That’s 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 I’m 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 I’d call myself eclectic. The only review I’ve 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.
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 :)
Interesting. I hope they didn’t 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 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?
Does this only take fiction into account? Because I feel like it’s not THAT eclectic to say someone reads a wide variety of genres of fiction but doesn’t read poetry or non-fiction.
I describe myself as an eclectic human being but I don’t know that I’m 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 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
It’s 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.
That’s 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 I’m 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 I’d call myself eclectic. The only review I’ve 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.
I note that this piece is in the Spectator today!
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 :)
📚 I’m not an eclectic reader and don’t apologize for it.
🔍 It seems to me Sherlock Holmes novels could be a gateway series to get mystery readers into the classics.
Interesting. I hope they didn’t 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 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?
Does this only take fiction into account? Because I feel like it’s not THAT eclectic to say someone reads a wide variety of genres of fiction but doesn’t read poetry or non-fiction.
I describe myself as an eclectic human being but I don’t know that I’m 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.