Interesting post. I know tons of people who read — unfortunately, I only know a few who are interested in reading the classics, or even a moderately challenging contemporary novel (with the exception of Sally Rooney, maybe). It can feel lonely sometimes. I agree that great novels are being written. I just wish that more people would read them. I hope you’re right about tech bros discovering Tolstoy, because I would *love* to chat about War & Peace with a coworker and not the latest Emily Henry. :)
The flourishing of the English-language memoir since the '90s, also. If undergraduate literature curricula had required classes that started with Augustine's Confessions, moved on to large selections from Margery Kempe's and Julian of Norwich's writings, and so on, I'm convinced the young people would know what to do. Memoirs are beloved, inspiring and often beautiful. Even the ones that aren't necessarily beautiful can be entertaining or informative in meaningful ways. I'm always saying that in two or three generations, life writing is going to be a key area of specialization for academics coming up. Right now life writing is still a thing people write their second or third book about. But there's a solid body of theoretical literature already out there, starting with structuralist work in French (their memoir tradition has deeper philosophical roots in the Enlightenment). And Oxford UP is gradually putting out a hefty 6 or 7 volume history of life writing, which I think will be some kind of tipping point.
As one of the authors who wrote about Middlemarch on Substack, I can say people are hungry for literature, very glad you and others are out here championing it.
Funny, a quote stuck in my mind from Agnes Callard about her students not being “in the habit of reading.” Google reminded me it was in an interview with none other than “The Common Reader”! So maybe it’s just reality that college reading lists need to be pared down. I mean, this is the University of Chicago.
Agnes: It's pretty hard to get people to read long texts. And I mean, some of them certainly would, okay, for sure. But if I'm, you know, in a philosophy class where you'd have to kind of have pretty high numbers of page assignments per class, if we're going to, I mean, you know, forget War and Peace. I mean, even like Ivan Ilyich is going to be pushing it to assign it for one class. I've learned to shorten my reading assignments because students more and more, they're not in the habit of reading. And so I got to think, okay, what is the minimum that I can assign them that where I can predict that they will do it?
Congratulations on this beautiful piece of writing. The world became larger, more people, and more attractions. Nonetheless, there's a huge amount of us that read. And in my humble opinion, a lot of people are going back to the basics, looking for authenticity. And this means disconnecting and resume reading.
What a great piece. I've never believe in this extreme nihilism. Times change and we must adapt, just as our ancestors did, to new technologies. One thing balances another out. Just a couple of centuries ago people were literally illeterate in the West. This has changed. I also believe that the emergence of AI is actually foinf to make people crave more genuine human interaction and books will be cooler than ever. AI can only go so far to touch people's hearts.
I completely agree. The future is not bleak, and neither is the present. As someone that reads over a hundred books a year, I can attest to the amazing writing that is being published. And my membership in 2 book clubs, along with everyone i speak to asking to join a bookclub, I am inclined to believe that there is a desire to read, especially among my younger (early to mid twenties) friends. This piece is a real pick me up.
"Many of my most enthusiastic readers are from Silicon Valley or other non-literary areas." Perhaps there is interplay between comfort with technology and an ability to appreciate the classics. I am often embarrassed to admit out loud that, on reading Middlemarch last year and making my way through the Austen and Shakespeare book clubs with you this year, an LLM has felt essential to the process. It is tremendously helpful to be able to ask any question about complex passages, historical context, or even something as basic as clarifying the social status of a person whom Austen describes as having x pounds per year, without fearing judgment for my ignorance. If anything, the LLM overdoes excessive praise, which often strikes me as ridiculous but isn't discouraging. The more I use an LLM for this purpose, the more I have learned to tailor my questions to make the most of the experience.
In contrast, a room full of literary people, at least some of whom are battling to prove they are smarter than everyone else in the room, can crush curiosity. Ignorance in such a setting (even with a strong desire to learn) can feel painfully vulnerable.
I tend to agree. I do wonder if conditions for writers are negatively correlated with those for readers i.e. exponentially more books published (and printed - pretty easy to buy anything non-rare for a fiver or less), huge self publishing boom, the tail end of the internet being word dominated and largely free. All of those put downward pressure on writing (with AI doing it for a lot of professional non-literary writing).
Having read Rejection, Flesh, Dear Dickhead, Parade, Perfection, Intermezzo, Children of The Dead and The Maniac this year, I'm also pretty sanguine about the state of the books that are coming out now.
There is some misunderstanding on the value of reading to bring peace to the world .
AI Overview
“Yes, many Nazis were prolific readers, and Adolf Hitler, in particular, had an extensive private library and was an avid, though unsystematic, reader. However, their reading was often driven by a desire to support their ideology, with some Nazi leaders actively suppressing and burning books they deemed "un-German" or subversive”
I feel as though your positioning is rooted from a very in-group mentality; we're all highly aware of how many people are reading because we're in these circles, but the amount of people outside of this group that don't read is concerningly large.
Furthermore, you state that we're living in a "golden age," yet there's no definition provided for what it means for the literary landscape to be "golden." Sure, you list titles and authors, but what about them proves that they're great standing on their own, and that they add to the luster of this "golden" literary age? Furthermore, you go on to say that we're on a "tipping point," so…are we in the golden age, or just arriving?
You also comment that the literary industry is booming on account of its sales and titles released, but we musn't mistake quantity for quality. It's worth asking ourselves if any of these books will be remembered, and to look back at publishing trends to contrast the shelf life of titles published in the last decade to those of decades prior.
I can agree with the call to action; moving young minds towards a love of literature, cultivate that intellectual hunger, and eventually foster spaces where minds can congregate and new ideas can bloom. But I don't see such a thing in the literary landscape currently, and I'm afraid that your arguments don't convince me that the literary landscape is either golden or on a tipping point.
Personally, I think it's possible literature is in as secure a position as ever, but I wouldn't be able to tell, not typically reading new books. One question is whether it's good for the state of literature that new books should be in the forefront of conversation. I believe the answer is no. However, thinking this, I can't adjudicate the state of literature since I don't know it. What I mean to say is what you hint at, that the fruit of a healthy literary culture is that the classics are read.
Anecdotally, most men who read don't read new books: they are so wary of wasting their time that they tend to wait a few decades for a book's legacy to be established. I expect this is a key variable for the lack of honor given to contemporary authors, since whatever men attach themselves to is regarded more than what women do.
The problem, as I see it, is mainly that of our siloed information ecosystem. It requires more work than is worth it to discover which current authors and new books are actually good—or better put, which ones I as an individual will like. It's easy to overstate this point, so I'll just say that there's no obvious Charles Dickens lying around. It seems extremely plausible that the very best authors might, like Melville, be totally obscure. Whither turns the reader? The answer could be experts like you, friends, or prize lists. The best answer is to find someone who reads widely of new things that shares your own taste, but this is very hard.
One of the biggest factors involved in enjoying a work of art is momentarily aggreing or sympathizing with the work's stance on life, meaning especially it's moral judgments. To take examples from film, one can see this in the critical overreaction to One Battle After Another; I myself overpraised the Nosferatu remake because I agreed with its ideology. I find much contemporary writing to be extremely morally suspect, and so I dislike it. Perhaps my experience represents a wider phenomenon, one which explains writers' lack of honor. Are they out of touch elites, out of touch with the common people and out of touch with nature?
I am an out of touch elite, so I don't pretend to know that answer either.
Great post, Henry. You missed your opportunity for tongue in cheek, though, i.e. “We need to be the light that draws others in. It is time for us to shine out like a candle, to be a good deed (read) in a naughty world.” 😊 But, tbh —the world still needs great novels, the classics, etc. but doesn’t know it and has fallen in love with so many bright and shiny baubles, mere fragments of anything requiring more than lowest level thinking. Things such as SM, endless streams of Tik-Tok slop, “Fiction of the Month” writers and so on— all are put out for fast-food mindsets of masses….But, take hope, you say — and I agree. Your writing is an oasis in these times, may it continue. The great Michael Dirda, a Pulitzer prize-winning writer and classics reviewer for the decimated WaPo, is prowling the halls of Substack as well —- it is my hope that he might possibly post some of his great essays in this space eventually as well. [Cheap plug, but well-meant]. Writers such as yourself, and Dirda, etc. can and do make great enticements for re-engaging people in reading great works—- and for me, others —— this means a great deal….
Interesting post. I know tons of people who read — unfortunately, I only know a few who are interested in reading the classics, or even a moderately challenging contemporary novel (with the exception of Sally Rooney, maybe). It can feel lonely sometimes. I agree that great novels are being written. I just wish that more people would read them. I hope you’re right about tech bros discovering Tolstoy, because I would *love* to chat about War & Peace with a coworker and not the latest Emily Henry. :)
The flourishing of the English-language memoir since the '90s, also. If undergraduate literature curricula had required classes that started with Augustine's Confessions, moved on to large selections from Margery Kempe's and Julian of Norwich's writings, and so on, I'm convinced the young people would know what to do. Memoirs are beloved, inspiring and often beautiful. Even the ones that aren't necessarily beautiful can be entertaining or informative in meaningful ways. I'm always saying that in two or three generations, life writing is going to be a key area of specialization for academics coming up. Right now life writing is still a thing people write their second or third book about. But there's a solid body of theoretical literature already out there, starting with structuralist work in French (their memoir tradition has deeper philosophical roots in the Enlightenment). And Oxford UP is gradually putting out a hefty 6 or 7 volume history of life writing, which I think will be some kind of tipping point.
I didn’t know about that history of life writing how exciting
As one of the authors who wrote about Middlemarch on Substack, I can say people are hungry for literature, very glad you and others are out here championing it.
Funny, a quote stuck in my mind from Agnes Callard about her students not being “in the habit of reading.” Google reminded me it was in an interview with none other than “The Common Reader”! So maybe it’s just reality that college reading lists need to be pared down. I mean, this is the University of Chicago.
Agnes: It's pretty hard to get people to read long texts. And I mean, some of them certainly would, okay, for sure. But if I'm, you know, in a philosophy class where you'd have to kind of have pretty high numbers of page assignments per class, if we're going to, I mean, you know, forget War and Peace. I mean, even like Ivan Ilyich is going to be pushing it to assign it for one class. I've learned to shorten my reading assignments because students more and more, they're not in the habit of reading. And so I got to think, okay, what is the minimum that I can assign them that where I can predict that they will do it?
https://www.commonreader.co.uk/p/agnes-callard-what-is-the-value-of
Congratulations on this beautiful piece of writing. The world became larger, more people, and more attractions. Nonetheless, there's a huge amount of us that read. And in my humble opinion, a lot of people are going back to the basics, looking for authenticity. And this means disconnecting and resume reading.
What a great piece. I've never believe in this extreme nihilism. Times change and we must adapt, just as our ancestors did, to new technologies. One thing balances another out. Just a couple of centuries ago people were literally illeterate in the West. This has changed. I also believe that the emergence of AI is actually foinf to make people crave more genuine human interaction and books will be cooler than ever. AI can only go so far to touch people's hearts.
I completely agree. The future is not bleak, and neither is the present. As someone that reads over a hundred books a year, I can attest to the amazing writing that is being published. And my membership in 2 book clubs, along with everyone i speak to asking to join a bookclub, I am inclined to believe that there is a desire to read, especially among my younger (early to mid twenties) friends. This piece is a real pick me up.
"Many of my most enthusiastic readers are from Silicon Valley or other non-literary areas." Perhaps there is interplay between comfort with technology and an ability to appreciate the classics. I am often embarrassed to admit out loud that, on reading Middlemarch last year and making my way through the Austen and Shakespeare book clubs with you this year, an LLM has felt essential to the process. It is tremendously helpful to be able to ask any question about complex passages, historical context, or even something as basic as clarifying the social status of a person whom Austen describes as having x pounds per year, without fearing judgment for my ignorance. If anything, the LLM overdoes excessive praise, which often strikes me as ridiculous but isn't discouraging. The more I use an LLM for this purpose, the more I have learned to tailor my questions to make the most of the experience.
In contrast, a room full of literary people, at least some of whom are battling to prove they are smarter than everyone else in the room, can crush curiosity. Ignorance in such a setting (even with a strong desire to learn) can feel painfully vulnerable.
Good use of LLMs! Don’t be embarrassed!
As a contemporary literature pessimist and Tessa Hadley fan, I feel called out. Lol
Haha that’s funny
A heartening and logical perspective. Thank you for the excellent piece.
I tend to agree. I do wonder if conditions for writers are negatively correlated with those for readers i.e. exponentially more books published (and printed - pretty easy to buy anything non-rare for a fiver or less), huge self publishing boom, the tail end of the internet being word dominated and largely free. All of those put downward pressure on writing (with AI doing it for a lot of professional non-literary writing).
Having read Rejection, Flesh, Dear Dickhead, Parade, Perfection, Intermezzo, Children of The Dead and The Maniac this year, I'm also pretty sanguine about the state of the books that are coming out now.
There is some misunderstanding on the value of reading to bring peace to the world .
AI Overview
“Yes, many Nazis were prolific readers, and Adolf Hitler, in particular, had an extensive private library and was an avid, though unsystematic, reader. However, their reading was often driven by a desire to support their ideology, with some Nazi leaders actively suppressing and burning books they deemed "un-German" or subversive”
Misunderstanding? Bad people read too? Amazing.
I feel as though your positioning is rooted from a very in-group mentality; we're all highly aware of how many people are reading because we're in these circles, but the amount of people outside of this group that don't read is concerningly large.
Furthermore, you state that we're living in a "golden age," yet there's no definition provided for what it means for the literary landscape to be "golden." Sure, you list titles and authors, but what about them proves that they're great standing on their own, and that they add to the luster of this "golden" literary age? Furthermore, you go on to say that we're on a "tipping point," so…are we in the golden age, or just arriving?
You also comment that the literary industry is booming on account of its sales and titles released, but we musn't mistake quantity for quality. It's worth asking ourselves if any of these books will be remembered, and to look back at publishing trends to contrast the shelf life of titles published in the last decade to those of decades prior.
I can agree with the call to action; moving young minds towards a love of literature, cultivate that intellectual hunger, and eventually foster spaces where minds can congregate and new ideas can bloom. But I don't see such a thing in the literary landscape currently, and I'm afraid that your arguments don't convince me that the literary landscape is either golden or on a tipping point.
If those are the novels you consider great, no wonder you're no pessimist. Pessimism requires a much higher bar.
Personally, I think it's possible literature is in as secure a position as ever, but I wouldn't be able to tell, not typically reading new books. One question is whether it's good for the state of literature that new books should be in the forefront of conversation. I believe the answer is no. However, thinking this, I can't adjudicate the state of literature since I don't know it. What I mean to say is what you hint at, that the fruit of a healthy literary culture is that the classics are read.
Anecdotally, most men who read don't read new books: they are so wary of wasting their time that they tend to wait a few decades for a book's legacy to be established. I expect this is a key variable for the lack of honor given to contemporary authors, since whatever men attach themselves to is regarded more than what women do.
The problem, as I see it, is mainly that of our siloed information ecosystem. It requires more work than is worth it to discover which current authors and new books are actually good—or better put, which ones I as an individual will like. It's easy to overstate this point, so I'll just say that there's no obvious Charles Dickens lying around. It seems extremely plausible that the very best authors might, like Melville, be totally obscure. Whither turns the reader? The answer could be experts like you, friends, or prize lists. The best answer is to find someone who reads widely of new things that shares your own taste, but this is very hard.
One of the biggest factors involved in enjoying a work of art is momentarily aggreing or sympathizing with the work's stance on life, meaning especially it's moral judgments. To take examples from film, one can see this in the critical overreaction to One Battle After Another; I myself overpraised the Nosferatu remake because I agreed with its ideology. I find much contemporary writing to be extremely morally suspect, and so I dislike it. Perhaps my experience represents a wider phenomenon, one which explains writers' lack of honor. Are they out of touch elites, out of touch with the common people and out of touch with nature?
I am an out of touch elite, so I don't pretend to know that answer either.
“ …meaning especially it's moral judgments. “
Oliver Wilde would argue that art is neutral and has no morality. And he would say that as he satirized the bourgeoisie.
Your points are fascinating .
Great post, Henry. You missed your opportunity for tongue in cheek, though, i.e. “We need to be the light that draws others in. It is time for us to shine out like a candle, to be a good deed (read) in a naughty world.” 😊 But, tbh —the world still needs great novels, the classics, etc. but doesn’t know it and has fallen in love with so many bright and shiny baubles, mere fragments of anything requiring more than lowest level thinking. Things such as SM, endless streams of Tik-Tok slop, “Fiction of the Month” writers and so on— all are put out for fast-food mindsets of masses….But, take hope, you say — and I agree. Your writing is an oasis in these times, may it continue. The great Michael Dirda, a Pulitzer prize-winning writer and classics reviewer for the decimated WaPo, is prowling the halls of Substack as well —- it is my hope that he might possibly post some of his great essays in this space eventually as well. [Cheap plug, but well-meant]. Writers such as yourself, and Dirda, etc. can and do make great enticements for re-engaging people in reading great works—- and for me, others —— this means a great deal….