As requested, a thread on my notion that fewer gamers are readers these days.
While it's purely anecdotal I don't meet many younger gamers who've read Tolkien, let alone Lieber, Howard, or Moorcock. They have often read Harry Potter or even Narnia or had them read to them by a parent or a teacher. I suspect, in part, these things are simply out of date by the standards of modern libraries and school teachers. However, I find most of them have played Morrowind, Elder Scrolls, World of Warcraft and so forth. So, it seems to me that between the competition from movies and video games and the accessibility of the internet, not as many of the kids have to turn to the classics for their fantasy fix. They also seem to be less interested in reading for pleasure.
To be honest, I suspect the massive page counts of modern fantasy books are off-putting. If they got into some Howard, Moorcock, or Lieber the thinner, lower priced book with the cool Frazzetta cover might cure them. But in anycase, movies and video games seem to build quite different expectations than books. Minecraft is an odd thing because most kids have a pretty good idea of what is in bronze or gunpowder these days, even when they don't realize that's really what's involved.
I wonder how many listen to these in audio format? For example, Tales of Weird on YouTube has audio versions of many of these which are quite good. If they dislike reading listening is always an option.
After doing some casual investigation into the figures on how much children are or are not reading... it seems the drop has been about 10-20% compared to ten years ago, depending on who you ask.
While kids are reading less, it's not so much less that it's a gigantic number.
I think it's far more likely the reason kids aren't reading things like Tolkein, and Morcock, and Howard... is because they have more relevant modern sources that fit their interest. Harry Potter was brought up, but you also have things like The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner, and a whole slew of Young Adult novels that have exploded on the scene in the last ten years.
I think it's more likely, kids are spoiled for choice when it comes to reading, and when making a decision between something that was written back in the early 20th century versus something that was written in the last 15 years, kids are more likely to go with the modern example than the classic.
The first book I ever decided to read on my own, w/o someone making me, was essentially the hobbit, though it was a paperback copy from school library and was titled "overhill & underhill" or "there and back again" I think, and I did so because I had just started playing D&D (red box, basic set lvls 1-3) and this book mentioned dragons and wizards on the back cover. After that, I read stuff about the occult, witch burnings, and encylopedia stuff for weapons and armor. I did this to better understand things from the game, to get a clearer picture of what splint mail was or what elves were historically supposed to be. (that gulf between tolkien and historical aelfs that steal babies and turn them into goblins is still jarring to me).
If kids today follow the same pattern for the same reasons, they have the internet to simply grab a quick answer to their questions, and they may be steered toward reading things with blue hair half demon dragon kin and looking for encyclopedia entries that explain the concept of good, evil, or religion. The game itself has changed and that alone may steer them toward reading things wholly unrelated to the themes that were more dominant up until late 3e/early 4e. Last Airbender as a formative experience begets a different expectation than GI Joe as a formative experience I think.
You're just getting old. Younger people still read, they just read different stuff.
No reason why Lieber, Howard, or Moorcock should be essential reading just because they were popular in 1976. I'd guess even by the late 80s most D&D players weren't reading those guys, and were instead being influenced by Eddings, Brooks, and Jordan. Today, younger tabletop fantasy gamers are big on Brandon Sanderson (8+ million books sold), Patrick Rothfuss (10 million), Joe Abercrombie (6 million), and Steven Erikson (3 million). And that's not even mentioning GRR Martin (90 million). And given the length of these works, big books don't seem be any deterrent at all to fantasy readers today.
My teenage daughter asked me to DM for a group of her friends, so I recently started running an AD&D/1e game with 11 high-school aged players (we've had five sessions, so far). All but my daughter were new to D&D. I'll have to ask them what kind of stuff they've read/watched/etc. that reminds them of D&D. I'll post their feedback.
Just from things they've mentioned, I know that various anime will probably be one. Also, they've used terms (and tactics) I recognize from computer games like DOTA2 or League of Legends (tanks/carries/support, "kiting", et cetera). A few LotR quotes have been thrown about (probably from the movies, more so than the book).
All four of my own children play RPGs, sometimes. My oldest son runs games of his own, as well. Their D&D-ish background includes movies (e.g., LotR, Clash of the Titans, Krull, Sinbad movies, Jason and the Argonauts, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Big Trouble in Little China), various anime (I couldn't tell you what, though). They all read, some more than others, but what they read varies. My sons have both read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. My eldest has also read Dune. My daughters read a lot, but I wouldn't say it's D&D-ish stuff (it's mostly young adult fiction aimed at girls). Oh, they've all read and/or seen the Harry Potter material, too. AFAIK, none of them have watched or read any of the GRR Martin stuff, and no Moorcock, Leiber, Howard, Burroughs, Eddings, Brooks, Cook, etc. Come to think of it, I should encourage the boys to read some of that. I think they might like the Black Company books, and possibly Moorcock or Leiber, too. Might be a harder sell for my girls, though, since those books are pretty far removed from what they typically choose to read.
It probably doesn't help that many of the books in Appendix N - wouldn't BE TOUCHED today by the big publishing Houses - except maybe Baen.
People 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.
My wife is the same age as I am (she's actually only 3 days older than me) and she plays RPG's. She reads a lot and she's also very into comics (DC specifically). However I don't believe she's read any of the fantasy classics mentioned in the OP. She was big into Harry Potter and LotR (both the books and the films), American Gods, Outlander, various other series as well as some Niven and Harry Harrison (I love Bill the Galactic Hero but apparently she hasn't read it yet), the Ender's Game series (one of her favorites, I only ever read the first one) and other sci-fi stuff thanks to her father's influence I believe as he is a big reader. Come to think of it I still need to read the Robot City books he's lent me.
Some of my earlier entries into fantasy were with Conan, the Sword of Truth series, and LotR/Hobbit. Along the way there were some very RPG-specific reads, such as some of the WoD and D&D titles out there.
Most of my other players don't read at all unless you count textbooks. All of them play videogames.
In any case, I would agree with earlier posters in that I believe mostly the "current" literature is just different and there is more available access to a wide variety of titles. I never would have read Leviathan if ebooks didn't exist, and I can't say I would have felt pressured to read any of the classics my mother owned had I had effortless access to an endless variety of novels at my fingertips. I do think people are being influenced quite a bit more by videogames these days, but I can't claim that for instance Zelda didn't influence me at all back in "the day." Hell, it even inspired me to write my first (and only) RPG to play with my brother. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but I do think it builds very different expectations for fantasy roleplaying from literary influence. Reading so much in my youth is something I'd never trade away, and I know I wouldn't see or play RPG's the same way if I hadn't spent so many years shut in my room with my mother's book collection.
Quote from: tenbones;1120405It probably doesn't help that many of the books in Appendix N - wouldn't BE TOUCHED today by the big publishing Houses - except maybe Baen.
And Appendix N is a
subset of the full corpus of fiction from that era - all of which has been discredited and memory holed to varying degrees.
Quote from: Haffrung;1120384You're just getting old. Younger people still read, they just read different stuff.
No reason why Lieber, Howard, or Moorcock should be essential reading just because they were popular in 1976. I'd guess even by the late 80s most D&D players weren't reading those guys, and were instead being influenced by Eddings, Brooks, and Jordan.
Me and my buddies at high school 1988-91 were definitely into Leiber Howard Moorcock, not sub-Tolkien stuff.
Quote from: S'mon;1120423Me and my buddies at high school 1988-91 were definitely into Leiber Howard Moorcock, not sub-Tolkien stuff.
Sure, and so was I. But I guarantee book stores in 1990 weren't selling more copies of Swords Against Deviltry and the Chronicles of Corum than they were of the Wishsong of Shannara and Eye of the World. The great majority of people, now and then, read books published in the last 10 years. I don't understand why we would expect D&D players to be any different when it comes to pop culture.
Well it the Witcher TV show is any example - the video game gave Andrzej Sapkowski a big reader-bump in sales in 2015 - like 400% which has been maintained over 300% of year-on-year totals since before the Witcher III game dropped. So I can only imagine the TV show really boosted it.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]4103[/ATTACH]
The real interesting test will be to see if Elric of Melnibone' when it drops (assuming they even *try* to be faithful to the book) will reignite the young'uns to pick up Moorcock.
I'd add the Dune movie as well.
Quote from: Haffrung;1120408Fretting 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.
FWIW, I didn't take this thread as anyone fretting over it. Seemed more like an observation than a worry. And I think your take on the "why" angle sounds correct. The stuff that's listed in Appendix N is just old (and often hard to find), so it's not shocking that younger readers aren't choosing those books.
Yeah, I concur that it's mostly that kids are reading different stuff these days. My son reads enormous amounts - and he read Tolkien, but he never got into Howard or Lieber. When younger, he tended to read modern YA fiction. Now he's getting a literature minor in college, so he tends to read older stuff, but still not much from Appendix N.
Quote from: Orphan81;1120373After doing some casual investigation into the figures on how much children are or are not reading... it seems the drop has been about 10-20% compared to ten years ago, depending on who you ask.
While kids are reading less, it's not so much less that it's a gigantic number.
Agreed. From what I've read, it seems like there has been a steady decline in reading since the 1950s, which can mostly be attributed to television -- even in recent decades. (Television watching has continued to rise, if one includes streaming services.)
QuoteIt's tempting to blame the decline on the recent proliferation of computers, cellphones, video games and the like. But the data don't really bear that out. For one, the NEA data show that reading has been on the wane since at least the 1980s, well before the advent of Facebook and Fortnite.
A long-term study of reading trends in the Netherlands points to a different culprit: television. From 1955 to 1995, TV time exploded while weekly reading time declined. "Competition from television turned out to be the most evident cause of the decline in reading," the authors of that study concluded.
In the United States, the American Time Use Survey shows that while the average reading time fell between 2004 and 2017, the average amount of time watching TV rose.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/29/leisure-reading-in-the-u-s-is-at-an-all-time-low/
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. :D I use Interlibrary Loan a lot, but even with it there are many older books that just aren't available.
Quote from: Bren;1120905You are spoiled. :D I use Interlibrary Loan a lot, but even with it there are many older books that just aren't available.
Does your Interlibrary Loan program hook you into the state college system? That's where many of the older book collections can be accessed. Also, Maryland is a small state. Does your system allow you inter-state access? I've done federal level research so I hooked into those systems when necessary, but I've heard inter-state library loan systems for fiction do exist through some universities.
Also, how old of a book are you hunting? I know things get dicey when hunting pre-1920 and certainly any pre-Civil War publications.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1120903I 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.
The only real difference between reading from a book and reading from an ereader that I have noticed is the ereader is usually lighter to carry and you dont need to bookmark your page.
I've always loved dead tree books. I worked in a used bookstore for years, and collected many hundreds. Eventually I purged all but a couple hundred of my favourites, but it was hard. Our kids love books too - their bedrooms are stacked with tottering piles of them.
However, Kindle has several significant advantages over hardcopies:
* I can set the font to a readable size. Many older paperbacks used tiny fonts and lines crammed together to save on page count. I'm too old to put up with that shit.
* I can read in bed without a nightlamp.
* I can get many out of print books that are hard to find otherwise. I just added a couple very hard to find Alfred Duggan historical novels to my Kindle wishlist.
* Best of all, you can download and read sizeable previews of any book you're considering buying.
This thread really makes me want to sort my bookshelves out and read some proper stories (Moorcock, Leiber) again! :cool:
I love the tiny trade paperback format of the 70s-80s, so comfy in the hand. Modern reprints are these giant slabs of wood.
So far:
[Well done print book] > [Well done e-reader] > [typical book] > [typical e-reader-ish thing] > [bad book]
Thing is, for a lot of books, "well done print book" is not an option--cost or layout or simply cross-referencing required. So we are very much in the era of not only YMMV, but your mileage will vary substantially from title to title.
Quote from: jhkim;1120526Every 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.
You are confusing inspiration with bad imitation. Yes, we all stand on the shoulders of giants. Yes, good literature can be popular among mass audiences. Yes, sometimes something is considered a classic just because it's old. But this line of reasoning seems to say "If you think that Hamlet is deeper and more meaningful than 50 Shades of Grey than you're an ignorant old fuddy duddy!" This is post-modern bullshit. Learn to make qualitative distinctions. A writer grounded in epic poetry, working through some significant life experience, is going to use fantasy very differently than someone just reproducing tropes he or she has seen a thousand times in other media.
I also don't understand the argument that most people read shit therefore why bother suggesting that people read better shit. If you want better muscles you lift weights. If you want a better and richer imagination... well... as above so below.
I will say that this topic is definitely intimating a qualitative argument, albeit through eclectic and voracious reading habit. :) And I believe it is an argument that has merit for personal improvement.
It is easy to forget that nowadays people read more for everyday life than they ever really had before: e.g. texting alone now exceeding phone calls therefore dwarfs all previous ages of literacy, even down to a per capita basis. Throw in internet reading and the eclipse is overwhelming. People read so much that they try to get away from it because it feels like work; the READ TO ACCESS fun, from TV onscreen remote functions, video games, internet, smart phone, etc.
The challenge to encourage reading is trying to explain that: a) the act itself can be fun, relaxing, b) the variety of stories locked within can be enriching, c) there is something lost in translation from media to media. Old arguments, but each of them hold nuance, the latter two of them emphasizing a qualitative experience.
The first, the act as pleasure, is a hard sell in this age except as a contemplative, almost meditative act. It's just fatigue from a required skill of this age. You need to cultivate a deeper awareness, a desire for self-reflection, before you can ask the human to self-reflect on its survival tools.
The second is where you can work some agreement. People are in general open to know that there is more than they don't know. With a way to save them time from sifting and getting up to speed you build trust. Hence why I feel critiques, reviews, recommendations, and audiobooks are great ways to develop that love of stories and knowledge (fiction and non-).
The third is something that requires some breadth and depth of experience to fertilize a self-reflection for this next step. Thankfully there are (were :() known properties that crossed multiple media with decent degrees of fidelity: e.g. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter books, etc. These can be used to highlight the usually unseen differences between media, and then highlight how those differences are useful tools for different expression (with their own strengths and weaknesses). So you can point out how movie, book, stage play, video game, RPG, vary from each other and how that is beautiful as each is, with now understood limitations and all.
The main current cultural problem is: a) a the lack of curiosity, b) utter corruption and distrust of critical review, and c) blithe indifference to nuance between mediums. If the past is de facto evil, recommendation must hold party line to substance regardless of style, and all expected equal without regard to power, capacity, et alia, the end result will be belligerent ignorance frustrated with anything beyond its understanding of "the lowest common denominator." Tyranny of the willfully ignorant where the lone charismatic is king, a fertile soil for incurious despotism.
Get the new GMs reading! :) But meet them halfway, better a stairway than a wall. Rebuild that lost curiosity, trust, and nuance. But that requires knowing your audience, building rapport, and walking them out through that dark valley.
Quote from: BrendanFantasy 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.
Quote from: jhkimEvery 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.
Quote from: Brendan;1121008You are confusing inspiration with bad imitation. Yes, we all stand on the shoulders of giants. Yes, good literature can be popular among mass audiences. Yes, sometimes something is considered a classic just because it's old. But this line of reasoning seems to say "If you think that Hamlet is deeper and more meaningful than 50 Shades of Grey than you're an ignorant old fuddy duddy!" This is post-modern bullshit. Learn to make qualitative distinctions.
That's just you shoving words into my mouth, and stupid ones at that. I claim that fantasy fiction of the 200s has no more or no less of a line back to the poetic and the mythic as fantasy fiction of the 1970s. Modern fantasy novels like American Gods or Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell might not be to your tastes -- but they draw on the poetic and the mythic in the same way that 1970s writers did -- by life experiences and by reading older works and synthesizing new ideas from them.
If you don't like Gaiman or Clarke, fine -- I'm not saying that you have to like it, but characterizing all modern fiction as 50 Shades of Grey is traditionalist bullshit.
I liked those novels. Among others, I thought Pratchett's later work (in the 21st century) was better than his older work, and stands out. Among other modern fantasy, I enjoyed the Temeraire series and other novels by Novik, plus Walter Moers amusing Zamonia series (which is very much filled with myth and poetry).
If you love books and memes, here's memes about book reading (https://ruinmyweek.com/books/book-memes-list/).
BTW, has there been a "MUST READ" original fantasy book in the 21st century? I mean outside of Harry Potter which began in the 1990s or GoT books which also began last century. I'm asking about specifically a post-2000 novel that's considered "must read" and deserves its accolades.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1120908Does your Interlibrary Loan program hook you into the state college system? That's where many of the older book collections can be accessed. Also, Maryland is a small state. Does your system allow you inter-state access? I've done federal level research so I hooked into those systems when necessary, but I've heard inter-state library loan systems for fiction do exist through some universities.
Also, how old of a book are you hunting? I know things get dicey when hunting pre-1920 and certainly any pre-Civil War publications.
No and no. University main libraries aren't nearly as concerned with weeding their collection so it was better when I lived in a university town. Currently I'm not hunting any old books. When I was it was usually something in this century, but some were pre-1920.
Quote from: Shasarak;1120909The only real difference between reading from a book and reading from an ereader that I have noticed is the ereader is usually lighter to carry and you dont need to bookmark your page.
I use my Kindle a lot, but I can't as easily flip between pages in different portions of the book and maps and illustrations don't display as well as they do in a dead tree version.
I think, just READING a game rather than playing it is weird.
Like, "I'll buy that for a dollar" but it never gets run.
You usually need to approach a game tablewise.
What is the game? How does it work?
Hasn't the "e readers are going to kill off physical books" thing kind of faded away? I heard about it constantly during the late 00s and early teens, but not so much during the last 7 years or so.
Regarding classic fantasy, I can't believe that I never got to read Howard's original Conan stories before Del Rey published their trade paperback collections. All I'd seen was the L. Sprague de Camp and Lin Carter stuff. I was amazed at how Howard's stories move. You start reading one and it's incident on action on set piece until all of a sudden you've reached the end.
Quote from: jhkim;1121021That's just you shoving words into my mouth, and stupid ones at that. I claim that fantasy fiction of the 200s has no more or no less of a line back to the poetic and the mythic as fantasy fiction of the 1970s. Modern fantasy novels like American Gods or Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell might not be to your tastes -- but they draw on the poetic and the mythic in the same way that 1970s writers did -- by life experiences and by reading older works and synthesizing new ideas from them.
If you don't like Gaiman or Clarke, fine -- I'm not saying that you have to like it, but characterizing all modern fiction as 50 Shades of Grey is traditionalist bullshit.
Then we're talking past each other, and you're putting words in MY mouth. I never said "all modern fiction [is] 50 Shades of Grey".
What I did say was in response to someone pointing out that the classic fantasy authors are not often read. To which I replied:
Quote from: Brendan;1120515Generally true but unfortunate as they're missing out. Most modern fantasy is schlock.
And MOST of it is. Most of the work produced in the past was crap too, but this is the advantages of time. It allows you to weed out more of the crap. There will always be exceptions, but generally speaking if a long dead fantasy author is still regarded as worth reading, there's a reason for it. Of COURSE Neil fucking Gaiman is worth reading, and he WILL be remembered.
Someone then pointed out that most people don't even read fantasy today, but get their "fantasy kick" from anime and video games to which I responded...
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.
But you then said, replying to me directly:
Quote from: jhkim;1120526Every 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.
And it is with this statement that I took exception. First, these works are not "copies", although I'm willing to let that particular term slide. Your claim that "no one" reads Eddison is well... wrong. I've read Eddison and Cabill and Dunsany and Homer. I'm sure well read people (like fantasy authors) in the 70s were reading them too. They show up in Appendix N for a reason. I've also read George RR Martin and Gaiman and plenty of other modern authors. One only has so much time on this earth. I don't see the problem with telling people to pass on the next "Young Adult" fantasy "secret chosen one must save the multi-verse with the magic mcGuffin while learning to love" crapfest and read THIS instead:
"And little he knew of the things that ink may do, how it can mark a dead man's thought for the wonder of later years, and tell of happenings that are gone clean away, and be a voice for us out of the dark of time, and save many a fragile thing from the pounding of heavy ages; or carry to us, over the rolling centuries, even a song from lips long dead on forgotten hills."
Lord Dunsany, The King of Elfland's Daughter
Lord Dunsany is really fun to read. Highly recommended to anyone who enjoys fantasy.
Most of his stuff is free online too.
Quote from: jhkimThat's just you shoving words into my mouth, and stupid ones at that. I claim that fantasy fiction of the 200s has no more or no less of a line back to the poetic and the mythic as fantasy fiction of the 1970s. Modern fantasy novels like American Gods or Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell might not be to your tastes -- but they draw on the poetic and the mythic in the same way that 1970s writers did -- by life experiences and by reading older works and synthesizing new ideas from them.
If you don't like Gaiman or Clarke, fine -- I'm not saying that you have to like it, but characterizing all modern fiction as 50 Shades of Grey is traditionalist bullshit.
Quote from: Brendan;1121338Then we're talking past each other, and you're putting words in MY mouth. I never said "all modern fiction [is] 50 Shades of Grey".
What I did say was in response to someone pointing out that the classic fantasy authors are not often read.
OK, I think we are talking past each other. I don't want to put words into your mouth, and it's not even clear to me that our tastes in fiction differ very much.
Quote from: Brendan;1121338Most of the work produced in the past was crap too, but this is the advantages of time. It allows you to weed out more of the crap. There will always be exceptions, but generally speaking if a long dead fantasy author is still regarded as worth reading, there's a reason for it. Of COURSE Neil fucking Gaiman is worth reading, and he WILL be remembered.
Fair enough. There's good and bad works of every age, for sure, and I agree that time has a way of weeding out much (though not all) of the schlock.
I don't feel that modern writers and readers are any better or any worse overall than in the 1970s. The worrisome problem is that on average, people are reading *less*. I feel like that's the major issue to confront.
90% of novels written after the '40s are probably garbage. And I mean the 1740s.
Quote from: jhkim;1121377OK, I think we are talking past each other. I don't want to put words into your mouth, and it's not even clear to me that our tastes in fiction differ very much.
Fair enough. There's good and bad works of every age, for sure, and I agree that time has a way of weeding out much (though not all) of the schlock.
I don't feel that modern writers and readers are any better or any worse overall than in the 1970s. The worrisome problem is that on average, people are reading *less*. I feel like that's the major issue to confront.
I wasn't attempting to mis-cast your position either. If I did so, I apologize. I think you're right that we're in fundamental agreement and were just talking past each other.