Culture Why don’t straight men read novels? - Men often read non-fiction books in the name of self-improvement – but many are reluctant to pick up works of fiction

  • 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
Dazed (Archive) - July 22, 2024
by, Georgina Elliot

1722793704020.png

Alex, 24, thinks reading for pleasure is a waste of time. Instead, he reads to learn about current affairs, maths, and Black history. Similarly, Finn*, 24, has only read one fictional book outside of his childhood. “I don’t really find the time to read, but if I do, it’s usually non-fiction,” he says.

Alex and Finn* both feel compelled to make ‘good’ use of their time – ‘good’ being a capitalist innuendo for ‘productive’. In our increasingly time-poor, grind-obsessed hellscape — 7-9 gym, 9-5 work, and 5-9 side hustle — coming up for air from being a cog and curling up with a novel just because you want to is a borderline sensual pleasure. “Our culture makes a fetish of practical outcomes, and perhaps because the outcomes of fiction-reading don’t patently lead to higher wages, it seems less worthy,” says Suzanne Keen, Professor of English at Scripps College.

Generally speaking, reading is an indulgence that women permit themselves more than men. In 2022, Deloitte predicted boys and men would continue to spend less time reading books and read them less frequently than women and girls. They were right: in 2023, women made up 80 per cent of the book-buying market in the UK, US, and Canada, and accounted for 65 per cent of all fiction purchases in the UK according to Nielson BookData. The bookish man is a rare species. Case in point: 1.2 million people follow the @hotdudesreading Instagram.

Meanwhile, masculinity continues to be in crisis. Men between the ages of 18 and 34 feel the most pressure of any generation to conform to ‘masculine’ behaviours. In the absence of a positive blueprint of how to exist in the post-MeToo world, a community of podcasting ‘manfluencers’, including ex-navy SEALs Jocko Willink and David Goggins and neuroscientist Dr Andrew Hubermann, have rushed in to promote their idea of what masculinity should look like. Self-improvement, ambition, and ‘growth mindsets’ are the banner messaging of this male-coded media world where Andrew Tate reigns supreme and the aim of the game is to optimise every waking moment to become a financially successful ‘sigma’. Doubtless many men enjoy the fact that reading non-fiction gives them an excuse to peacock their newfound knowledge and mansplain their latest read to their next Hinge date, too (bonus points if it’s Capitalist Realism).

This idea of the hyper-capitalist man with no time for something as ‘pointless’ as reading began to take root in the Victorian era. In the 19th century, reading novels developed a reputation as a frivolous and feminised activity as bourgeois women, imprisoned in the private sphere, took up reading bodice-ripping paperbacks as a pastime. Conversely, ‘serious men’ of the public sphere incubated capitalist messaging: any interest in reading had to be justified by practical utility. While for most of British history, men’s literacy rates far outstripped women’s, by 1900 literacy was actually more diffused among women. As author Leah Price put it in her book How to Do Things with Nooks in Victorian Britain: “Once a sign of economic power, reading is now the province of those whose time lacks market value.”

It is a cultural hangover that persists. A “cult of productivity is still imposed more on men than women,” says Dr Alistair Brown, Assistant Professor of Digital Humanities and Modern Literature at Durham University. “[Non-fiction] seems to have more immediate or meaningful returns on the investment of time.” Consequently, men buy more: in 2023, men accounted for 55 per cent of non-fiction book sales, Nielsen BookData tells Dazed.

Today’s problem also has its roots in the gender encampments of childhood. Boys are less likely to have male reading role models and are generally nudged by parents, teachers, and product marketers in the direction of other pastimes, particularly sports. By comparison, girls are encouraged to read and have a model of peer-to-peer engagement through their mums’ book clubs. So, naturally, girls spend more time reading and reading fiction than boys. This is, as ever, an intersectional issue: boys on free school meals read less than anyone else.

By the time their tween years swings around, a line is firmly drawn. Chris*, 21, who has recently completed his second fiction book in ten years, said he stopped reading at the age of 11 despite previously being a fan of fantasy books because he had “better things to do.” Naturally, such a stereotype cannibalises itself and ends up being reflected by the market. Young adult fiction is the near-total domain of the teenage girl — including what is made, marketed, sold, and read.

As we cut off the legs off future readers, “our culture closes off opportunities for boys and men,” says Professor Keen, who is also an expert in narrative empathy. “Consciously or not [we promote] a model of masculinity that is less introspective, less attuned to others, and less contemplative.”

1722793825897.png

Could reading stories offer an alternative route through the masculinity crisis? By creating “a safe space for allowing oneself to feel, with no strings attached,” Professor Keen suggests that reading fiction is the diametric opposite of the stale stoicism of the manosphere. It is a form of immersion therapy that demands you be present and forget yourself to a meditative end. You also become “part of a community,” which “helps you build mental companions as a bulwark against loneliness.” Accordingly, there are measurable mental health benefits such as lower stress levels, higher self-esteem, and lower rates of depression.

If men read, it helps society at large. Reading fiction opens your eyes to uncomfortable truths and unexpected perspectives that you may otherwise not have sought out. Books can surprise you by “smuggling in knowledge through the backdoor of an enjoyable and engaging story,” increasing the possibility of critical thinking when encountering the topic again, according to Dr Brown. When you read, you practice perspective-taking, adopting the inner lives of characters as your own and walking around in their shoes – something there isn’t time for with the visual immediacy of other media like film.

Reading fiction ultimately leaves you feeling full up, a stark contrast to self-improvement imperatives that demand you be more than you already are. Carving out time for such a creative pursuit “refreshes the spirit and expands our sense of possibilities,” says Professor Keen. And in case it isn’t obvious, this is a valuable use of time for men too. Men are not inert vessels for potential economic capital that needs to be squeezed out. So instead of retreating further into the hollow temple of productivity, might we suggest a prescribed course of Fourth Wing for all?

*Name has been changed
 
I read a lot of Michael Crichton back in the day. Jurassic Park was great, of course, but I also really enjoyed Sphere. He did historical fiction, too: The Great Train Robbery, Eaters of the Dead, and the posthumously published pirate book. Except for Jurassic Park, skip the movies.
Honestly Time Machine might actually be a better movie than book, but that was also during the era where he was totally phoning it in.
Eaters of the Dead is definitely my favorite.
 
Men are not inert vessels for potential economic capital that needs to be squeezed out. So instead of retreating further into the hollow temple of productivity, might we suggest a prescribed course of Fourth Wing for all?
Nobody tell this chick that the men in her life don't talk about books because her idea of a good book is yet another Harry Potter rip off.
 
It's weird that the implication here is that reading fiction is better than reading non-fiction. With non-fiction you're actually learning something, fiction is just a form of entertainment. I think the more concerning question is why women (and gay men, apparently?) are more averse to reading non-fiction?
 
I've found that any guy who makes it a point to not read novels and tells others about how much they don't read them are usually absolute dullards. They will go on for hours about how much of a waste it is to read anything that isn't non-fiction, because fiction is fake and you can't learn from it. Yes, you've read about the fall of Rome and you shoehorn a poorly-understood reference to it in every "red pilled" discussion you have on twitter or with your unresponsive coworkers, but can you understand a reference to The Illiad?
I think these anti-novel fucks are incapable of reading a narrative past the actual "this happens then this happened" plot and never get to the meaning behind the words.

Also, an article made up of zoomer opinions? Hard pass.
 
It's weird that the implication here is that reading fiction is better than reading non-fiction. With non-fiction you're actually learning something, fiction is just a form of entertainment. I think the more concerning question is why women (and gay men, apparently?) are more averse to reading non-fiction?
This is a weird thing people say, that you learn something from non fiction and fiction is just entertaining. Both of those categories do both. Spike Milligan's war memoirs are non fiction, but usually a lot more entertaining than informative, especially if you have already been obsessed with reading about world war 2. A&N's favourite novel Blindsight by Peter Watts on the other hand, I would say is more informative than entertaining. Or The three body problem is a better example, since Blindsight is still pretty entertaining. You learn about physics, nanotechnology, metaphysics and life in communist China.
 
Plus, more recent offerings clearly aren't for me, so I took a hint.
This is an important aspect they'll never admit. They told straight white males that they didn't want us around, that modern audiences have moved past us, that stories today are written for anyone but us. We simply agreed and looked elsewhere for entertainment.
 
I tried to read Dante's Divine Comedy and after 7 years, I finally gave up. I made it halfway through Purgatory.
6 years ago I started the Tale of Genji, and I am now on page 46.

Maybe I should read books that are slightly newer instead???
 
It's weird that the implication here is that reading fiction is better than reading non-fiction. With non-fiction you're actually learning something, fiction is just a form of entertainment. I think the more concerning question is why women (and gay men, apparently?) are more averse to reading non-fiction?
The Bible is fiction but it is also the most important and forever will be the most important document in history.

Kill yourself.
 
because every time i feel like reading something fictional and look up suggestions i get lists of books focused on nigger and tranny worship. always written by women. and the lists are always curated by women

only reading non-fiction guarantees i avoid those issues because reality is cancer to the type of people that write non-fiction
 
I read a lot of novels and non-fiction, poetry, essays, collected correspondence, and well, just about everything, but I'm a bookworm and that's one of my hobbies (and previously several of my professions).

I do note that the only fiction I've read in the past ten years or so is either published before 2000, usually decades or centuries older, or is science fiction, and that wasn't a conscious choice, as I've only noticed that recently.

Most modern literary and genre fiction sucks ass. That's all.
 
As someone who writes novels and short stories under a psuedonym, but doesn't really read others work, the reason is that most fiction is just fucking terrible. There's a sea of poorly written novels to wade through because theres such a low barrier to entry that even a faggot like Onision can self publish his works that aren't even proofread and have grammatical/spelling errors on every other page. American Fiction today is uninspired and lacking in a spirit of experiementation. The bestsellers on Amazon are literally just shit tier erotica novels that read more like the script of a porno than an actual narrative.

Not to toot my own horn but with my writing I actually try to write stories that flow naturally. I actively self criticize my own work and try viewing it from as a neutral of a perspective as I can during the writing process. Most "writers" today are incapable of that, and they (mostly women) want blind praise and unearned adoration despite their stories being thoughtless, vain dogshit.
 
‘good’ being a capitalist innuendo for ‘productive’.
The fact a communist is repulsed by productivity is peak irony. Does he think he's going to be the next Maduro or Mao? Why do they always think they'll be the dozen people at the top who do nothing but reap the benefits of the people's sweat?

Incidentally, a commie I met in college would read Animal Farm and proclaim that the pigs were misunderstood and that no one was looking at the bigger picture about how they being dictators was ackshually good because at least the new leaders were from the former oppressed class and thus could relate to the rest, unlike the humans, and proceeded to link that with Mao, Castro, & Chavez's "smear campaigns by the AmeriKKKan people.
 
I refuse to read the article because I’m proudly retarded. I’m assuming when they say “fiction novels” they mean faggot shit like The Notebook or Twilight? Because I’m pretty sure they’re not talking about American Psycho, Dune, or American Tabloid.

Especially not American Tabloid.
 
I still read works of fiction but I mostly listen to them in audio books. I don't think it's "men don't want to read novels" rather "men don't feel like they have time to read books so if they do read a book it's likely for an extremely specific purpose". In my case listening to audio books ended up allowing me to read novels I wouldn't have bothered to pick up otherwise.
 
Back
Top Bottom