# What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking questions)



## Nicole (Mar 1, 2007)

A few years ago, my English class was having a discussion on books. Our teacher had asked us what are favourite books were, and who we thought were the best writers. Most of my class answered JK Rowling and Harry Potter. My teacher than asked:
"What does it mean when JK Rowling is considered one of the greatest authors of our time?"
 (Note- I am not saying JK Rowling is a terrible writer, this is merely a question to get you to think) 

So, here are my questions:
First, what makes an author "great"? 
  JK Rowling hasn't won the most   prestigious awards, but she is certainly the most famous author alive today. And so who do we say is "greater"? The author who everyone knows about, or the little-known and soon forgotten author who wins the awards?



Second: Is our trend towards instant gratification moving towards book as well? 

  Instant gratification is inescapable in the world today. Fast food was created, because people wanted food instantly, rather than waiting to cook. My peers in school memorize answers rather than learning concepts, so that they can do well on the test without putting in the effort. Is this happening in books as well? Are moving towards the books that provide the simple, easy entertainment, rather than the more meaningful and thought-provoking books which require effort to understand?




Third: Are we moving away from writing in which the writing itself is as important as the plot? 

  In many books, the writing itself is a work of art. Are we, in the present day world of "IM speak" and slang, moving away from that?




Here are my thoughts on the second two questions

One of my favourite authors is Guy Gavriel Kay, in large part because of his beautiful writing style. His books are as much a work of art as they are a story. However, I recently read a review (sorry, I forget where) in which the reader complained that he dislike Kay's books because the style of writing was too artistic, and the plot was too complicated. 

     I recognize that not everyone may enjoy Kay's style of writing, I only used him as an example because he is one of _my _favourite authors. However, there are many other authors out there who are also beautiful writers. They write the books that make you feel like crying- not because of a tragic ending, but because the book was so beautifully written. And yet, there are many people who avoid those books for that same reason; they don't want to go through trouble of reading writing that is not straight-forward and easy to understand. 

If you look at the daily top ten bestseller list in the paper, the books described above are not the books that remain on the list week after week. Of course, if they win an award, _any_ book will be on there for at least a week, but it is the books like Harry Potter, or the legal/crime dramas and romance novels, which stay on for week after week. They are not badly written, but the writing itself is secondary to plot. Harry Potter could just as easily be a movie as it could be a book. However (to use Kay as an example again), it would be extremely difficult to put the Fionavor Tapestry into movie form- concerns such as special effects aside. The book would not be the same without the little asides and comments ("_Hated by the dark for their name was light"_), but there would be no way to include these comments into a movie, as no character acctually says them outloud. 

     It would seem to me that people no longer want books that make them think. They want books to be like TV- entertaining, easy to follow (not necessarily simple) etc. Many people I haved talked to have told me they don't want to read "deep" books; they use reading as a break, when they can turn their brains off and relax. They don't want a book which asks difficult questions. They want it to "get to the point" as quickly as possible; instant gratification.



So, those are my thoughts, anyone else thoughts would be greatly appreciated (don't be afraid to disgaree with me- that's the whole point of the discussion)


----------



## Lenny (Mar 1, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*

One thing you notice about Dan Brown's books, when you read them, are that they are written as if they are film scripts (beats me why The Da Vinci Code film was awful) - the writing definitely is secondary to plot.

I know I'm generalising quite a bit, but most readers are probably looking for a plot that's gripping.

Then you get authors such as Terry Pratchett, or Guy Gavriel Kay (I haven't read any of his books, so I'm just going off what you have said) - really great writers who cannot only write a good story, but can actually write.

The same goes for authors such as Hobb, Le Guin, Modesitt, and I'm sure you'll have people saying similar for Lovecraft (again, never read any of his work).


----------



## iansales (Mar 1, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*



Nicole said:


> JK Rowling hasn't won the most   prestigious awards, but she is certainly the most famous author alive today. And so who do we say is "greater"? The author who everyone knows about, or the little-known and soon forgotten author who wins the awards?



You have to define "greatest". Rowling is certainly famous, and many people have read her books. But that says nothing of their quality. Perhaps if we did say that an award was an indication of quality - so we're using quality of writing as our criteria for "greatness". Then someone who has won a Nobel Prize for Literature - the most prestigious prize there is for writing - imust be a "great" writer. So, Naguib Mahfouz must be a greater writer than Rowling.

When superlatives starting getting thrown around in any discussion, the terms of reference have to be laid down first. Is this greatest as in commercial success, or crtitical acclaim? Because it's a very, very, very rare writer who can persuade people they have both. And that's not Rowling, and it's certainly not Brown.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 2, 2007)

The author that "everyone knows" today may also be forgotten, or even ridiculed, after a decade or two has passed, whereas books that are not as popular during their own time may be rediscovered again and again by new generations. 

So, no, I don't think that popularity by itself is any measure of greatness, nor is how many awards a book wins.  Durability is far more reliable when it comes to judging a book's quality.  A book that is popular during its own era and yet speaks to people across generations is a far better candidate for "greatness" than either the blockbuster bestseller or the obscure award-winner.

We might also remember that we live in an era where a book, or a person, or a movie, or anything else can be famous for _being_ famous.  Once the hype begins, people will read a book out of sheer curiosity, and then talk about that book because everyone else is talking about it.  They may hear as much bad as good about the book -- I'm thinking of _The Da Vinci Code_ here -- and still they buy it.  Such books will even be read by people who don't ordinarily do much reading.  For someone who's only read a handful of books in the last few years, a very mediocre effort can appear exceptional simply because they have nothing much to compare it to. 

I don't believe it's fair to call a book "great" until it's been around for a long time, because until then we lack the perspective.  A newer book may, of course, _be_ great -- it's not like it actually gets better with age -- but it doesn't make sense to me for anyone to attach that label simply because a book is currently in vogue, whether with the general public or with the literary establishment.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 2, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*

I'd largely agree with Teresa's comments here, and add one or two things to them: What makes a great book (or any work of art) is when it actually reaches down in there and strikes a genuine (rather than apparent) chord with the human heart; something that is emotionally honest; something that increases the reader's experience of the substance of reality. All of these things mean that it's something that will stick with you (you being a general rather than specific term) and something that will continue to appeal to people over generations/centuries/millennia... because it goes to the heartmeat of the human condition. That's a very difficult thing to define, but broader experience with the arts allows you to sense it more clearly; those who are more widely read are much more likely to be able to pick that which will last from those who aren't; the latter are influenced by "what's hot", not by quality, and their judgment on such things really doesn't count for much, any more than a plumber's opinion on astrophysics as opposed to those of someone trained in that field (and vice versa).

Awards can _sometimes_ be a bit more helpful... but it's a shaky criterion. Depends on the award, and the milieu in which they are chosen. And yes, obscure books can often linger on long after those which were considered "deathless classics" in their day... in fact, to be honest, it's a good rule of thumb that, the more popular a particular work is, the _less _likely it is to last. That isn't always the case, but it's accurate to about 90% of the time (or better). How many bestsellers -- even tremendous bestsellers of forty years ago can you name? How many have remained in print? Yet hundreds of other works from the same time period are still in print, or have been brought back into print, and find considerable numers of readers. The best-sellers, on the other hand, when brought back into print, are often complete flops. They date too easily, for one thing. (And I'm not talking about specific references; I'm talking about general attitudes, underlying assumptions about people, and emotion. That's because they are often hitting on the current view of things, not on the genuine deep emotional makeup of human beings, which doesn't tend to alter that much over time.)

As for what do modern day readers want from books? As always, the majority want quick entertainment, something to get them away from themselves for a while, and something that, in a few years (or often a few days, sometimes hours) they can forget. But the discerning readers, the ones who read much at all... they often expect something more, because less simply isn't satisfying; it may be fun (like a carnival or amusement park ride), but it doesn't last; it doesn't lodge itself in your emotions; it doesn't "hit the spot". So the discerning readers will still expect what they've always expected; the mass of people will go for the ephemeral. That's no different than in times past, and I doubt very seriously it will change in times to come....


----------



## BookStop (Mar 2, 2007)

*Re:What do modern-day readers want from books?(and other thought-provoking questions)*



> First, what makes an author "great"?


 
That is very different for everyone, kind of like, what toppings make the perfect pizza. Everyone has different tastes and classifies thier favorite authors as great. I enjoy JK Rowling. I think she is a great author. I also enjoy HP Lovecraft, wildly different, but also great. Toni Morrison has a way with words that just move me - she really is great....The list goes on.

I don't think most readers class themselves by one type of book, whether just entertaining, or deeply meaningful. We all sometimes read fluff, which if it strikes you right, can make the author great.



> Second: Is our trend towards instant gratification moving towards book as well?


 
There is nothing wrong with instant gratification. People seem to want to believe light or simple books are bad, and to really call yourself a book lover, you have to study the art of the written word. Come on - if it feels good, read it. I read Shakespeare, I read Austen, I read Patterson and Deavers. It's all good. Does this mean I am moving towards becoming what is percieved as a lazy reader? Frankly, perceptions don't bother me because I read what I enjoy and will always do so.



> d: Are we moving away from writing in which the writing itself is as important as the plot?


 
I don't think so. Simple writing is easier and therefore quicker to turnout. There are just more books out there than ever before due to there being more people in general. I bet the %s are near the same as they've always been, but that's the kind of thing that may be difficult to get an actual number on.


----------



## Nikitta (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?(and other thought-provoking questions*



BookStop said:


> There is nothing wrong with instant gratification. People seem to want to believe light or simple books are bad, and to really call yourself a book lover, you have to study the art of the written word. Come on - if it feels good, read it. I read Shakespeare, I read Austen, I read Patterson and Deavers. It's all good. Does this mean I am moving towards becoming what is percieved as a lazy reader? Frankly, perceptions don't bother me because I read what I enjoy and will always do so.



Well said. I never understood why certain books are looked down on. We're just doing certain books a huge disfavour, by telling people that they ought to read them in order to be considered "educated/cultural" enough (which is what I hear when people say "It's a classic. You should read it"), in stead of recommending a book because it's a really good book, which you enjoyed reading.

I know which one I'd prefer, if I was a writer.

In any case, that's why I read: for the pleasure of a good story.
I read some things which are considered classics and some which are certainly not. As long as I ejoy it, I will read it.

It's my impression that most people in here are that way too.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 3, 2007)

But just writing a book that entertains people doesn't make someone a great author.  It may make them a fantastic storyteller -- which is a perfectly fine thing to be.  As LeGuin said in one of her essays, the essential purpose of SFF is to delight the reader.  But to be a "great" anything -- if we are using the word accurately -- comprehends so much more than just being able to bestow a little ephemeral pleasure on a large number of people.  Surely greatness requires something more lasting:  a book that widens our horizons, or touches us on some deeper level so that we never see the world again in quite the same way, or provides some profound insight into the human heart.

There are a large number of writers that I simply _enjoy_ -- and I am not ashamed to read them for that reason only, or to recommend them to other readers -- but I'm certainly not about to justify my pleasure in what they write by trying to convince myself or anyone else that they are writing great literature.  My enjoyment of a book doesn't require that sort of justification.  I don't need to be deeply moved or changed or enlightened every time I read a book.  

But I'm not going to classify books that don't do any of these things -- no matter how much I might _like_ them -- in the same category as the books that do.  To even consider my own pleasure in a book as any sort of test of greatness ... well, I'm sorry, but I think that would be conceited. 

Some writers have more important things to say than others, and some just entertain.  Some manage to say important things and be entertaining too.  The books of each of these writers may have value, but it's not the same value.  For one thing, it takes a great many books to keep me _entertained_, but the experience of a book that moves me on some deeper level can last a lifetime.  (Not that I won't go back and repeat the experience, because I probably will.  But even if I never did, the book would still have given me something lasting.)


----------



## BookStop (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re:What do modern-day readers want from books?(and other thought-provoking questions)*

But what someone thinks of as greatness will still be different for each individual. 

I think Dr. Suess was a great author. I can argue that his books opened my eyes to a wonderous world around me, and changed the way I viewed every day from the moment I discovered him until now.

Many folks think Dr. Suess just told silly, entertaining rhymes. They wouldn't begin to class him as great with the likes of Austen, or Lovecraft, or Tolkien.

I think if ask 100 differnet people of differnt backgrounds and ages who the greatest author is, you may get some authors that are repeats, but you'd get some singles that are great only to one individual,as well.


----------



## iansales (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?(and other thought-provoking questions*



BookStop said:


> That is very different for everyone, kind of like, what toppings make the perfect pizza. Everyone has different tastes and classifies thier favorite authors as great. I enjoy JK Rowling. I think she is a great author. I also enjoy HP Lovecraft, wildly different, but also great. Toni Morrison has a way with words that just move me - she really is great....The list goes on.
> 
> I don't think most readers class themselves by one type of book, whether just entertaining, or deeply meaningful. We all sometimes read fluff, which if it strikes you right, can make the author great.



No it can't. An author is not great because they tickled your fancy. An author is great because they met a whole slew of criteria, as agreed by a great number of people - some of whom will be experts, and some not. Writers of fluff do not get studied in academia year in year out; writers of fluff are not still in print 100 years later.

Great can never be entirely objective, but it's certainly not wholly subjective.


----------



## iansales (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*



j. d. worthington said:


> How many bestsellers -- even tremendous bestsellers of forty years ago can you name? How many have remained in print?



Well, *Dune*'s still in print. And has consistently remained so since 1966. Admittedly, the film gave it a boost in the 1980s, but...

And *Stranger in a Strange Land* is also in print.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 3, 2007)

Hmmm, it looks like the computer ate my previous message. I'll post what I said again.

Dr. Seuss does _not_ belong in the same category as Tolkien, Austen, or Lovecraft.  I am sure he would have laughed at the notion himself.  He was not trying to do the same things in his writing as any of those authors.

As a writer for young children he was superb.  I don't think there are many parents, teachers, or librarians who think of him as just "someone who wrote silly entertaining rhymes."  His work _has_ stood the test of time, delighted new generations, and expanded the horizons of countless children.  Some of his books certainly made a profound and lasting impression on me -- but I can say that a half century after I first read those books, and twenty-five years after I was reading them to my own children.  We're already reading them, my daughter and I, to my grandchildren.  The twins are only six months old, and all they _can_ respond to at this time are the rhymes and the rhythms, but I feel sure that when they are older they will find books like _Scrambled Eggs Super_ or _On Beyond Zebra_ as mind-expanding as I did.

So, yes, even by the narrowest definition of the word "great", I think one could make a case for Dr. Seuss being a great children's author.  That's not being subjective at all, but applying a fairly rigorous set of criteria.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*



iansales said:


> Well, *Dune*'s still in print. And has consistently remained so since 1966. Admittedly, the film gave it a boost in the 1980s, but...
> 
> And *Stranger in a Strange Land* is also in print.


 
Yes, they are still in print. Neither was classed as a best seller, however. They sold more than the average _sf book_ at one period or another, and _within that genre_ may be classed as bestsellers, but in the usual sense of the term, no. What they _have_ done is to sell fairly respectably for some decades now, and off the top of my head, I can't think of a single "bestseller" to have done so. (To be more specific: Stranger sold quite poorly in hardback for many years, trade paperback was mediocre, paperback was quite good, but even that barely made it onto bestseller lists of the time.)

And iansales and Teresa are right: it isn't nearl as subjective as that. "Great" is something that has much more to it than whether it entertains, or even whether it entertains a large number of people. It may be good, it may be very good... but it's not great without meeting much, much more stringent criteria -- criteria that have themselves been refined and stood the test of time.

This is not in any way to denigrate entertainment, or "reading matter" as some call it; but no matter how much an individual may enjoy something, that's only one small part of what makes a book great or not. The other is simpy that: entertainment -- as Teresa says, a worthy enough goal on its own, but in an entirely different league. Sort of the difference between Johann Sebastian Bach or Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and The Beatles or even (gawd 'elp us!) the Strawberry Alarm Clock. As much as I think the Beatles were among the best of the musical groups of the mid-twentieth century, they simply aren't in the same ball park as Bach or Mozart; it's just a different critter altogether.

And on Dr. Seuss: Much more than simply the rhymes, and a fine children's author (and one adults can enjoy as well). But, again, not in the same league as Dickens, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, etc. Lovecraft _may _make it there... only time will tell. (Though it's looking quite possible. Still too early to say, though.) But even Poe may not survive as well as some of the others (after all, his reputation has had its share of eclipses, and -- save for a handful of stories -- he isn't read nearly as much as he was even when I was younger; he still sells, yes; but not that many people actually read his work any more... ).


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 4, 2007)

But JD, I think we muddy things up considerably by comparing apples and oranges here.  Shakespeare was a great poet and a great dramatist, but he wasn't much of a novelist, was he?  How do you compare a Dickens novel with a Shakespeare play, except to say that each is a superior example of its kind?  

Lovecraft, Poe, not many novels or plays there.  Dickens wrote plays, novels, _and_ short stories, but who would be reading him today if it weren't for the novels?

A work _can_ be great without the complexity of, say, a Tolstoy or a Dickens.  Darn it, Dickens could produce a work of greatness without the complexity of most of his novels! There is little complexity in _A Christmas Carol_.  And a children's book can be a great work of fiction, if it does more than simply entertain, if it shines a light on some aspect of human life or human potential, if it gives a child something of value they can take away with them.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 4, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*



Teresa Edgerton said:


> But JD, I think we muddy things up considerably by comparing apples and oranges here. Shakespeare was a great poet and a great dramatist, but he wasn't much of a novelist, was he? How do you compare a Dickens novel with a Shakespeare play, except to say that each is a superior example of its kind?
> 
> Lovecraft, Poe, not many novels or plays there. Dickens wrote plays, novels, _and_ short stories, but who would be reading him today if it weren't for the novels?
> 
> A work _can_ be great without the complexity of, say, a Tolstoy or a Dickens. Darn it, Dickens could produce a work of greatness without the complexity of most of his novels! There is little complexity in _A Christmas Carol_. And a children's book can be a great work of fiction, if it does more than simply entertain, if it shines a light on some aspect of human life or human potential, if it gives a child something of value they can take away with them.


 
Perhaps I should clarify.... I was addressing two different things in that post. One was the subject of Dr. Seuss in particular. I'm not sure whether or not I'd call him a "great" writer in the general sense, but a great children's writer, quite likely.

On the other... it's not really comparing apples and oranges; I'm speaking of great writers whose work lasts, whether it be novels, plays, poetry, essays, what-have-you. And my mention of Lovecraft is because he's not quite been out there long enough to know for certain. My personal feeling is that yes, he will prove to be one of the standard writers, though he may never be talked about in quite the same breath as Dickens, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, etc. (Then again, he might; again, it's too early to say.... But I think he'll fall _just_ below that level.) Poe, oddly enough, has been even more controversial at times than HPL, because of his sometimes perfervid style. Not that HPL doesn't get hyperbolic at times, but he is frequently actually a bit more restrained than Poe _in overall tone_, I think; not necessarily in incident or specific passages. But both are prone to melodrama, perhaps even more so than Dickens; and that's something of a flaw artistically (though I'll admit to, as Ellison puts it, "an unnatural love for melodrama"); which _may_ keep them from quite achieving the same rank, overall.


----------



## Razorback (Mar 13, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*

My approach is somewhat simplistic when compared to some of you more thoughtful and knowledgeable Forum posters.  I judge authors and books on three basic criteria.  First, I look for stories with entertainment value.  I read for pleasure and want something that entertains me.  It’s strictly subjective.  I like SF with elements of action, adventure and suspense.  Others like Fantasy or other genres.  Second, I want something that is thought provoking.  It can be about technology, social or other matters, as long as it provides a different take or perspective on something important or relevant.  Third, I look for quality or rich writing.  Competent writing is all that’s necessary for an entertaining story, but quality writing takes it to another level.  _American Gods_ is my most recent quality read. Quality writing is the hardest element to come by.  

I’m generally happy with a book that has any two of these three elements, with entertainment and thought provocation being the most common. All three make for a great book.  I know my approach isn’t sophisticated, but I enjoy the shallow end of the reading pool.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 14, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*

Actually, it sounds like a good way to go, Razorback. As you say, quality writing is (often, at least) the hardest of these elements to come by, but there are so many quality books out there that one shouldn't run low on them, as long as you don't restrict yourself to recent writers. If you're open to any period, then there are mutliple lifetimes' worth of good reading out there....


----------



## Dave (Mar 14, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*



Nicole said:


> A few years ago, my English class was having a discussion on books. Our teacher had asked us what are favourite books were, and who we thought were the best writers. Most of my class answered JK Rowling and Harry Potter.


The important point to note there is "English class". If you ask children you are not going to get the same answer as you would with adults. Many adults have not read _Harry Potter_ and never will. There are many books I personally have only read because my daughter read them first. Harry Potter is one of them, though I would not have continued reading them if I hadn't enjoyed them.



Lenny said:


> One thing you notice about Dan Brown's books, when you read them, are that they are written as if they are film scripts...


The same could be said of many authors; Michael Crichton certainly, Colin Dexter in the later _Inspector Morse_ books. I agree that is a big change in the last few decades since TV and film have become more popular and books have declined. There is a serious fall in the number of people reading books. Libraries are reporting a massive fall in lendings. Once, everyone had a bookcase full of books in their house, maybe even a few, now you are a little odd if you do.



j. d. worthington said:


> How many bestsellers -- even tremendous bestsellers of forty years ago can you name? How many have remained in print? Yet hundreds of other works from the same time period are still in print, or have been brought back into print, and find considerable numbers of readers....


That reminded me of the amusing joke in _Star Trek IV_ where Kirk mentions the collected works of Jacqueline Suzanne and the novels of Harold Robbins, and Spock says "Ahh! The greats!..." It is very doubtful that anyone will remember them in the 23rd Century. Charles Dickens yes, William Shakespeare certainly, JK Rowlings no, as for some the others mentioned, well only time will tell. 

One common thing all books with a long shelf-life have is a good original story. How many times have Shakespeare's plays and Dicken's novels been re-interpreted. _Romeo and Juliet_ as _West Side Story_, _The Tempest_ as _Forbidden Planet_, for example. You cannot do that with _Harry Potter._


----------



## GrownUp (Mar 14, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*

I think right now readers want more identifiable reality and less fantasy. Even in sci-fi and fantasy.

I think so especially as I see all the bookcovers in shops changing from paintings to photos.


----------



## aarti (Mar 14, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*



Nicole said:


> One of my favourite authors is Guy Gavriel Kay, in large part because of his beautiful writing style. His books are as much a work of art as they are a story. However, I recently read a review (sorry, I forget where) in which the reader complained that he dislike Kay's books because the style of writing was too artistic, and the plot was too complicated.



This is interesting, as I was just discussing this on a Fantasy Yahoo group I'm a part of.

I really love Kay's Lions of Al-Rassan and A Song for Arbonne.  But I don't particularly care for Tigana and I think by the Sarantine Mosaic and Last Light of the Sun (I haven't yet read Ysabel), he is very =aware= of his writing style.  He seems to spend a lot of time writing sentences instead of writing a story.  One person on the list hit it on the head, in my opinion, saying, "everything feeling very laden with portent and foreshadowing and
narrative choices that intentionally veil certain events in mystery for
the sake of a more dramatic reveal later on."  And he seems to do it in every book, so I feel you become more and more aware of it as you go on.  He also seems to show in random, gratuitous sexual humor and weirdness that doesn't take the plot anywhere (also, quite often in the Sarantine Mosaic).

But ... to talk instead about what readers are looking for.  I don't know so much about books "standing the test of time."  Yes, perhaps Shakespeare's plays have, and Dickens' novels, but is that because of the strength of their writing style or because of something else?  I think a lot of books are designated classics because of the messages they conveyed at a particular period in time- The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, for example.  Or because they started off a chain reaction of other books- Horace Walpole's Castle of Otranto.  Or because they somehow impacted their society in a way, or because they exemplify their society.  In other words, I believe that the story itself is only one small part of what helps a book "stand the test of time."  It also depends on its ability to be relevant to people later on.


----------



## jackokent (Mar 14, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*



GrownUp said:


> I think right now readers want more identifiable reality and less fantasy. Even in sci-fi and fantasy.
> 
> I think so especially as I see all the bookcovers in shops changing from paintings to photos.


 
Hello GrownUP - long time no hear.

I think I have noticed this trend too.

I think that beautifully written books are probably not doing as well as plots that go along at a lick becuase people are less patient these days.  I don't know how well Tolkein would do now with all his wordy descriptions if he wasn't already famous.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 15, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*



jackokent said:


> Hello GrownUP - long time no hear.
> 
> I think I have noticed this trend too.
> 
> I think that beautifully written books are probably not doing as well as plots that go along at a lick becuase people are less patient these days. I don't know how well Tolkein would do now with all his wordy descriptions if he wasn't already famous.


 
I think he would do as well as he did to begin with, Jacko... remember, LotR was out for well over 10 years before it began to sell more than respectably... it was the paperback publications 10 years later that began to change that, and even then the change wasn't overnight.

And in general... generic writing, you're probably right. But there are more writers around (in general fiction) now who write densely than there were even 30 years ago, and it doesn't seem to be hurting their sales much. It tends to garner them a pretty solid base of discerning readers, who know they can expect good, meaty writing from this person, instead of fluff. They may not be best-sellers, or even truly "good" sellers... but they are steady and stay in print for long periods, and are recommended by both critics and word-of-mouth much more often and for longer periods. And we're seeing a few of those in the sff field, too, that are doing quite well... China Mieville is one, of course, and Thomas Ligotti is another. Mervyn Peake's books are, if anything, more popular than ever; and Moorcock's writing has become more densely textured and layered over the last 20 years as well, and it's certainly not hurting his sales. Clark Ashton Smith is coming into his own, and you can't get much more dense or lapidary prose than that. Lovecraft is more popular than ever, and is read by people far outside the sff mainstream, and even has achieved recognition as a major American writer by being included in the Library of America's classics series... a very prestigious honor; and Lovecraft is certainly textured and requires attention.

So I think the discerning readers are still around, and they'll keep the flame burning, however much the mainstream becomes more addicted to either mundanity or "sound-byteism". It's just a pity that more readers don't have a longer attention span; they really don't know the riches they're missing....


----------



## GrownUp (Mar 19, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*

Hi again friends. 

I think you d have a point. Book sales in general may not reflect what reading readers like. The readers who like to read, I mean, and read a fair bit, and enjoy it.

I read an article about a recent survey that said that many people who bought bestsellers did not read them:
"Fifty-five per cent of those polled for the survey, commissioned by Teletext, said they buy books for decoration, and have no intention of actually reading them."

The great unread: DBC Pierre, Harry Potter ... oh yes, and David Blunkett | News | Guardian Unlimited Books

Could be a similar effect, sort of filtering down.


----------



## Coolhand (Mar 19, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*



GrownUp said:


> Hi again friends.
> "Fifty-five per cent of those polled for the survey, commissioned by Teletext, said they buy books for decoration, and have no intention of actually reading them."


 
And Jesus wept with dispair for the human race...

As for the subject of dense prose, I'm now on page 250 of Perdido Street Station by China Meliville, and so far sod all has happened. However, I'm still reading and enjoying it. That's rare for me because I usually can't stand books in which nothing happens (Book of the New Sun I'm looking at you). , but it's interesting that all the advice given to aspiring authors points strongly one way (towards fast paced writing and brutally streamlined prose) and China does the exact opposite and makes a massive success of it.
Funny old world innit?


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 19, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*

There is NO  such thing as _the_ modern day reader:readers still range in age from six (or thereabouts) to ninetysix,reading with magnifying glasses.All of these people want different things from books.People start out reading Sf or fantasy,because at a certain point in their lives that is the literature which gives them what they want(I suppose escape from reality for a lot of the readers).The golden age of SF and fantasy is fourteen,because at that age the pressures of the world haven't impinged on you yet.Just about everything looks possible at that age.You grow up,and want other things from the stuff you read.
Your question presupposes that every once in a while there is an upheaval in public taste, and of course that does happen,but people will continue reading CS Lewis,Robert Ervin Howard, J D Salinger,Stephen King, V.S.Naipaul,Robert Ludlum or Jack Vance.A classic is  a classic,period.
I suppose the publishing world has changed,and it would like to have us believe there are such things as "books you must read" or some such hype.Well folks,I am immune to that kind of pressure,do not read blurbs*,but will take the word from people on this board if they recommend a book.


_My guess is that nowadays escapism is on the rise again,because  the world has taken a turn for the worse. _
*U know what I mean: " soon to be a major movie",etc. ad nauseam.


----------



## GrownUp (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*



HardScienceFan said:


> There is NO such thing as _the_ modern day reader:readers still range in age from six (or thereabouts) to ninetysix,reading with magnifying glasses.All of these people want different things from books.People start out reading Sf or fantasy,because at a certain point in their lives that is the literature which gives them what they want(I suppose escape from reality for a lot of the readers).The golden age of SF and fantasy is fourteen,because at that age the pressures of the world haven't impinged on you yet.Just about everything looks possible at that age.You grow up,and want other things from the stuff you read.
> Your question presupposes that every once in a while there is an upheaval in public taste, and of course that does happen,but people will continue reading CS Lewis,Robert Ervin Howard, J D Salinger,Stephen King, V.S.Naipaul,Robert Ludlum or Jack Vance.A classic is a classic,period.
> I suppose the publishing world has changed,and it would like to have us believe there are such things as "books you must read" or some such hype.Well folks,I am immune to that kind of pressure,do not read blurbs*,but will take the word from people on this board if they recommend a book.
> 
> ...


 
Perhaps _the_ modern day reader in question here isn't represented by the average, the mean average I mean, because that blended average doesn't represent so much with such variety of readership.

Perhaps the modern day reader of this question is one of the _mode_. The vast chunk of readers that do fill the middle of the range and their tastes which move like a shoal of fish does, have swum... ...where? 

That's the question here, I'm thinking.


----------



## Urien (Mar 21, 2007)

A modern day novel: Along came a Da Vinci Gun

Ch 1

The bullet smashed the window. Sped across the room. Blew his head off.

Ch 2

Detective Socrates realized the dead man had been killed with a gun. A print of the Mona Lisa smiled down at him. Damn her ambiguous smile.

Ch 3

The freemanson told Socrates to look for the mortar.

Ch 4

Sassy Colonel Rebecca Armedassault looked in horror as the barracks disintegrated under mortar fire.

Ch 5

Ouch. Oblivion.

Ch 6

Hospital

Ch 7

.

Repeat for 325 chapters.


----------



## Dave (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*

You are just reading the wrong novels.

Take a look at the bestsellers lists from last year, now remove from it the cooking books and TV tie-ins and (the coffee table look nice books) and children's books. 

Now are you telling me that - _The Kite Runner, The Time Travellers Wife, Never Let Me Go_ (which I've read myself) or _A Short History of Tractors in Ukrainian, The Island, We Need to talk About Kevin_ (which my wife has) are written like that?


----------



## Urien (Mar 21, 2007)

No I was entirely serious, and it was not at all intended as a parody.

All books are exactly like that. Least that's all we get at the prison library.


----------



## Dave (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want...*

Now I know you aren't serious. Prisons have the best Libraries. They have playstations and x-boxes. They even get Sky TV, which I and 3 million others can't get any longer.


----------



## j d worthington (Mar 21, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*

Andrew: very good. *Da Vinci Code* by way of (an especially terse) J. G. Ballard and Dashiell Hammett. Now all you need is a publisher....


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 21, 2007)

I think that's a very interesting point that GrownUp makes about people buying books and not reading them.  Which would make book buyers and book readers two different groups.


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 22, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*



GrownUp said:


> Perhaps _the_ modern day reader in question here isn't represented by the average, the mean average I mean, because that blended average doesn't represent so much with such variety of readership.
> 
> Perhaps the modern day reader of this question is one of the _mode_. The vast chunk of readers that do fill the middle of the range and their tastes which move like a shoal of fish does, have swum... ...where?
> 
> That's the question here, I'm thinking.



SOUNDS LKE U KNOW YOUR STATISTICS.


----------



## HardScienceFan (Mar 22, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*

I suppose it's also a question of what is meant by "the modern-day reader".
the modern reader has several media at his/her disposal,which  all have their influence,and all influence public taste.Ideas about what is politically correct are changing,society is changing(often with the people not changing with it).Yesterday I heard about pension funds investing in companies which manufacture cluster bombs and landmines,so I suppose 
every war in Afica is worth its weight in gold.......
_U know what: just poll the readers,multiple choice,marketing like_
Some examples of what I don't want: 
-garish cover art
-give aways(the Bad Guy in "Murder on Anagram Planet" being called Dohomilac Namaic)
-using a contemporary social or scientific hype to give the story a semblance of believability,a cold fusion story looks mighty silly now
-stereotypes,standard good and bad guys:the world doesn't work that way.
-a military slant(I'm a pacifist at heart)
-hackneyed prose("he landed  on  Aldebaran IV,tailjets blazing")
-aliens which are just like contemporary Americans,only they have blue skin and pointy ears("Gee whiz,G'larg,don'cha get all uppity with me,y'hear) . 
-stories written as if the future is just like the present,only with interstellar travel,androids washing the dishes,and slightly higher prices for goods and services,and less chords to popular music
-horrific downbeat endings
-internal inconsistency
Geez,it's that late???
Gotta go now
AytchEsEf


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Mar 31, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*

Returning to the matter of people who buy books without ever actually reading them.

My first reaction was to think of people who don't read much at all:  buy the book while it's hot, but once the hype dies down never get around to reading it.  But just today I thought about this topic in regard to some of our members here -- unquestionably voracious readers -- who have towering TBR piles.

Now, I've known readers on other forums who, when they buy a new book, instead of putting it at either the top or the bottom of the pile, often insert it somewhere in the middle depending on how interested they are in that particular book.  According to this system, it seems like there might be some books that never do work their way into a position to be read.

So I'm wondering, for those of you who buy books with no idea of reading them in the near future: for what reason(s) -- other than the obvious one that you want to get it while it's still available -- do you generally purchase one of these books?

Because it was written by an author whose books you have enjoyed in the past?  

Because you are trying to assemble an excellent personal library and it seems like a good book to have?

Because a friend has recommended the book?

On the basis of the author's reputation, or because a lot of people are talking about the book -- and you're vaguely curious?

For other reasons entirely?

And two other questions:  

Are there books that have been near the bottom of your TBR pile (or whichever end you don't intend to read immediately) for several years now?

Are books sometimes removed from your TBR pile without being read at all, because your desire to read them has passed?


----------



## Connavar (Apr 2, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*



Nicole said:


> A few years ago, my English class was having a discussion on books. Our teacher had asked us what are favourite books were, and who we thought were the best writers. Most of my class answered JK Rowling and Harry Potter. My teacher than asked:
> "What does it mean when JK Rowling is considered one of the greatest authors of our time?"
> (Note- I am not saying JK Rowling is a terrible writer, this is merely a question to get you to think)
> 
> ...





I dont think so cause there are enough people that the writing are very imporant if not the most important thing in a book.
Me i choose my books by how good a writer writes. It doesnt matter if its direct,smooth or beutiful it has to be good.  When i hear a writer writes very good or beutiful as you say about Guy, i add him to my check out list cause thats what i want a writer that can entertain me with his writing and not only with his plot twist.  

All my fav writers are writers that i like alot mostly cause how they write . For example David Gemmell is my fav fantasy writer mostly cause of his direct prose thats very impressing.  You never stop and wonder about his language.


Another example Da Vince Code was decent at best thanks to the semi decent plot.  But the writing was not good to me and it made me decide Brown isnt something for me and that i will probaly not read him again.


----------



## daisybee (Apr 4, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*

In regard to the thread title, as a reader I just want to read something that for the length of the book I believe. That said, I don't actually believe that these people or places exist, but as a reader i want to be plunged into a world that is new and exciting. I'll admit my standards vary, I read a lot of non fantasy because I'm greedy. 
There are some things that bug me about fantasy (I don't read much sci-fi), in that some (not all) do have a very stark idea of good and bad, and hammer the idea home with a heavy hand. TG is a good example of this, although I loved WFR, as the series wore on, I was a bit like okay I get it He's evil and He's great. 
As I have gotten older and my opinions have changed, I find that I am looking for more rounded characters, which I think GRRM is best at from what I've read.I still want a bad guy and a good guy, but I want them to surprise me. I also want characters that don't do stupid things just because, I want characters that think, make mistakes, have their own ideas rather than the band of goodies agreeing all the time, people are people whether in fantasy or not.


----------



## Finnien (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*

First of all, I'd be very interested in more facts about that survey.  From reading the article, it seems to vary wildly - 35% of the people polled didn't finish a certain book.  The name of the poll is 'top unfinished books'.  I think the subject pool, the format of the poll, and the options people actually chose from would be *very* interesting to find.  A yes/no question like "Do you consider a book's popular/aesthetic/decorative appeal?" might well be answered yes, then construed into the statement "Fifty-five per cent of those polled for the survey, commissioned by Teletext, said they buy books for decoration, and have no intention of actually reading them."  I don't believe that statement is an accurate representation, based on the rest of the article, and is more said for quotability and sensation, and not for real accuracy.

Second, back about the original question, 'great' is a subjective term.  "What is your favorite book" and "Who do you think is the best writer" isn't the same question, in my mind.  J.K. Rowling has done something very few authors can claim - she's converted thousands of non-readers into readers... both young and old.  A couple years ago I had a roommate - a blonde twenty-three year old club-going girl who, if she read in her free time, I never saw in the ten years I knew her.  A friend convinced her to read Harry Potter, and she loved it, read other books like it, and just finished writing her own children's book inspired by it.  As for kids, I'm sure there are legions who are reading much more complex and thought-provoking books who may have gotten into it because a relative gave them Harry Potter for their birthday, and everyone was talking about it.  In short, it helps make reading more common and more socially acceptable.  Hell, my mom's read the Harry Potter books, and she's in her fifties.  She gets me to read authors like John Irving, and normally detests fantasy, but she found it to be good fun.

So if we're going to debate who's a great author, let's first define what it means to be great.  Give us a quality that great authors must have, or great books must contain.  I think the ability to make somebody want to read, to reach out and convert audiences and draw them into books, to make them seek out new and more complex books as time goes on, should be a quality not to be ignored.  For me, those authors were Anne McCaffrey and Robert Heinlein.  For our next generation, they could be J.K. Rowling.  She may not be read three generations from now, but her impact on this generation's readers, and thereby on future generations readers, may be more substantial than we realize.


----------



## Connavar (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*

I dont think you can define what greatness is. Some people think somethings are great and others not.

I think what should count is only who is your fav writer and your favorit book.

Cause that says something about you and what you like.

Saying who the best writer is pointless cause no one will agree on that.


----------



## Nikitta (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*



Teresa Edgerton said:


> But just today I thought about this topic in regard to some of our members here -- unquestionably voracious readers -- who have towering TBR piles.



I'm one of those. My To-read pile contains 30 books, which is enough for a few years going in my tempo. All of them are books that I really want to read, so whenever I buy a book, I know it might take a few years before I read it, because it will be "competing" with other books that I also really want to read to be the next book I pick up, but I still buy it - because it appeals to me and I really want to read it.

I just don't read very fast and my "appetite" for reading goes up and down, so there might be weeks where I barely touch a book and there might be weeks where I read for hours every day. It depends on mood and energy.

Last Sunday, I bought Ash, A Secret History by Mary Gentle. I had looked at it before and not bought it because my to-read pile is so big already, but it kept drawing me, so I gave in and bought it. Why it draws me, I can't really tell, but it does and I really want to read it.

However, it sits in a pile with 29 other books which I also really want to read, so the probability of it being the next one I pick up is not too high. Which mood I'm in when picking my next book to read does tilt the probability a good deal and whatever book I pick, I'll be glad that I bought it, so I could pick it right then.

When I look at that pile, a part of me despairs that I can't read them all at once while another part of me is happily looking forward to the countless hours of reading pleasure, which these books are bound to bring me.

Does that make sense to you?

Edit: Top and bottom of my to-read pile? I put the biggest books at the bottom because otherwise the pile will tilt and fall off my computer  Other than that, there's no system to it.

More edit: I also want RA. Salvatore's Dark Elf trilogy and I'm waiting for John Scalzi's The Last Colony to come out this month, as it's the last book in the trilogy and I seriously enjoyed the first two books. I want to know what happens to these characters next and I think that the ideas he describes are very insteresting.


----------



## HardScienceFan (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*

I want the author to go for my jugular.
I hate authors who consider plot development synonymous with shootout,life- threatening situations('Hollywood syndrome')
Prose should be unobtrusive,effective,subordinate,and generate the mood
A bit of restraint in the cover art
I hate authors resorting to the old 'deus ex machina'
I hate authors repeating/stealing ingredients from other author's novels(bestseller syndrome).
I will love any author who can create a believable,consistent universe/suspend disbelief(which is an art all by itself)
I love authors who show they have their characters well woked out,with no funny lapses into out-of-character thoughts or actions.


----------



## Pyan (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*

Sadly, HSF, you must have a pretty restricted reading list these days then!
I'd agree with all those criteria, though, except for the cover art one - some of the best books I've read have had lurid covers, and some of the worst have had elegant, restrained ones. The old saying really is true, you know!


----------



## HardScienceFan (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*



pyan said:


> Sadly, HSF, you must have a pretty restricted reading list these days then!
> I'd agree with all those criteria, though, except for the cover art one - some of the best books I've read have had lurid covers, and some of the worst have had elegant, restrained ones. The old saying really is true, you know!



Pyan,you don't know the half of it.My strict Amish upbringing,my substance abuse,my low IQ,my bad English,my baboon George,the voices in my head,the axe murderer next door,the ill-fitting T-shirts,all a conspiracy to let me read less than I want.
Do you mean to say that SF/Fantasy/ Horror literature is ridden with sloppy writing,plagiarism,lack of inventiveness,authors cresting a wave,purple prose,needless verbosity,and general ignorance of what constitutes good writing?
Surely not!


----------



## Connavar (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*

Man i wish i were like those people that have alot of books waiting to be read cause sometimes i get an monsterous strong urge to read a good book.

I had ordered several books from the library and was about just to pick them a but they closed earlier than i thought today thanks to bloody easter so i cant have my books before TUESDAY, thats FIVE LONG DAYS


----------



## daisybee (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*

I am amazed at how many piles of books are mounting up in living rooms accross the world! I feel a bit cheap now, I get them from the library, and only buy a book if it's a keeper. Plus, you tend to read more when you know they'll be going back soon, or else you have to pay a fine Although, money doesn't seem an issue for some, I would be pawning the books for baked bean money if it wasn't read within six months. Or keep the new stuff and clear out the old. Recycle your read!


----------



## Connavar (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*

Money doesnt seem an issue for some ...... thats exactly thats the reason i couldnt get the first teen books i wanted from the library today.  They were with selfish people that didnt care about the fine and had the books gathering dust in thier house.
Lucky me i buy the books of the writers i am a fan of.  So far i own 3 fantasy books and they are all Gemmell.  Its hard to try the other guys when you cant borrow the books, on a student's cash you cant just go and buy ten books at once.....

Right i only have to read Assasin's Apparentice cause only cause my little sis high school had it in.

Sorry for the rant i am alittle annoyed by people that dont care to return the books.


----------



## daisybee (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*

Hey, rant all you want! Not taking a book back is very rude in my opinion.
I don't have a big bookcase full of fantasy, when I moved I gave hundreds of books to charity. I remind everyone at Christmas that I read a lot and they buy me shoes My other half thinks books are clutter, so I get around it by reading quick and exchanging quick. I would secretly love a TBR pile! Charity shops are good for books too-always worth a look! (It's not all M& B on their shelves!)


----------



## Connavar (Apr 5, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*

That reminds me,i just remembered a shop like that it sells alot of books for pennies.


----------



## JDP (Apr 13, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*

Sorry, just started reading the thread so have a comment about the initial debate.

I agree that even 'True Greatness' is subjective. Just because it could be 'defined' by a (subjective) set of criteria, decided upon by a (certain) group of people does not mean there can be objective Greatness; it's too abstract a concept.

To me, a Great author is one that I enjoy reading, would read again and makes me think. There are lots of others that I might consider to be skilled, successful, interesting, etc.

P.S. I would class J K Rowling as a _successful_ author.


----------



## Laura Stamps (May 5, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want? (and other thought-provoking questions)*



Nicole said:


> First, what makes an author "great"?
> 
> Second: Is our trend towards instant gratification moving towards book as well?
> 
> Third: Are we moving away from writing in which the writing itself is as important as the plot?


 

1.) I read literary novels, and I read dark urban fantasy novels. I am also in the book business, and my novels are a combination of both. So what I look for in a novel is usually not what makes a novel a "hit" on the charts or the ones that win big awards. I love a book if it gives me _a good ride_. I like thorough character development. The book can have a plot, but I don't mind at all if the plot is character-driven, and the plot moves forward as the character is developed. What I don't want is a plot that moves so fast and at the expense of the characters that I am choking for air at the end, and I have no idea what motivates the characters. I also want the author to have a love for words and the arrangements of words that translate an idea to the reader in an awesome way. I want consistency, meaning I want all of the above factors to remain consistent in every book the author writes, regardless of the plot or theme or storyline. This makes an author great in my eyes. Okay, I want a lot. And you may have guessed by now I start more books than I finish. 

2.) If a book doesn't dazzle me in the first 50 pages I won't finish it. My time is too valuable. But that doesn't mean it has to grab me in the way most publishers think you have to grab the reader, meaning shocking action upfront in the first sentence of chapter one. I mean it has to grab me by exhibiting all the factors I mentioned above. And unfortunately our society is moving toward instant gratification, I think, in the book market as well. Many agents will now tell you to throw away the first few chapters of your book and start with the action, then work your way back. That is instant gratification in the book market without a doubt! A shame, but the way things are progressing, because the book busines is no different than any other type of business. It is all about money now. I'm not saying making money and selling lots of books is a bad thing. But to do it at the expense of quality writing is. That is why I often look at small press books, because those are the ones that seem to be bucking this trend. Sadly, they aren't in most bookstores, but you can find them on the web.

3.) Yes, I think so. It is still important in many literary novels, but also in some genre novels. I think there are many good writers in the fantasy genre. But when publishers push plot as the end-all for a money-making book, I think the writing will suffer. Just being a novelist, I know you will slow the pace of the plot down if you add too many details, even if they are relevant to the story. And beautiful writing always slows the plot down. So it is a dilemma in our society for sure, and getting worse every day. Someone at another forum just recommended a book to me that she said was so poetically written she just loved it. Of course I got it and started reading. But by page 80 I had to quit. There was nothing poetic about the writing...in fact it bored me to tears. And I thought she must not know what poetic writing sounds like to think this is poetic. And that is the danger. When plot is more imporant than the words people won't be able to recognize the beauty of a well-written sentence anymore. And that is a shame.


----------



## ray gower (May 31, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*



> First, what makes an author "great"?


Think there are too many ways of using the title great especially when dealing with books. So I'll supply 3 answers:

A 'Great' author is simply one with a lot of books that become definitive- Agatha Christie would be a good example, 

A 'Great' writer is one who can create quality prose that builds detailed worlds and atmosphere in a way that still have meaning many years later- Dickens would be good example

A 'Great' storyteller is one that brings fascination by the nature and pace of the story, even when describing quite mundane things- Robert Heinlein or Doc Smith

The three 'Greats' are not necessarily vested in the same person. Heinlein for example is an awful writer but a great storyteller



> Third: Are we moving away from writing in which the writing itself is as important as the plot?


I fear it is the opposite. Writing is far more important than plot or story.
I read the 2002 Booker prize winner, for 500 pages the hero does little more than get up in the morning and go to bed at night. No story, no plot, but beautifully spelt.

That said there appears to be a difference in modern writing styles depending on which side of the pond you are. From the US the tendency seems to be towards persistant short sharp sentences and paragraphs. The UK side the move is towards longer lugubrious prose. Both trends, in my opinion, are wrong- Good writing needs both.

Personally, I look for a book that gets on with the story in all its various plots and doesn't feel a pressing urge to go into irrelevant digressions or descriptions. I do not need two pages about rose bushes, stone walls or grey clouds- Tell me they are there, I can imagine the rest.


----------



## Connavar (May 31, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books?*



ray gower said:


> *I do not need two pages about rose bushes, stone walls or grey clouds- Tell me they are there, I can imagine the rest.*



Well put!


Sometimes i get very angry at some writers for doings things like that for many pages without it making a difference in the story.


----------



## Lith (Jun 11, 2007)

I'm not sure the popularity of such authors as Rowling means much of anything for society. The same debate over Stephen King has been raging for years- are his books really art? Japan has had the same debate over whether the emerging dominance of manga is an indication of a decline in their society. 

If people read to take a load off their minds, what does that indicate? That they're tired of thinking, or that their jobs are already demanding a lot of their brain power? And is this phenomenon of popular but not stellar writers really new? When novels first emerged, they were treated as "low art", inferior to poetry. Then some great writing came out, but pulp-style novels are still with us.

As far as appreciation of art in general society- a lot of people will always be rather immune to it, education or no. There will always be a segment of humanity that questions and observes the world around itself and creates art, though the mode changes and isn't always appreciated at the time.
I look down the Westerns aisle at our local store and it's still dominated by L'Amour, Zane Grey and Max Brand, the latter two are long dead and weren't considered great art in their time, nor now, and yet they hang on and still sell.



> ...Writers of fluff do not get studied in academia year in year out; writers of fluff are not still in print 100 years later.


Define fluff. Some of it _is_ still in print, and it was considered fluff then. Was the general estimation wrong? And academia studies _everything_, constantly questioning its own understanding. Tolkien was largely considered fluff not worthy of study at a university level, and yet I've seen classes offered since the movies came out. It's an ambiguous area where lessons are drawn out and references to other great works are brought in. Tolkien then becomes a springboard for more philosophical discussion. Almost all writing, given sufficient popularity, could become fodder for the mill of the mind. I suppose you could even use Eragon as a university course, given the right teachers. Is the book an end of itself or a means to an end? 

Some slots of greatness are filled with great works, and many more are filled with stories that happened to be in the right place at the right time. Because it was of value to you, you introduce others to it. Would another story have done the job? Probably, but it so happens you were introduced to one, rather than the other, and passed it along. So in a way popularity does matter. There's a sense of nostalgia and enjoyment that wants to be shared, and it's dependent upon what's available or popular at the time.

Was Sherlock Holmes considered art in his own time? And is there art in what's out there now, and we're just missing it? I'm of the opinion that there is a lot of potential in most novels (though there is some unsalvagable garbage out there), and that the other factors of popularity determine which rise to art and which are forgotten.



> One common thing all books with a long shelf-life have is a good original story. How many times have Shakespeare's plays and Dicken's novels been re-interpreted. Romeo and Juliet as West Side Story, The Tempest as Forbidden Planet, for example. You cannot do that with Harry Potter.


Well, they weren't original stories. They were GOOD stories, rehashed ad nauseum, and these were the best versions. That's one thing Shakespeare didn't do- create his own storylines.

There is something in the "spirit of the age" that both lets us see something in older works, but also a certain blindness to greatness about us, or even greatness in the past- that's why authors come and go. Even discerning people go through phases of appreciation and understanding, in which they may denigrate works that they later have to re-evaluate. 

And some lowbrow books are loved because they are lowbrow- people love the pulpy quality of them, and if people have all read the same pulp author, it builds common ground between them.



> Sorry for the rant i am a little annoyed by people that don't care to return the books.


Perfect time of life to discover the "classics"- every thrift store has nearly a complete set (see conversation on books bought but never read), and they sell them for dirt cheap, and I mean dirt cheap. Get some of those classics in while your mind is still young and fresh and exploring the world! (Yes, I know many find they don't understand them until much later, but I still think it's a good idea.)



> Many agents will now tell you to throw away the first few chapters of your book and start with the action, then work your way back. That is instant gratification in the book market without a doubt!


It comes and it goes. They've been cutting straight to the chase for the better part of a hundred years now.  But being that books are being read by working people now and not aristocracy with lots of free time, I guess it makes a difference.


----------



## areader (Jun 30, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*

A book that takes you somewhere different to what you have read before.
I'm interested in blended genres. The classics for me signify changes in writing that were significant. If you were to look at the changes in writing style the forerunners become the classics.
JK Rowling and realistic fantasy settings/Grecian thread.
Anne Rice and the southern style vampires.
Stephen King and his adventure/horrors
CS Lewis: the application of maths to fantasy
Rowan of Rin/Deltora Quest: puzzles/fantasy setting. 

Sometimes its a blending done in a unique way.
Sometimes its timeless. Lord of the Rings has so much depth in its blended aspects that they're still writing books about the book. 

I'm fascinated by a short story called The Ugly Chickens...the extinct dodo...layer upon layer of things to think about in that story. Do you find yourself imagining things ahead or outside of the story or other stories with the same character in them ...

And yet, does it speak to the heart...you know these characters...you've seen this...its as real as it is not...and the words become part of your vocabulary for describing things in a way people never thought to describe them but ring true.

And the whole writers at play: the style element...Robin Hobbs exerpts from documents written and Stephen Kings playful digs at Koontz and brief mentions of similar things in novels...Terry Pratchett weaving in similar threads and ideas in different ways ...

I love books. I have the stuff that I like reading for the moment as well.  But great writing is the stuff that I can't help revisiting and rereading. Its the books that other people write about. Its the books that become part of our culture as well.


----------



## john rush (Jul 4, 2007)

*Re: What do modern-day readers want from books? (and other thought-provoking question*

I think a writer who can be called the greatest should have the ability to find something that most people can see but cann't realise and give it to the reader to think and to discuss.
Of couse,writing style is important,but can we just aspire after it and neglect the idea(sorry,I could not find a correct word to describe my meaning.)? My answer is no!
I used reading a book named 'hong lou meng',it enlighten me a lot. Maybe you guys could read this book. It's absolutly a miracle.


----------

