Opinion New Books Aren’t Worth Reading

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Link/Archive
1768395940512.png

It’s a symptom of our growing illiteracy that the act of reading is considered an intellectual exercise. “It doesn’t matter what you read, just that you read it.” This sentiment would be familiar to an Englishman in the 1300s (in fact, 14th century English criminals convicted of manslaughter could avoid hanging by reading a single verse of the Bible). The same sentiment could get you 1M likes on TikTok today. But your great grandfather was reading Cicero in Latin.

So why do you even read books? Have you ever thought about it? Forget technical manuals for a second; if you’re reading Excel for Dummies or Advanced Quantum Mechanics, you probably have a concrete practical purpose in mind. Good for you, I am proud, you are still allowed to read those. Instead let’s focus on the soft stuff. Literature, history, philosophy. What’s the point?

Entertainment Vs. Information

There are two sides to this debate: entertainment or information. Unfortunately, reading books for entertainment is ridiculous. You do not live in a log cabin on the prairie. You have Netflix, you have video games, you have TikTok, you have Twitter (you really spend too much time on Twitter anon). No one reads books for entertainment anymore, because paper is an inferior entertainment platform. The only people who still read books for entertainment are women who prefer their porn to have DIY visuals. The stats back me up on this. If you’re tempted to disagree, go walk the aisles of Barnes & Noble.

So we’re left with one answer: information. But what kind of information are you trying to learn from a fiction book? The book is literally labelled FALSE on the cover. I can hear the outraged answer from the literati already. It will be something like “I read to understand the human condition by engaging deeply with a wide breadth of human experience and perspectives.” Good. I agree. And since this is the same basic answer as to why you should read history, philosophy, etc as well (books that are deceptively labelled NOT FALSE on the cover), I think it’s fair to lump all these subjects together.

But if this answer is correct, it leads us to a troubling conclusion: New books are not worth reading. Why? Because everyone alive today has the same perspective, and none of us have experienced a wide breadth of anything. Especially not those of us who are likely to get platformed by a major publisher.

1768396067680.png

Take history books. The average ancient historian led troops, tutored a prince, governed a province, advised a king, made a fortune, fell from favor, was exiled, and buried 7 of their 10 children. The average modern historian passed a few tests then wrote a book on their laptop next to their cat. And worse, they all passed the same tests at the same institutions. And they all wrote the same statements on their applications to get into those institutions. And while attending those institutions, they all adopted the same opinions. Anyone who did otherwise was filtered out before they could become a professor with a publishing deal. Everything is like this now.

Meanwhile Xenophon was an Athenian student of Socrates who joined a Greek mercenary group that marched 1000 miles into Persia to overthrow the King of Kings on behalf of the King’s brother. When the King’s brother died and the group’s commanders were all killed by Persian treachery, he led the troops 1000 miles home himself while being constantly harried by hostile armies. He then tried to establish a colony on the Black Sea, survived a mutiny, raided the Thracians, fought for the Spartans, was exiled by Athens, and settled down to manage an estate and write it all up.

1768396122504.png

How To Find Perspective​

Contrast Xenophon with Mary Beard, who studied at Cambridge and now teaches at Cambridge. She holds the same opinions as everyone else at Cambridge. She’s remarked before that, “I actually can’t understand what it would be to be a woman without being a feminist.” This seems like a peculiar failing for an ancient historian. After 9/11, she wrote an article saying that many people thought “the United States had it coming,” and that “world bullies, even if their heart is in the right place, will in the end pay the price.” That caused some controversy on the world stage, but earned her a promotion at Cambridge. I don’t know if she’s ever talked publicly about religion or democracy or climate change or immigration, but I could tell you exactly what she thinks about these things anyway. So why would you bother reading what she thinks about Rome? The answers are just as predictable.

Thankfully it’s still possible to find people with unique experiences and perspectives. But you can’t find them by traveling around the world. The world is too hyperconnected now, and everyone is converging to the same opinions. You have to find them by traveling back in time. There are hundreds of people with just as much experience of the human condition as Xenophon who have written great books throughout the millennia: Polybius was a Greek politician taken hostage by the Romans, who befriended Scipio Aemilianus and stood beside him as Carthage was burned to the ground. Bernal Díaz del Castillo was a conquistador who wrote about conquering the Aztec Empire. William Wells Brown escaped slavery in America at the age of 19 before writing biographies of Black Americans. Konstanty Michaowicz was a Christian Serb who wrote about being captured by the Ottoman Turks and being trained as a Janissary before escaping. Talk about the breadth of human experience! Have you read all of these? If not, why would you even consider picking up another book written by another Cambridge professor?

1768396188567.png

I haven’t even bothered to trot out the usual argument in favor of reading old books, which is survivorship bias: Any book written hundreds of years ago that people are still talking about is likely to be very good. This is true but uncontroversial, so what’s the fun in discussing it? I state it here only so that you know that I know it.

In conclusion I leave you with a rule of thumb for actually understanding the human condition by engaging deeply with a wide breadth of human experience and perspectives: Half the books you read must’ve been written before WW2, half of those must’ve been written before the American Revolution, and half of those must’ve been written before the fall of Rome.
 
Sounds like the author has taken the superposition of being a pretentious asshole who's too lazy to actually read any pretentious shit.

Anyway, every year's crop of new books is pretty grim (even among prestige releases), but there are still good books being published, and, regardless, we collectively have access to centuries of books. Absolutely no one has run out of worthwhile books to read.

Lastly, fiction can teach us about the human condition, and, as such, good fiction is at least as worthwhile as non-fiction.
 
There's probably authors writing fanfiction right now that are better writers than people who actually get published in 2026.
 
So why do you even read books? Have you ever thought about it?
Because books open up new worlds and perspectives on those worlds. They invite me into someone else's life, even if it's only temporary. I read for the same reason people vegitate in front of the television.
 
This is one of the stupidest articles I've ever read on the Farms, which is saying a lot. I'd say it's second, to that article about how we need to kill all life on earth because at some point everyone suffers.
There are two sides to this debate: entertainment or information
This is just stolen from Aristotle's Poetics, which he'd know if he'd read it. There is "utility" and "sweetness." Yeah, so art is supposed to both teach us something and also be entertaining. And it's not either/or moron. It's supposed to be both unless you're an autist and can't deal with the fact that not everything fits into its own box.
Unfortunately, reading books for entertainment is ridiculous. You do not live in a log cabin on the prairie. You have Netflix, you have video games, you have TikTok, you have Twitter (you really spend too much time on Twitter anon). No one reads books for entertainment anymore, because paper is an inferior entertainment platform. The only people who still read books for entertainment are women who prefer their porn to have DIY visuals.

I guess we know how porn-addicted this guy is. Lots of us love to read beautiful language. And we love to read books because we're not brain-dead screen addicts.

Take history books. The average ancient historian led troops, tutored a prince, governed a province, advised a king, made a fortune, fell from favor, was exiled, and buried 7 of their 10 children. The average modern historian passed a few tests then wrote a book on their laptop next to their cat.
This is as stupid as everything else he writes. I just finished reading Stephen Ambrose's book on D-Day, and last year I read a bunch of John Keegan. And this guy never heard of some dude called Winston Churchill? And frankly we don't even _know_ who a lot of ancient historians were, who were writing about battles that happened three hundred years before they were written down. Nothing against ancient histories, which are fine too.

God, this guy is stupid.
 
This fucker really said, "Why read when you have Netflix, video games, and Tiktok?" and then went, "New books are not worth reading because everyone alive today has the same perspective, and none of us have experienced much of anything." My brother in Christ, don't you think that's the problem here? Do you really think reading historical books instead of having experiences or reflecting on them broadens, deepens your perspective? Reading books like that helps, but not as much the very things those books are based on. It looks like everyone has the same perspective for two reasons: the pool is getting increasingly shallow and narrow (not just publishers but other industries and algorithms show a narrower and narrower scope of the world for reasons beyond this topic), feeding people fewer perspectives, and people are increasingly discouraged from building or refining their own perspectives at all, by factors within and without, so they either can't or won't do such things.

Everything is about chasing some vague ideal of hustling or productivity or mindfulness or awareness or something else next week. Learning to code or taking pictures for social media. "Lying flat" or traveling to cities that got rendered into any other city on the planet. People powerlevel on Tiktok of all places and broadcast their issues while calling it mental health awareness. But none of this encourages asking, "Why?" because "Why?" is too slow. Why doesn't go viral. Why doesn't earn praise or make money. So people keep doing what they're doing, and the cycle continues.

People talk about reading giving you other people's perspectives. But writing helps you reflect on yours. Writing fiction allows you to make connections and look at things from angles you'd never think to use otherwise. It forces you go backwards into someone's life to see what made him him, into him to see what makes him tick, and forward to see his trajectory- if you let it. If you treat writing like a therapist chair, a porno stage, or a doll house, then sure, it'd be as useless to you as an Amish electrician. But that doesn't mean reading or writing new material is worthless. It means that there are new challenges historical writers didn't have, one of which being filtering, extracting, and refining material so what you're saying actually means something.
 
Last edited:
I have a less extreme rule where I generally don’t consider new books until 3-5 years after they were released to see if people are still talking about them. It weeds out the ‘hype’ books.

And I have the opposite opinion about classical works. A lot of them weren’t originally written in my native language so at what point am I experiencing the writing as it was meant to be versus just getting the information. There’s still value in reading them, but books that compile all the history and analysis of the work are more interesting most of the time, at least for non-fiction.
 
Couldn't make it past this paragraph. How much of a low IQ gorilla nigger do you have to be in order to believe that books can't provide a person with sufficient entertainment - let alone be so smug about how [current year]'s peak slop hubs are somehow superior in that regard? Is this guy one of those retards who can't see pictures in his head? He has to be. I want to see him try to get through Charlie and the Chocolate Factory without stroking out.
This.

Can't remember a time when I wasn't reading, and I'm 70. I read for pleasure, I read for information. Read a lot, at least two books a week. More of a non-fiction type but have read novels, read poetry.

READ! READ! READ! Read fiction, read non-fiction, read poetry, read short stories, read magazines, read newspapers, read ebooks.

The more you read, the more you know. The more you read, the better the speller you are. The more you read, the better you retain what you read.

Those who cannot read well, cannot write well, cannot get a good education. Those who cannot read well, cannot write well, who don't get a good education, will ALWAYS be at the mercy at those who have good educations, who can read and write well. This is from personal experience, growing up as a kid. Kept me highly motivated to read all I could, get that education.

Got news for ya....look at all those in elected office who fuck us over. Look at all those in business who fuck us over. Look at all the grifters who fuck us over. They aren't idiots. They are counting on making those bucks on the backs of those who don't have the education, who aren't smart enough to recognize the ripoffs/grifts. Read. Learn. Use your brain. Make things tough for those counting on your stupidity.
 
And finally nothing is interesting to read today because publishers have a bias against white men and want novels to fulfill a diversity quota
That's why I don't read books from the last 20 yrs unless they were written by white men. A book by them that makes it through the modern woke publisher gauntlet is probably pretty damn good.

It's not that there aren't great female or non-white writers. Look at Shirley Jackson. But diversity writers are often total shit that got published because muh black female SciFi.

Women writers in the 2000s are also way too likely to write characters that are perma-victims in their own stories. "Waaah poor me" isn't a compelling character. And girl bossing is frankly insulting to me as a woman for a number of reasons.
 
Sounds like the author has taken the superposition of being a pretentious asshole who's too lazy to actually read any pretentious shit.

Anyway, every year's crop of new books is pretty grim (even among prestige releases), but there are still good books being published, and, regardless, we collectively have access to centuries of books. Absolutely no one has run out of worthwhile books to read.

Lastly, fiction can teach us about the human condition, and, as such, good fiction is at least as worthwhile as non-fiction.
As a teenager, I used to go to the library and just grab science fiction books at random and I can say with some certainty that the publishing world has always been filled with vast amounts of coal interspersed with the occasional gem. It's just that nobody bothers remembering the shitty books that have been out of print for decades. I really don't think the ratio of bad vs good books has changed all that much since literacy became common in the 19th century.
 
Books are the best entertainment, but they demand quiet space and precious solitude which is not easy to get today.

I read new books occasionally. I mean when I find something in the NEW section of my library. Some of them are duds, but some are interesting.

As an example: The real Persuasion : portrait of a real-life Jane Austen heroine by Peter James Bowman was published in 2024, and provided well-researched historical information about the lives of people in Austen's era.

From 2025, an interesting book I read was: The technological republic : hard power, soft belief, and the future of the West by Alexander C Karp, although this one did not really had any literary value, but could serve as a sort of an insight into a mind of an influential person. Sort of like Julius Ceasar's commentarii.

But yes, old books are much better, not because everyone has the same perspective, and not because of women, but because people in the past had higher work ethic and even if they had vices they were still able to sit down and write a good book. (see Fyodor D.)
 
AI is moving us toward a post-literate society. Where people just think in talking points and summaries. Combined with compressed attention spans, it means the number of people who are actual consumers of good books is remarkably small and getting ever smaller.

The "Good" history today is almost all self-published or done outside of the mainstream. Academic historians produce close to nothing whatsoever of value anymore other than noise. Literature is also completely dead.

But his comments about experience and historians is very wrong. Because Xenophon writing first-person about something is not history but rather autobiography. The art of good history is presentation and having a "story" to tell.

Unfortunately, reading books for entertainment is ridiculous. You do not live in a log cabin on the prairie. You have Netflix, you have video games, you have TikTok, you have Twitter (you really spend too much time on Twitter anon). No one reads books for entertainment anymore, because paper is an inferior entertainment platform. The only people who still read books for entertainment are women who prefer their porn to have DIY visuals. The stats back me up on this. If you’re tempted to disagree, go walk the aisles of Barnes & Noble.

That isn't a new argument or a new situation. The same argument has been made against reading since at least the 1930s. There was only a brief period of time where books were a popular mass-market form of entertainment and it was over long before this person was born. But there are people who don't give a shit about Netflix, who are not on Twitter and don't look at Tik-Tok. That still read.

The new market for books and such isn't going to be the old one. Fuck academia and fuck the mass market. We are quickly returning to an age where books and such are the domain of the few rather than the many. The things that matter to me are the online book archives, used books, e-books, and self-published history done outside the mainstream entirely.
 
The only books you should read -

1. Good night moon.
2. Confederacy of Dunces.
3. Crime and Punishment.
4. How to cook for beginners.
5. The Wings.
6. Internet forums.
 
At three lines of vapid bluster I knew it was lifted from someone's substack. 'The average ancient historian,' the mechanical division of reading into entertainment and information, as though I were a fucking sim keeping the bars green.
This sopping twat ought never to have started typing this muck, this waste. Let him be scorned and devils tear at him. Let his bones weaken, the ligaments melt like good butter. Let sound men turn from him and to him bad men their attentions turn.
 
What do you define as contemporary? Just curious. My personal rule is to avoid reading anything written after I was born.
I would say last 10 years, I would struggle calling Harry Potter, Twilight and co still contemporary.

I will kind of give HP props though, the wizard-nazis main plot is the weakest part of the books, what I liked about is that it really spurred my imagination as a kid. What makes it valuable is how easily you can self-insert in that world and that school.
 
Back
Top Bottom