All right—mud pit cage match to break the tie. Right here. Right now.
And may the best Paul Ast—I mean, man–win.
Lisa and I are here with our popcorn and lawn chairs. Let the games begin.
Can I sit in the no-butter elbower section, too?
Yes. I’ll wear my rib pads.
As a writer whose never sold anything, all I can say is that as a reader all I need is the money to buy the books. Commuting and mealtimes are all I need to read them. I haven’t stopped wanting to read novels.
Of course, if we’re talking about my former stepson, then the novel is in trouble. But haven’t certain people always decided not to read?
Yes. My husband hasn’t read a book since high school and thinks (though he doesn’t usually say) that novels are silly and needlessly time-consuming. So that’s two votes to Roth.
I usually side against people who take a thoroughly pessimistic tone, tell me the sky is falling or the world is ending tomorrow. It is an interesting story, though, and I do like an apocalyptic tale.
Have you looked at Auster’s autobiog? I have that on my b day list.
(I have a long list of “wants” reserved at AbeBooks. On my birthday, friends go there to get me what I really, really want: books.)
No, I haven’t seen the autobiography but I’m definitely in favor of optimism where novels are concerned. (Lighten up, Phil!)
If we are talking just reading period, then why would the novel be in trouble? I see students reading more now that they have electronic devices. Also, I have a number of students who track me down and ask for reading recommendations and they never really read in high school that I could tell.
I wouldn’t say it’s going downhill fast. It’s changing forms, but there will always be the Montags out there, keeping the reading world rooted.
I have definitely noticed a change for the better in my son’s reading habits since I handed down my old Kindle. The device’s novelty got his interest and has made him eager for books of all kinds–paper and electronic. I don’t see any signs of the next generation letting them die off.
I’m pulling for Auster on this one of course. Interestingly, I just checked in with a writer (Pedro Ponce) who is writing an essay tentatively titled “The War on Fiction” for the LA Review, which will take a look at aspects of this topic.
Thanks for the heads-up, I’ll keep an eye out for it.
I’m sure there’s some substance here, but I’m utterly distracted by a desire to (redacted) between Mssrs. Roth and Auster.
Crude, but true.
I understand. Writers are sexy. I saw another interview with Philip Roth discussing the strap-on scene in The Humbling. He maintains this deadpan conversation as if he talked about dildos every day of his life and could not be more bored of the topic. Hot. Weirdly, hot.
both books and death seem inescapable for the foreseeable future. if i had to bet, i would bet death will last longer.
but auster’s right–as long as there are people, there will be stories told by people to people. it’s one of our defining traits as an animal. the technology will change–who reads scrolls anymore?–but the stories will remain.
I was feeling optimistic about this until late last night, when I realized how many times we’ve been over and over the same territory as writers. Three-act structure, the hero’s journey, the happy ending in a romance or bloody death scene in a thriller, etc. In genre books, at least, I do wish there were more room for the unexpected. If we don’t find new ways to tell stories and new stories to tell, it may be difficult to attract new readers.
there are only two stories: cinderella and moby-dick. it’s the ways they can be told that vary.
i’ve read the iliad and the odyssey several times each and sometimes have been depressed about them. they were written nearly three thousand years ago and it sometimes seems why bother write anything in their wake? but we do.
averil, lately i’ve been really down about this whole writing thing for much the same reasons you’ve expressed. i’m so tired of my stuff and so tired of the market that i can’t hardly stand it.
all i know how to do is to keep on.
My Cinderellas are fond of the dungeon, that’s my line.
Don’t lose heart, Tetman. There is more to writing than pleasing the market, as you well know, and I am anything but tired of your work. I’ve read that story you sent me more times than I care to admit; somewhere in there are the keys to the universe, I’m fucking certain of it.
I read. My husband reads way more. Both of my grown kids read — my daughter loves literary fiction, my son anything about geography or politics or history and a thousand pages. Which means I feel good, right? But no one else in our family reads. No one. My mother hand 8 siblings and I have about 30 cousins and no reading going on, not even the national news. Who needs to read when you have “Live! with Kelly Ripa” and the Rush Limbaugh show.
So, some reading, most not. I refuse to tally this up. Makes me too sad.
God, that is depressing. What the hell do you talk about at Thanksgiving?
Like Teri, very few people in my family read. And I’m including two teachers (of elementary/middle school!) in that.
Like Laura ….. My sister-in-law teaches high school business classes. She proudly claims she has never read more than 10 pages in any book.
This may explain the grammar and spelling in some of the papers we’ve received from my kids’ teachers over the years.
My thoughts: People have been saying for decades and decades that “the novel is dead” and clearly it’s not. But I do agree that this whole attention-span thing and that Internet/TV/screens definitely win out over books in the general population.
I loved what Auster had to say in general, and especially about novels being flexible instead of fixed, that there are no rules…and yet, he’s speaking as someone who does not even have a computer or cell phone, so unfortunately his perspective is completely out of line with that of almost everyone else in the developed world.
That’s my husband’s complaint about books: They take too long. Why spend hours and hours reading a book when you can experience the same story in two hours on the big screen. (In technicolor, with sound effects!) I have tried to explain that the slow pace means extra hours of pleasure, that what he perceives as a design flaw is part of the beauty of the novel.
My opinion goes over like a lead balloon where books are concerned.
Today we spent 3 hours in a book store looking at new books, and also at old first editions. Then down the street for a glass of wine (or 3) to discuss. We are nerds, but we are each others’ nerds….. And I picked up Eudora Welty’s THE OPTIMIST’S DAUGHTER for a song. Very fun. Who was saying recently that they read this book every year?? I can’t remember ….
God, what a wonderful day. I’ve never read the Eudora Welty book, but that title says Lyra to me.
Averil, you should read One Writer’s Beginnings. (obligatory caveat) It was one of the books I adored in my early twenties, and may not have stood the test of being older than 22, but I remember it as a delightful, intriguing, well-written memoir. And Welty was a photographer too.
Thanks, Indy, I’ll look for it next time I’m at the library and let you know whether it holds up for a reader over forty.
I side with Roth, and I don’t think he’s pessimistic, just realistic about the medium vis á vis the declining state of the average man’s attention span.
So many screens, so little attention. I hope you’re both wrong.
XO
The shaky foundation underlying what Roth and others say about how the world is going to hell because people just don’t read this or that or as much or as well as they used to do in some recently passed glorious past is this: there never was such a time. Readers have always been in a decided minority of the population. The great masses didn’t stop reading because of movies or radio or television or the internet–they were never reading in the first place. Those of us who are readers and writers are sometimes understandably blind to the fact that the larger world does not at all share our fascination with the written word.
It’s true that there have always been readers and non-readers, though I’m not sure there have ever been so many readers who won’t read fiction. They’re not opposed to reading, per se, but they can’t be bothered with a novel because it takes too long and is unnecessary; the need for stories is adequately filled by the movies and the 900 cable channels on TV.
I’ve completely sworn off “Is ______ dead?” debates (unless I’m in a sushi restaurant). It’s self-preservation.
Okay, I’ve never been in a sushi restaurant but now I know exactly what to expect. Aside from the raw fish, that is.
I think Roth is right. Sort of. Stories will live, but print novels are fizzling fast. In 20 years, once Auster is dead (he doesn’t even OWN a computer or a cell phone? Really?) novels will be a morphed animal, unrecognizable to anyone born before 1970.
I just think the speed of the print novel is becoming obsolete. The brains of children are wired differently. Visual cues, social engagement, compartmentalized thought, fragmentation of attention–these are tomorrow’s readers. They still hunger for story, but the form will need to do more than lay on a page. I’m sad about this because I, like Auster and Roth, am a dinosaur. But I’m also excited by it, because I have a wee problem with attention myself. Worst of both worlds, eh? Dinosaur with ADD.
Oof. I know you’re right about the attention spans, though I do think the human mind likes variety in all things and that includes pace. My son is a good case in point. He loves his video games and YouTube, etc, but he also likes to slow down and read, often for hours at a time. The problem with him, as with most kids, was getting him into books in the first place. Now that he’s the one asking for trips to the library.
(I see that I have contradicted myself wildly during the course of this thread, based on my moment-to-moment degree of pessimism.)
It will be interesting if we are lucky enough to see this thing through. But, listening to Roth, I couldn’t help thinking how deeply we need stories. Yes the forms are changing, the output for print is lessening, but there is also a massive surge currently in self-publishing and small presses, community literary festivals and more and more prizes out there every day. I think many people are slowing down within this framework of speed and technological development, appreciating higher non-mainstream thought as they always have done. We are sophisticated enough to work on different levels – scribble notes with a pencil, write to editors via email – stories will never leave us.
I read somewhere that we are becoming a culture of writers instead of readers, and I think it’s very true but also a fad. Already people are tiring of social media, which is what’s driving a lot of this writing, and as social media evolves I think reading will as well. People will eventually crave the simple pleasures, and for that nothing beats a well-written story.
All right—mud pit cage match to break the tie. Right here. Right now.
And may the best Paul Ast—I mean, man–win.
Lisa and I are here with our popcorn and lawn chairs. Let the games begin.
Can I sit in the no-butter elbower section, too?
Yes. I’ll wear my rib pads.
As a writer whose never sold anything, all I can say is that as a reader all I need is the money to buy the books. Commuting and mealtimes are all I need to read them. I haven’t stopped wanting to read novels.
Of course, if we’re talking about my former stepson, then the novel is in trouble. But haven’t certain people always decided not to read?
Yes. My husband hasn’t read a book since high school and thinks (though he doesn’t usually say) that novels are silly and needlessly time-consuming. So that’s two votes to Roth.
I usually side against people who take a thoroughly pessimistic tone, tell me the sky is falling or the world is ending tomorrow. It is an interesting story, though, and I do like an apocalyptic tale.
Have you looked at Auster’s autobiog? I have that on my b day list.
(I have a long list of “wants” reserved at AbeBooks. On my birthday, friends go there to get me what I really, really want: books.)
No, I haven’t seen the autobiography but I’m definitely in favor of optimism where novels are concerned. (Lighten up, Phil!)
If we are talking just reading period, then why would the novel be in trouble? I see students reading more now that they have electronic devices. Also, I have a number of students who track me down and ask for reading recommendations and they never really read in high school that I could tell.
I wouldn’t say it’s going downhill fast. It’s changing forms, but there will always be the Montags out there, keeping the reading world rooted.
I have definitely noticed a change for the better in my son’s reading habits since I handed down my old Kindle. The device’s novelty got his interest and has made him eager for books of all kinds–paper and electronic. I don’t see any signs of the next generation letting them die off.
I’m pulling for Auster on this one of course. Interestingly, I just checked in with a writer (Pedro Ponce) who is writing an essay tentatively titled “The War on Fiction” for the LA Review, which will take a look at aspects of this topic.
Thanks for the heads-up, I’ll keep an eye out for it.
I’m sure there’s some substance here, but I’m utterly distracted by a desire to (redacted) between Mssrs. Roth and Auster.
Crude, but true.
I understand. Writers are sexy. I saw another interview with Philip Roth discussing the strap-on scene in The Humbling. He maintains this deadpan conversation as if he talked about dildos every day of his life and could not be more bored of the topic. Hot. Weirdly, hot.
both books and death seem inescapable for the foreseeable future. if i had to bet, i would bet death will last longer.
but auster’s right–as long as there are people, there will be stories told by people to people. it’s one of our defining traits as an animal. the technology will change–who reads scrolls anymore?–but the stories will remain.
I was feeling optimistic about this until late last night, when I realized how many times we’ve been over and over the same territory as writers. Three-act structure, the hero’s journey, the happy ending in a romance or bloody death scene in a thriller, etc. In genre books, at least, I do wish there were more room for the unexpected. If we don’t find new ways to tell stories and new stories to tell, it may be difficult to attract new readers.
there are only two stories: cinderella and moby-dick. it’s the ways they can be told that vary.
i’ve read the iliad and the odyssey several times each and sometimes have been depressed about them. they were written nearly three thousand years ago and it sometimes seems why bother write anything in their wake? but we do.
averil, lately i’ve been really down about this whole writing thing for much the same reasons you’ve expressed. i’m so tired of my stuff and so tired of the market that i can’t hardly stand it.
all i know how to do is to keep on.
My Cinderellas are fond of the dungeon, that’s my line.
Don’t lose heart, Tetman. There is more to writing than pleasing the market, as you well know, and I am anything but tired of your work. I’ve read that story you sent me more times than I care to admit; somewhere in there are the keys to the universe, I’m fucking certain of it.
I read. My husband reads way more. Both of my grown kids read — my daughter loves literary fiction, my son anything about geography or politics or history and a thousand pages. Which means I feel good, right? But no one else in our family reads. No one. My mother hand 8 siblings and I have about 30 cousins and no reading going on, not even the national news. Who needs to read when you have “Live! with Kelly Ripa” and the Rush Limbaugh show.
So, some reading, most not. I refuse to tally this up. Makes me too sad.
God, that is depressing. What the hell do you talk about at Thanksgiving?
Like Teri, very few people in my family read. And I’m including two teachers (of elementary/middle school!) in that.
Like Laura ….. My sister-in-law teaches high school business classes. She proudly claims she has never read more than 10 pages in any book.
This may explain the grammar and spelling in some of the papers we’ve received from my kids’ teachers over the years.
My thoughts: People have been saying for decades and decades that “the novel is dead” and clearly it’s not. But I do agree that this whole attention-span thing and that Internet/TV/screens definitely win out over books in the general population.
I loved what Auster had to say in general, and especially about novels being flexible instead of fixed, that there are no rules…and yet, he’s speaking as someone who does not even have a computer or cell phone, so unfortunately his perspective is completely out of line with that of almost everyone else in the developed world.
That’s my husband’s complaint about books: They take too long. Why spend hours and hours reading a book when you can experience the same story in two hours on the big screen. (In technicolor, with sound effects!) I have tried to explain that the slow pace means extra hours of pleasure, that what he perceives as a design flaw is part of the beauty of the novel.
My opinion goes over like a lead balloon where books are concerned.
Today we spent 3 hours in a book store looking at new books, and also at old first editions. Then down the street for a glass of wine (or 3) to discuss. We are nerds, but we are each others’ nerds….. And I picked up Eudora Welty’s THE OPTIMIST’S DAUGHTER for a song. Very fun. Who was saying recently that they read this book every year?? I can’t remember ….
God, what a wonderful day. I’ve never read the Eudora Welty book, but that title says Lyra to me.
Averil, you should read One Writer’s Beginnings. (obligatory caveat) It was one of the books I adored in my early twenties, and may not have stood the test of being older than 22, but I remember it as a delightful, intriguing, well-written memoir. And Welty was a photographer too.
Thanks, Indy, I’ll look for it next time I’m at the library and let you know whether it holds up for a reader over forty.
I side with Roth, and I don’t think he’s pessimistic, just realistic about the medium vis á vis the declining state of the average man’s attention span.
So many screens, so little attention. I hope you’re both wrong.
XO
The shaky foundation underlying what Roth and others say about how the world is going to hell because people just don’t read this or that or as much or as well as they used to do in some recently passed glorious past is this: there never was such a time. Readers have always been in a decided minority of the population. The great masses didn’t stop reading because of movies or radio or television or the internet–they were never reading in the first place. Those of us who are readers and writers are sometimes understandably blind to the fact that the larger world does not at all share our fascination with the written word.
It’s true that there have always been readers and non-readers, though I’m not sure there have ever been so many readers who won’t read fiction. They’re not opposed to reading, per se, but they can’t be bothered with a novel because it takes too long and is unnecessary; the need for stories is adequately filled by the movies and the 900 cable channels on TV.
I’ve completely sworn off “Is ______ dead?” debates (unless I’m in a sushi restaurant). It’s self-preservation.
Okay, I’ve never been in a sushi restaurant but now I know exactly what to expect. Aside from the raw fish, that is.
I think Roth is right. Sort of. Stories will live, but print novels are fizzling fast. In 20 years, once Auster is dead (he doesn’t even OWN a computer or a cell phone? Really?) novels will be a morphed animal, unrecognizable to anyone born before 1970.
I just think the speed of the print novel is becoming obsolete. The brains of children are wired differently. Visual cues, social engagement, compartmentalized thought, fragmentation of attention–these are tomorrow’s readers. They still hunger for story, but the form will need to do more than lay on a page. I’m sad about this because I, like Auster and Roth, am a dinosaur. But I’m also excited by it, because I have a wee problem with attention myself. Worst of both worlds, eh? Dinosaur with ADD.
Oof. I know you’re right about the attention spans, though I do think the human mind likes variety in all things and that includes pace. My son is a good case in point. He loves his video games and YouTube, etc, but he also likes to slow down and read, often for hours at a time. The problem with him, as with most kids, was getting him into books in the first place. Now that he’s the one asking for trips to the library.
(I see that I have contradicted myself wildly during the course of this thread, based on my moment-to-moment degree of pessimism.)
It will be interesting if we are lucky enough to see this thing through. But, listening to Roth, I couldn’t help thinking how deeply we need stories. Yes the forms are changing, the output for print is lessening, but there is also a massive surge currently in self-publishing and small presses, community literary festivals and more and more prizes out there every day. I think many people are slowing down within this framework of speed and technological development, appreciating higher non-mainstream thought as they always have done. We are sophisticated enough to work on different levels – scribble notes with a pencil, write to editors via email – stories will never leave us.
I read somewhere that we are becoming a culture of writers instead of readers, and I think it’s very true but also a fad. Already people are tiring of social media, which is what’s driving a lot of this writing, and as social media evolves I think reading will as well. People will eventually crave the simple pleasures, and for that nothing beats a well-written story.