> Authors under the age of 65 grew up in an impoverished literary environment. How could we expect them to compete with those whose imaginations were formed when culture was more uniformly attuned to what has been considered great throughout the centuries? What books did Austen, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky grow up with, or learn in school, that are no longer widely regarded or read?
You are operating under the asumption that the issue is authors. I think the issue is the readership. Great books are still being written. They are just not widely read anymore.
The problem is that it's easier to mindlessly scroll through Instagram or watch meaningless YouTube videos than take the time to read a book. There are large teams dedicated to ensuring this stays so and that these products are as addictive as they can be.
We, as a society, have apparently decided that it's acceptable to turn a large part of the population into idiots to sell more detergents. It's sad but at least we are selfdestructing through global warming so the problem will have an end.
That is the hypothesis that the author debunks in the second half of the article - that there are no readers any more because smartphones.
And they debunk it by pointing out that classic literary fiction is still being read, it's just contemporary literary fiction that isn't being read (and then they go on to hypothesise that it's this very attitude that is killing contemporary literary fiction readership).
I find it ironic that your comment laments the inability of readers to actually read, while failing to actually read the article that you're commenting on.
> And they debunk it by pointing out that classic literary fiction is still being read
Not at all.
Classic fiction is still far out of the most sold books nowadays which is entirely non fiction. That’s in the first half of the article by the way so I might not be the one with reading comprehension issue. I can somehow excuse you because the article author constantly confuses fiction and non fiction readership and fails to comprehend what should be seen in absolute numbers and when proportion actually matters for most of the article.
To address specifically the unconvincingly point that classic sell in absolute numbers, this should be unsurprising to anyone who has gone to school: contrary to modern fiction classics are actually studied and are part of various curriculum.
The other points against the influence of internet (and television before) are equally empty and hinge on a confusion between absolute number of readers (stable) and actual readers of serious fiction (vanishing).
I have little interest in actually commenting the virtues of the article to be frank - it’s garbage. The author opinion that postmodern authors are somehow written for critics is laughable. It’s so devoid of substance. It ignores both the actual critical consensus around those books when they were written (far from universal praise) and what they contain. The rest of the arguments are barely better sadly. And let’s not talk about what the article entirely fails to address: the rise of YA, book tok, the modern fiction bestsellers from Crichton to Dan Brown, the impact of movie adaptation (ever heard of Harry Potter, yes me too).
Anyway, I was merely replying to the comment above mine.
You are operating under the asumption that the issue is authors. I think the issue is the readership. Great books are still being written. They are just not widely read anymore.
The problem is that it's easier to mindlessly scroll through Instagram or watch meaningless YouTube videos than take the time to read a book. There are large teams dedicated to ensuring this stays so and that these products are as addictive as they can be.
We, as a society, have apparently decided that it's acceptable to turn a large part of the population into idiots to sell more detergents. It's sad but at least we are selfdestructing through global warming so the problem will have an end.