I completely agree. Interestingly, my Substack, which focuses mainly on Victorian literature, perhaps suggests the opposite - or perhaps that those who read the classics aren't interested in Sherlock Holmes. My post on Holmes (https://clairelaporte.substack.com/p/predators-at-home-not-cinderella) got the least reader interest of all, compared to great interest in, say, Middlemarch, a much harder work to read than Doyle's short stories.
I'm not going to argue against the greatness of Middlemarch! But I would have thought that the audience for Sherlock Holmes was bigger. I guess I underestimated the virality of George Eliot. <--What a sentence that is!
I'm not sure if Goodreads is your average reader. I think you have to be a fairly prolific reader to even use the site. I used it initially to catalogue my book collection, and to identify what I have read, because sometimes, especially with more obscure authors, I start getting into a new book and realise I have read it before.
I would certainly consider myself an eclectic reader. I generally read a fiction and non fiction book concurrently. The fiction tends to be in the SciFi genre, but could be anything. Non fiction likewise. I read anything from old history to autobiographies and any topic that strikes my interest. I also listen to audio books when I drive, or before I fall asleep.
Currently I am listening to Sleeping Giants, by Sylvain Neuvel.
I'm currently reading Without Warning, by John Birmingham, and for contrast, The New Penguin History of the World, which is an interesting reminder that peace on our planet, since humans invented weapons, is a fleeting thing. And of course many Substacks :)
Self confessed "Everything Reader" here. I could take a book with me to the doctors surgery but instead I'll just see what's there (Go to my phone if nothing is there) Anything from Woman's Day to Engineering or whatever. Being a literary Trollope is maybe more about curiosity than variety for the sake of it or structure of genre's reinforcing any particular set of ideas. Bringing in new books all of the time so that 70% of my library is unread as I'm building towards a Banger of a retirement reading plan with a fuckload of my own good books to choose from.
Interesting. I hope they didnβt include my ancient Goodreads profile, made when I was 14 years old for a class in high school, which may only contain a couple of books listed on it.
Thatβs a good system! I loosely try to alternate fiction and nonfiction and balance the fiction between classics and genre (although increasingly I find I like the classics better than most genre novels I read). But if Iβm not careful I could spend all my time reading nonfiction.
I think though ( admittedly, I didn't read the study linked, they probably talk about it and point it out) -they deal with one type of readers, most active users on a platform. That might very well scew the results.
I'd imagine many readers wouldn't have any profile on Goodreads (or maybe anywhere. it's a cultural thing, in a way), or if yes-they wouldn't tend to be active. From the get go we look here at a certain demographics and maybe certain personality traits even, while foregoing other factors.
Don't mistake me as it's still very interesting read. Thank you, Henry
True. I have thousands of books and have read a fair part of them, and Iβd call myself eclectic. The only review Iβve ever written was of Ready Player one, because it made me so angry. I hate most of what I see in the window of Waterstones or on the Bestseller lists that make up most of the good reads diet.
Does this only take fiction into account? Because I feel like itβs not THAT eclectic to say someone reads a wide variety of genres of fiction but doesnβt read poetry or non-fiction.
I describe myself as an eclectic human being but I donβt know that Iβm a very eclectic reader. I read mostly fiction, almost exclusively literary fiction, and also some poetry (wish it were more!), some religious works, and I do WANT to read more non-fiction but aside from running memoirs and cookbooks, I never know what to choose.
I think it's interesting as the terms are so vague, and as they are not defined then almost anyone can say they are eclectic. but most importantly why does it matter? I see a big thing made about policing others reading choices and honestly who cares? as long as people read what they like, and don't stop anyone else from also reading what they love then what does it matter?
And if you want to spread you reading wings a little why not join a book club or ask 5 friends what their fav books are and read those.
Yeah, can't say I'm eclectic: my e-library is overwhelmingly literary fiction, a few commercial fiction titles, and the rest is non-fiction. Not that I'm averse to other genres. More a case of so many books, so little time.
I think truly eclectic readers donβt exist. If you read a lot you have developed some preferences, which means there is stuff you just donβt like. If you consider βseveral genres - several countries - several centuriesβ eclectic enough, than I am an eclectic reader, I guess: I just finished βThe lies of Locke Lamoraβ and am now rereading βCousin Betteβ.
Very interesting, but where does classic literature fit into that graph? Historical? Or are those of us who read the old stuff such a small number that it's not even worth tracking us?
I recently published a piece on my personal canon (https://derictilson.substack.com/p/a-personal-canon). I wonder how the books listed in that essay stack up against those of the self-declared eclectic readers at Goodreads?
Other thoughts: How high are switching costs across readers? For some, like the romance-centric reader cited in the article, the costs seem very high. What factors affect those costs? Is it an innate curiosity (or lack thereof)? Do those with high switching costs have decision paralysis in a bookstore, or do they need the sense of comfort and security found within a specific genre? What is their throughline across books if they could describe it narratively or qualitatively?
π Iβm not an eclectic reader and donβt apologize for it.
π It seems to me Sherlock Holmes novels could be a gateway series to get mystery readers into the classics.
I completely agree. Interestingly, my Substack, which focuses mainly on Victorian literature, perhaps suggests the opposite - or perhaps that those who read the classics aren't interested in Sherlock Holmes. My post on Holmes (https://clairelaporte.substack.com/p/predators-at-home-not-cinderella) got the least reader interest of all, compared to great interest in, say, Middlemarch, a much harder work to read than Doyle's short stories.
But Middlemarch is just so good!
I'm not going to argue against the greatness of Middlemarch! But I would have thought that the audience for Sherlock Holmes was bigger. I guess I underestimated the virality of George Eliot. <--What a sentence that is!
I'm not sure if Goodreads is your average reader. I think you have to be a fairly prolific reader to even use the site. I used it initially to catalogue my book collection, and to identify what I have read, because sometimes, especially with more obscure authors, I start getting into a new book and realise I have read it before.
I would certainly consider myself an eclectic reader. I generally read a fiction and non fiction book concurrently. The fiction tends to be in the SciFi genre, but could be anything. Non fiction likewise. I read anything from old history to autobiographies and any topic that strikes my interest. I also listen to audio books when I drive, or before I fall asleep.
Currently I am listening to Sleeping Giants, by Sylvain Neuvel.
I'm currently reading Without Warning, by John Birmingham, and for contrast, The New Penguin History of the World, which is an interesting reminder that peace on our planet, since humans invented weapons, is a fleeting thing. And of course many Substacks :)
Iβm pretty sure Goodreads is just that reader, judging by the books I see having traction there.
Self confessed "Everything Reader" here. I could take a book with me to the doctors surgery but instead I'll just see what's there (Go to my phone if nothing is there) Anything from Woman's Day to Engineering or whatever. Being a literary Trollope is maybe more about curiosity than variety for the sake of it or structure of genre's reinforcing any particular set of ideas. Bringing in new books all of the time so that 70% of my library is unread as I'm building towards a Banger of a retirement reading plan with a fuckload of my own good books to choose from.
I note that this piece is in the Spectator today!
They wrote about the study?
They used your substack.
Oh I see do you have a link
Itβs in the section called βWhat weβre readingβ.
https://blend.spectator.co.uk/t/j-e-ydlhquy-hdllthkjhd-y/
Thanks
Interesting. I hope they didnβt include my ancient Goodreads profile, made when I was 14 years old for a class in high school, which may only contain a couple of books listed on it.
I wrote about my own a eclectic reading practice in my piece "The Rule of 3 Books: Fiction, Facts, Forever" (https://www.whitenoise.email/p/the-rule-of-3-books-fiction-facts)
My reading system is simple, intentionally loose, yet quietly structured: I read what I want, but not necessarily when I want.
My approach follows a steady, gentle rhythm:
I start with a work of fiction (e.g. A Confederacy of Dunces)
Then, I dive into nonfiction (e.g. The Brain That Changes Itself)
Next, I pick up a classic (e.g. Crime and Punishment)
Then, I repeat the cycle
Itβs that simple.
This method keeps my mind alert and curious, protecting me from the monotony and malaise that can come from reading only one kind of book.
Thatβs a good system! I loosely try to alternate fiction and nonfiction and balance the fiction between classics and genre (although increasingly I find I like the classics better than most genre novels I read). But if Iβm not careful I could spend all my time reading nonfiction.
Totally with you. There are far too many books and far too few hours!
Nice
I think though ( admittedly, I didn't read the study linked, they probably talk about it and point it out) -they deal with one type of readers, most active users on a platform. That might very well scew the results.
I'd imagine many readers wouldn't have any profile on Goodreads (or maybe anywhere. it's a cultural thing, in a way), or if yes-they wouldn't tend to be active. From the get go we look here at a certain demographics and maybe certain personality traits even, while foregoing other factors.
Don't mistake me as it's still very interesting read. Thank you, Henry
True. I have thousands of books and have read a fair part of them, and Iβd call myself eclectic. The only review Iβve ever written was of Ready Player one, because it made me so angry. I hate most of what I see in the window of Waterstones or on the Bestseller lists that make up most of the good reads diet.
Does this only take fiction into account? Because I feel like itβs not THAT eclectic to say someone reads a wide variety of genres of fiction but doesnβt read poetry or non-fiction.
I describe myself as an eclectic human being but I donβt know that Iβm a very eclectic reader. I read mostly fiction, almost exclusively literary fiction, and also some poetry (wish it were more!), some religious works, and I do WANT to read more non-fiction but aside from running memoirs and cookbooks, I never know what to choose.
I think it's interesting as the terms are so vague, and as they are not defined then almost anyone can say they are eclectic. but most importantly why does it matter? I see a big thing made about policing others reading choices and honestly who cares? as long as people read what they like, and don't stop anyone else from also reading what they love then what does it matter?
And if you want to spread you reading wings a little why not join a book club or ask 5 friends what their fav books are and read those.
This was a very interesting read.
Yeah, can't say I'm eclectic: my e-library is overwhelmingly literary fiction, a few commercial fiction titles, and the rest is non-fiction. Not that I'm averse to other genres. More a case of so many books, so little time.
I think truly eclectic readers donβt exist. If you read a lot you have developed some preferences, which means there is stuff you just donβt like. If you consider βseveral genres - several countries - several centuriesβ eclectic enough, than I am an eclectic reader, I guess: I just finished βThe lies of Locke Lamoraβ and am now rereading βCousin Betteβ.
It is difficult
to get the news from poems
yet men die miserably every day
for lack
of what is found there.
Very interesting, but where does classic literature fit into that graph? Historical? Or are those of us who read the old stuff such a small number that it's not even worth tracking us?
I recently published a piece on my personal canon (https://derictilson.substack.com/p/a-personal-canon). I wonder how the books listed in that essay stack up against those of the self-declared eclectic readers at Goodreads?
Other thoughts: How high are switching costs across readers? For some, like the romance-centric reader cited in the article, the costs seem very high. What factors affect those costs? Is it an innate curiosity (or lack thereof)? Do those with high switching costs have decision paralysis in a bookstore, or do they need the sense of comfort and security found within a specific genre? What is their throughline across books if they could describe it narratively or qualitatively?