not everyone reads to be transformed (in the moment) but at some level, the act of reading is inherently an exercise in cognitive expansion. Even when we don’t seek it, it’s what books can do best, stretch our empathy, sharpen our frameworks, slow down our thinking. Not every book is worth reading for everyone, and not every moment is right for every book. Some books feel like protein, some like sugar, and some like cardboard. You learn to tell the difference.
the trap is when we stop being conscious about why we’re reading a book. Are we reading to grow, to be challenged, to expand our thinking? Or are we reading just to feel seen, validated, soothed?
Over time, if we never pause to ask that, we blur the line between reading for depth and reading for ease. And when the default becomes comfort, our appetite for challenge can quietly shrink, until one day, the harder books feel too far out of reach.
While this question was not presented at me, I think I'll give it a go.
I argue that reading diversely and pursuing books that overcome our need to be entertained can be an incredibly necessary asset to help aid in the escape from poverty. People who have received sub-par education, and whose society has failed them, still have a way to help themselves acquire the tools that they should have received. Reading books that teach you things (economics, politics, world history, etc.) can be the tools that help them escape from their own circumstances. It's not THE thing that'll help them get out, but I believe the power of (self)education is seriously underestimated.
(Sorry if I'm incorrectly assuming you were replying to me - the comment threading is a little confusing on Substack!)
I absolutely agree with what you're saying, but, respectfully, I think you might have missed the point of my questions. I'm not asking why one *should* challenge oneself with reading - I think there's tons of value in that! What I'm arguing is against the following notions:
- that doing so is the only way one "should" read
- that doing so is somehow superior to reading e.g. for entertainment
- that books are a rarefied, special medium that is the only way one can achieve this type of enrichment
- that People These Days are Reading Wrong, unlike in Glorious Past Times
- that we have any kind of right to judge other people for choosing to spend their leisure time in a certain way (that isn't harming anyone, etc.)
... all of which is at least implicitly argued by the essay. (Once again, I doubt all of this was *intentional*, but it is the actual *result*.)
"Why are we assuming that art alone and literature in specific are the only ways someone might learn or change or grow?"-The article did not say that. You are arguing against a point the article did not make.
"why are we supposing that works must be *challenging* to be enriching?"-where was this stated?
"Should we tell those people they are wrong for seeking entertainment rather than dragging their exhausted brains through something that requires real effort to get through?" - The article was about the act of reading. It did not say people are wrong. It said that some reading is wrong. An action can be wrong, but it doesn't necessarily mean the person is "wrong."
I agree! People can read whatever piques their interest, however I do think reading new, challenging pieces is so important to gain insight on new topics and issues. There’s nothing I love more than a book that makes me question my beliefs and change my opinions, but I do enjoy a nice mindless romance once in a while. Everything in moderation!
i think this comment is very indicative of what the internet does to a discussion before it can even start off (somebody writes something and you ask why it doesn't cater to your specific situation). this article doesn't discuss how people who aren't used to reading approach easier books to consume but how it is important to consume literature (for people who actively consume literature) that challenges you besides the kind that you know you'd like and enjoy because, otherwise you exist in an echo chamber that gives you only what you like and what you think is right. books are absolutely meant to comfort you and be something that you enjoy reading but it really shouldn't become just that. we need people to read and critically consume media of any kind by reaching beyond their comfort zone. this is especially important in the current political scenario (no matter where you're from) and honestly how will we ever learn if we aren't challenged to try more than we think we can. i loved the comparison the author made to resistance training here.
I agree, and I would add that this analysis is shallow and hollow. The assumption is that reading is the only medium for exploring complex or worthwhile thoughts.
Ask yourself the questions of if you’ve ever been to a lecture that made you reconsider your assumptions, had an experience where you learned something new about the world, watched a movie about a person you had never considered to be the main character, or literally just went to the next town over and asked what the best place for beers was.
Or, did you have to learn this all from reading a book?
I know this discussion is about 5 months old, so apologies if I am repeating points that were already made. That being said...
I am also a former teacher. I agree that getting students to read anything, especially hesitant readers or readers who are already several years behind their peers, is good. All reading is good reading in that sense. It doesn't matter if it's Holes or The Giver or a graphic novel or Sweet Valley High. For the love of all that is holy, just read! All reading is good reading. With kiddos, all reading is good reading.
But we are not talking about children and adolescent students who, by the way, are still learning how to read. We are talking about adult readers. Yes, there are many adult readers who still read and comprehend at the level of a 4th grader. But that context and distinction make a difference. We are talking about fluent, adult readers with decades of life experience.
Not all books are "literature" just like not all movies are "cinema." Now, not all books need to be literature. And yes, it is fine to have comfort reads, and yes, "easy reads" can be a gateway to more sophisticated work. I've definitely read genre fiction as chasers after reading some heavy literary fiction for book club. And Reese acknowledged all that, though I do want to add that "comfort reads" have always existed. That isn't new.
But the industry of reading and "BookTok" are largely about books as consumption, commodities, products to sell. Not producing art. Not moving hearts and minds. Not fostering change. Publish what'll sell well. Profit is the goal. And what's profitable is often NOT what's most challenging or sophisticated or "deep."
And a society that is always entertained but never challenged is in trouble. Books that pacify you into indifference or stifle you in some way are not good books. That's not good reading.
Comfort is fine, but if you always stick to your "comfort zone," you'll never grow. Period. If you only read for entertainment, you will not grow intellectually. Now if you don't want to grow intellectually, then yeah, keep reading the comfort books. But don't kid yourself that you are growing intellectually by always reading comfort books.
PS When I say comfort books, I don't only mean "easy" genre fiction. I mean any book that one is reading for entertainment. "Emma" by Jane Austen is arguably a comfort read for me now even though that is more difficult to read than romantasy.
I’m amazed by the article, I hardly ever find someone who is willing to look critically at what reading is now for many people.
Reading is perhaps the most important part of my life, and I’m always looking for something new, something that makes my brain think. I loathe the new trend that many writers follow, with books that are written only to be sold.
The article is beautifully written and I find myself agreeing with every point.
Sorry, but I can't co-sign this one. Unfortunately - and I do believe this was your intent - trying *not* to be elitist doesn't always absolve one of elitism entire, especially when (as another commenter has already mentioned) one is speaking from a place of privilege.
I think a lot is mixed up in here - I'd like to gently remind you that pulp has been present for longer than literature, and that the "brainrot" argument smacks of a cycle that we can trace back to Plato's bemoaning that this newfangled "writing" is having a deleterious effect on intellectual ability. I *do* note that there is a wave of anti-intellectualism in the culture (swelling in size, of late) that is real and concerning, but would suggest that perhaps focusing our efforts against that on Kindle romances and BookTok recommendations is, to put it mildly, misplaced.
Reading can be wonderful, life-changing, intellectually challenging, stimulating - but to say it *must* be is to make yourself a prescriptivist and, yes, to come across as ivory-tower ignorant to the reality of some people's lives. All art is everything and nothing; what you seek, and what you find, are entirely individual experiences and needs. I'm not here to denigrate the value of pushing one's boundaries, of seeking the sublime or enrichment, but I *am* going to push against the idea that that is morally superior to any other use of art, or indeed that that should be the only use of one particular medium.
Books are still dangerous - shall we take a look at the ever-growing banlist, or at works like How To Blow Up A Pipeline? Books are still challenging - people use the internet to collaboratively pick apart House of Leaves, or create accessible video essays containing their literary analysis of This Is How You Lose The Time War. They're also still everything else they've always been, as magazine pulp serials or penny dreadfuls or campfire stories as much as illuminated manuscripts or thick, leather-bound volumes.
Literature is art. Some types of art aren't to your taste, or don't fill a need for you that they might for someone else. That's all right.
Despite your claims that you’re not advocating for literature elitism, this is exactly what this essay is - pure definition of elitism. Who’s going to decide what is thought-provoking and what isn’t, and who’s going to decide what people must and mustn’t read, who’s going to declare what is the true goal of literature, you? For everyone? On what ground exactly?
“Books used to be dangerous” when they were basically the only source of preserving and distributing information and sparking discussions. For better or worse - that’s just not how our world function anymore, with tons and tons of information that we receive daily whether we want it or not.
A very surprising read from someone who literally created a classification (and where are classifications, there are also algorithms) of readers. And I don’t even like the genres that you so clearly despise - I just believe that people can decide for themselves what to read and why. While probably your intentions were good, the whole essay is extremely pretentios and elitist.
That's not what they're advocating for. And this doesn't classify as elitism. They're identifying a real, pervasive problem which is that too many people now read purely to shut their brains off, to read the same tropes (often overly simplistic and not rooted in reality, occasionally toxic) and ideas which leads ultimately to a lack of critical thinking skills. I'm sorry but there is a clear difference between a book written by Virginia Woolf versus Colleen Hoover. We don't need to infantilize book-reading adults and we should absolutely demand more intelligent thinking from the people around us.
So « we don’t need to infantilize book-reading adults », and yet we’re supposed to supervise what people are reading to make sure that they’re reading the « right » books because apparently without the guidance they can’t decide for themselves, got it 👍 who’s infantilizing whom exactly here?
Also reading is not the only tool to develop critical thinking and make the brain work, especially for adults.
Who said anything about supervising? The author is pointing out a legitimate problem, which is that the book industry is overrun with books that are novel versions of an indulgent treat which shouldn't be consumed constantly. This is something that people need to take into their own hands recognizing that only ever reading one type of book is not going to be intellectually stimulating.
Notice how the author never prescribed a single book? The whole point of the article is to bring recognition to the fact that there needs to be a balanced diet of books - we should all be encouraging one another to read a greater variety of books. And all this in the backdrop of global turmoil makes it even more necessary for people to read more challenging things. I'm sure there are other ways to bolster critical thinking skills but I don't know of many ways more effective than reading and given the way things are going economically and politically we would all be better off if we read more than just romantasy or pulp fiction.
Ironically that is what various platforms are doing, making suggestions for content that's easy to absorb and already aligns with consumer's taste.
Also we cannot in any way force anyone to read a specific type of literature, if anything it's the people with more advertising power who can get away with it as long as people aren't paying attention.
If you point out to someone they're only reading the same kind of comfy literature, they're fine with it and keep on doing that, there's no harm. If it makes them at least try other things, even if they go back to the same comfort zone, that's probably good.
I've had people call me out for having read things only on one side of an argument (in my case not acknowledging the limitations of science in terms of providing clean answers in matters such as morality). It's not like that somehow magically pressured me into flipping my beliefs 180 degrees but it's been good for me to broaden my horizons, some of the arguments I accepted and some I rejected, that's how learning works.
None of this would happen if I stuck to the comfy "new atheism" and popular science kind of content.
I just want to point out the assumption behind this argument: excellence is in the eye of the beholder, therefore there can be no consensus on what is excellent. Works of art cannot be judged because there is no standard of what is good and bad. Very postmodern thinking.
I agree that algorithms can narrow our perspective on what is out there. I disagree, however, with your focus on contemporary reading and the romance/spice/romantasy genre. There have always been readers who stick to a certain genre that uses the same recipe over and over again, whether it be romance or thriller or manga or something else. Focusing this essay on a single genre that is mostly aimed at younger women engaged in social media feels like a narrow and easy argument to me. Is it not okay when young women read twenty similar romantasy books because they saw it on TilTok? But then is okay if older men read twenty similar thrillers because they were in the top 10 section of the book store?
Sometimes the world is challenging and uncomfortable enough and people would rather read something familiar and comforting than something intellectually challenging. There's nothing wrong with that. I love reading intellectually challenging books but sometimes I don't have the headspace for that and then I pick something lighter for a change. That's just life sometimes.
Yes - I forgot to mention this in my own comment, but the particular choice of what was focused on here reminds me of a trend of largely unconscious sexism that tends to manifest itself in, specifically, a perceived devaluing of whatever it is that young girls and women in particular are fond of at the moment. (You can find this one all over history - the current downfall of society might be Beatlemania, or K-Pop, or boy bands, or teen magazines.)
(I want to be clear that when I say something like this, I'm not accusing anyone holding views like this of *being* sexist or elitist as some sort of immutable property of being a Bad Person. We grow up and absorb the biases of society around us, and it is all too common to end up reflecting those biases back. One of the ways we can, in fact, challenge ourselves and grow is to take a step back and examine these points of view and the ways that they might not account for other perspectives, or might be coloured by our own situation in life.)
This is Not It, dude. You seem unaware of the many many decades of criticism that sound exactly the same as you: the so-called “literary elite” going after the popular fiction read primarily by the women of their era. Look it up — this is a sentiment male literary critics have been expressing for quite literally centuries. You really told on yourself with this “I am here to express a superior opinion” vibe, and not in a good way. In condemning entire genres, you miss out on the best works within them, and that’s a real loss for your own push towards wisdom.
I don't think misogyny is the rebuttal it seems to be. Romance, Romantasy and Fantasy are, today, exclusively aimed or read by women and girls. There's also a tendency for these books to be recyclable, poorly structured, and for their readers to be oversaturated by them. It isn't misogynistic to highlight flaws, expose one's concerns, and make very sensible and reasonable suggestions as to how we can break a cycle where entertainment over growth is rewarded. Additionally, while there's a very important truth to the arguments exposed by a lot of men through time what dismissed specific books read by women (male flight), I think there's a core argument that can still be made, if presented on its own; the books that are so popular today lack a lot of skills that, given our current political climate, are more needed than ever to cultivate.
I think that his argument is that readers shouldn't escape, they should prepare themselves. Reading diversely isn't an elitist suggestion, but a wise one. Being well-read implies diversity and courage. I don't think he's criticizing having a preference for a given genre, but caging yourself within it.
Certainly I think these works can be criticized for that, but it is worth questioning why, for example, "flawless heroines" and romantasy (romance in particular) are criticized here, and not, for example, pulp airport novels of the sort aimed at a male or neutral audience (thinking here of examples like Dean Koontz and James Patterson, or whomever is currently filling their place in the ecosystem). I also think, respectfully, that you might be missing the historical lens when saying that the books that are popular *today* lack a lot of skills, while missing that what is popular has generally always been work with a wide entertainment appeal (magazine stories, penny dreadfuls, adventure novels...).
My argument, and I think LF's, is not that the advice "read diversely and challenge yourself" is in and of itself a bad one, but that this one essentially ended up being "it is incorrect to do anything *but* read diversely and challenge oneself" and "people today are uniquely incapable of doing this [because of algorithms]"... both of which are, to say the least, wrongheaded.
I definitely think his argument could have been balanced with other examples, such as "finance bro" books or capitalistic and rigid "self-help" books. While there's definitely been an uptick in demand for these types of books, he's specifically honing in on the books that are in constant circulation on BookTok, among romance/fantasy disproportionately stand out.
I also agree with the author's message in this post; reading diversely is a tremendously important skill, and in a world plagued by AI and algorithmic consumption, resisting consumerism and literary tunnel vision is more important than ever.
Hear, hear! James Patterson publishes what, about 20+ books a year? Not sure we can argue those books have more intellectual rigor than the average Emily Henry.
Much of power fantasy aimed at teenage boys is just as bad.
And I don't think it's a matter of "never even touch those 'lowly' works", but the idea that a literary diet of **just** these pure entertainment works is somehow superior to watching Netflix purely by the virtue of being in a book form.
I like the color category idea and some of your recommendations, but I think you have a misogyny problem. Take another look at the paragraph about all that's wrong with reading these days, and notice how many of the "problems" you note and genres you take aim at are associated with women.
We DO have a literacy crisis (speaking as a librarian), but it's not because books are too pretty and fun.
YES this was exactly what I needed this morning! More judgment and divisive opinions in my inbox, and someone new telling me what to do! Thank you so much, I would have had no idea what to read without you telling me.
Really missed opportunity here dude. You could have challenged your readers to step outside their comfort zone this month and try another genre, challenge themselves in some way, and *invited them* instead of judging and criticizing, but that wouldn’t get the clicks and engagement you’re obviously looking for.
Exactly this. The world is quite literally on fire right now so choosing to critique/judge/shame people for picking up a comfort read is certainly a choice.
hmm. So you create this quiz that encourages people to read book titles they may not find on their own under the premise that your quiz knows exactly what types of books the quiz taker is comfortable with, then you take our quiz results and feed us recommendations we'll enjoy, and now you're telling us we shouldn't be reading for enjoyment/comfort/pleasure? This is such a shame you have decided to go full literary elitist on your subscribers. You created what could be a great platform for likeminded readers to find each other and discuss books and within a few weeks you've imploded and alienated those same people by insinuating they're wrong for enjoying the books you've recommended. Is hypocrisy the word here?
When my daughter was a fifth grader, I had her read and compare a Rainbow Fairy book and The Old Man and the Sea. We talked about which is a classic and why. I still let her read a fairy book when she wanted to… and the pandemic showed me that when life itself is hard, I want comfort in books. What I had not connected was how algorithms are driving what people read today. I deleted all of my social media early this year (less data for the oligarchs) so I source my reads in more old fashioned ways.
I suspect you’ve written this to be deliberately provocative in style and tone. I personally believe that reading even a “bad” book is better for the brain and soul than scrolling on a screen. That Rainbow Fairy reader of mine is in her mid20s and reads a widely varied diet of books.
This!! Even though these books may be "easy" and therefore "bad", I think it's still better for young people (and everyone) to be reading some kind of literature (even if it is an enemies to lovers rom-com) than to be on their phone for 10+ hours a day doomscrolling!
Not unsubscribing. I’m a firm believer in moderation, for all things in life. I enjoy thought provoking literature, and also a beach-read for my vacation.
This was a great read, and I disagree with the comments saying this is misogynistic. As a woman and as someone who was socialized a girl I absolutely am not a stranger to people tearing down things I like just because women and girls like them - boy bands, chick flicks, etc. However, that's the problem - people tear them down ONLY because women and girls like them. The criticisms of a lot of currently popular books and genres, namely dark romance, are not JUST because women and girls like them. Dark romance is dangerous and very worth criticizing because of what it is instilling in girls. Young women are being taught that it's hot when your sexual partner is exceedingly violent, before they can even discover and question that in their own life. While I am not going to kink shame, when this is some girls' first introduction to sex, that can be so dangerous. I've seen firsthand girls as young as 12 think they want a partner to do various sexual acts to them at knifepoint and that is doing so much harm. Again, if you're a fully consenting adult who's found this is what you're into through your own experience, I'm not going to shame that. But young women are being told they want these depraved acts before they've even known what romantic love is in their own life, and that's what I have a problem with. Even if you don't see it now, which many of us have, you will see it soon.
I spent my 20s as a what I now describe as a “pomo a%&hole” and I have both a McSweeney’s chair and a posthorn from Thomas Pynchon tattooed on me. I am far happier as a reader now that I read more widely and outside of just deep literary and reportage books. I read almost everything (though not much sci fi because I don’t like world building and never romantasy because it’s just not my jam). My problem with this essay is not the argument that we have a culture of people who only read within genre books now. It’s that you seem to say that the ONLY genre that’s fluff or dessert is romance. This reads as though all romance is inherently dessert as you call it and not worthy of real literary worth. I would argue, as someone who has worked in the book world for 25+ years, that the past ten years have found such depth added to romance, mystery, queer fiction, sci fi, all genre, that to be so casual about it bugs me. Good ideas, but I wish you weren’t so critical of romance for the sake of it being romance, which is how this read to me.
I think this is romanticizing a time when our knowledge of all the terrible things happening in the world were not delivered to our face just like these algorithms of easy comfort reads. It’s hard to blame myself or anyone for wanting a comforting escape.
I think it's precisely because of our increased awareness of the strife happening in the world that we must be more present than ever before. Comfort and distractions are incredibly necessary, but in times like these, escape and comfort cannot bring forth any solutions. They provide rest, which in itself is productive, of course. But reading fundamentally opens our mind and provides us with a wider skill-set, one used to combat and overcome the hurdles placed around us. I believe that the core argument of this article is that escapism and comfort have its consequences, just like hyper-awareness and no rest implicate their own. A balance must be struck.
This absolutely smacks of privilege. As a former teacher there can be so many barriers to people picking up a book for the first time and sometimes, these “easy reads” are the hook that can get them started, and they aren’t easy to all people! What can be a challenging read for some is very different to what might be a challenging read for someone with a completely different upbringing. This kind of attitude can really turn people off reading or even scare them from even trying it in the first place because they’re worried they’re not reading “good enough” books.
This article does not make a point against someone getting into literature through “easy reads”. It argues that these easy reads shouldn’t make up all of what you consume.
“It's literary dessert, and dessert serves a purpose. But when dessert becomes your entire intellectual diet, malnutrition follows.”
Wow I love that quote! I’m going to try to remember that.
Definitely one of the parts that stood out to me the most :)
The criticism is appreciated! I clearly have a long way to go with clarifying my intentions.
I’m really just trying to create a space/community that pushes people to read wide and outside their comfort zone. Thanks for the feedback!
You really don’t, though. You said it quite clearly: “It's literary dessert, and dessert serves a purpose. But when dessert becomes your entire intellectual diet, malnutrition follows.” It’s not your fault this person completely missed your point.
Excellent piece, by the way. You said everything that needed to be said.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. I’ve found myself coming back to read this article multiple times given how good and truthful it is. It feels like a salve to the frustrations I’ve had within this community, and it’s quite ironic that some people misconstrued him.
What you lament in your essay is another instance of epistemic flattening as a reactionary attempt to tame heightened informational entropy. Reading is always good, empathy should be maximised, everyone should get better at symbolic manipulation and narrow abstraction so they can score high on something called an IQ test. The comments on your post here allude to a bigger picture I believe you are missing: people no longer have the *psychic stability* to deal with *epistemic entropy*. They *want* to be infantilised; told that it's okay to seek comfort and analgesia (Han's *palliative society*). There are many for whom CTAs like this will work, and that's excellent, and they should fight to see the eclectic range of factors that have led to the destitution of the modern psyche, what Han calls the *agony of Eros*. There is no fix, no utopia awaiting; there is only a continuous decline into insanity, and the fact that so many in your comments here can't see why that's a bad thing exemplifies this. I suppose this is a roundabout way of saying that it's better that people at least *try* to get others to open to the unvarnished horror of the Real, and shifting norms *by definition* comes with friction, but the real solution is also the impossible one of reviving social ties and community and presence in the world, the parasympathetic response, so that we may return to our long-lost curiosity and epistemic adventure, in praise of risk. I elaborate on my essays here if anyone is interested:
https://jakehpark.substack.com/p/epistemic-entropy-a-postrationalist
https://jakehpark.substack.com/p/epistemic-telos-god-as-sadistic-denial
I don't think it's about whether a book is the best book and the most challenging book of all, but what is a challenging book for the reader in question.
It's about reading from diverse genres and themes, about not reading a slight variation of the same book again and again.
Of course that what I, a 32 yo woman, find challenging won't be the same than for a 15 yo girl who has only read what school deems interesting, if that.
It's about reading to change yourself, let the books alter you.
Not about a specific list of books that need to be read.
So if reading a very entry level, easy to understand book is what's honestly challenging, then that's perfectly ok.
We just have to be honest. Because we definitely know whether we're reading for comfort or for growth.
P.S.: I don't think reading for comfort is bad. I think it's bad if it comprises all your reading.
Why is it bad for someone to only have "comfort reads"? This is a genuine question - I'd like to examine and push back against the instinct to label that as "wrong".
There are many people who expend all of their energy on labour (whether that be employment or otherwise) throughout the day, to the point where they are mentally and physically exhausted when they steal some small time for themselves before bed. Should we tell those people they are wrong for seeking entertainment rather than dragging their exhausted brains through something that requires real effort to get through?
Moreover, even if we suppose a person has no such circumstances, and reads purely for pleasure and entertainment alone - why are we supposing that works must be *challenging* to be enriching? Why are we assuming that art alone and literature in specific are the only ways someone might learn or change or grow? And perhaps most importantly - who are we to be judge and jury on what they should do with their life?
If at any point in this reply I sound too harsh I apologise, sincerely. Because I trust that it's a genuine question. I'll be as quick as I can be:
I am a very low/working class woman in the global south. My whole family is working class. All my ancestors were working class. We struggle. We're all in debt.
We also are readers. We love literature and talk about books. We don't just watch Marvel movies and enjoy beach reads because we're trying to get away from reality. My grandfather would always take my mother to the library. My grandmother, mother at nineteen, worked as a janitor and there wasn't a book you could ask her about she hadn't read.
My mother taught me how to read at four. We didn't have paint on our walls but we had books and movies.
Poor people are people and they also benefit and can take so much from engaging meaningfully with literature. I'd argue it's even more important for us to do so. I think the fact that people are tired or overworked is an argument for reading challenging books and not the other way around.
And I think it's a bit paternalistic to say they (us) can't, should be expected to or can't truly understand great works of art.
I think saying you're too tired to read a difficult book is kind of an excuse. Which is weird because at the end of the day, everyone can truly do whatever in the privacy of their own homes.
However, what if instead of reading a thousand beach reads you read a challenging book slowly? And you could even stop when it gets too hard and read a comfort book in between.
I don't like when people use "the poor and overworked" like they're less than. And that's what that argument does.
This ^
I apologize for any paternalism - it was unintentional on my part, but I can see how my comment might have incorporated some of my own privilege. However, I want to be clear that I was using one example of someone in a situation who might not *want* to engage with something that takes more energy, not that they *couldn't* do so. I'm also trying to push back a little on the idea that something *must* be challenging - in a traditional sense - to be a great work of art, or to be enriching or stimulating.
Basically, my intention was to start with a concrete example that many people may not have thought about and might find more "acceptable", and then broaden that out to question the whole premise of assigning a moral aspect and judging others' free time in the first place (something I think you're at least somewhat sympathetic to, given your "in the privacy of their own homes" comment?). I apologize if that didn't come across clearly - it sounds like to you it seemed more as though I was singling out the poor in particular, which was absolutely not my intention.
(I'll note that I'm also approaching this from a disabled perspective, so I tried to be broad with my example - "labour" and "using up all one's energy" can look very different for different people, especially from the outside - but maybe I should have been clearer about that.)
Oh, I have so much to say. Firstly, i wasn't trying to call you paternalistic, sorry.
About the matter at hand, I don't think it's necessarily judging people for not knowing what's out there either, though. I also think saying a book is bad, easy or merely a product is not (and should never be) a moral observation on the reader. Like, if you don't want to do something, then you don't. It doesn't mean it's beyond analysis from others, mostly if you choose to make it public.
Also, sorry if it sounded like I was using my struggles as tools to win an argument. I just wanted to illustrate that the people who struggle also benefit from and can enjoy challenging art.
Like, I completely understand the need to turn off your brain sometimes. I do it with movies from childhood, sometimes with books. I've read the whole Twilight saga. However, it wouldn't be beneficial for my growth as an adult to only get my morals and my stories in the form of Shrek and Quest for Camelot. For someone to evolve, they have to go through the annoying process of things being difficult.
My opinion on the matter is you do whatever makes you happy, just maybe don't feel like it's entirely beneficial or beyond criticism.
Because the people who are saying 'hey, maybe read something other than a romance specifically design to numb you, you could read this more complex romance that was written by an actual person out of their necessity to create art and not just to sell', those are the people who are trying to help you, not shame you. Not you literally, you know this. (?) I hope I've made myself clear.
No problem at all - I didn't think you were doing so, but I wanted to make sure my meaning was clear!
I think we're both essentially coming at this from similar perspectives - my point is, essentially, that the essay unfortunately totalized and denigrated (purposefully or not!) the practice of reading for comfort/not reading something considered "challenging" as being worse somehow and not what books are "meant" for. I totally agree that there is value in both, and that there *is* a point to be made in that one should at least consider pushing one's boundaries and challenging oneself in ways *like* reading something "difficult" - but my argument is that the essay as written casts this as the *only* reading we should be doing, and denigrates other kinds (as well as, even as it criticizes the practice, implicitly holding literature as somehow above other art forms).
Yes, not everyone reads to be transformed (in the moment) but at some level, the act of reading is inherently an exercise in cognitive expansion. Even when we don’t seek it, it’s what books can do best, stretch our empathy, sharpen our frameworks, slow down our thinking. Not every book is worth reading for everyone, and not every moment is right for every book. Some books feel like protein, some like sugar, and some like cardboard. You learn to tell the difference.
the trap is when we stop being conscious about why we’re reading a book. Are we reading to grow, to be challenged, to expand our thinking? Or are we reading just to feel seen, validated, soothed?
Over time, if we never pause to ask that, we blur the line between reading for depth and reading for ease. And when the default becomes comfort, our appetite for challenge can quietly shrink, until one day, the harder books feel too far out of reach.
While this question was not presented at me, I think I'll give it a go.
I argue that reading diversely and pursuing books that overcome our need to be entertained can be an incredibly necessary asset to help aid in the escape from poverty. People who have received sub-par education, and whose society has failed them, still have a way to help themselves acquire the tools that they should have received. Reading books that teach you things (economics, politics, world history, etc.) can be the tools that help them escape from their own circumstances. It's not THE thing that'll help them get out, but I believe the power of (self)education is seriously underestimated.
(Sorry if I'm incorrectly assuming you were replying to me - the comment threading is a little confusing on Substack!)
I absolutely agree with what you're saying, but, respectfully, I think you might have missed the point of my questions. I'm not asking why one *should* challenge oneself with reading - I think there's tons of value in that! What I'm arguing is against the following notions:
- that doing so is the only way one "should" read
- that doing so is somehow superior to reading e.g. for entertainment
- that books are a rarefied, special medium that is the only way one can achieve this type of enrichment
- that People These Days are Reading Wrong, unlike in Glorious Past Times
- that we have any kind of right to judge other people for choosing to spend their leisure time in a certain way (that isn't harming anyone, etc.)
... all of which is at least implicitly argued by the essay. (Once again, I doubt all of this was *intentional*, but it is the actual *result*.)
"Why are we assuming that art alone and literature in specific are the only ways someone might learn or change or grow?"-The article did not say that. You are arguing against a point the article did not make.
"why are we supposing that works must be *challenging* to be enriching?"-where was this stated?
"Should we tell those people they are wrong for seeking entertainment rather than dragging their exhausted brains through something that requires real effort to get through?" - The article was about the act of reading. It did not say people are wrong. It said that some reading is wrong. An action can be wrong, but it doesn't necessarily mean the person is "wrong."
I agree! People can read whatever piques their interest, however I do think reading new, challenging pieces is so important to gain insight on new topics and issues. There’s nothing I love more than a book that makes me question my beliefs and change my opinions, but I do enjoy a nice mindless romance once in a while. Everything in moderation!
i think this comment is very indicative of what the internet does to a discussion before it can even start off (somebody writes something and you ask why it doesn't cater to your specific situation). this article doesn't discuss how people who aren't used to reading approach easier books to consume but how it is important to consume literature (for people who actively consume literature) that challenges you besides the kind that you know you'd like and enjoy because, otherwise you exist in an echo chamber that gives you only what you like and what you think is right. books are absolutely meant to comfort you and be something that you enjoy reading but it really shouldn't become just that. we need people to read and critically consume media of any kind by reaching beyond their comfort zone. this is especially important in the current political scenario (no matter where you're from) and honestly how will we ever learn if we aren't challenged to try more than we think we can. i loved the comparison the author made to resistance training here.
I agree, and I would add that this analysis is shallow and hollow. The assumption is that reading is the only medium for exploring complex or worthwhile thoughts.
Ask yourself the questions of if you’ve ever been to a lecture that made you reconsider your assumptions, had an experience where you learned something new about the world, watched a movie about a person you had never considered to be the main character, or literally just went to the next town over and asked what the best place for beers was.
Or, did you have to learn this all from reading a book?
I know this discussion is about 5 months old, so apologies if I am repeating points that were already made. That being said...
I am also a former teacher. I agree that getting students to read anything, especially hesitant readers or readers who are already several years behind their peers, is good. All reading is good reading in that sense. It doesn't matter if it's Holes or The Giver or a graphic novel or Sweet Valley High. For the love of all that is holy, just read! All reading is good reading. With kiddos, all reading is good reading.
But we are not talking about children and adolescent students who, by the way, are still learning how to read. We are talking about adult readers. Yes, there are many adult readers who still read and comprehend at the level of a 4th grader. But that context and distinction make a difference. We are talking about fluent, adult readers with decades of life experience.
Not all books are "literature" just like not all movies are "cinema." Now, not all books need to be literature. And yes, it is fine to have comfort reads, and yes, "easy reads" can be a gateway to more sophisticated work. I've definitely read genre fiction as chasers after reading some heavy literary fiction for book club. And Reese acknowledged all that, though I do want to add that "comfort reads" have always existed. That isn't new.
But the industry of reading and "BookTok" are largely about books as consumption, commodities, products to sell. Not producing art. Not moving hearts and minds. Not fostering change. Publish what'll sell well. Profit is the goal. And what's profitable is often NOT what's most challenging or sophisticated or "deep."
And a society that is always entertained but never challenged is in trouble. Books that pacify you into indifference or stifle you in some way are not good books. That's not good reading.
Comfort is fine, but if you always stick to your "comfort zone," you'll never grow. Period. If you only read for entertainment, you will not grow intellectually. Now if you don't want to grow intellectually, then yeah, keep reading the comfort books. But don't kid yourself that you are growing intellectually by always reading comfort books.
PS When I say comfort books, I don't only mean "easy" genre fiction. I mean any book that one is reading for entertainment. "Emma" by Jane Austen is arguably a comfort read for me now even though that is more difficult to read than romantasy.
I’m amazed by the article, I hardly ever find someone who is willing to look critically at what reading is now for many people.
Reading is perhaps the most important part of my life, and I’m always looking for something new, something that makes my brain think. I loathe the new trend that many writers follow, with books that are written only to be sold.
The article is beautifully written and I find myself agreeing with every point.
Sorry, but I can't co-sign this one. Unfortunately - and I do believe this was your intent - trying *not* to be elitist doesn't always absolve one of elitism entire, especially when (as another commenter has already mentioned) one is speaking from a place of privilege.
I think a lot is mixed up in here - I'd like to gently remind you that pulp has been present for longer than literature, and that the "brainrot" argument smacks of a cycle that we can trace back to Plato's bemoaning that this newfangled "writing" is having a deleterious effect on intellectual ability. I *do* note that there is a wave of anti-intellectualism in the culture (swelling in size, of late) that is real and concerning, but would suggest that perhaps focusing our efforts against that on Kindle romances and BookTok recommendations is, to put it mildly, misplaced.
Reading can be wonderful, life-changing, intellectually challenging, stimulating - but to say it *must* be is to make yourself a prescriptivist and, yes, to come across as ivory-tower ignorant to the reality of some people's lives. All art is everything and nothing; what you seek, and what you find, are entirely individual experiences and needs. I'm not here to denigrate the value of pushing one's boundaries, of seeking the sublime or enrichment, but I *am* going to push against the idea that that is morally superior to any other use of art, or indeed that that should be the only use of one particular medium.
Books are still dangerous - shall we take a look at the ever-growing banlist, or at works like How To Blow Up A Pipeline? Books are still challenging - people use the internet to collaboratively pick apart House of Leaves, or create accessible video essays containing their literary analysis of This Is How You Lose The Time War. They're also still everything else they've always been, as magazine pulp serials or penny dreadfuls or campfire stories as much as illuminated manuscripts or thick, leather-bound volumes.
Literature is art. Some types of art aren't to your taste, or don't fill a need for you that they might for someone else. That's all right.
Despite your claims that you’re not advocating for literature elitism, this is exactly what this essay is - pure definition of elitism. Who’s going to decide what is thought-provoking and what isn’t, and who’s going to decide what people must and mustn’t read, who’s going to declare what is the true goal of literature, you? For everyone? On what ground exactly?
“Books used to be dangerous” when they were basically the only source of preserving and distributing information and sparking discussions. For better or worse - that’s just not how our world function anymore, with tons and tons of information that we receive daily whether we want it or not.
A very surprising read from someone who literally created a classification (and where are classifications, there are also algorithms) of readers. And I don’t even like the genres that you so clearly despise - I just believe that people can decide for themselves what to read and why. While probably your intentions were good, the whole essay is extremely pretentios and elitist.
P.s. Please log out of BookTok/booktube…
That's not what they're advocating for. And this doesn't classify as elitism. They're identifying a real, pervasive problem which is that too many people now read purely to shut their brains off, to read the same tropes (often overly simplistic and not rooted in reality, occasionally toxic) and ideas which leads ultimately to a lack of critical thinking skills. I'm sorry but there is a clear difference between a book written by Virginia Woolf versus Colleen Hoover. We don't need to infantilize book-reading adults and we should absolutely demand more intelligent thinking from the people around us.
Gosh I love Woolf — Mrs. Dalloway is 💕
So « we don’t need to infantilize book-reading adults », and yet we’re supposed to supervise what people are reading to make sure that they’re reading the « right » books because apparently without the guidance they can’t decide for themselves, got it 👍 who’s infantilizing whom exactly here?
Also reading is not the only tool to develop critical thinking and make the brain work, especially for adults.
Who said anything about supervising? The author is pointing out a legitimate problem, which is that the book industry is overrun with books that are novel versions of an indulgent treat which shouldn't be consumed constantly. This is something that people need to take into their own hands recognizing that only ever reading one type of book is not going to be intellectually stimulating.
Notice how the author never prescribed a single book? The whole point of the article is to bring recognition to the fact that there needs to be a balanced diet of books - we should all be encouraging one another to read a greater variety of books. And all this in the backdrop of global turmoil makes it even more necessary for people to read more challenging things. I'm sure there are other ways to bolster critical thinking skills but I don't know of many ways more effective than reading and given the way things are going economically and politically we would all be better off if we read more than just romantasy or pulp fiction.
Ironically that is what various platforms are doing, making suggestions for content that's easy to absorb and already aligns with consumer's taste.
Also we cannot in any way force anyone to read a specific type of literature, if anything it's the people with more advertising power who can get away with it as long as people aren't paying attention.
If you point out to someone they're only reading the same kind of comfy literature, they're fine with it and keep on doing that, there's no harm. If it makes them at least try other things, even if they go back to the same comfort zone, that's probably good.
I've had people call me out for having read things only on one side of an argument (in my case not acknowledging the limitations of science in terms of providing clean answers in matters such as morality). It's not like that somehow magically pressured me into flipping my beliefs 180 degrees but it's been good for me to broaden my horizons, some of the arguments I accepted and some I rejected, that's how learning works.
None of this would happen if I stuck to the comfy "new atheism" and popular science kind of content.
I just want to point out the assumption behind this argument: excellence is in the eye of the beholder, therefore there can be no consensus on what is excellent. Works of art cannot be judged because there is no standard of what is good and bad. Very postmodern thinking.
I agree that algorithms can narrow our perspective on what is out there. I disagree, however, with your focus on contemporary reading and the romance/spice/romantasy genre. There have always been readers who stick to a certain genre that uses the same recipe over and over again, whether it be romance or thriller or manga or something else. Focusing this essay on a single genre that is mostly aimed at younger women engaged in social media feels like a narrow and easy argument to me. Is it not okay when young women read twenty similar romantasy books because they saw it on TilTok? But then is okay if older men read twenty similar thrillers because they were in the top 10 section of the book store?
Sometimes the world is challenging and uncomfortable enough and people would rather read something familiar and comforting than something intellectually challenging. There's nothing wrong with that. I love reading intellectually challenging books but sometimes I don't have the headspace for that and then I pick something lighter for a change. That's just life sometimes.
Yes - I forgot to mention this in my own comment, but the particular choice of what was focused on here reminds me of a trend of largely unconscious sexism that tends to manifest itself in, specifically, a perceived devaluing of whatever it is that young girls and women in particular are fond of at the moment. (You can find this one all over history - the current downfall of society might be Beatlemania, or K-Pop, or boy bands, or teen magazines.)
(I want to be clear that when I say something like this, I'm not accusing anyone holding views like this of *being* sexist or elitist as some sort of immutable property of being a Bad Person. We grow up and absorb the biases of society around us, and it is all too common to end up reflecting those biases back. One of the ways we can, in fact, challenge ourselves and grow is to take a step back and examine these points of view and the ways that they might not account for other perspectives, or might be coloured by our own situation in life.)
This is Not It, dude. You seem unaware of the many many decades of criticism that sound exactly the same as you: the so-called “literary elite” going after the popular fiction read primarily by the women of their era. Look it up — this is a sentiment male literary critics have been expressing for quite literally centuries. You really told on yourself with this “I am here to express a superior opinion” vibe, and not in a good way. In condemning entire genres, you miss out on the best works within them, and that’s a real loss for your own push towards wisdom.
I don't think misogyny is the rebuttal it seems to be. Romance, Romantasy and Fantasy are, today, exclusively aimed or read by women and girls. There's also a tendency for these books to be recyclable, poorly structured, and for their readers to be oversaturated by them. It isn't misogynistic to highlight flaws, expose one's concerns, and make very sensible and reasonable suggestions as to how we can break a cycle where entertainment over growth is rewarded. Additionally, while there's a very important truth to the arguments exposed by a lot of men through time what dismissed specific books read by women (male flight), I think there's a core argument that can still be made, if presented on its own; the books that are so popular today lack a lot of skills that, given our current political climate, are more needed than ever to cultivate.
I think that his argument is that readers shouldn't escape, they should prepare themselves. Reading diversely isn't an elitist suggestion, but a wise one. Being well-read implies diversity and courage. I don't think he's criticizing having a preference for a given genre, but caging yourself within it.
Certainly I think these works can be criticized for that, but it is worth questioning why, for example, "flawless heroines" and romantasy (romance in particular) are criticized here, and not, for example, pulp airport novels of the sort aimed at a male or neutral audience (thinking here of examples like Dean Koontz and James Patterson, or whomever is currently filling their place in the ecosystem). I also think, respectfully, that you might be missing the historical lens when saying that the books that are popular *today* lack a lot of skills, while missing that what is popular has generally always been work with a wide entertainment appeal (magazine stories, penny dreadfuls, adventure novels...).
My argument, and I think LF's, is not that the advice "read diversely and challenge yourself" is in and of itself a bad one, but that this one essentially ended up being "it is incorrect to do anything *but* read diversely and challenge oneself" and "people today are uniquely incapable of doing this [because of algorithms]"... both of which are, to say the least, wrongheaded.
I definitely think his argument could have been balanced with other examples, such as "finance bro" books or capitalistic and rigid "self-help" books. While there's definitely been an uptick in demand for these types of books, he's specifically honing in on the books that are in constant circulation on BookTok, among romance/fantasy disproportionately stand out.
I also agree with the author's message in this post; reading diversely is a tremendously important skill, and in a world plagued by AI and algorithmic consumption, resisting consumerism and literary tunnel vision is more important than ever.
I mean they did mention "get-rick-quick business books" lol
He did, but it wasn't as fleshed out as his critique for romantasy.
Hear, hear! James Patterson publishes what, about 20+ books a year? Not sure we can argue those books have more intellectual rigor than the average Emily Henry.
in what world is the fantasy genre as a whole entirely aimed at/consumed by women?
Much of power fantasy aimed at teenage boys is just as bad.
And I don't think it's a matter of "never even touch those 'lowly' works", but the idea that a literary diet of **just** these pure entertainment works is somehow superior to watching Netflix purely by the virtue of being in a book form.
I like the color category idea and some of your recommendations, but I think you have a misogyny problem. Take another look at the paragraph about all that's wrong with reading these days, and notice how many of the "problems" you note and genres you take aim at are associated with women.
We DO have a literacy crisis (speaking as a librarian), but it's not because books are too pretty and fun.
YES this was exactly what I needed this morning! More judgment and divisive opinions in my inbox, and someone new telling me what to do! Thank you so much, I would have had no idea what to read without you telling me.
Really missed opportunity here dude. You could have challenged your readers to step outside their comfort zone this month and try another genre, challenge themselves in some way, and *invited them* instead of judging and criticizing, but that wouldn’t get the clicks and engagement you’re obviously looking for.
I too was low on judgy vibes today and really needed another dude telling me why my readerly life is falling short! 🙄
Exactly this. The world is quite literally on fire right now so choosing to critique/judge/shame people for picking up a comfort read is certainly a choice.
hmm. So you create this quiz that encourages people to read book titles they may not find on their own under the premise that your quiz knows exactly what types of books the quiz taker is comfortable with, then you take our quiz results and feed us recommendations we'll enjoy, and now you're telling us we shouldn't be reading for enjoyment/comfort/pleasure? This is such a shame you have decided to go full literary elitist on your subscribers. You created what could be a great platform for likeminded readers to find each other and discuss books and within a few weeks you've imploded and alienated those same people by insinuating they're wrong for enjoying the books you've recommended. Is hypocrisy the word here?
Indeed
When my daughter was a fifth grader, I had her read and compare a Rainbow Fairy book and The Old Man and the Sea. We talked about which is a classic and why. I still let her read a fairy book when she wanted to… and the pandemic showed me that when life itself is hard, I want comfort in books. What I had not connected was how algorithms are driving what people read today. I deleted all of my social media early this year (less data for the oligarchs) so I source my reads in more old fashioned ways.
I suspect you’ve written this to be deliberately provocative in style and tone. I personally believe that reading even a “bad” book is better for the brain and soul than scrolling on a screen. That Rainbow Fairy reader of mine is in her mid20s and reads a widely varied diet of books.
This!! Even though these books may be "easy" and therefore "bad", I think it's still better for young people (and everyone) to be reading some kind of literature (even if it is an enemies to lovers rom-com) than to be on their phone for 10+ hours a day doomscrolling!
Not unsubscribing. I’m a firm believer in moderation, for all things in life. I enjoy thought provoking literature, and also a beach-read for my vacation.
Log out of BookTok, touch some grass
This was a great read, and I disagree with the comments saying this is misogynistic. As a woman and as someone who was socialized a girl I absolutely am not a stranger to people tearing down things I like just because women and girls like them - boy bands, chick flicks, etc. However, that's the problem - people tear them down ONLY because women and girls like them. The criticisms of a lot of currently popular books and genres, namely dark romance, are not JUST because women and girls like them. Dark romance is dangerous and very worth criticizing because of what it is instilling in girls. Young women are being taught that it's hot when your sexual partner is exceedingly violent, before they can even discover and question that in their own life. While I am not going to kink shame, when this is some girls' first introduction to sex, that can be so dangerous. I've seen firsthand girls as young as 12 think they want a partner to do various sexual acts to them at knifepoint and that is doing so much harm. Again, if you're a fully consenting adult who's found this is what you're into through your own experience, I'm not going to shame that. But young women are being told they want these depraved acts before they've even known what romantic love is in their own life, and that's what I have a problem with. Even if you don't see it now, which many of us have, you will see it soon.
This reeks of misogyny.
I spent my 20s as a what I now describe as a “pomo a%&hole” and I have both a McSweeney’s chair and a posthorn from Thomas Pynchon tattooed on me. I am far happier as a reader now that I read more widely and outside of just deep literary and reportage books. I read almost everything (though not much sci fi because I don’t like world building and never romantasy because it’s just not my jam). My problem with this essay is not the argument that we have a culture of people who only read within genre books now. It’s that you seem to say that the ONLY genre that’s fluff or dessert is romance. This reads as though all romance is inherently dessert as you call it and not worthy of real literary worth. I would argue, as someone who has worked in the book world for 25+ years, that the past ten years have found such depth added to romance, mystery, queer fiction, sci fi, all genre, that to be so casual about it bugs me. Good ideas, but I wish you weren’t so critical of romance for the sake of it being romance, which is how this read to me.
I think this is romanticizing a time when our knowledge of all the terrible things happening in the world were not delivered to our face just like these algorithms of easy comfort reads. It’s hard to blame myself or anyone for wanting a comforting escape.
I think it's precisely because of our increased awareness of the strife happening in the world that we must be more present than ever before. Comfort and distractions are incredibly necessary, but in times like these, escape and comfort cannot bring forth any solutions. They provide rest, which in itself is productive, of course. But reading fundamentally opens our mind and provides us with a wider skill-set, one used to combat and overcome the hurdles placed around us. I believe that the core argument of this article is that escapism and comfort have its consequences, just like hyper-awareness and no rest implicate their own. A balance must be struck.