Personally I am not worried if reading declines if numbers of people listening to audio books or even watching videos increases.

People just get their fantasy fix from other stuff - games, and anime and movies. Sanderson was mentioned, and Patrick Rothfuss -- I love Patrick's books.

Quote from: Haffrung;1120408People realize Howard's Conan stories were published 85 years ago, and Leiber's and Moorcock's most famous works 50 years ago, right? That's for fucking ever ago in pop culture terms.

To put it another way, Moorcock and Leiber are as distant in our past as E.R. Eddison was from when D&D was published, and Howard is as distant from us as H. Rider Haggard was. Fretting over modern gamers neglecting Howard, Moorcock, and Leiber is like a D&D hobbyist in 1978 fretting that nobody reads Eddison's Worm Ourobouros or Haggard's People of the Mist anymore.

Few people ever read fiction written 30 or 40 years before they were born, unless it's for school.

Generally true but unfortunate as they're missing out.  Most modern fantasy is schlock.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1120477People just get their fantasy fix from other stuff - games, and anime and movies.

Yeah and IMO, this has also lead to an overall loss of quality.  Fantasy ultimately has its roots in the poetic and the mythic, and without a line back to that source it just gets more derivative.  It's like that line from Fight Club, everything becomes a copy of a copy of a copy.

Well, for one thing, Moorcock, and Leiber, and McCaffrey and such, were the hotness of the early 70's and 80's. It was a time when new technology with the offset printing press made printing books very inexpensive and cost effective. The result was an explosion of Sci-Fi and Fantasy pulp novels in the early 70's that extended though until about 1990 or so, when the publishing market collapsed due to over book (and used book) supply and the collapse of expensive retail sales chains. The Lord of the Rings saw the trilogy republished in the 1960's in paperback form illegally by Ace in 1965 and then legally by Ballantine in late 1965, 1970, as well as 1973.

Quote from: Shasarak;1120466Personally I am not worried if reading declines if numbers of people listening to audio books or even watching videos increases.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1120477People just get their fantasy fix from other stuff - games, and anime and movies. Sanderson was mentioned, and Patrick Rothfuss -- I love Patrick's books.

Reading is a much more active and thoughtful process than watching videos. It involves more processing, more memory, and more imagination. Particularly in kids, it is linked to more positive outcomes in development. There are a lot of studies about the positive effects of reading. Here's an example article from medical daily --

https://www.medicaldaily.com/neural-pathways-watching-tv-human-brain-reading-book-389744

That doesn't mean that all video watching it bad, but it is worrisome to me if more reading is being replaced by video watching. I think it's a negative cultural effect. Audio books and video games are at least more mentally active than watching videos. I'm not very familiar with studies on audio books, but video games at least have the potential for more activity.

As for old books versus new books,

Quote from: Brendan;1120515Yeah and IMO, this has also lead to an overall loss of quality.  Fantasy ultimately has its roots in the poetic and the mythic, and without a line back to that source it just gets more derivative.  It's like that line from Fight Club, everything becomes a copy of a copy of a copy.

Every work is always derivative of what went before. In the 1970s, we also tended to read things written in the past 30-40 years like Tolkien and Moorcock and so forth, which were copies of what went before. As Haffrung said earlier, no one in the 1970s read Eddison's Worm Ourobouros or Haggard's People of the Mist any more, let alone Chaucer or the Icelandic sagas. And Chaucer was just derivative of his predecessors. Mythology always evolves -- and there are new mythic figures that arise and evolve.

Sure, reading is great for people that like reading.  

On the other hand Humans are better developed for listening, you can listen at the same time as you are doing other things which gives you a much better use of your time and socially it is less costly to listen to your audiobook then pull out your hardcopy.

Quote from: jhkim;1120526As for old books versus new books,


Every work is always derivative of what went before. In the 1970s, we also tended to read things written in the past 30-40 years like Tolkien and Moorcock and so forth, which were copies of what went before. As Haffrung said earlier, no one in the 1970s read Eddison's Worm Ourobouros or Haggard's People of the Mist any more, let alone Chaucer or the Icelandic sagas. And Chaucer was just derivative of his predecessors. Mythology always evolves -- and there are new mythic figures that arise and evolve.

I pulled out my old Ballantine paperback of the Worm Ouruboros. It was published in 1973 and was the seventh US printing. The prior six printings were in 1967 (3), 1968, 1970, 1972. So somebody besides me was reading Eddison in the 70s. Haggard was fairly obscure in the 1970s, I checked copies out of the library - which I agree is increasingly hard to do in a public library these days due to library policies on acquisition and culling.

Old books vs. New books is mostly about packaging and access. Unless a book is being pimped in the "New Hotness" section, do you check for publication date before buying it? I have little doubt that a great book from the 60s could get a flashy new cover and do great today. But instead, new books get front and center focus and old books are found in used book stores or libraries.

As for audiobooks, there's also dramatic readings with sound effects added so its a medium that can be more than just a dude reading aloud.

And the drop in reading - especially among males - is very concerning for many, many reasons. It's bad. If you have a kid, curb the screen time and make sure they read their dead trees. Regardless if its "new trash" or "old classics".  Moar reading be gooder than less reading.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1120839Old books vs. New books is mostly about packaging and access. Unless a book is being pimped in the "New Hotness" section, do you check for publication date before buying it? I have little doubt that a great book from the 60s could get a flashy new cover and do great today.

I really doubt it. The way books are written - the tone, diction, characterization, emotional stance, etc. - changes over time. Mid-20th century fiction reads very differently from early 21st century fiction.

This is especially true of SF and fantasy, whose audience skews young. The great bulk of people reading fantasy today are 20-35, and they grew up on a diet of YA fiction like Harry Potter, the Hunger Games, etc. You see that in the popularity of the child of destiny growing to great power, etc. These stories are very emotionally 'hot', meaning the reader is right inside the skin of the protagonist, reading every thought and feeling every emotion at a high intensity. By contrast, books like Elric series or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser feature jaded adult protagonists. The authorial stance is distant, with little immersion into the protagonists' thoughts and feelings on a scene-by-scene basis.

Modern fantastic fiction is also far less physically descriptive than earlier works. You rarely come across the multiple paragraphs descriptions of forests, castles, cities, etc. that used to be common in the genre. Far more of the word-count in a modern novel is dialogue and interior thoughts.

GRR Martin has been an unflagging champion of Jack Vance, and recommends him at every opportunity in his blog postings and interviews. But this has not led to an embrace of Vance by a new generation of readers. When you do come across a contemporary review of Vance (often prompted by Martin's recommendations), it usually expresses disappointment at the detached, ironic approach Vance takes to his characters. Same with Moorcock. They're just too alien to the sensibilities and expectations of today's readers, who expect intense emotional connection and sympathy with the characters in fiction.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1120839And the drop in reading - especially among males - is very concerning for many, many reasons. It's bad. If you have a kid, curb the screen time and make sure they read their dead trees. Regardless if its "new trash" or "old classics".  Moar reading be gooder than less reading.

I concur 100%. (Though there's nothing wrong with Kindle vs dead trees per se.)

Quote from: SpinachcatOld books vs. New books is mostly about packaging and access. Unless a book is being pimped in the "New Hotness" section, do you check for publication date before buying it? I have little doubt that a great book from the 60s could get a flashy new cover and do great today.

Quote from: Haffrung;1120853I really doubt it. The way books are written - the tone, diction, characterization, emotional stance, etc. - changes over time. Mid-20th century fiction reads very differently from early 21st century fiction.

This is especially true of SF and fantasy, whose audience skews young. The great bulk of people reading fantasy today are 20-35, and they grew up on a diet of YA fiction like Harry Potter, the Hunger Games, etc. You see that in the popularity of the child of destiny growing to great power, etc. These stories are very emotionally 'hot', meaning the reader is right inside the skin of the protagonist, reading every thought and feeling every emotion at a high intensity. By contrast, books like Elric series or Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser feature jaded adult protagonists. The authorial stance is distant, with little immersion into the protagonists' thoughts and feelings on a scene-by-scene basis.

Modern fantastic fiction is also far less physically descriptive than earlier works. You rarely come across the multiple paragraphs descriptions of forests, castles, cities, etc. that used to be common in the genre. Far more of the word-count in a modern novel is dialogue and interior thoughts.

I largely agree with this -- and fiction also went through big changes from the 19th century to the early 20th, and from that into the 1960s books like Elric. For example, it seems to me that long physical description is less common in earlier fantastic fiction. Conversely, the epistolary novel used to be much more popular, but by the mid-20th century it was more of a rare choice.

Reading isn't a high priority for most young people.  They spend way more time on their smartphones, and watching TV and YouTube.  The reading of books is a small fish in the pond, now.

A bit of a tangent, but ...

Another big change in SF and Fantasy has been how the authors get paid.  If the way to get paid is to write a bunch of short stories to get noticed, and get a check right away, and get the editor to ask for more, and then eventually move onto some rather thin books--the environment encourages not only relative brevity, but also more focus on crafting sentences for maximum impact and crafting stories to hook people quickly.  If the way to get paid is to write a series of novels with a big enough page count to hit the publisher's target of a hefty thing for which they can charge their standard price--the environment encourages finding ways to get people to buy your books even though they spend a lot of time not saying much.  The focus on internal dialogue is, in part, a reaction to this change in expectations.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1120839But instead, new books get front and center focus and old books are found in used book stores or libraries.

I rarely see old books in public libraries these days. Old books get culled to make way for new books and extra copies of popular sellers.

Quote from: Haffrung;1120853I really doubt it. The way books are written - the tone, diction, characterization, emotional stance, etc. - changes over time. Mid-20th century fiction reads very differently from early 21st century fiction.

Give me a marketing budget and I'll hit the teen boys with "Harry Potter is for babies and girls, Conan is for hard dudes" and sell the retro as the new hotness. We'll throw in some "real men read the words of men" to guarantee outrage in the media and the books will fly off the shelves.

Stormbringer drinks souls. Conan cleaves skulls. The Princes of Amber are gods who make Earths for fun. Lovecrafts reveals an uncaring universe we fear might be real. All of these can be sold to tomorrow's teenagers.

Quote from: jhkim;1120855(Though there's nothing wrong with Kindle vs dead trees per se.)

I disagree, even though I recognize the value of e-readers.

A dead tree book does one thing. It's a single book. In an age where kids especially are having trouble focusing and immersing, there is great value in having the kid read a dead tree book where they can't get distracted by the bells and whistles which most Kindles and e-readers have today. Dead tree books gives the child a solitary, quiet, slow experience so lacking in today's loud, fast world.

Even as an adult, I note a difference in reading books vs. reading online. I have drives clogged with PDFs and I read many thousands of business related pages annually, but there's something much more relaxing, meditative and immersive about the lack of screen time with a dead tree book.  

Maybe I'm wrong and its just geezer bias BUT I'd be interested if there have been any comparison studies, including biometrics and comprehension, for various ages regarding dead tree vs. e-reader.  

Quote from: Razor 007;1120856Reading isn't a high priority for most young people.  They spend way more time on their smartphones, and watching TV and YouTube.  The reading of books is a small fish in the pond, now.

Kids follow their parent's lead. If the parents' prioritize reading and lead by example, their kids read voraciously.

And then graduate from college at higher rates than their classmates.

Regardless of skin color or sex junk.

Quote from: Bren;1120882I rarely see old books in public libraries these days. Old books get culled to make way for new books and extra copies of popular sellers.

Definitely true with small libraries.

Maybe I'm spoiled in LA, but our library system links hundreds of libraries and I've never had a problem having even obscure titles found somewhere in the system and shipped to my local branch for free. Which is kinda crazy, but its nice to see my taxes do something cool.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1120903Maybe I'm spoiled in LA, but our library system links hundreds of libraries and I've never had a problem having even obscure titles found somewhere in the system and shipped to my local branch for free. Which is kinda crazy, but its nice to see my taxes do something cool.

You are spoiled. I use Interlibrary Loan a lot, but even with it there are many older books that just aren't available.