I love the comments posted by both of the young writers. My thought is that it is less of a responsibility for a writer to reach out to young readers than an opportunity. Conversation, interestingly enough, still fascinates, and most people don't think that behind every video-expressed story is a writer or group of writers. Engaging in personal contact sparks interest which may be followed by reading the writer's works.
I don’t know what makes a younger person want to read literature, but I suspect if they read a piece of fiction, no matter how wonderfully written, and come away with a feeling of "so what?", they may not be motivated to read much after that. And those of us who write, have lost a reader.
But this may not be so. I see life from the perspective of an old person, like those old Mainers Ann Beattie read to. My belief is that good fiction is the same as good poetry; When it's good, the reader is left (like Ann’s audience) with the notion that something happened worth chatting about, something that might even change their life for the better. Also, I think the notion is made stronger by listening to the writer read.
Yeah, it is totally fifty-fifty when it comes to this issue. I think the responses were right on -- at some level there does need to be a distance within being alone with the work, and then there is the Internet. But how does one explain David Sedaris and Harry Potter? Phenomena, such as those authors' popularity, suggest that they have an intimacy and that they close the distance; they are accessible.
How to write not just for the sake of writing but with something to say and with the aim of achieving universality? How to write in such a way as to floor the reader -- the wow factor is definitely part of it. Creativity and in storytelling and presentation is a big part of it. I'm thirty one, but I have been in many audiences with older readers, and with them, too, there is a great hunger to hear things made new.
When I'm blown away by a story or book, I can't help but try to push it on others. Lorrie Moore's comments in her Book Expo speech put it perfectly: What we seek from life is distilled in books. We need air to live, but books are the oxygen within the all the other stuff in the air.
I'm 26 years old and grew up with people who loved books, yet just last year I finally decided to pick up a work of fiction and read, just for the pleasure of the act itself; and only this year I got serious about that decision.
I have to agree that one of the reasons many young people don't read is because they don't know what they're missing. There's usually some great things, but most people don't even bother to give them a look simply because their true value is not readily evident. And yes, the world truly is filled with rather more trivial distractions. Even now, I also find myself at the verge of picking up a book but think about checking my email first (or Facebook), promising it'd only take a short while, and then an hour later I'm still in front of a digital screen instead of a paperback.
Perhaps the Internet culture does need to share some of the blame, particularly with regards to what Jackie said about youths missing "quiet solitude." The rise of all these social networks is a testament to that. With the very little spare time I have to "indulge" myself with literature, I'd often decide to go out for a coffee break with a book in hand. But oftentimes, I end up spending those thirty-minutes on a few chats instead of a few pages. In fact, very few people I know would understand why sometimes I'd like to just spend time alone reading. Like it sounds like something someone would do only as a last resort. For some, it seems, even "reading" should be a group activity; as if people can't trust themselves to be alone anymore, not even with a good book.
The secret to engaging young readers is to engage readers young. While the Internet and peer driven activities may challenge a young person's involvement with stories, a person who learns to love narrative at an early age will return to it when they have the opportunity to do so. It is the responsibility of adults to make stories a part of the learning experience for all young people. We cherish good stories like family and friends. Maybe more, because they can be with us when we are alone.
Too often, reading is looked at as something with an inherent value, an activity the public ought to be engaged in, an activity the public would be engaged in if there were not so many other distractions. Stories, novels, and collections are read when they are as compelling as television, as compelling as the Internet. Is a compelling story difficult to write? Absolutely. But the fairness of competition between a story book and Facebook is irrelevant. Our distractions are not going to go away, and soon even the older readers that many writers rely on will be accustomed to the variety the Internet offers. Writers must compel readers. Literally. When a reader, no matter her age, seriously debates whether to spend her lunch hour over a meal or with a novel, then the writer has done a good job.
I think that we young people (I'm eighteen) are perfectly capable of using the Internet and its social media sites and of enjoying reading a book. The Internet has nothing to do with why we're not reading as many books as we used to. Today's authors could be blamed for why we don't read as much. Writing must be more dynamic. Writers have to become interesting characters. They have to invest us in their philosophy.
Recently someone told me that I'm the only person in this world who still reads books. I'm thirty-three and cannot part with my books; literature to me is almost a form of nourishment. I notice that my generation is more drawn to watching television, mostly because it provides instant gratification.
I love reading both classics and contemporary fiction. When I was young, reading was highly encouraged by my parents and today we recommend books to each other. I think it's important to instill reading at a young age. I love the internet and watch a little bit of television, but reading is a very pleasurable activity, and I always find time for it. I don't blame authors that we don't read as much anymore, because if a person has been reading for many years, he develops discernment about the kind of story or writing he prefers. These days, there are many authors who can satisfy our individual inclinations.
I disagree with those who compare Web sites like Facebook and reading literary fiction on equal footing, claiming it is the fiction writer's responsibility to draw the reader away from the Internet. While it is true that the writer must keep the reader interested, most Internet entertainment, or social networking for that matter, does not approach the complexity of a good novel. That complexity requires a certain amount of concentration and thought, while most of our forays onto the Internet require very little. Writers need to wield social networking as a marketing tool, it's true, but I do not believe that we should make our stories compete with Facebook. Books that do compete on this level, I believe, already fill bookstores and airports around the world (by Dan Brown, James Patterson, etc).
These days, it's not popular to suggest that young people must learn skills that are not related to Web 2.0, but I do wonder how young, urban, and suburban Americans will learn to read the stories told by nature, in the trees and rivers, how they will learn to converse with themselves in silence, how they will learn to appreciate moments away from screens and music. The answer, I imagine, is that a few will, but most won't.
I love the comments posted by both of the young writers. My thought is that it is less of a responsibility for a writer to reach out to young readers than an opportunity. Conversation, interestingly enough, still fascinates, and most people don't think that behind every video-expressed story is a writer or group of writers. Engaging in personal contact sparks interest which may be followed by reading the writer's works.
I don’t know what makes a younger person want to read literature, but I suspect if they read a piece of fiction, no matter how wonderfully written, and come away with a feeling of "so what?", they may not be motivated to read much after that. And those of us who write, have lost a reader.
But this may not be so. I see life from the perspective of an old person, like those old Mainers Ann Beattie read to. My belief is that good fiction is the same as good poetry; When it's good, the reader is left (like Ann’s audience) with the notion that something happened worth chatting about, something that might even change their life for the better. Also, I think the notion is made stronger by listening to the writer read.
That should work for readers of all ages.
Yeah, it is totally fifty-fifty when it comes to this issue. I think the responses were right on -- at some level there does need to be a distance within being alone with the work, and then there is the Internet. But how does one explain David Sedaris and Harry Potter? Phenomena, such as those authors' popularity, suggest that they have an intimacy and that they close the distance; they are accessible.
How to write not just for the sake of writing but with something to say and with the aim of achieving universality? How to write in such a way as to floor the reader -- the wow factor is definitely part of it. Creativity and in storytelling and presentation is a big part of it. I'm thirty one, but I have been in many audiences with older readers, and with them, too, there is a great hunger to hear things made new.
When I'm blown away by a story or book, I can't help but try to push it on others. Lorrie Moore's comments in her Book Expo speech put it perfectly: What we seek from life is distilled in books. We need air to live, but books are the oxygen within the all the other stuff in the air.
I'm 26 years old and grew up with people who loved books, yet just last year I finally decided to pick up a work of fiction and read, just for the pleasure of the act itself; and only this year I got serious about that decision.
I have to agree that one of the reasons many young people don't read is because they don't know what they're missing. There's usually some great things, but most people don't even bother to give them a look simply because their true value is not readily evident. And yes, the world truly is filled with rather more trivial distractions. Even now, I also find myself at the verge of picking up a book but think about checking my email first (or Facebook), promising it'd only take a short while, and then an hour later I'm still in front of a digital screen instead of a paperback.
Perhaps the Internet culture does need to share some of the blame, particularly with regards to what Jackie said about youths missing "quiet solitude." The rise of all these social networks is a testament to that. With the very little spare time I have to "indulge" myself with literature, I'd often decide to go out for a coffee break with a book in hand. But oftentimes, I end up spending those thirty-minutes on a few chats instead of a few pages. In fact, very few people I know would understand why sometimes I'd like to just spend time alone reading. Like it sounds like something someone would do only as a last resort. For some, it seems, even "reading" should be a group activity; as if people can't trust themselves to be alone anymore, not even with a good book.
The secret to engaging young readers is to engage readers young. While the Internet and peer driven activities may challenge a young person's involvement with stories, a person who learns to love narrative at an early age will return to it when they have the opportunity to do so. It is the responsibility of adults to make stories a part of the learning experience for all young people. We cherish good stories like family and friends. Maybe more, because they can be with us when we are alone.
Too often, reading is looked at as something with an inherent value, an activity the public ought to be engaged in, an activity the public would be engaged in if there were not so many other distractions. Stories, novels, and collections are read when they are as compelling as television, as compelling as the Internet. Is a compelling story difficult to write? Absolutely. But the fairness of competition between a story book and Facebook is irrelevant. Our distractions are not going to go away, and soon even the older readers that many writers rely on will be accustomed to the variety the Internet offers. Writers must compel readers. Literally. When a reader, no matter her age, seriously debates whether to spend her lunch hour over a meal or with a novel, then the writer has done a good job.
I think that we young people (I'm eighteen) are perfectly capable of using the Internet and its social media sites and of enjoying reading a book. The Internet has nothing to do with why we're not reading as many books as we used to. Today's authors could be blamed for why we don't read as much. Writing must be more dynamic. Writers have to become interesting characters. They have to invest us in their philosophy.
Recently someone told me that I'm the only person in this world who still reads books. I'm thirty-three and cannot part with my books; literature to me is almost a form of nourishment. I notice that my generation is more drawn to watching television, mostly because it provides instant gratification.
I love reading both classics and contemporary fiction. When I was young, reading was highly encouraged by my parents and today we recommend books to each other. I think it's important to instill reading at a young age. I love the internet and watch a little bit of television, but reading is a very pleasurable activity, and I always find time for it. I don't blame authors that we don't read as much anymore, because if a person has been reading for many years, he develops discernment about the kind of story or writing he prefers. These days, there are many authors who can satisfy our individual inclinations.
I disagree with those who compare Web sites like Facebook and reading literary fiction on equal footing, claiming it is the fiction writer's responsibility to draw the reader away from the Internet. While it is true that the writer must keep the reader interested, most Internet entertainment, or social networking for that matter, does not approach the complexity of a good novel. That complexity requires a certain amount of concentration and thought, while most of our forays onto the Internet require very little. Writers need to wield social networking as a marketing tool, it's true, but I do not believe that we should make our stories compete with Facebook. Books that do compete on this level, I believe, already fill bookstores and airports around the world (by Dan Brown, James Patterson, etc).
These days, it's not popular to suggest that young people must learn skills that are not related to Web 2.0, but I do wonder how young, urban, and suburban Americans will learn to read the stories told by nature, in the trees and rivers, how they will learn to converse with themselves in silence, how they will learn to appreciate moments away from screens and music. The answer, I imagine, is that a few will, but most won't.