What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking questions)

[Nicole]

A few years ago, my English class was having a discussion on books. Our teacher had asked us what are favourite books were, and who we thought were the best writers. Most of my class answered JK Rowling and Harry Potter. My teacher than asked:
"What does it mean when JK Rowling is considered one of the greatest authors of our time?"
(Note- I am not saying JK Rowling is a terrible writer, this is merely a question to get you to think)

So, here are my questions:
First, what makes an author "great"?
JK Rowling hasn't won the most prestigious awards, but she is certainly the most famous author alive today. And so who do we say is "greater"? The author who everyone knows about, or the little-known and soon forgotten author who wins the awards?



Second: Is our trend towards instant gratification moving towards book as well?

Instant gratification is inescapable in the world today. Fast food was created, because people wanted food instantly, rather than waiting to cook. My peers in school memorize answers rather than learning concepts, so that they can do well on the test without putting in the effort. Is this happening in books as well? Are moving towards the books that provide the simple, easy entertainment, rather than the more meaningful and thought-provoking books which require effort to understand?




Third: Are we moving away from writing in which the writing itself is as important as the plot?

In many books, the writing itself is a work of art. Are we, in the present day world of "IM speak" and slang, moving away from that?




Here are my thoughts on the second two questions

One of my favourite authors is Guy Gavriel Kay, in large part because of his beautiful writing style. His books are as much a work of art as they are a story. However, I recently read a review (sorry, I forget where) in which the reader complained that he dislike Kay's books because the style of writing was too artistic, and the plot was too complicated.

I recognize that not everyone may enjoy Kay's style of writing, I only used him as an example because he is one of my favourite authors. However, there are many other authors out there who are also beautiful writers. They write the books that make you feel like crying- not because of a tragic ending, but because the book was so beautifully written. And yet, there are many people who avoid those books for that same reason; they don't want to go through trouble of reading writing that is not straight-forward and easy to understand.

If you look at the daily top ten bestseller list in the paper, the books described above are not the books that remain on the list week after week. Of course, if they win an award, any book will be on there for at least a week, but it is the books like Harry Potter, or the legal/crime dramas and romance novels, which stay on for week after week. They are not badly written, but the writing itself is secondary to plot. Harry Potter could just as easily be a movie as it could be a book. However (to use Kay as an example again), it would be extremely difficult to put the Fionavor Tapestry into movie form- concerns such as special effects aside. The book would not be the same without the little asides and comments ("Hated by the dark for their name was light"), but there would be no way to include these comments into a movie, as no character acctually says them outloud.

It would seem to me that people no longer want books that make them think. They want books to be like TV- entertaining, easy to follow (not necessarily simple) etc. Many people I haved talked to have told me they don't want to read "deep" books; they use reading as a break, when they can turn their brains off and relax. They don't want a book which asks difficult questions. They want it to "get to the point" as quickly as possible; instant gratification.



So, those are my thoughts, anyone else thoughts would be greatly appreciated (don't be afraid to disgaree with me- that's the whole point of the discussion)

 

[Lenny]

Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?

One thing you notice about Dan Brown's books, when you read them, are that they are written as if they are film scripts (beats me why The Da Vinci Code film was awful) - the writing definitely is secondary to plot.

I know I'm generalising quite a bit, but most readers are probably looking for a plot that's gripping.

Then you get authors such as Terry Pratchett, or Guy Gavriel Kay (I haven't read any of his books, so I'm just going off what you have said) - really great writers who cannot only write a good story, but can actually write.

The same goes for authors such as Hobb, Le Guin, Modesitt, and I'm sure you'll have people saying similar for Lovecraft (again, never read any of his work).

 

[iansales]

Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question

JK Rowling hasn't won the most prestigious awards, but she is certainly the most famous author alive today. And so who do we say is "greater"? The author who everyone knows about, or the little-known and soon forgotten author who wins the awards?

You have to define "greatest". Rowling is certainly famous, and many people have read her books. But that says nothing of their quality. Perhaps if we did say that an award was an indication of quality - so we're using quality of writing as our criteria for "greatness". Then someone who has won a Nobel Prize for Literature - the most prestigious prize there is for writing - imust be a "great" writer. So, Naguib Mahfouz must be a greater writer than Rowling.

When superlatives starting getting thrown around in any discussion, the terms of reference have to be laid down first. Is this greatest as in commercial success, or crtitical acclaim? Because it's a very, very, very rare writer who can persuade people they have both. And that's not Rowling, and it's certainly not Brown.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

The author that "everyone knows" today may also be forgotten, or even ridiculed, after a decade or two has passed, whereas books that are not as popular during their own time may be rediscovered again and again by new generations.

So, no, I don't think that popularity by itself is any measure of greatness, nor is how many awards a book wins. Durability is far more reliable when it comes to judging a book's quality. A book that is popular during its own era and yet speaks to people across generations is a far better candidate for "greatness" than either the blockbuster bestseller or the obscure award-winner.

We might also remember that we live in an era where a book, or a person, or a movie, or anything else can be famous for being famous. Once the hype begins, people will read a book out of sheer curiosity, and then talk about that book because everyone else is talking about it. They may hear as much bad as good about the book -- I'm thinking of The Da Vinci Code here -- and still they buy it. Such books will even be read by people who don't ordinarily do much reading. For someone who's only read a handful of books in the last few years, a very mediocre effort can appear exceptional simply because they have nothing much to compare it to.

I don't believe it's fair to call a book "great" until it's been around for a long time, because until then we lack the perspective. A newer book may, of course, be great -- it's not like it actually gets better with age -- but it doesn't make sense to me for anyone to attach that label simply because a book is currently in vogue, whether with the general public or with the literary establishment.

 

[j d worthington]

Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?

I'd largely agree with Teresa's comments here, and add one or two things to them: What makes a great book (or any work of art) is when it actually reaches down in there and strikes a genuine (rather than apparent) chord with the human heart; something that is emotionally honest; something that increases the reader's experience of the substance of reality. All of these things mean that it's something that will stick with you (you being a general rather than specific term) and something that will continue to appeal to people over generations/centuries/millennia... because it goes to the heartmeat of the human condition. That's a very difficult thing to define, but broader experience with the arts allows you to sense it more clearly; those who are more widely read are much more likely to be able to pick that which will last from those who aren't; the latter are influenced by "what's hot", not by quality, and their judgment on such things really doesn't count for much, any more than a plumber's opinion on astrophysics as opposed to those of someone trained in that field (and vice versa).

Awards can sometimes be a bit more helpful... but it's a shaky criterion. Depends on the award, and the milieu in which they are chosen. And yes, obscure books can often linger on long after those which were considered "deathless classics" in their day... in fact, to be honest, it's a good rule of thumb that, the more popular a particular work is, the less likely it is to last. That isn't always the case, but it's accurate to about 90% of the time (or better). How many bestsellers -- even tremendous bestsellers of forty years ago can you name? How many have remained in print? Yet hundreds of other works from the same time period are still in print, or have been brought back into print, and find considerable numers of readers. The best-sellers, on the other hand, when brought back into print, are often complete flops. They date too easily, for one thing. (And I'm not talking about specific references; I'm talking about general attitudes, underlying assumptions about people, and emotion. That's because they are often hitting on the current view of things, not on the genuine deep emotional makeup of human beings, which doesn't tend to alter that much over time.)

As for what do modern day readers want from books? As always, the majority want quick entertainment, something to get them away from themselves for a while, and something that, in a few years (or often a few days, sometimes hours) they can forget. But the discerning readers, the ones who read much at all... they often expect something more, because less simply isn't satisfying; it may be fun (like a carnival or amusement park ride), but it doesn't last; it doesn't lodge itself in your emotions; it doesn't "hit the spot". So the discerning readers will still expect what they've always expected; the mass of people will go for the ephemeral. That's no different than in times past, and I doubt very seriously it will change in times to come....

 

[BookStop]

Re:What do modern-day readers want from books?(and other thought-provoking questions)

First, what makes an author "great"?

That is very different for everyone, kind of like, what toppings make the perfect pizza. Everyone has different tastes and classifies thier favorite authors as great. I enjoy JK Rowling. I think she is a great author. I also enjoy HP Lovecraft, wildly different, but also great. Toni Morrison has a way with words that just move me - she really is great....The list goes on.

I don't think most readers class themselves by one type of book, whether just entertaining, or deeply meaningful. We all sometimes read fluff, which if it strikes you right, can make the author great.

Second: Is our trend towards instant gratification moving towards book as well?

There is nothing wrong with instant gratification. People seem to want to believe light or simple books are bad, and to really call yourself a book lover, you have to study the art of the written word. Come on - if it feels good, read it. I read Shakespeare, I read Austen, I read Patterson and Deavers. It's all good. Does this mean I am moving towards becoming what is percieved as a lazy reader? Frankly, perceptions don't bother me because I read what I enjoy and will always do so.

d: Are we moving away from writing in which the writing itself is as important as the plot?

I don't think so. Simple writing is easier and therefore quicker to turnout. There are just more books out there than ever before due to there being more people in general. I bet the %s are near the same as they've always been, but that's the kind of thing that may be difficult to get an actual number on.

 

[Nikitta]

Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?(and other thought-provoking questions

There is nothing wrong with instant gratification. People seem to want to believe light or simple books are bad, and to really call yourself a book lover, you have to study the art of the written word. Come on - if it feels good, read it. I read Shakespeare, I read Austen, I read Patterson and Deavers. It's all good. Does this mean I am moving towards becoming what is percieved as a lazy reader? Frankly, perceptions don't bother me because I read what I enjoy and will always do so.

Well said. I never understood why certain books are looked down on. We're just doing certain books a huge disfavour, by telling people that they ought to read them in order to be considered "educated/cultural" enough (which is what I hear when people say "It's a classic. You should read it"), in stead of recommending a book because it's a really good book, which you enjoyed reading.

I know which one I'd prefer, if I was a writer.

In any case, that's why I read: for the pleasure of a good story.
I read some things which are considered classics and some which are certainly not. As long as I ejoy it, I will read it.

It's my impression that most people in here are that way too.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

But just writing a book that entertains people doesn't make someone a great author. It may make them a fantastic storyteller -- which is a perfectly fine thing to be. As LeGuin said in one of her essays, the essential purpose of SFF is to delight the reader. But to be a "great" anything -- if we are using the word accurately -- comprehends so much more than just being able to bestow a little ephemeral pleasure on a large number of people. Surely greatness requires something more lasting: a book that widens our horizons, or touches us on some deeper level so that we never see the world again in quite the same way, or provides some profound insight into the human heart.

There are a large number of writers that I simply enjoy -- and I am not ashamed to read them for that reason only, or to recommend them to other readers -- but I'm certainly not about to justify my pleasure in what they write by trying to convince myself or anyone else that they are writing great literature. My enjoyment of a book doesn't require that sort of justification. I don't need to be deeply moved or changed or enlightened every time I read a book.

But I'm not going to classify books that don't do any of these things -- no matter how much I might like them -- in the same category as the books that do. To even consider my own pleasure in a book as any sort of test of greatness ... well, I'm sorry, but I think that would be conceited.

Some writers have more important things to say than others, and some just entertain. Some manage to say important things and be entertaining too. The books of each of these writers may have value, but it's not the same value. For one thing, it takes a great many books to keep me entertained, but the experience of a book that moves me on some deeper level can last a lifetime. (Not that I won't go back and repeat the experience, because I probably will. But even if I never did, the book would still have given me something lasting.)

 

[BookStop]

Re:What do modern-day readers want from books?(and other thought-provoking questions)

But what someone thinks of as greatness will still be different for each individual.

I think Dr. Suess was a great author. I can argue that his books opened my eyes to a wonderous world around me, and changed the way I viewed every day from the moment I discovered him until now.

Many folks think Dr. Suess just told silly, entertaining rhymes. They wouldn't begin to class him as great with the likes of Austen, or Lovecraft, or Tolkien.

I think if ask 100 differnet people of differnt backgrounds and ages who the greatest author is, you may get some authors that are repeats, but you'd get some singles that are great only to one individual,as well.

 

[iansales]

Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?(and other thought-provoking questions

That is very different for everyone, kind of like, what toppings make the perfect pizza. Everyone has different tastes and classifies thier favorite authors as great. I enjoy JK Rowling. I think she is a great author. I also enjoy HP Lovecraft, wildly different, but also great. Toni Morrison has a way with words that just move me - she really is great....The list goes on.

I don't think most readers class themselves by one type of book, whether just entertaining, or deeply meaningful. We all sometimes read fluff, which if it strikes you right, can make the author great.

No it can't. An author is not great because they tickled your fancy. An author is great because they met a whole slew of criteria, as agreed by a great number of people - some of whom will be experts, and some not. Writers of fluff do not get studied in academia year in year out; writers of fluff are not still in print 100 years later.

Great can never be entirely objective, but it's certainly not wholly subjective.

 

[iansales]

Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?

How many bestsellers -- even tremendous bestsellers of forty years ago can you name? How many have remained in print?

Well, Dune's still in print. And has consistently remained so since 1966. Admittedly, the film gave it a boost in the 1980s, but...

And Stranger in a Strange Land is also in print.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Hmmm, it looks like the computer ate my previous message. I'll post what I said again.

Dr. Seuss does not belong in the same category as Tolkien, Austen, or Lovecraft. I am sure he would have laughed at the notion himself. He was not trying to do the same things in his writing as any of those authors.

As a writer for young children he was superb. I don't think there are many parents, teachers, or librarians who think of him as just "someone who wrote silly entertaining rhymes." His work has stood the test of time, delighted new generations, and expanded the horizons of countless children. Some of his books certainly made a profound and lasting impression on me -- but I can say that a half century after I first read those books, and twenty-five years after I was reading them to my own children. We're already reading them, my daughter and I, to my grandchildren. The twins are only six months old, and all they can respond to at this time are the rhymes and the rhythms, but I feel sure that when they are older they will find books like Scrambled Eggs Super or On Beyond Zebra as mind-expanding as I did.

So, yes, even by the narrowest definition of the word "great", I think one could make a case for Dr. Seuss being a great children's author. That's not being subjective at all, but applying a fairly rigorous set of criteria.

 

[j d worthington]

Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?

Well, Dune's still in print. And has consistently remained so since 1966. Admittedly, the film gave it a boost in the 1980s, but...

And Stranger in a Strange Land is also in print.

Yes, they are still in print. Neither was classed as a best seller, however. They sold more than the average sf book at one period or another, and within that genre may be classed as bestsellers, but in the usual sense of the term, no. What they have done is to sell fairly respectably for some decades now, and off the top of my head, I can't think of a single "bestseller" to have done so. (To be more specific: Stranger sold quite poorly in hardback for many years, trade paperback was mediocre, paperback was quite good, but even that barely made it onto bestseller lists of the time.)

And iansales and Teresa are right: it isn't nearl as subjective as that. "Great" is something that has much more to it than whether it entertains, or even whether it entertains a large number of people. It may be good, it may be very good... but it's not great without meeting much, much more stringent criteria -- criteria that have themselves been refined and stood the test of time.

This is not in any way to denigrate entertainment, or "reading matter" as some call it; but no matter how much an individual may enjoy something, that's only one small part of what makes a book great or not. The other is simpy that: entertainment -- as Teresa says, a worthy enough goal on its own, but in an entirely different league. Sort of the difference between Johann Sebastian Bach or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and The Beatles or even (gawd 'elp us!) the Strawberry Alarm Clock. As much as I think the Beatles were among the best of the musical groups of the mid-twentieth century, they simply aren't in the same ball park as Bach or Mozart; it's just a different critter altogether.

And on Dr. Seuss: Much more than simply the rhymes, and a fine children's author (and one adults can enjoy as well). But, again, not in the same league as Dickens, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, etc. Lovecraft may make it there... only time will tell. (Though it's looking quite possible. Still too early to say, though.) But even Poe may not survive as well as some of the others (after all, his reputation has had its share of eclipses, and -- save for a handful of stories -- he isn't read nearly as much as he was even when I was younger; he still sells, yes; but not that many people actually read his work any more... ).

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

But JD, I think we muddy things up considerably by comparing apples and oranges here. Shakespeare was a great poet and a great dramatist, but he wasn't much of a novelist, was he? How do you compare a Dickens novel with a Shakespeare play, except to say that each is a superior example of its kind?

Lovecraft, Poe, not many novels or plays there. Dickens wrote plays, novels, and short stories, but who would be reading him today if it weren't for the novels?

A work can be great without the complexity of, say, a Tolstoy or a Dickens. Darn it, Dickens could produce a work of greatness without the complexity of most of his novels! There is little complexity in A Christmas Carol. And a children's book can be a great work of fiction, if it does more than simply entertain, if it shines a light on some aspect of human life or human potential, if it gives a child something of value they can take away with them.

 

[j d worthington]

Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?

But JD, I think we muddy things up considerably by comparing apples and oranges here. Shakespeare was a great poet and a great dramatist, but he wasn't much of a novelist, was he? How do you compare a Dickens novel with a Shakespeare play, except to say that each is a superior example of its kind?

Lovecraft, Poe, not many novels or plays there. Dickens wrote plays, novels, and short stories, but who would be reading him today if it weren't for the novels?

A work can be great without the complexity of, say, a Tolstoy or a Dickens. Darn it, Dickens could produce a work of greatness without the complexity of most of his novels! There is little complexity in A Christmas Carol. And a children's book can be a great work of fiction, if it does more than simply entertain, if it shines a light on some aspect of human life or human potential, if it gives a child something of value they can take away with them.

Perhaps I should clarify.... I was addressing two different things in that post. One was the subject of Dr. Seuss in particular. I'm not sure whether or not I'd call him a "great" writer in the general sense, but a great children's writer, quite likely.

On the other... it's not really comparing apples and oranges; I'm speaking of great writers whose work lasts, whether it be novels, plays, poetry, essays, what-have-you. And my mention of Lovecraft is because he's not quite been out there long enough to know for certain. My personal feeling is that yes, he will prove to be one of the standard writers, though he may never be talked about in quite the same breath as Dickens, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, etc. (Then again, he might; again, it's too early to say.... But I think he'll fall just below that level.) Poe, oddly enough, has been even more controversial at times than HPL, because of his sometimes perfervid style. Not that HPL doesn't get hyperbolic at times, but he is frequently actually a bit more restrained than Poe in overall tone, I think; not necessarily in incident or specific passages. But both are prone to melodrama, perhaps even more so than Dickens; and that's something of a flaw artistically (though I'll admit to, as Ellison puts it, "an unnatural love for melodrama"); which may keep them from quite achieving the same rank, overall.

 

[Razorback]

Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question

My approach is somewhat simplistic when compared to some of you more thoughtful and knowledgeable Forum posters. I judge authors and books on three basic criteria. First, I look for stories with entertainment value. I read for pleasure and want something that entertains me. It’s strictly subjective. I like SF with elements of action, adventure and suspense. Others like Fantasy or other genres. Second, I want something that is thought provoking. It can be about technology, social or other matters, as long as it provides a different take or perspective on something important or relevant. Third, I look for quality or rich writing. Competent writing is all that’s necessary for an entertaining story, but quality writing takes it to another level. American Gods is my most recent quality read. Quality writing is the hardest element to come by.

I’m generally happy with a book that has any two of these three elements, with entertainment and thought provocation being the most common. All three make for a great book. I know my approach isn’t sophisticated, but I enjoy the shallow end of the reading pool.

 

[j d worthington]

Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?

Actually, it sounds like a good way to go, Razorback. As you say, quality writing is (often, at least) the hardest of these elements to come by, but there are so many quality books out there that one shouldn't run low on them, as long as you don't restrict yourself to recent writers. If you're open to any period, then there are mutliple lifetimes' worth of good reading out there....

 

[Dave]

Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?

A few years ago, my English class was having a discussion on books. Our teacher had asked us what are favourite books were, and who we thought were the best writers. Most of my class answered JK Rowling and Harry Potter.

The important point to note there is "English class". If you ask children you are not going to get the same answer as you would with adults. Many adults have not read Harry Potter and never will. There are many books I personally have only read because my daughter read them first. Harry Potter is one of them, though I would not have continued reading them if I hadn't enjoyed them.

One thing you notice about Dan Brown's books, when you read them, are that they are written as if they are film scripts...

The same could be said of many authors; Michael Crichton certainly, Colin Dexter in the later Inspector Morse books. I agree that is a big change in the last few decades since TV and film have become more popular and books have declined. There is a serious fall in the number of people reading books. Libraries are reporting a massive fall in lendings. Once, everyone had a bookcase full of books in their house, maybe even a few, now you are a little odd if you do.

How many bestsellers -- even tremendous bestsellers of forty years ago can you name? How many have remained in print? Yet hundreds of other works from the same time period are still in print, or have been brought back into print, and find considerable numbers of readers....

That reminded me of the amusing joke in Star Trek IV where Kirk mentions the collected works of Jacqueline Suzanne and the novels of Harold Robbins, and Spock says "Ahh! The greats!..." It is very doubtful that anyone will remember them in the 23rd Century. Charles Dickens yes, William Shakespeare certainly, JK Rowlings no, as for some the others mentioned, well only time will tell.

One common thing all books with a long shelf-life have is a good original story. How many times have Shakespeare's plays and Dicken's novels been re-interpreted. Romeo and Juliet as West Side Story, The Tempest as Forbidden Planet, for example. You cannot do that with Harry Potter.

 

[GrownUp]

Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question

I think right now readers want more identifiable reality and less fantasy. Even in sci-fi and fantasy.

I think so especially as I see all the bookcovers in shops changing from paintings to photos.

 

[aarti]

Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question

One of my favourite authors is Guy Gavriel Kay, in large part because of his beautiful writing style. His books are as much a work of art as they are a story. However, I recently read a review (sorry, I forget where) in which the reader complained that he dislike Kay's books because the style of writing was too artistic, and the plot was too complicated.

This is interesting, as I was just discussing this on a Fantasy Yahoo group I'm a part of.

I really love Kay's Lions of Al-Rassan and A Song for Arbonne. But I don't particularly care for Tigana and I think by the Sarantine Mosaic and Last Light of the Sun (I haven't yet read Ysabel), he is very =aware= of his writing style. He seems to spend a lot of time writing sentences instead of writing a story. One person on the list hit it on the head, in my opinion, saying, "everything feeling very laden with portent and foreshadowing and
narrative choices that intentionally veil certain events in mystery for
the sake of a more dramatic reveal later on." And he seems to do it in every book, so I feel you become more and more aware of it as you go on. He also seems to show in random, gratuitous sexual humor and weirdness that doesn't take the plot anywhere (also, quite often in the Sarantine Mosaic).

But ... to talk instead about what readers are looking for. I don't know so much about books "standing the test of time." Yes, perhaps Shakespeare's plays have, and Dickens' novels, but is that because of the strength of their writing style or because of something else? I think a lot of books are designated classics because of the messages they conveyed at a particular period in time- The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, for example. Or because they started off a chain reaction of other books- Horace Walpole's Castle of Otranto. Or because they somehow impacted their society in a way, or because they exemplify their society. In other words, I believe that the story itself is only one small part of what helps a book "stand the test of time." It also depends on its ability to be relevant to people later on.