I really like the "Read your color" archetypes and concept, but I am really considering unsubscribing from the newsletter recently. This comment isn't meant to be some rage quitting message, but feedback. Over the years I realised that the literary sphere is plagued by elitism and very specific ideas of what constitutes quality work as well as what is "good reading" or not and I think the over emphasis on such concepts is more detrimental than positive. Historically, ideals of what is quality work, and what is best and what is worse have marginalised voices. I also believe this approach keeps people out of the conversation regarding narratives, interpretation, and what reading can give us. You are being overly preachy and condescending with your constant use of "tiktok is feeding you trash literature" and "bookshops are filled with flashy fast food stories" or whatever. People can make judgements and their own choices without being constantly told their taste is trash. Not only I think it is unfair to compare taste in media to healthy food vs fast food, I also think going for a varied selection of stories (heck even only light literature) is okay. People read for very different reasons and that is okay. Life is harsh enough on people, no need to put more burden on them bringing them down just because they don't want to read certain books, for whatever reason that is. Challenging oneself is good, but a person is not always up for that and that is okay. I really don't want my recommendations to come with a steady harray of " good vs bad " literature remarks. See you around I guess
I see what you’re saying! If you noticed, I was careful not to identify any specific books as “carbs” — I think it’s different for everyone. What might constitute a difficult read for one person might be easy for another. And that’s okay!
Also, as a side note, I think it’s mistaken to think people with hard lives shouldn’t read deeply. Often times people with the toughest circumstances find liberation through the act of reading well (see, Fredrick Douglass).
Anyways — thank you for engaging with this piece! I really value feedback like this.
But you did identify what types of books are carbs?? I like the metaphor, but I’m a bit worried classics were identified as protein when that’s not always exactly true. Some classics would fall into your fat category, while some are just purely for fun (your carbs). I think assuming that old things are automatically more challenging and “healthier” is a dangerous assumption in and of itself. Shakespeare is full of sex jokes and fart jokes lmao. Not that reading Shakespeare is a bad thing, not at all! But don’t make old stuff out to be high faluting when a lot of them were just meant to be pleasure reads. That’s where your POV can creep into elitism so be aware!
I was careful not to name specific authors or books as being a “carb” or a “protein” — I think that’s up to you and the curators you trust to decide!
I would identify most classics as worthwhile and “protein” — but if you disagree, that’s okay! I don’t have to curate that for you. I would encourage you to find what fits those categories using your intuition and curators who align more closely with your perspective.
Thanks for the reply! You did identify genres, though, and here’s where I think your metaphor is a bit reductive. Especially these days, people are building complex food that is a “treat,” like “high protein donuts”; but also, perhaps more importantly, individual kinds of food have all three of these macros within the same food sometime. Calling an entire genre a “carb” loses the point a bit. There are definitely some “carb” books that can also provide “protein” elements.
I think you unintentionally just revealed your position here anyway by saying “I would identify most classics as worthwhile and ‘protein’”. Did I ever say that because most classics were/are pleasure reads, that they aren’t worthwhile?? 👀 absolutely not! I’ll be the first to say that fun old books (one which comes to mind has old people racing each other out on a lawn, not very high brow lol) are worthwhile, but if you don’t believe that then I might ask why, as well as what you’re considering a classic.
In short I think the metaphor is good and I agree that diversifying our reading is a great practice, but your perspective skews towards “protein” and that’s been revealed through this essay and your previous one on the subject, as well as your quick thoughts above about what is “worthwhile.” My husband (who is a PT) and I just chatted about this and he made the point that a healthy diet is MOSTLY carbs! Something to think about 😊
I do not understand why Reese continues to be bombarded by individuals who perceive his gentle, thoughtful advice as an attack. You think he's elitist for this? Try having this conversation with tenured professors, and you'll know what REAL elitism is.
The author is encouraging reading habits that diversify and fortify one's mind. To engage with literature, not to consume books. Any professional would concurr with Reese. At this point, it seems to me that the problem doesn't lie in the emission of his message, but on its reception. Anyone would do good in following it, but that decision lies within you.
Using tenured professors as a frame of reference is exactly the issue. Ask any other kind of educator: K-12 teachers, adjuncts teaching undergrad, tutors, science communicators online, anyone actually dealing with the literacy of the general population. They will tell you that any kind of reading, for most people, is intellectually stimulating and necessary.
Clearly the message of this post resonates with many in the comments. Plenty of people can and are taking the advice graciously. I don't have a problem with the idea of reading widely and challenging yourself. The issue is that perpetuating this hierarchy of reading cuts us off from the rest of the world, in which far fewer people are reading anything at all. Talking about reading in this way makes it more difficult for those of us who do read a lot to connect with with the average person, and we NEED to understand each other to effectively combat anti-intellectualism.
Yeah, I can't agree. The author wrote an article titled "Not all reading is good reading," and he was right. In this article, he exposes how it's crucial to find a balance. Reading diversely does the exact opposite of cutting us off from the rest of the world. Wanting people to challenge themselves more and raise the stakes is a more direct and rigid attack on anti-intellectualism. BookTok encourages reading as a distraction and escape, not as a journey. Siphoning ourselves from the breadth of literary availability by preferring escape or entertainment is intellectually stifling.
I like this post, but that´s probably because I´m feeling ready it; I want a literary personal trainer shouting at me to squeeze out another rep. But that´s a personal choice. The other day I read a post about how to read more that suggested picking something easy, something carby, the exact opposite of the advice we´re getting here. And, the way I figure, that was good guidance too! It´s not that one approach is better than than other, so much as that they are appropriate for different people.
I wasn't sure how I felt about this piece until I got to the end about solving hard problems. I have been frustrated by the political discourse among general citizens of late - e.g. our mayor is "stupid" because there have been several shootings recently or because there are blighted buildings. We should just "hire more police" and "get rid of Raise the Age." Never mind that the police force is already 30% of my city's budget, and that my state was only one of two states that tried 16 and 17 year olds as adults until we passed Raise the Age. People are not willing to consider the complex problems that civic leaders are up against when honestly trying to improve their communities, which, in turn, makes it harder for leaders to address the problems. Reading more fat and protein helps people consider the complexities of problems and be open to new, sometimes slow-moving but ultimately successful, solutions.
Also, I find that reading classics, although not always fun in the moment, can make life more fun because references to these classics are everywhere, and now I feel like I am in on an inside joke.
I wholeheartedly agree. I read The Color of Law recently, and it's widened my understanding of zoning, as well as racism's deeper undercurrents. I believe wide, difficult reads help enlighten us and it contributes to a more thorough understanding of politics not just internationally, but domestically.
After reading this article I looked at my Storygraph stats - I'm at 53% carbs and 47% protein for this year. I do read memoirs and poetry, but none this year so far.
Like Maria, below, I also really enjoy the concept of "Read your color." But I'm not here to be told I'm not reading correctly, I'm here to hear about books I can learn and grow from. I'd prefer to get advice from someone who assumes I am intelligent and thoughtful enough to make good reading choices, and is simply sharing their reading discoveries with me, not someone telling me I'm doing it wrong and seeming to assume I'm incapable of resisting advertising. In addition, I'd like to hear about more new(er) books, rather than the ones on high school reading lists--those, I'm already aware of and in general, have read.
It's somewhat ironic to see that most of the negative feedback to this post seems to ultimately miss the point of the post.
"I want to read for fun so I don't appreciate someone telling me I'm reading wrong" — but that's not what the post is doing. The post isn't aimed at people who solely want to read for fun or to will away the time; it's aimed at people who like to do both of those things, but also want to get better at reading, to challenge themselves, and want to understand how to better do that.
Perhaps being a tad more thoughtful in your reading would help you determine whether you're the target audience of a piece or not.
I want to echo Maria’s feedback. While I understand and agree with this literary diet recommendation, I don’t think it’s necessary to put others down and be so condescending.
I noticed your reply might have been deleted, so I wanted to follow up. I’m not disagreeing with your core message. I do think we should challenge ourselves to read beyond what’s most popular on TikTok. Expanding our literary “diet” is important.
That said, the tone risks undercutting your point. The sarcasm and phrases like “meatheads” or comparisons to donuts and drive-thrus can feel condescending, even if unintentionally. It may alienate readers who are just beginning their reading journey, especially young women, thanks to platforms like BookTok. For many, reading anything is a meaningful shift, and lighter genres can be a great gateway.
Your food analogy is compelling, but just as a donut can be a gift to someone who hasn’t eaten, genre fiction can be a gift to someone who hasn’t read. The goal, as you said, should be balance, not shame.
I think your message would land even more powerfully with a bit more curiosity and generosity toward different kinds of readers. Thanks for tackling an important topic—I hope you keep exploring it.
I love this breakdown! I never thought about it in these terms, but this is exactly what I try to do.
What helps me with this is actually reading 2-3 books at a time. (This is called making your ADHD work for you lol.) I usually have 1-2 books that are my "carbs" and one "protein." This way, I don't get bogged down by the challenging book. Even if I only get through a page or a chapter before switching over to my fun book, I'm still making progress without it feeling like a slog. It makes my fun books feel more like a treat! Reading a book is not a race. (I have to remind myself of this often.)
This is such an interesting and helpful way to to think about it if I'm getting lost with what I'm doing.
It made me wonder what my average reading is, and I don't think it's straight up carbs, but I don't think it fits into the other categories very well so maybe complex carbs lol. I usually pick books intending to learn something, but I want them to be fairly easy to read since I've pushed myself too hard in the past and became frustrated with reading.
I've recently been starting to read harder books, and you're encouragement is welcomed. I'm excited to read more!
I stuck around for a bit after the “not all reading is good reading” to see the direction that you want to take with your newsletter, and now I guess it’s clear that you chose a preacher/coach path, you say so yourself with a reference to being a personal literary nutritionist. But this was a necessary post and I thank you for writing it - it helped me realised that your blog just isn’t for me anymore. Which is sad, but normal.
I read Crime and punishment when I was 15 years old, it was a part of the literature class program in my high school, along with a lot of other classic literature books. Now almost 15 years later I do believe that adult people can make the desicion what to read for themselves.
I liked the idea of your colour systems and subscribed for books recommendations - I was skimming through every colour with every posts, adding books here and there from different categories to my wishlist, and I enjoyed it. I know what I want to read, why I want to read and how I want to read. I always welcomed the recommendations since they’re expanding my horizons, but lately your newsletter started to feel just like one unsolicited advice after the other. It’s no longer a recommendation - it’s straight up a fitness plan that I did not ask for, yet that is constantly pushed on me.
I guess you’re reaching a different audience now and it’s, of course, completely up to you. I unsubscribed, but thank you for your work and I wish you all the best.
This perspective is only applicable to a very limited group of people; the world is much bigger than BookTok, and is in fact doing a lot worse than BookTok in terms of literacy. Perpetuating this hierarchy of reading cuts us off from the rest of the world, in which far fewer people are reading anything at all. It makes it more difficult to connect with the average person, and we need to understand each other to effectively combat anti-intellectualism. I think those of you who aren't understanding the criticism are missing the forest for the trees.
My issue here is the assumption that people who primarily read “carb books“ or genre fiction are “intellectually malnourished“. I’m a blue reader and actually don’t read much genre fiction, but I can also tell you that many, many people are intellectually overloaded these days and don’t need any additional heft/intellectual stimulation. You forget that carbohydrates are our primary energy source, and for many readers, they read lighter faster, fair as a form of self-care, and it means to find joy in heavy times. Not only that, but one of the greatest byproducts of being a reader is increased empathy. And that can occur reading a wide range of types of books, and God knows we need as much of that these days as we can get.
I’m curious to know where you came up with “most people” don’t read what you call protein and fat? My understanding is the opposite. I think in online spaces it feels extremely new release:popular fiction heavy, but that’s marketing at work not necessarily “most people”. Do you have sources?
I’m going off of bestseller lists. I’d say peak at any bestseller list and you’ll find it’s about 80% “carb” reads for most people.
Also no problem with carb reads! They serve a wonderful purpose. Just trying to help people step outside their comfort zone because I have found it so helpful in my own reading life.
Oh lol, ok. That tracks you just sorta are going off those vibes not any actual research or studies. Marketing plays a bigger role in bestseller lists than actual readership or what readers want. Not to mention it excludes library users etc.
But also you’re saying you aren’t naming “carb books” but then how can you say 80% on the lists are? Which 80%? I feel like you have decided what is what and are being coy to avoid people pushing back, but if you’re gonna say this stuff you should name names.
I really like the "Read your color" archetypes and concept, but I am really considering unsubscribing from the newsletter recently. This comment isn't meant to be some rage quitting message, but feedback. Over the years I realised that the literary sphere is plagued by elitism and very specific ideas of what constitutes quality work as well as what is "good reading" or not and I think the over emphasis on such concepts is more detrimental than positive. Historically, ideals of what is quality work, and what is best and what is worse have marginalised voices. I also believe this approach keeps people out of the conversation regarding narratives, interpretation, and what reading can give us. You are being overly preachy and condescending with your constant use of "tiktok is feeding you trash literature" and "bookshops are filled with flashy fast food stories" or whatever. People can make judgements and their own choices without being constantly told their taste is trash. Not only I think it is unfair to compare taste in media to healthy food vs fast food, I also think going for a varied selection of stories (heck even only light literature) is okay. People read for very different reasons and that is okay. Life is harsh enough on people, no need to put more burden on them bringing them down just because they don't want to read certain books, for whatever reason that is. Challenging oneself is good, but a person is not always up for that and that is okay. I really don't want my recommendations to come with a steady harray of " good vs bad " literature remarks. See you around I guess
I see what you’re saying! If you noticed, I was careful not to identify any specific books as “carbs” — I think it’s different for everyone. What might constitute a difficult read for one person might be easy for another. And that’s okay!
Also, as a side note, I think it’s mistaken to think people with hard lives shouldn’t read deeply. Often times people with the toughest circumstances find liberation through the act of reading well (see, Fredrick Douglass).
Anyways — thank you for engaging with this piece! I really value feedback like this.
But you did identify what types of books are carbs?? I like the metaphor, but I’m a bit worried classics were identified as protein when that’s not always exactly true. Some classics would fall into your fat category, while some are just purely for fun (your carbs). I think assuming that old things are automatically more challenging and “healthier” is a dangerous assumption in and of itself. Shakespeare is full of sex jokes and fart jokes lmao. Not that reading Shakespeare is a bad thing, not at all! But don’t make old stuff out to be high faluting when a lot of them were just meant to be pleasure reads. That’s where your POV can creep into elitism so be aware!
I was careful not to name specific authors or books as being a “carb” or a “protein” — I think that’s up to you and the curators you trust to decide!
I would identify most classics as worthwhile and “protein” — but if you disagree, that’s okay! I don’t have to curate that for you. I would encourage you to find what fits those categories using your intuition and curators who align more closely with your perspective.
I appreciate the feedback!
Thanks for the reply! You did identify genres, though, and here’s where I think your metaphor is a bit reductive. Especially these days, people are building complex food that is a “treat,” like “high protein donuts”; but also, perhaps more importantly, individual kinds of food have all three of these macros within the same food sometime. Calling an entire genre a “carb” loses the point a bit. There are definitely some “carb” books that can also provide “protein” elements.
I think you unintentionally just revealed your position here anyway by saying “I would identify most classics as worthwhile and ‘protein’”. Did I ever say that because most classics were/are pleasure reads, that they aren’t worthwhile?? 👀 absolutely not! I’ll be the first to say that fun old books (one which comes to mind has old people racing each other out on a lawn, not very high brow lol) are worthwhile, but if you don’t believe that then I might ask why, as well as what you’re considering a classic.
In short I think the metaphor is good and I agree that diversifying our reading is a great practice, but your perspective skews towards “protein” and that’s been revealed through this essay and your previous one on the subject, as well as your quick thoughts above about what is “worthwhile.” My husband (who is a PT) and I just chatted about this and he made the point that a healthy diet is MOSTLY carbs! Something to think about 😊
100%. All metaphors break down eventually and this one breaks down earlier than I estimated 😂. Thanks for the feedback!
I do not understand why Reese continues to be bombarded by individuals who perceive his gentle, thoughtful advice as an attack. You think he's elitist for this? Try having this conversation with tenured professors, and you'll know what REAL elitism is.
The author is encouraging reading habits that diversify and fortify one's mind. To engage with literature, not to consume books. Any professional would concurr with Reese. At this point, it seems to me that the problem doesn't lie in the emission of his message, but on its reception. Anyone would do good in following it, but that decision lies within you.
Using tenured professors as a frame of reference is exactly the issue. Ask any other kind of educator: K-12 teachers, adjuncts teaching undergrad, tutors, science communicators online, anyone actually dealing with the literacy of the general population. They will tell you that any kind of reading, for most people, is intellectually stimulating and necessary.
Clearly the message of this post resonates with many in the comments. Plenty of people can and are taking the advice graciously. I don't have a problem with the idea of reading widely and challenging yourself. The issue is that perpetuating this hierarchy of reading cuts us off from the rest of the world, in which far fewer people are reading anything at all. Talking about reading in this way makes it more difficult for those of us who do read a lot to connect with with the average person, and we NEED to understand each other to effectively combat anti-intellectualism.
Yeah, I can't agree. The author wrote an article titled "Not all reading is good reading," and he was right. In this article, he exposes how it's crucial to find a balance. Reading diversely does the exact opposite of cutting us off from the rest of the world. Wanting people to challenge themselves more and raise the stakes is a more direct and rigid attack on anti-intellectualism. BookTok encourages reading as a distraction and escape, not as a journey. Siphoning ourselves from the breadth of literary availability by preferring escape or entertainment is intellectually stifling.
I like this post, but that´s probably because I´m feeling ready it; I want a literary personal trainer shouting at me to squeeze out another rep. But that´s a personal choice. The other day I read a post about how to read more that suggested picking something easy, something carby, the exact opposite of the advice we´re getting here. And, the way I figure, that was good guidance too! It´s not that one approach is better than than other, so much as that they are appropriate for different people.
I wasn't sure how I felt about this piece until I got to the end about solving hard problems. I have been frustrated by the political discourse among general citizens of late - e.g. our mayor is "stupid" because there have been several shootings recently or because there are blighted buildings. We should just "hire more police" and "get rid of Raise the Age." Never mind that the police force is already 30% of my city's budget, and that my state was only one of two states that tried 16 and 17 year olds as adults until we passed Raise the Age. People are not willing to consider the complex problems that civic leaders are up against when honestly trying to improve their communities, which, in turn, makes it harder for leaders to address the problems. Reading more fat and protein helps people consider the complexities of problems and be open to new, sometimes slow-moving but ultimately successful, solutions.
Also, I find that reading classics, although not always fun in the moment, can make life more fun because references to these classics are everywhere, and now I feel like I am in on an inside joke.
I wholeheartedly agree. I read The Color of Law recently, and it's widened my understanding of zoning, as well as racism's deeper undercurrents. I believe wide, difficult reads help enlighten us and it contributes to a more thorough understanding of politics not just internationally, but domestically.
Yes, that inside joke factor has value!
I use storygraph to try to keep it balanced.
This is so cool!
After reading this article I looked at my Storygraph stats - I'm at 53% carbs and 47% protein for this year. I do read memoirs and poetry, but none this year so far.
Like Maria, below, I also really enjoy the concept of "Read your color." But I'm not here to be told I'm not reading correctly, I'm here to hear about books I can learn and grow from. I'd prefer to get advice from someone who assumes I am intelligent and thoughtful enough to make good reading choices, and is simply sharing their reading discoveries with me, not someone telling me I'm doing it wrong and seeming to assume I'm incapable of resisting advertising. In addition, I'd like to hear about more new(er) books, rather than the ones on high school reading lists--those, I'm already aware of and in general, have read.
It's somewhat ironic to see that most of the negative feedback to this post seems to ultimately miss the point of the post.
"I want to read for fun so I don't appreciate someone telling me I'm reading wrong" — but that's not what the post is doing. The post isn't aimed at people who solely want to read for fun or to will away the time; it's aimed at people who like to do both of those things, but also want to get better at reading, to challenge themselves, and want to understand how to better do that.
Perhaps being a tad more thoughtful in your reading would help you determine whether you're the target audience of a piece or not.
Right! It's so frustrating to see how many are missing the mark.
Hi Steven,
I want to echo Maria’s feedback. While I understand and agree with this literary diet recommendation, I don’t think it’s necessary to put others down and be so condescending.
Hi there,
I noticed your reply might have been deleted, so I wanted to follow up. I’m not disagreeing with your core message. I do think we should challenge ourselves to read beyond what’s most popular on TikTok. Expanding our literary “diet” is important.
That said, the tone risks undercutting your point. The sarcasm and phrases like “meatheads” or comparisons to donuts and drive-thrus can feel condescending, even if unintentionally. It may alienate readers who are just beginning their reading journey, especially young women, thanks to platforms like BookTok. For many, reading anything is a meaningful shift, and lighter genres can be a great gateway.
Your food analogy is compelling, but just as a donut can be a gift to someone who hasn’t eaten, genre fiction can be a gift to someone who hasn’t read. The goal, as you said, should be balance, not shame.
I think your message would land even more powerfully with a bit more curiosity and generosity toward different kinds of readers. Thanks for tackling an important topic—I hope you keep exploring it.
I love this breakdown! I never thought about it in these terms, but this is exactly what I try to do.
What helps me with this is actually reading 2-3 books at a time. (This is called making your ADHD work for you lol.) I usually have 1-2 books that are my "carbs" and one "protein." This way, I don't get bogged down by the challenging book. Even if I only get through a page or a chapter before switching over to my fun book, I'm still making progress without it feeling like a slog. It makes my fun books feel more like a treat! Reading a book is not a race. (I have to remind myself of this often.)
Fantastic analysis and great practical advice!!
This is such an interesting and helpful way to to think about it if I'm getting lost with what I'm doing.
It made me wonder what my average reading is, and I don't think it's straight up carbs, but I don't think it fits into the other categories very well so maybe complex carbs lol. I usually pick books intending to learn something, but I want them to be fairly easy to read since I've pushed myself too hard in the past and became frustrated with reading.
I've recently been starting to read harder books, and you're encouragement is welcomed. I'm excited to read more!
You were 6 years old in 8th grade?? 🤯
I stuck around for a bit after the “not all reading is good reading” to see the direction that you want to take with your newsletter, and now I guess it’s clear that you chose a preacher/coach path, you say so yourself with a reference to being a personal literary nutritionist. But this was a necessary post and I thank you for writing it - it helped me realised that your blog just isn’t for me anymore. Which is sad, but normal.
I read Crime and punishment when I was 15 years old, it was a part of the literature class program in my high school, along with a lot of other classic literature books. Now almost 15 years later I do believe that adult people can make the desicion what to read for themselves.
I liked the idea of your colour systems and subscribed for books recommendations - I was skimming through every colour with every posts, adding books here and there from different categories to my wishlist, and I enjoyed it. I know what I want to read, why I want to read and how I want to read. I always welcomed the recommendations since they’re expanding my horizons, but lately your newsletter started to feel just like one unsolicited advice after the other. It’s no longer a recommendation - it’s straight up a fitness plan that I did not ask for, yet that is constantly pushed on me.
I guess you’re reaching a different audience now and it’s, of course, completely up to you. I unsubscribed, but thank you for your work and I wish you all the best.
This perspective is only applicable to a very limited group of people; the world is much bigger than BookTok, and is in fact doing a lot worse than BookTok in terms of literacy. Perpetuating this hierarchy of reading cuts us off from the rest of the world, in which far fewer people are reading anything at all. It makes it more difficult to connect with the average person, and we need to understand each other to effectively combat anti-intellectualism. I think those of you who aren't understanding the criticism are missing the forest for the trees.
My issue here is the assumption that people who primarily read “carb books“ or genre fiction are “intellectually malnourished“. I’m a blue reader and actually don’t read much genre fiction, but I can also tell you that many, many people are intellectually overloaded these days and don’t need any additional heft/intellectual stimulation. You forget that carbohydrates are our primary energy source, and for many readers, they read lighter faster, fair as a form of self-care, and it means to find joy in heavy times. Not only that, but one of the greatest byproducts of being a reader is increased empathy. And that can occur reading a wide range of types of books, and God knows we need as much of that these days as we can get.
Hence his suggestion to re-balance our literary diets by suggesting an imitation of gym enthusiasts' 40/30/30 split.
And I maintain not everyone needs that. As a reader and a certified nutritionist. 😉
Which is something that the author already conceded when he wrote “The following numbers are rather arbitrary—you will have find what works for you.”
There are so many examples of non-classic fiction that are thought provoking and challenging. Where does literary fiction land in your macros?
I’m curious to know where you came up with “most people” don’t read what you call protein and fat? My understanding is the opposite. I think in online spaces it feels extremely new release:popular fiction heavy, but that’s marketing at work not necessarily “most people”. Do you have sources?
I’m going off of bestseller lists. I’d say peak at any bestseller list and you’ll find it’s about 80% “carb” reads for most people.
Also no problem with carb reads! They serve a wonderful purpose. Just trying to help people step outside their comfort zone because I have found it so helpful in my own reading life.
Oh lol, ok. That tracks you just sorta are going off those vibes not any actual research or studies. Marketing plays a bigger role in bestseller lists than actual readership or what readers want. Not to mention it excludes library users etc.
But also you’re saying you aren’t naming “carb books” but then how can you say 80% on the lists are? Which 80%? I feel like you have decided what is what and are being coy to avoid people pushing back, but if you’re gonna say this stuff you should name names.