subtlety is dangerous these days - especially for YA writers - the book is presented directly to the mob (twitter) and treated with all the nuance a mob can muster
Yes, and because the majority of their target audience is what makes up much of the mob portion of twitter/social media, they can't reliably count on the push back support that authors in other genres might get. A high fantasy author, or anyone with an audience that skews older could probably count on making sales to people who are actively trying to push against the cancel mob mentality, but YA novels probably won't benefit from that, in fact most of the people who would be against a cancel mob might bd assuming, erroneously or not, that the author would be someone in favor of cancel mobs, and get some kind of feeling of schadenfreude seeing them become victims of one.
@@Bookborn Thank you for you post. You gave me good reason to pause and think. You mention author's fear of being misinterpreted, and being thought to be conveying an unacceptable message. Could the cause for the loss of subtlety be that today there is often only one permissible message on a given subject?
I think it's worse then that. It only takes one influential presence to say something and their fans will hivemind. They don't even have to read the book. Could get paid by a rival author to say something, or have personal beef with the author, or just not like the cover art used in the book.
I've worked in education my whole life (currently in higher ed), and anecdotal evidence from instructors at various levels, as well as statistical evidence, points toward some huge struggles with critical thinking. I used to teach a course where we were analyzing complex poetic texts in a foreign language, and even the self-selected students in this AP course struggled to go beyond recounting what happened. After a lot of modeling what analytical thinking and writing looks like, I was able to get them closer, but it took a lot of scaffolding and effort. I read a book about today's generation of high schoolers and college students for work, and one of the key characteristics she associated with this generation was risk-aversion. While avoiding risk is good for things like saving money, or not getting into car-crashes, avoiding risks in critical thinking and discussion leads to recounting the same ideas constantly rather than pushing to think further or find a new take on something. I don't think this is the only part of the puzzle, but I do think the perfectionism that has been drilled into so many students today makes it hard for them to volunteer something even if they only think they might be wrong, rather than trying to engage to the fullest.
Man, I just LOVE it when educators come into my comment section with such great insight. Particularly what you said in your last paragraph really resonates: "perfectionism has been drilled into so many students today makes it hard for them to volunteer something they think might be wrong and engage to the fullest". Those words are reminding me that I should make an effort to make our home a safe place for that kind of "wrong answers" to flourish so that it shows it's ok to think and be wrong and give ideas.
@@Bookborn You are spot on about what you are saying in the video about the comprehension and the textual understanding. I'm teaching 16-18 year olds English as a Second language and using literature. So much scaffolding and trying to activate critical thinking. I recommend looking up articles about inference instruction and the effects of inference instructions on reading comprehension and language skills. Students today struggle with what is called Higher-Level Process of reading and the students are stuck at the lower-level of processing language. I see a lot of difference between students who read/game and watch video game streamers and students who are mostly interested in short form media. They seem to have a hard time keeping a track of the overall story and lack the ability to understand longer narratives.
Isn't this a US only thing though ? I know that the education system in my country put an emphasis on critical thinking in High School teaching. We even study philosophy
1) I emphatically agree with the OP on several of their points. (I'm also an educator.) 2) @HRH, it is not a skill-issue. Imo your take on it as a skill-issue is an oversimplification and a logical fallacy in that it assumes no agency on the part of youth (if nothing else). @Ellyra - No, it's not only a "US-thing". Please don't be reductive.
@@quinn0517 I wasn't being reductive, I was broadening the topic by asking if the issue was wide spread or had an US biased to it. Most of conversation in the internet tends to be seen through an US centered perspective. That is why you generally need the opinion of people living in different countries to get a more accurate view.
The comprehension and critical thinking points are super-pertinent. I've encountered so many reviews that take a villain or otherwise unlikeable character being racist, sexist, etc., as the author endorsing racism, sexism, etc. It's no wonder some authors see that and think "let me be SUPER CLEAR AND OBVIOUS."
i hate that so much!! i remember back in the day saying i thought Negan was a good character from a fictional standpoint and got jumped online with comments like "you think Negan is good!! you endorse what he does!!" like no!! i think he's a well written character and was good from a narrative standpoint not necessarily a moral standpoint but they can't tell the difference
This is like removing the elements of sexism from the Netflix Airbender adaptation. The inclusion of it in the beginning was a commentary AGAINST it, and ironically removing it will make the show more ambivalent about it. They are going so socially conscious that they came out the other side, and somehow became less so.
I read Doris Lessing's The Golden Notebook a year ago. At one point the main character has a gay boarder. She is disgusted by his effeminate behavior, not sympathetic at all. I have no idea what Lessing really thought herself and don't care. But there is no way that book would be published "as is" or critically praised today. It's a shame that everyone is walking on eggshells. It tends to make trite, unrealistic characters.
I've summed this up in recent years as "Scott Pilgrim is the protagonist, not the hero". Sub in Walter White or other villain focus characters as needed.
@@donjindraThat IS a case where it's probably problematic, though, at least from this short description. If you have a main character who is meant to be sympathetic be racist, homophobic, etc., and you don’t comment on it in any way or have them grow/change, then you will rightfully be interpreted as racist/homophobic. And it doesn’t sound like the homophobia was integral to the story, so would the book really be worse if it wasn’t there?
I agree with the article you linked to when it says "subtlety" is being confused with "nuance". Which is to say, I think what you're referring to is not actually "subtlety", but the fact that books today feel a need to drive home the philosophical, political, aesthetic (etc.) point they're trying to make without giving the topic at hand any nuance, and thereby simply declaring "this is the point, it is the right point, and there is no other point that could be right, and I will make sure there is no nuance to what I'm saying so as to not give you any wrong ideas". And yes, this is why some people read "Kindred" and feel it "excuses" slave owners. Because Butler, being the genius she is, knows nuance. And yes, as you say, I think this is why authors now write without nuance -- because they're VERY connected to their readership today and are, plainly speaking, afraid of being canceled by readers who mistake nuance for apologism. I don't even think this is a problem of a decline in reading comprehension (people have had bad reading comprehension forever). It's a change in how readerships have come to understand what "judging a book" means. To most people who review YA or fantasy on goodreads/twitter/booktok, "judging a book" means "pointing out everything in a book you agree or disagree with morally and tallying them up", which they consider to be exactly synonymous with "making a judgement on the book's quality".
Funny some peoples reaction to the slave owners in Kindred, because I actually thought the humanization of Rufus and his parents makes them more terrifying characters. These are actual living people and people like that existed. They were not monsters, they were actual human beings. Rufus I found was most interesting cause he does start out as a child, but due to the environment he grew up in, he ends up becoming just as bad as his father. These nuanced depictions leave much more impression than the straight forward and safe approach of “good vs evil” I imagine (given the whole social media platforms) this book would be blacklisted or deemed “controversial” and ripped apart by twitter if it was published today.
This reminds me of conversations I see about the rise of purity culture in fandom. I wonder if creators' (possible) fear of being misinterpreted comes from seeing how strict and vitriolic fans can be about enforcing moral purity in fiction.
What happened to the creators of Coffin of Andy and Leyley is a travesty. People are seeking to tear down art that intends on pushing their buttons rather than considering how and why it makes them feel that way. I am fearful on the behalf of amateur artists and writers who don't have the financial security to explore morally ambiguous territory anymore.
for trad published authors i also wonder how much the editorial team at the publishing house encourage them to make the books less subtle. perhaps the publishers are scared to have books on challenging subjects not spell things out because they don't want any negative press affecting their other authors.
I've seen a couple people bring this up and I think it's super compelling. I often talk about the author, but in trad pub, it's the publishers who are making the decisions on who they pick up and why. I wonder if press/purchasing power is having a large influence on this too.
This was my thought as well. I imagine the industry naturally selects for what they deem most marketable, whether or not they're correct about consumer demand. It seems to me that most, if not all, media industries including film, television, games, and literature tend to (intentionally) underestimate the critical thinking skill of their audience at every opportunity. Perhaps because abstract narratives are more difficult to convert into other forms of media, like books becoming movie franchises. I don't have any hard evidence for this but my feeling is that artists or authors in any medium generally dislike 'simplifying' their work unless they're somehow incentivized or coerced into doing so as in a publisher requesting/demanding changes, or if they have a particular motive for doing so. If anything I've observed the opposite tendency in creative works: creators relish presenting challenges to their intended audience. But again, no real evidence, just a general impression.
Can confirm that most editors encourage writers to be more "comprehensible", some writers even tend to overcompensate or just fix everything flagged just to get over with it quickly.
Considering I've seen people say that Punk Music shouldn't be making political statements and that they long for when it wasn't, the comprehension of media has changed a lot, or at least we have more of a platform for fools to be heard. I also recently heard someone claim The Expanse is the greatest scifi because it's not political, Star Trek isn't political. A lot of people who don't understand what they're consuming are being very vocal.
Guess it depends on how they view politics. Is it a struggle for power where there can be only one winner or right mode of thinking at a time? Or is it a process of dissemination and reasoned response, where multiple interpretations are valid, even if not all are of equal value wrt social norms, and the journey is the point, not the result? I struggle with those “well, this has always been political” conversations too, because there is a valid debate between the show vs tell forms of political subtext. I theorize a lot of people prefer to be asked to think than be told what to.
I'm pretty sure 90% of people who say they miss when X wasn't political can't tell the difference between apolitical and politics that reinforce the status quo
@@jimjimson6208Yeah 100% this. There is no such thing as being apolitical. Media which aggressively shows the status quo as normal or desirable as just as political as ones which aggressively deviate from the norm.
I think your comment defines the lack of subtlety that the creator is pointing out. I really lament the fact that when people say thing 'X' was/is not 'political', disingenuous critics (ironically in the context of subtlety discussion) pretend to not understand what people are actually saying or what the complaints are.
Good point about authors being scared of being misinterpretted. So many reviewers confuse *character* views and *author* views. If a character behaves badly, it must be very clearly condemned in the text, and the "bad" character must be punished. Very Hayes Code. I heard an educational radio programme recently that had a problem with "An Inspector Calls". Why? Because one character was guilty of s*x*l assault, and yet was also one of the few characters to accept responsibility for their actions. So, is he a "bad" or a "good" person? He did a Bad, so he must be Bad. But he took responsibility and showed genuine remorse, which is Good. But he did a Bad! Are we supposed to love him or hate him? So confusing! The presenters had to give a big shrug and dismiss the author as the product of his time; someone who probably didn't think that assault was a big deal. Which is complete garbage, as revealed by the rest of the play. The idea that the author was creating "more of a discussion starter than an answer" seemed completely beyond their comprehension. And these were educators! /headdesk /facepalm
It's a bit of a YA-ization of SFF. Not that YA books are dumb, but they have mass appeal, so overexplaining and handholding are requirements for authors not to lose the mainstream audiences. Adult SFF is seeking to be more and more like YA in that sense, it feels like.
The mass appeal factor is really interesting. I wonder if we can measure that in any way or figure out reasoning: is it because book reading is becoming more popular within a certain age range? Is it because of social media platforms and what performs best there? I wonder why YA is growing so much as a genre when it was defined so recently.
I agree with the mass appeal factor. But I also think the reason for this simplification to appeal to masses is that as whole, the average reading skills of people are going in the wrong direction. YA age group is not young enough to have any issues comprehending a semi-complicated text. But the way YA is written does not require advanced reading skills. I wonder which one came first and which lead to the other. The lack of reading comprehension or the simplification of YA texts.
I think it's a combination of a few things, but this may be a lengthy, round-about way for me to get to my answer. First, when I was the age of the current target audience for YA SFF books, there was Eragon and not a whole lot else. I essentially jumped from Eragon to Lord of the Rings because I was interested in the content of the stories. Reading books like The Name of the Wind and Lord of the Rings forced me to be a better reader than most of my peers at the time because I needed the comprehension and vocabulary skills to understand what I was reading. This leads me to my second point... I think YA books started as a way to bridge the gap that I was missing, and in order to do that, there needed to be some form of mass appeal for the books that filled that void. Not everyone in that age group has the same reading skills/comprehension as their peers, which necessitates a certain amount of more obvious storytelling and theme exploration to allow for more kids in the YA age group access to stories that interest them. I would argue the simplification of YA stories came first simply to fill the void, and with the mass appeal came more readers reading stories that didn't challenge them. In turn, reading skills diminished as the popularity of YA content increased. Now we are seeing a situation where reading seems to be increasing in popularity due to social media, which is brining more and more people with different reading skills into the fold. Some of them haven't read a book for fun since middle school, which may explain some of the explosion in YA. But it also means that anyone trying to branch out into SFF will gravitate to the more obvious storytelling because that's what they know. Sorry for the lengthy response. As I was typing I just kept thinking of things to add. 🤣
All that conversation is very interesting, but I have to point 2 things. First, I'm kinda tired of YA being referred to as a genre; it is a (I don't know how to say it) marketing strategy, not a genre. Second, several of you point to a decline in the reading skills of people, but I'm not sure that there really is one. It's very common throughout history that one generation thinks that the ones that come after are always dumber. It's almost as common as a generation thinking that the ones that came before were dumber :). Or to put it simply, we have a tendency to think that our generation is always the smartest one, no doubt. But, I have yet to see a study that actually concludes that "reading skills diminished" (maybe it's just because I haven't looked into it, and such studies do exist).
@@tithannisk7470I don’t necessarily think it’s the reading skills of the generation after me, I just think there are a lot of things that contribute to an overall decline in reading comprehension/skills across all generations. These might include: Ready access to all information on the internet, giving people the option of finding a detailed synopsis, limiting the need to comprehend everything while reading. More books published for a wider audience with simpler themes to understand to maximize sales. Texting and instant messaging reducing the need to read and write full thoughts/paragraphs/etc., unlike a full-blown letter. I don’t know…it’s an interesting conversation for sure. I don’t really think people are dumber now, just that reading skills are diminishing because they aren’t needed as much in our day to day lives. We have apps that read to us, whether that be books, the emails that are sent to us, or an article on the web. Our attention spans are dropping because of how instant everything is these days. In all honesty, another reason the reading skills could be diminishing on the whole are because we just don’t need the skills to survive anymore and evolution is catching on. EDIT to add that I agree YA isn’t a genre and I’m sorry if my comment came off that way. It’s a generalized pool of content like “Adult” books that encompasses SFF, Romance, Biography, etc.
Finallly, someone said it!! I'm sick of reading books that feel more like a tumblr post than a story. I also hate this false dichotomy between 'reading for fun' and 'challenging reading'. They're not mutually exclusive. I only read books for fun - and I find nuance and complex themes enjoyable to read! Being hit over the head with the author's point, even if I agree with it, isn't fun! It robs stories of their authenticity when every character speaks like a twitter thread on 'why racism is bad' etc. It also leads to a lot of flat characters because god forbid a gay/poc/neurodivergent/etc character have flaws like a real person
One of the many reasons I don't read my reviews is something you touched on - when a reader doesn't get what the book is actually about. They read the story, but they don't or can't tell the difference between the story and what a book is about. They're not looking, or are skim reading, or just don't care, and so they don't fully see the book. This is not something I can control and it is enormously frustrating, obviously, so I don't go looking as it is likely to prove upsetting. The equivalent of snail mail letters today is in person event discussion with readers, or sometimes I get emails from people asking questions, or commenting on things beneath the surface, those are the moments that are super rewarding as an author. The best SFF for me is about something more than what is presented on the surface. Most often, these stories are talking about a facet of our world, through a lens, so it's not heavy on your reading palette, like peanut butter. The worst kind of books for me are those that are a sermon, or propaganda, or they're just telling me how I should live my life, according to their POV and even if I agree, I throw them out and stop reading. Presenting ideas is one thing, telling me how to be is something I cannot abide. As you said, not every book has to be intense. The world is bleak, and escapism and adventure stories are as valid as those that challenge your mindset, but readers should not mistake one for the other because they can’t tell the difference.
Nope. I never think about Tumblr, don't use it, and didn't know there was a mob. The first line is designed to sum up many different factors connected to heroism vs reality, while also being slightly humorous to show that everyone is human.
I've noticed a lot of modern SFF has something "shocking" or just gross in the first few pages, as if the authors are putting them there as a kind of content warning. Is that a consideration for you? Kell could have ploughing his field and erotically sniffing the dirt like Rebel Moon, instead he falls into horse turds , for example.
I think you are correct in that this is a real problem, even beyond Science Fiction and Fantasy novels. An issue with this is, when people are told what to believe rather than given something to think on... they are less likely to change their perspective. It's much more effective to get someone to reflect and consider why they believe what they believe rather than "you are wrong, this is what you should think". This is also how people often change their beliefs in therapy.
For those who think it might be a problem, I'm curious about who we're comparing today’s authors with. Do you think past decades of Hugo winners are generally less in-your-face with their themes? I wonder how much of it just boils down to us remembering the challenging reads more (or the more subtle works remaining relevant longer), even if the more accessible or explicit ones always existed as well. I generally think it’s good to have a range of styles for various reading levels and preferences.
This is a HUGE thing someone else pointed out and I wish I would've talked about it! It may be that the works that survive through generations tend to be better quality overall, and so when we compare it to *everything* that's current, we lose sight on the fact that the lesser stuff was being published and read "back then" too! I am eventually going to go back and read as many Hugo's as possible, and it'll be interesting to see if I see any differentials or if about the same ratio of great-to-mediocre will feel the same. I will say, I do think more "fun/frivolous" books got nominated for Hugos back in the day... I find it really hard pressed to think Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (or its equivalent) would win the award today.
@@Bookborn Even if you don't go as far as saying more subtle books are objectively better, I would think there's more opportunity for varying interpretations, which probably makes them better to discuss/teach and keeps them relevant longer. It's a great topic because there are so many ways to look at it.
Reading old sci-fi, there is a loooooot of in-your-face "metaphor" and "sybolism" for sure. If I had a penny for every piece of trite, half-baked "alien stand-ins for noble native americans face off against alien stand-ins for evil cowboys" allogory... (But the thing is, a good writer can write this with nuance and make it work.)
Yes, some of it was obvious with a lot of simplistic tropes mixed in. I'm in my 60s and still remember a story in a best-of multi-author collection about a local phenomenon of other sentients, including humans, voluntarily becoming infected with a parasitic organism that made them part of its ecstatic shared consciousness as it slowly consumed them. The metaphors not subtle and applicable to many things, but I often think of that story.
This is actually a good point. It could also be that something might have seemed much deeper and more subtle when to a person when they were younger, less mature, and had less developed reading skills. A lot of people might see a book they read a long time ago differently if they read it again today. I actually just had an example of this very recently happen in my own life. I just reread A Clockwork Orange, which was a book that absolutely blew me away when I first read it as a teenager. When I reread it as an adult, I still enjoyed it, but I wasn’t nearly as impressed by it as I used to be. And a big part of that was that it wasn’t nearly as subtle and open to interpretation as I remembered it being. The author stated his message directly way more than I remembered. I did read the last chapter this time and the forward by the author, and I can’t remember if I did that the first time, so that might have had some effect. But the feeling of the author blatantly making his opinion clear came well before that, within the novel itself, and I didn’t remember it being quite so obvious as a teenager. Both times, I ended up disagreeing with the author’s message in basically the same way (and the last chapter didn’t change that), so it wasn’t just a matter of a changed opinion on the topic making me like it less. It was an interesting experience.
As my mom has said for a few years now, “the pendulum is swinging back but it always goes too high”. She’s a high school teacher and has been since the 80s. She’s watched the changes and while she was happy with some at first, many have been actively harmful to education. Before teachers and admin had too much power, could hit a kid, parents believed them 100% over kids, it was a problem. There was a slight mid point when I way about 16 and now that im 28, it’s completely hit the other side. Students and parents are ganging upon teachers, admin literally hides until the last second then looks for someone to blame, and kids are getting pushed along a system whether they actually understood the material or not. So if a kid at 6 is pushed to the next grade without the ability to read their current level, they’re now behind and reading starts becoming a ‘challenge’ for lack of a better word. Even fun books offered are gonna be harder to get through. Now it’s the next year and they’re two years behind. It continues. While reading may or may not improve critical thinking, it does improve reading skills! You can’t read a big book if you’ve not read a small one, if you can’t understand common words you are gonna have a harder time jumping to larger ones (not impossible just much much harder) Sorry that was a lot! But you’re right, it’s a great jumping off video in terms of conversation 😊
I totally agree! It's all about the pendulum of backlash. Authority had too much control, and now the kids/parents have too much control. Things were super strict, and now they're unbelievably relaxed. Society had a strict code that excluded marginalized groups, and now there is an extremely weak sense of society (social norms) or a moral code that people can universally get behind aside from extremely vague concepts - because everyone has their own truth and their own sense of what's good - so any deeper discussion even amongst marginalized groups turns to infighting very quickly. There used to be very clear "coming of age" phases in most people's lives, and those are so out the window due (in large part) to wealth inequality that phases from one point in life to another are more based significantly more on your socioeconomic standing than your general age range. All of these trends are reflected in these stories - where critical thinking is going by the wayside for what's easier for the individual to consume while putting in as little effort as possible.
My sister is a teacher and has expressed SO much of this. And, I think the pandemic exasperated problems: if you had students already struggling, now they are struggling x 10 - add in to the mix teachers that are underpaid and overworked with little ability to have control over their classrooms, and you have the mess we are in.
The "critical thinking and media literacy" and "reading: the skill vs the hobby" portions of this video are so well-explained and nicely presented. I'm so glad you included what I guess some people might think of as tangents in the final video. Fascinating stuff.
OK, I'm going to go ahead and visit author intent here. I think specifically with The Calculating Stars and A Psalm for the Wild Built, what the authors are doing is presenting a issue or a set of issues that the reader may also be experiencing, and the showing them examples of characters coping with them or just presenting a case for them to empthise with-to give a sort of, "I see you, and you see me" kind of experience-which is there to create discussion between readers about those issues. In that case, being subtle, and cryptic is harmful, not helpful. To take an opposite example, I would point to Kazuo Ishiguro. So, I read Klara and the Sun, and at the end felt a bit confused as to what point he was making. So I decided t look up interviews with him talking about the book to see if I could get anything from them. Well, it turns out he is notorious for not talking about the themes in his books and absolutely leaving it to the reader to work out. I kept seeing interviews where an interviewer would mention AI, and he would say something like, "Yes, that's in the book, but that's not what it's about." Or someone would talk about gene editing, and he would say, "Yes, that's in the book, but that's not what it's about." And it was really frustrating until I saw another interview where he said almost all his books explore the same theme. Which led me to reading Never Let Me Go, and about halfway through that, I got it. So my point is, these people who were interviewing him-smart people, who you would never accuse of having poor critical thinking, or bad media literacy-did not get what the book was about. He's just maybe a little too on the cryptic side. And therefore, the conversation he is trying to have with the reader about what he perceives as a huge blind spot that people have in society is not happening. I mean, maybe I'm actually a dumb guy too, and maybe it was a random sampling of those interviewers and me that didn't get it. But, you know... 😅 Anyway, those are my two cents.
Oh wow! I hadn't considered the first part of your comment. I found A Psalm for the Wild Built frustrating because those who agree with the environmental and LGBTQIA+ points are already on board and those who don't aren't likely to be convinced through an SFF book...so those points felt like getting repeatedly hit over the head with the obvious stick...and it kept taking me out of the story. Considering it to be less of a lesson and more of an "I see you, you see me" for readers who identify with the protagonist (which I didn't until the very end) gives me a different perspective of the story's goal and makes me appreciate it more.
Have you considered that you as the reader can infuse your own meaning into the work? That's supposed to be the way it works, at least to some extent it should be possible to sort out one's "take" on a piece of literature on one's own. Or, why not just publish a pamplhlet entitled, "All You Ever Needed to Know About What This is About and More! (with Appendices)."
Regarding Ishiguro, I only discovered him about a year ago and he's quickly become one of my favorite authors, partly for the reasons you've described. His style and subtlety has been a breath of fresh air, and I would honestly hate for him to become considered "too cryptic." He requires more work from the reader than average, maybe, but The Remains of the Day is a masterpiece which, while subtle and nuanced, I did not find at all unclear.
This was so interesting. SFF isn't the main genre that I read, I mostly read literary fiction and this trend is something that is also being commented on a lot in that space. I was listening to a podcast about The Booker Prize last week and they were lamenting that lots of prize contenders lack a bit of brashness and moral complexity - they're often brilliant books, really nuanced and insightful and yet nevertheless have a really clear and specific 'comment' that they're making. I think your hunch about the internet is spot on. I think some writers can be a little scared to add moral ambiguity and complexity to a story for fear of their words being taken out of context. I've often lamented the trend online for people not distinguishing between the author and the character in their critique - a racist character doesn't mean the author is racist, a misogynistic character doesn't mean the author is a misogynist. Obviously sometimes there is a correlation, of course! Really interesting - always enjoy your essays!
This is why I read, and watch so little of the books, tv, comics, movies, etc of the last 10 years. I don't mind morality parables, even overt ones, but when it feels like everything is just rehashing the same 4-5 messages, often so overtly it affects the overall plot and makes it feel like the creator thinks I'm an idiot, I just don't want to engage. I've probably missed some good work because of that but I just don't have the patience to sift through the dross. To be fair, I don't blame the authors/creators, it's more to do with the gatekeepers (both formal and informal) such as publishers, influencers/journalists, and twitter/x activists punishing authors who don't do this and rewarding authors that do.
The topic of this video immediately made me think of RF Kuang. I’ve definitely noticed her books intentionally hit you over the head with their intended meaning, and I think worsened the work’s potential. Blood over bright haven was also remarkably unsubtle and is part of the reason I enjoyed it less than Sword of Kaigen. I know myself I don’t have the patience to reread difficult text so I tend to move on so I’m probably part of the problem too lol.
Yes! I totally agree, I came to the comment section to say that I didn't like Babel because of its constant hitting you over the head with "colonialism BAD". Yes, I know that, I can think for myself, thank you. I think the concept of the book was super interesting and fun, but it was completely ruined by the author's lack of subtlety
(It's actually why I haven't read Babel - a friend told me exactly what you said so I avoided it 🙈) Bummed to hear that about Blood over Bright Haven though...I've been so eager to read that and SoK is one of my favorite books of all time 😭
Thanks to Babel I now know that colonialism was bad. Like, really bad. Really really bad. This was so unnecessary too because that's not even a controversial topic. I have never met a person who thought that colonialism was a great thing. I stayed away from that yellow book after that because I don't want to find out how she handles topics that are a bit more controversial. Address the reader directly to make sure they get her point?
Agree. Loved BOBH because it was a thrilling , rapidly moving, rollicking ride of a novel that I finished in a day but, thinking on it after, I realised that gosh, if it had been a duology and therefore longer, there would've been space for actual, real character development and fleshing out of the world building holes (the WHY of the city builders).
@@Aigra "I stayed away from that yellow book after that because I don't want to find out how she handles topics that are a bit more controversial. Address the reader directly to make sure they get her point" She literally has a self insert character and then makes the self insert character experience various criticisms that she herself has experienced throughout her career (eg, her awful treatment of Taiwan in The Poppy War), and then dismisses all the haters as just jealous because she's too pretty, too talented, and too successful. (It's a little more complicated than this, but basically.)
Haven’t gotten to finish this yet but I’m grateful for this topic- as someone attempting to write for the first time this is something I’m struggling with balancing. I think the way we consume and discuss media is a factor, everything’s so fast paced and dopamine driven, not designed to be thought about after reading or watching anything, a great video on this is from Patrick H Willems on “Everything is Content”. We don’t even let credits roll in digital media without the next episode taking 5 seconds to start and minimizing the window. We’ve never had such quick access to quick dopamine as we do now with smart phones, TikTok, the internet to access any info at any time, etc and it’s all in how we teach it and regulate ourselves.
This is a topic I'm constantly thinking about and I'm SO curious to see how the rise of the way we use media will affect us in the coming decades. It's too soon, imo, to really understand the effects, those take generations to shake out. But I notice it a lot within myself - when I'm waiting for a video game to load, why do I have the urge to grab my phone? Why do I have the urge to be entertained whenever I'm slightly bored? It's caused me to really reflect on phone usage and try to limit it, tbh.
I've recently been trying to chill on the habit of grabbing my phone and looking for a YT video to throw on during every and any brief moment of idleness in my life. It is definitely something we as a society have trained ourselves to do, but I would wager it is 100% an effect of the internet. Not saying stop using it or watching videos, but it is helpful to try to keep mindfulness as a value, as a curbing tool.
Yes!! 100%! I definitely have noticed this recently, and my feelings about it are... Complicated. It reminds me so much of programs like "No Child Left Behind", where we begin catering to the lowest common denominator, offering them marginal increase in success at the detriment to everyone else. I think it's important to have works that deal with really difficult ideas, but if they're too digestable, then when someone adopts those ideas/opinions themselves, they may have more difficulty defending them outside their echo chambers because they arrived at those interpretations too easily and without knowing how to present them to other people critically. We definitely remember and understand things better when we "chew" on them... Probably why I love when booktubers get together to do discussion videos--we get a fuller picture of ANY work outside our own vaccuum, but especially more complex books! Also, nailed it on the head with childhood literacy. My kiddo's ability to read has allowed us to really get into the Pokemon TCG, but when his friend comes over I have to really help him because his literacy isnt as good, and it makes me appreciate the doors it has unlocked for us in SO many ways because he has those skills!
Complicated is the right word; it's like I don't need everything to be confusing and obscure but also I want to think?? lol and YES I'm so glad I'm not the only one who noticed how many doors open when your kid learns to read. I'm trying not to pressure my daughter but sometimes I'm like...can you PLEASE READ SO WE CAN DO STUFF
I think that at least part of this trend has to be rooted in the larger cultural moment we find ourselves in. We live in ideologically polarizing times and some authors feel the need to more explicitly signal their opinions so that they get labeled as the 'right' kind of person. Definitely the rise of the Internet and the democratization of opinion-sharing via social media is one of the biggest influences behind this general culture shift. Just found your channel today and spent the last hour and a half watching! Loving the content and looking forward to engaging more in the future!
We currently have an abundance of genre material and fandom around that material that makes a lot of fans practically live immersed continually in F/SF and related genre content. This is great since we enjoy that material, but it is very limiting. The more limited amount of genre content in times past meant that we, fans who grew up loving reading because of our initial love of F/SF, gradually shifted to other books because of limited content supply. That led us to wider fields of literature. And the same applied to the authors writing this content. We tend to frown upon the older authors who came from engineering and science fields and had little formal academic training in writing, but they often brought in not just a wealth of technical knowledge that enriched the works, but also a lot of practical life experience in jobs outside academia and fandom. Most current newer authors think they have greater literary skill because of the years of writing seminars and workshops, but often that just makes their outlook more recursive, more in-grown, limited and restricted to superficial forms and structures and levels of socially acceptable sub-text. And this shows in the content. F/SF tends to be very much in conversation with itself, but sometimes you need voices from outside the same rooms, to keep it from being, really, merely elevated fanfic.
Interesting take. A couple of things: modern political discourse seems to have gotten less subtle and more antagonistic, which makes me wonder if some of this (less subtlety in fiction) is a reaction to that. Also, as one gets better at seeing the allegories and themes, the less-subtle presentations start to grate more and more. I wonder if you're getting more annoyed by it just because you've become a more sophisticated reader (this definitely happened to me, and it didn't happen until my 40's, this isn't a knock against your youth).
Your second point is super interesting and one I haven't seen brought up yet; I never considered that just having continually *read more*, that things could seem less subtle because I am more practiced at it. That's giving me lots of food for thought...
The social media point is actually a really good one I think. Lots of authors can get a mob formed due to things taken out of context, or even just honest mistakes. Especially in YA. So they might want to be upfront just to reduce the odds of that happening, which is unfortunate.
Do you think it's happening more in YA than adult content, and if so, why? I'm not on twitter or really THAT online (surprisingly lol) so I'm wondering if that's a trend people are actually seeing or not - I literally have no idea. But yeah, even as a small youtuber I have experienced the stress of things being taken out of context - I can't imagine for a popular author what a bigger scale that must happen on.
@@Bookborn "Do you think it's happening more in YA than adult content, and if so, why?" Yeah, in YA spaces it's sort of "known" that YA Twitter will jump on things without context/with misleading context. I think part of it is the nature of algorithms feeding us contentious content, and another part is younger audiences being on social media more for various reasons (even as far as the simple reason as simply having more time to be on it.) It seems like the smartest thing a Fantasy author can do is replace their Twitter with one of those "I'm not really here" status updates and ONLY post promo materials.
@@Bookborn I also saw an article making the rounds on Twitter last year, I think around the end of November, that hypothesized that younger audiences have a tendency to want to purity test their media and creators as part of a by-blow of capitalism. The idea was that it's so hard to consume goods ethically under the system that people want to at least make ethical decisions in their engagement with frivolous entertainment, so they poke and prod at media's messages and creators to find out if they're "good" or "bad." I thought it was really a fascinating idea.
Ok both of these comments are extremely enlightening. This seems like a generational shift - and I wonder if it's also happening because our current "YA generation" is the first one to grow up with internet access and social media since birth. They don't remember a time where we knew less about people - now everything is potentially politicized, and like you said, a way to show ethics. @@NonAnonD
@@Bookborn I think a lot of it is that this is the first generation (from Harry Potter or so) where a living writer of books they were reading were just as much a part of the overall world as the story itself. You could find out about the authors and they became people you could follow on social media and interact with and where authors used to exist in relative obscurity, now they were able to have every word they said able to be examined and interpreted. No one can withstand that sort of scrutiny. We all say dumb things, or things that are so vague as to invite interpretation that goes wildly off the rails (also known as 'being married'). When you combine that with the clout people get for being the watchdog that caught the bad guy, people in the public eye don't stand a chance. It takes very little to create an online mob.
Great Video Bookborn! I think this goes with the rise of YA. 1) YA books are usually not controversial. They don't deal with any type of topic that would get the authors "canceled". They usually never do anything that a more grim dark author would do. They like to play it safe. 2) YA books tend to be more straight forward. They have lot more action, relationships, easier to read prose, etc. 4th wing is lot easier to read the Malazan. I feel like readers tend to pick up more books like 4th wing because its easier to read and to the point. 3) Lot of Authors are pushing towards writing for YA or having there books closer to the YA. I mean Joe Abercrombie writing YA books in the shattered sea or Brandon Sanderson Cytoverse is a perfect example. Cytoverse and Shatterd Sea are lot less subtle then First law or Stormlgiht. This is not to insult anyone who likes to read YA, but i feel like with the rise of YA had lead to books being less subtle and all of your points in your video.
It's so interesting to me that so many people have brought up the rise in YA as a possible reason, and I think you guys are *really* on to something. I talked a long time ago about how one distinguishing factor for me between YA and Adult wasn't always the age of the protagonist, but rather the content - did it require more mature knowledge, or thinking, to understand the story? And I think that's an oft-overlooked piece when discussing adult vs YA. Like we give a young teen we know a ton of books to borrow; the other day my husband asked if we should give him Sword of Kaigen. It's completely *appropriate* technically - no extreme graphic content - but we both decided that the themes of motherhood/parenthood would go over a 13 year old's head. I wonder if there is a reason to the rise of YA. Is it a certain age group that is reading/purchasing more? Is it just that those books tend to get the most attention in hollywood?
@@Bookborn it's one part of two broader trends in art and culture: 1) The drive by corporations to maximize profit more reliably, consistently, and predictably by funding art that can appeal to as broad an audience as possible, and 2) The desire on the part of (many) millennials and gen z to retreat from the complexity and unpredictability of the real world. Regarding the first point, this trend can be seen in cinema with the near total removal of depictions of sexuality, since sexuality reduces the number of demographics the film can appeal to. Online, this trend can be seen through Mark Zuckerberg's failed attempt to promote the "Metaverse" which would've essentially turned much of the internet into a corporate office. In general, the push is to make *everything* safe for advertising and to make profits more predictable. Regarding the second point, the world is becoming much more terrifying as we watch the climate catastrophe slowly spiral out of control, rising fascist movements all over the world, and the destruction of public / communal life through privatization. In the face of so much uncertainty and looming catastrophe, many people withdraw into themselves and create of cocoon of moral comfort through the consumption of safe, predictable, and simple art that morally flatters the reader. This is a source of a lot of toxic behavior (like equating depiction of evil with endorsement of evil) because these readers want to maintain that cocoon of safety and moral flattery. Corporations are more than happy to cultivate this audience and fund the art they demand.
@@Bookborn I agree its content of the book vs the age of the main characters. Though I do believe most YA does usually evolve around the protagonist being under the age of 21. However, not every book with a young protagonist is YA. I read Assassins Apprentice last year. Fitz is young in that book, but I would never consider that YA. There a lot of mature themes in that book. I think Hollywood has a lot to do with it. That and Harry Potter. I feel like Harry Potter made a whole generation of YA fans. Lot of the successful movies after harry potter have been YA. Like Hunger Games, Divergent, etc. Also YA is accessible for everyone kids and adults a like. Kind of reminds me like how Game of Thrones started the grim dark movement. There seems like there more grim dark books these days as well.
I also wonder if the "content" mentality has something to do with this. With reading challenges getting more popular, people trying to read more books each year, and the consume and move on mindset of content online is leading a lot of readers to read too quickly to engage with books. Jumping through so much so quickly might also explain the thing I see the most frequently, which is people being unable to see how something that seems illogical to us might be logical to the characters within the framework of the book. I see a lot of negative reviews were people say "well this part just didn't make any sense because...", which is usually followed by an argument about why that action wouldn't make sense within the context and circumstances we live in; but usually with a little reflection a justification can be found within the context and circumstances of the book.
First of all, I agree with you completely. Second of all, I don't think A Psalm for the Wild-Built is a good example. The entire point of that novella duology is the exploration of philosophical themes through dialogue. If it was trying to make a moral message or an argument for something I too think I would be annoyed but I think those books were not answering questions, merely asking them.
You are perfectly articulating my own thoughts, I’ve been so annoyed with all the political pandering, that I will not continue with the book because of how obvious author is. And i understand it’s not easy for them either, they have to please hordes of want to be critics online, and risk being accused of all the deadly sins plus all the new fashionable ones, but I just can’t get over how to turned off I am by all this 🤮
I feel that there's been a shift from "let's build a world like this and see how things pan out" - and where issues will naturally present themselves in some parallel way to reality - to "I want to make a statement about this issue, let's structure a story around that" which will come off as a lot less, well, subtle. I don't think there's a right or wrong there, though. Upton Sinclair certainly did the latter and succeeded wildly well.
Well said. I agree with your notion about the "death of the author." However, many readers refuse to allow the author to "die" and many authors refuse to camouflage themselves behind their works. Personally speaking, I am convinced that there are authors who want to be true to themselves AND provide absolute clarity rather than allow for open interpretations. In addition, I feel that the problem is not just that authors are broadcasting the meaning of symbolism, imagery, and the ultimate endgame of the series, etc. (in and outside of the work itself), but it's that this causes some to overuse very tired and common tropes too (for clarity). Most of these tropes are used for story (or morality) advancement -- but they are so commonly used now. I also see a problem with how literature is taught today. I've had teachers who encouraged readers to learn how to interpret books -- because they wanted to encourage literary analysis. I had a high school teacher who encouraged me to find allegory in Hemingway's THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA. While I was confident in the underlying themes within the text, I just didn't find any clear allegory in the novella. So, I made it up. I wrote an essay that essentially told the teacher what she wanted to hear (deduced from the little that I knew of her). She loved that essay! She "knew" that I was "intuitive" to the point that I could perceive the allegory that she said "no one else could see." A year later, I had a different high school teacher who explained everything in each assigned work. There was no room for developing literary analysis or interpretation. For that teacher, there was only ONE interpretation. So, he demanded adherence to the interpretation that he had concluded. In a way, I feel that many modern authors are becoming more like this teacher. Instead of feeling the liberty to freely write and leave the interpretation to the readers, they seem to no longer trust the reader's analytical skills. So, they lose subtlety and write a story using tropes that even a child could interpret correctly. This is problematic for SFF. While they will often keep gray space when it comes to characters (i.e., no one is fully good or fully evil), they don't do the same with the moral themes. Any writing professor will attest that the best villains think of themselves as the heroes. However, I would take another step and say that the best villains sometimes behave as heroes (with the opposite also being true). This is becoming a rarity in modern SFF. Think of Germany in the years leading up to World War 2. Modern narratives would paint Hitler and Co. as purely evil men. Some historical novels paint them as such. Yet, as evil as they undoubtedly were, they thought of themselves as heroes. A few historical novels will include this type of portrait. However, few authors will depict a Hitler or Goebbels who loved their country, liked dogs, cared for German children, etc. They are not portrayed as men who cared for Germany. In my opinion, the two former portrayals are inaccurate and often amount to unwitting caricatures. Obviously, Hitler, Goebbels, etc. orchestrated many terribly evil acts. They were monsters. Yet, they were not entirely unempathetic. They actually held a degree of empathy for the people, children and, yes, dogs of Germany. They saw themselves as the heroes of Germany. Yet, they were convincing enough to the people of Germany that an overwhelming majority of Germans followed Hitler. Thus, this more authentic portrayal is a much more accurate depiction of both history and the characters of these otherwise very evil men. In fact, it makes them to be more complex and, ultimately, more evil. After all, it contrasts the enormous empathy that they had for Germans or "Aryans" with the monstrous brutality that they had for others. They were men who loved German dogs more than Jewish or Romani children. This is an accurate and more troubling display of their psyches. I think that many authors fear that they will be portrayed as coming across as "sympathetic" for evil or even what is deemed to be proper morality. So, to avoid any chance of confusion, they wear their social views, politics and ideology on their sleeves so as to identify themselves. Others aren't quite so absolute yet fear the idea that anything they've written would be misinterpreted. For them, that is another form of evil and reflective of ineffective writing skills. I'd prefer to read a more realistic depiction of such matters (such as how Catherine Cookson used to write her novels) than via overused tropes or literary broadcasting.
I really liked your thoughts in this video. I think another problem with the lack of subtlety is authors feeling the need to “say something” with their text. There are significant authors in the SFF community who pretty loudly say that the purpose of their novels is to make political or cultural messages. That’s fine, they can do whatever they want, but it’s not very subtle and it’s not what truly excellent novels do. It’s the book equivalent of the “God’s not dead” movies. They’re not telling a story or presenting reality, they’re just using a story as an excuse to preach. When I look at really brilliantly subtle novels that really impact people, they don’t do so because they’re hamfisted with their messaging. A Christmas Carol isn’t impactful because Dickens preaches about the value of charity, it’s impactful because we see the poison of greed and narcissism play out in Scrooges life and then rejoice when he changes. The themes of the danger of a stiff unbending moral code in “A Game of Thrones” are memorable because we see the ideas played out, not because Martin has characters spell it out and preach to us about it. It takes more skill to write that way anyway. These “preachy” authors are trying to write essays in the bodies of novels. The purpose of a novel is for the author to tell the truth and reflect it in their book. It’s the job of a perceptive reader to see that truth rather than expecting it be spoon fed. Hopefully that makes sense. Thanks for the thoughtful videos!
I would argue Martin also has the opposite commentary in A Song of Ice and Fire (GoT). While he definitely shows the dangers of a stiff, unbending moral code (a la Ned Stark, and the High Sparrow), he also highlights just how dangerous having effectively no moral code can be (such as Cercei Lannister, and Ramsey Bolton), and how dangerous having a moral code with exceptions for convenience/pleasure can be (Rob Stark, and Jaime Lannister). The overall message there seems to be: have a moral code, but be willing to break it when it makes sense from a critically aware perspective - not just when it's convenient or enjoyable.
It's funny because the article that argued for more obvious art said that A Christmas Carol was one of the least subtle works of all time 🤣I think subtle can come in different forms. Obviously A Christmas Carol has a message, but it's packaged in an interesting way, which maybe is why it works better for some people (I mean, I love the Christmas Carol, to be clear). I should've mentioned that I feel like Pratchett does an incredible job at this too. It's not that his works don't have a message - they clearly do - he's just so smart and clever about it that it doesn't feel you're being preached at.
Thank you for this, this is spot on and a great discussion to have. This is one of the reasons I love Malazan so much. I'm given so little to work with but Erikson lets me figure it out as a reader. It's so rewarding. It's not exactly on point, but has the same idea behind it.
Subtlety is why I love Robin Hobb's books so much. She writes about gender nonconformity, homosexuality, disability, homosexuality, and prejudice (all things that modern authors seem intent on preaching about, and things which I'm not particularly fond of being preached to about, if that makes sense) but she writes about them with a subtlety that lets the humanity shine through, and I find myself in awe of her themes more as the books go on.
Yeah, it's definitely the way I prefer to read about social issues. I think of Pratchett. He isn't necessarily SUBTLE, but he is so CLEVER and just so *smart* about it.
Have you read Le Guin's "A Matter of Trust?" It deals with this topic. I personally prefer subtle works and it's a huge turn-off if I feel like the author is simplifying their message and talking down to me. I've been wondering how well a lot of these works are going to age since it seems like there's much less fruit for analysis when everything is on the nose. I know some classics are explicit in their themes, but I don't think they're inelegant in execution the way some of the more recent works are (and don't necessarily condescend to the reader). Idk lol. Great video and food for thought 😊
I believe it has to do with the current difficulty of breaking out as a new author. There are so many competing works that an author might be heavy handed with what they are saying as a way to say "hey this is what I write about and it means this, which is what separates me from other similar works". I believe this also shows in (at least in my experience) a declining amount of ambiguous endings. The author wants to make sure the reader understands their vision so the reader will keep buying their books.
I was about to reply to this with "lol, Bookborn's Sad Puppy arc has begun," but all joking aside, it got me thinking how that ties into your point about authors being too afraid to be subtle due to social media: They're afraid some yahoo in the comment section will chime in with "lol, [author]'s Sad Puppy arc has begun."
Some interesting points. I'm not especially current in my science-fiction reading, but a question of subtlety is something I'll try to keep in mind with my channel as I work through my Box of Paperback reviews. Also, as someone who teaches literature and creative writing, I understand the complaints about over analysis, but I think that's more a product of education systems rather than readership. I have to spend time teaching my students that short stories, poems, and novels are not equations or riddles to be solved. Instead, we encounter them, make discoveries, and draw conclusions and insights from how the text interacts with our own lives and other, surrounding knowledge.
@@rsr7014 Maybe. I'm sure a lot of writers in earlier decades also had concerns that were not about telling "the best story" whatever they think that might mean. I do agree, though, that there is a lot of contemporary pressure, especially through social media, that stories and authors have some sort of social or political message because that's how "seriousness" gets judged nowadays.
Excellent topic!! I think that we have become such an instant gratification society that thinking for yourself is hard. People want things to be handed to them and be "easy" to process. While there is something to having a nice easy read sometimes, the true great works make you think and push your mind to understand deeper concepts and meanings. That process leads to growth and development (which you touch on well with the literacy and comprehension topics). I remember the books that changed my life... not because they physically did anything, but because they made me THINK about things in vastly different ways. Much of our current world is down to candy novels... sweet and easy but no healthy or wellness sustenance.
You just made me think of some of the most formative books of my younger years and the majority are the ones that made me either think really hard or view something in a different way - kind of interesting to think about!
I totally agree with most of your points and I'm afraid that fantasy is also falling into this trap. I recently picked up "Foundryside". While the world-building was stellar, there were numerous instances where the action paused and the author inserted ("shoved in" would better describe the method) commentary on current social issues. Many of them were completely unrelated to the plot or to the particular scene. In many cases, the main character was literally running for her life. But the sense of urgency was less important than proving to the audience that the character has the right opinions, so I guess we should care about her? I finished it but the preaching drained me. And that's a crying shame.
I have a feeling that modern literature analysis often ends up very intent on drawing parallels between ANY literary work (and same goes for movies, shows, etc.) and some contemporary political stances, events and people - even when these things are completely irrelevant to what the actual work (in my opinion) is trying to say. So I believe when it comes to how social media is affecting how authors see their works' reception, that is something they would inevitably end up very aware of.
Great analysis! I definitely thinking there is some lack of critical thinking occurring for a variety of societal reasons. But on the flip side to what you're saying, I think a lack of critical reasoning can lead one to believe that subtlety ALWAYS trumps the obvious. I saw that in some reviews for Iron Widow by Xiran Jay Xiao, saying that the author beat the reader over the head with its theme of female rage... but like, isn't that the point? In that culture female rage has been so suppressed that women have had to be subtle to express themselves, so in this book, the main character gives into the rage and it's decidedly unsubtle. Like, it couldn't be any other way. But there was a certain snobbishness to some of the critiques of that book... which I feel misses the point
Ugh such a good point, and why this conversation is so hard. There are many famous and well beloved revenge stories, for example, that aren’t exactly subtle 🤣 or the article I mentioned talked about how Dickens was hardly subtle and he’s considered one of the greatest writers of our time.
It's dominating movies and tv now too. Preachy, on the nose politics, lack of nuance and complexity, and very one-sided politics, etc. Rings of Power, Star Trek, Star Wars, Halo, Witcher (later seasons), Dr. Who, Willow, etc. Its very sad.
Another great video. I feel like this is a growing trend not just in books but in all media. Where at one point in time a piece of media would subtly or casually have themes integrated into the overall story, now we get these overly preachy books. I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with the themes or opinions, depending on what it is, but I find that it grates on me a lot and takes a ton away from the enjoyment of the art.
When I was a child, my YA reading was Lovecraft, E.R. Burroughs, H.G. Wells, which then expanded into the SFF of the 60s & 70s. Round about 1990, I gave up on SFF; it just didn't do it for me anymore (as I would give up on Rock & Roll when grunge came out). I turned to literary works & haven't looked back. I enjoy reading a book that makes me work, that challenges me to understand what the author is trying to convey (People have asked me what I read for "fun", & my response is "THIS is what I read for fun"), that leaves my brain humming with the effort & passion that have been poured into those long, convoluted, heavily subordinated sentences. The best poems are never really about the words printed, but the author is using those words in hopes they will be the threshold which the reader must step over to even try to understand the deeper meaning. & that takes work. I have tried to question some people about the spoon-fed nature of YA books & whether that tendency will restrict or prohibit readers from taking on more challenging works. Since most of the people I have asked about this are young, they usually just get offended & resort to ad hominems. That's okay, perhaps it's because they have no other frame of reference & older folks haven't really read YA novels (I haven't; & to be honest, my brothers [older & younger] are still chugging away of the SFF). I do believe that social media is a net negative on society (watched a video yesterday about artists trying to decide which of the now dozens of sites one can reach a wider audience on--there was no consensus). There will always be those few, though, that seek more of a challenge & to them I would say READ ON! I would recommend Hermann Broch's The Death of Virgil, which is basically a 500 page prose poem, but even in translation, is so well worth the effort put into reading it.
Love this! I know this is a poorly timed comment due to recent Hugo controversy and I totally support RF Kuang in that but this was my issue with Babel 😬 I think it can be a balance though because I think some things can go too far the other way where they’re so layered in metaphor and allusion that I have no idea what point they’re trying to make
Yeah I actually heard that criticism a lot about Babel which is why I didn’t end up picking it up - although like you I still think it’s sooo crappy what happened to her 😭 it was one of the biggest books of the year she deserved her nom without tampering!
Looking at this video, just the fact that you had to re-iterate 20 times that you don't think that all reading should be heavy and deep goes to show why subtlety is being left behind. You had to clarify something that should be obvious in fear that a part of your audience would interpret your content in the most mean spirired way possiblebl 😂
Yeah I think UA-cam has def taught me I will be misinterpreted in the most ridiculous ways no matter what I say 😭 it feels sometimes that people will try to willfully misinterpret - although maybe I should just start ignoring that smaller portion 🤪
Eager to watch, but I want to say that I have noticed that some of these less subtle books are REALLY popular. So in response to the Video Title: Maybe they do think that, and maybe they're kind of right?
"So in response to the Video Title: Maybe they do think that, and maybe they're kind of right?" Mic drop? I honestly can't add anything, this is just a very good comment lol.
I watched this twice - you've presented a ton of interesting ideas. I think we're spoiled for choice these days, and that people prioritize pleasure reading over critical thinking. Speaking for myself, I mostly want a good story, but part of the reason I love SFF is that it presents a buffer to analyze and think about issues our world is currently facing. I don't think it matters *how* people are presented with the information as long as it provokes some reflection. Getting people to think at all about broader issues is a win in my book!
I think you've also hit on something important which is when a message overtakes the quality of story, that can also make it feel less subtle. I wonder if less subtle stories, but are still very very well written stories just simply plot wise, outside the message - go over better.
@@Bookborn Agreed - I've been thinking about the Barbie movie within this context. I consider myself an educated feminist - none of the themes presented in that film were a surprise or subtly presented. But it got the nation talking! Perhaps being beat over the head with themes doesn't make for a pleasant experience personally, but at times I think the cultural value outweighs personal enjoyment. I love your channel - always nuanced, well-articulated, and rewatchable - thank you!
Love this topic. Please do a follow up with all the comments and discussions!! I wonder what you all think of large language models… reading is just more and more training for your brain and the neural pathways that develop from practice and repetition and variety… I think when we read, we don’t remember every word and paragraph… somehow we condense the whole thing and remember the point without all the words. Developing the ability to not only condense information but also recall it… that just has to be really important and really advantageous throughout life when we are asked to do the same thing with different context
I agree, and this definitely extends beyond books and SFF. I strongly believe a contributing factor is the early necessity to truncate and condense interactions online, diminishing the effort for nuance and subtlety, as responses need to be direct and intent is believed to be perfectly binary, virtuous or trollish
I think this is an interesting topic. However, it is an entirely personal subject for me. I do think that sometimes books lack subtlety and try too hard to convey a message. I also feel this can and does get in the way of enjoyment. Mileage is going to vary, though. You started by showing two books that I loved. A Psalm for the Wild Built was one of my favorite books that came out that year. It seems to have not hit the same way for you. On the other hand, Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie was a rough book for me. I felt its message battered my reading enjoyment. I never read the sequels. It isn't like obvious messaging in books hasn't been around forever. Two of my childhood favorite books were Little Fuzzy by H. Beam Piper and Dune by Frank Herbert. Even as a kid the messages of those books hit me over the head like a brick. I read them again recently, and I still felt joy. I think the skill of the author really plays a huge part in the equation. Mixing in your own personal bias toward writing styles and the message itself, and you end up at the finish line of This book drove me crazy......this one did not. As far as the internet goes when it comes to influencing writers and how they write. I think it probably does have some cause and effect but how much is anyone's guess. I know it has definitely messed with me. I still think Ender's Game is frakking amazing. I light up a little inside when I think about the young me pulling that book off the shelf and then staying up all night to read it. The book has a lot of meaning in my life. I am not a fan of Orson Scott Card, the public persona, and I find it difficult to bring myself to buy and read his books now. I once read an internet exchange between Dan Simmons and a person that made me think, "Man, I wish I hadn't read that." because of what it made me feel about Dan Simmons at that moment. This is a very long post to essentially say I agree a little but how do you decide when it is too much. It will be so different for everyone. Ultimately, fans will choose with their wallets, which will directly influence what publishers publish.
So, before the end of the death of the author section- I think that this has a little bit less to do with the author not wanting to be subtle these days, so much as it is that publishers don’t want to wade in on that, or are unwilling to purchase/promote more subtle or unclear works. It’s easier to market something that is digestible.
Oh man that’s a fascinating angle that I didn’t even think about - how does the publisher influence this? And the bottom line? If those books are performing well, then maybe I’m completely wrong about it - if that’s what the audience wants, why would publishers chase something else
@Bookborn Exactly- it's frankly a difficult thing to grapple with, honestly. Writers influenced by what is being purchased, which influences what people read (and tend to like/buy). All of this influences accessibility to more complex things. This isn't a perfect comparison, but I think it's pervasive throughout a lot of culture/fiction, and not just books/novels as a medium.
I got off to a very slow start reading. I spent all of 6th grade reading - but not finishing - Journey to the Center of the Earth. Yet, beginning in the 7th grade, I became an inveterate reader, _always_ having a book with me. This continued through college and well into my professional life, sadly crashing to a halt when I was diagnosed with ME/CFS a few years ago. Though I never really grasped the technical nuances of grammar (much to the disgust of my grandmother, who taught grammar - and failed in her attempts to teach me the same), I nonetheless have a good grasp of what a well written sentence/paragraph looks like, along with a quite huge (reading) vocabulary, all through context gleaned from thousands of books (mostly scfi and fantasy, but hardly exclusively). Such a large (reading) vocabulary that I scored something like 94th percentile in the verbal portions of the GMAT (sadly, only around 56th percentile for the quantitative section, much to the chagrin of the biochemistry professor I was working for at the time). I emphasize _reading_ because I can't spell worth a damn and absolutely depend on spell (and grammar) checkers to not look like a 2 year old hammering on a keyboard. The biggest complaint my college creative writing professor had on my work was my restricted vocabulary, there not being spell checkers at the time - and I find the whole 'look it up in the dictionary' thing to be pointless if I got no idea how to spell. Indeed, I had to use Google to correct my spelling of 'inveterate,' since it's so good at guessing what I really meant to say. My point? I guess an aspect of it is addressing your self-filtering comments on reading comprehension, critical thinking skills, etc. I have lots of friends and have had even more colleagues and co-workers - who are the exact opposite of inveterate readers - and don't do so well with reading comprehension (though many do well with critical thinking). Our college-aged son really doesn't like reading, much to my chagrin (had to use Google to verify I spelt that correct ;-), and there doesn't seem to be anything I can do to help with that. On another channel a lady posted about her absolute inability to 'see' anything in her mind as she reads. I commented that when I write I'm pretty much just documenting the imagery I'm watching in my head. Maybe there's an aspect of people who lack the ability to see such and their lack of enjoyment in reading, which then has the potential to lead into lack of development in their critical thinking skills (and maybe even empathy). As for your comment about subtlety, or the lack thereof, in more modern writing, I'm not sure I can provide much insight. Before I more or less gave up reading anything more complex than a Reddit post (only a slight exaggeration), the vast bulk of my library was from last century. I agree in principle with your argument, it's certainly plausible social media can pressure writers in writing less complex prose, less subject to interpretation. But I also think there's a non-trivial element that there are simply more writers today, as the barriers to publish are essentially nonexistent (the barriers to getting _readers_, on the other hand, are substantial, and what has kept me from self publishing anything) and those that write more subtle prose may simply be drowned out. Or, it may very well be that the tiny handful of actual publishing companies left are selecting works that lack subtlety today, naturally driving writers to produce such. Or maybe there's a self-reinforcing element, where more popular modern authors were less subtle for one reason or another and the youngsters growing up reading those works thought that's how prose should be, thus started producing the same lack when they started writing. All that said, thinking back to many of my favorite novels (most well over a half century old now and with authors long dead), I'm hard pressed to think of many that were subject to a lot of wildly different interpretations. I recently watched a UA-cam vid discussing Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land and how the former has the reputation of being an ode to fascism while the latter is so liberal it might struggle to get acceptance today, yet written by the same author within a year or two of each other. I only read Stranger once, but have read Troopers many times. I never got the idea of fascism reading Troopers, and I characterize myself along the lines of a 'bleeding heart liberal' today. So maybe there's also been a generational change in looking for subtlety that may not be there. Or I'm just naive. Personally, I think once something is published, it's no longer the authors, it's now owned by the readers. And each reader is free to interpret the author's ideas however they like, even if it's diametrically opposite from other readers. Indeed, my intention in my own writing is to engender a wide variety of reactions among readers, ideally provoking thought and consideration, potentially even opening their world view somewhat. And entertain, of course.
There is also a recent trend of marketing one type of media or product to all ages. Last Christmas, some gifts popular among teenagers and preteens were articles previously marketed toward people over 35 or 40. This trend has also affected the publishing industry: books for mature readers are written in simplified language and with unsubtle messaging; they are looking for books that can be marketed to readers of all ages.
We are slammed with so much on slaught of information and to avoid falling behind (or in literay media you don't want FOMO), simple explanation/reading is easier to digest. Straight forward. When addressed with a problem, we dig online until we find a simple 5 minute explanation of how to do something because we have to finish the next problem. Your explanation on this in the death of the author was perfect. To be lead on too long, the reader gets frustrated, to be teased slightly, its perfect, but can't do this for 100s of pages. Even marketing is an example on this, authors want to condense an entire book down to simple tropes so the book is easily picked up. Readers want to know what they are getting right away because there are so many (good) options out there. Tell reader will work with them right away or not. Anne Rice did this though perfectly with Interview with a Vampire. That blurb is SHORT.
Could it also be that the access we have to each other via social media not only makes authors feel they have to be more direct, but also makes readers more hesitant to have a unique interpretation of a text? If there is one prevailing narrative, and you come out with a different one, it’s highly likely a social media storm will occur. Or at the very least a requirement to engage in substantiating conversations about it for a long time. Maybe that’s not something readers are always willing to do? If I do some self reflection, I can see that happening to me sometimes. Like I COULD send out a post with my thoughts, but then I know it’ll be hours of engagement after that I’m not prepared to dedicate my time to.
This is too real! Do I really want to deal with all the comments that'll come out of it? It's a hard balance because on the one hand, this sort of stuff rarely happens in person, which is why I love discussing books with the people around me. On the other hand...that's very limited, and I love how the internet has helped me meet new people to talk books with.
@@Bookborn Oh definitely! The broad scope of engagement is one of the best things about being a part of this community and having a platform. But spending hours arguing about minutae is a very specific type of conversation that often happens with others willing to make the most uncharitble of interpretations (specifically because of the distance the internet creates I think). So maybe it's not that most readers have the same idea about a text, we're just too tired to fight for another view 😂
I don't think that books deemed "good" by critics were ever popular. So maybe it has to do something with the internet, but a little differently. Maybe when Hugo was young and sci-fi not so popular, mostly people who were interested in the genre and willing to analyze these books voted in it. Today many authors have a huge following - and the more popular author, the bigger following. So that could reflect in awards that are ultimately decided by number of people and not literary critics (for Hugo anyone who pays a fee can nominate a book I think). And voting is easier on the internet. So although Hugo winner/nominee is the book highligted by the award, I am quite confident that subtle books exist today as well. Only they don't have a great chance to win a popularity contest. As they never did. So maybe only our perspective changed based on what we highlight, not the landscape.
I agree, SFF has become quite explicit and not as nuanced as they were before. As if old books posited "what ifs" in an inviting way, while the new stories are quite prescriptive in the idea they want to present and/or force down the authors. I loved your discussion starter idea, tbh--you are never imposing, always inviting people to get involved into the discussion and I love that. Completely agree that a reader's background can lead them to interpret the book differently--and that's where the richness of speculative fiction actually lies, right? On all the nuance each person can add which, quite often, can differ from the author's original intention. I'm quite sure that authors are concerned about being misinterpreted; the internet has no nuance and will likely lean towards a mean interpretation rather than assuming a Henlon's Razor and/or taking the time to understand the real meaning/intention or where the author's is coming from. Especially if the book is a thought experiment.
I read recently in a writing craft book (Wired for Story), that writers should be careful not to editorialize to their readers because it feels ham-fisted and off-putting and because newspapers exist for editorials / opinion pieces. This felt really timely because I realized that the "editorializing" of stories is one of things that started to sour my love of a lot of modern story-telling. For me it's most notable in comics and comic book movies, which I find almost unreadable and unwatchable these days, but there is a fair bit of it current novels as well. Which might be why I've been reading older books these days.
This isn’t limited to books. Film has gone through a similar change. Obviously it’s subjective, but in the late 2000s there were films that I enjoyed that critics thought lacked subtlety. I think ever since 2016, people have been afraid of subtly when the counter argument would inevitably be over the top. However even for me, I feel we have swung too far the other direction and there is not much interesting content for adults.
I really appreciate the types of questions that you ask and delve into on your channel - I feel like no one else in the scene is doing exactly that! Keep it up!
I love this discussion, and I feel like even though you had a lot to bring up there's so, so much further to dive in. I'm sure you had so much more to say on the subject, and I'd love to hear all of those thoughts. One of the things I love about your topics on this channel is that all of the book discussion translates almost directly to film (which is my area of expertise). And I think you're spot on - critical thinking skills are most definitely struggling (in general, in literacy, and in film), and being "preached at" is the new way that media presents itself. Back in college I studied art history a *lot* and there's a lot of parallels there too. There used to be (particularly from about 1900-2000) a division between "low art" and "high art" in traditional art media. High art (most recently modern and contemporary art) were art that included messages that were inherent in the media type. For instance the classic piece "c'est nest pas un pipe" which is a painting of a pipe with those words below it is quite literally calling out that just because a painting looks like a pipe doesn't mean that it is one - it's a commentary on representational art. And that transitioned into color field abstract painting, which is a commentary on how even things that look flat still have physical depth (no matter how flat you paint something, the painting is still as thick as a single layer of paint itself). But you had to be part of the art world to understand the commentary - and if you understood it, it was slapping you in the face. So I totally agree with your comment on how obvious a message is can be completely subjective. But "low art" was the common, kitschy, form of media. It was drawn cartoons, paintings of scenery, portraits - representational art that's "fun" for people not in the art world. These were either slapping you in the face with the message (like cartoons in the newspaper), or there was no intentional message. It was rare for a piece of art to find a happy medium where there was commentary that people who casually enjoyed paintings could appreciate, but that wasn't slapping you in the face with the message. I think this translates really well into both film and books, where you have your "super deep" conceptual films that get critical praise for taking you through a tumultuous emotional journey to finally be presented with a message that has both direct meaning and multiple layers of subtlety underneath (Parasite from 2019 was a great example of that - although I think it walked the line perfectly between high art and accessible art). Then you have your superficial films that are just for fun, where there's things to discuss about the story and possibly some intellectual discussion to be had, but it's mostly to turn your brain off and enjoy (like the Fast and the Furious movies, Godzilla, superhero films, Transformers, etc). Then there's films that walk the line between the two - which I personally think are the best - which have the visually interesting, superficial qualities but also include deeper underlying meaning that's hidden in layers (Inception, Get Out, and Everything Everywhere All at Once are three quick examples off the top of my head). But the new genre that splits all three in the worst possible ways are the "lowest common denominator" films. More often than not they're a sequel, reboot, or based on existing IP. They completely miss the point of the established story. They ruin the original characters by reworking them in a way that destroys their character development in the previous/alternate installments. They generally have weak writing that's full of plot holes, and rely heavily on the visually interesting, superficial qualities of those fun films you can turn your brain off for. But then they include *extremely* hamfisted messaging that fits trending social commentary. These messages are impossible to ignore, and plot holes are made even bigger just to ensure the message gets across. Sometimes even the finale of a season (or ending of a book/film) will be ruined because the character development, plot development, and consistency in the story is so weak that the climactic moments are so beyond unearned that they're boring. Barbie gets a special mention here, because I thought it was brilliant. It was absolutely filled with extremely hamfisted messaging, but that was kind of the point. It was absolutely a "turn your brain off and enjoy the silly story" film. AND it was absolutely a super deep film that is borderline conceptual in the layers and layers of meaning behind almost every scene. How it balanced it all, I have no idea, but it was wonderfully done. I don't think it's so much the internet that's causing this trend toward the lowest common denominator (although it is contributing for sure), but rather those with money and power that are facilitating it. The publishing companies determine which authors they give contracts to, and how many copies they'll publish. The production companies decide which writers/directors they hire. And they find those who are sending the message they want - usually with the facade of being entertainment - which is the easiest way to attempt to control social commentary. When you've seen a scene play out a certain way, you're much more likely to believe it could happen in real life (and does) - even if it makes absolutely no sense to someone with critical thinking skills. New books are going to keep getting sold (as you've called out, they're coming out in larger numbers than ever). New films are going to keep getting seen. It's only a matter of what films/books get the most marketing to reach the broadest audience. Thankfully it does seem like there's been a tipping point, because a lot of the lowest common denominator films that have come out lately haven't done nearly as well as those with more subtle messaging, or those without intentional messages. One can hope we return to books and films being pushed that are fun *and* require critical thinking skills, rather than continuing in the muck of the lowest common denominator, which serve no purpose but as an echo chamber that further fanaticizes those who have bought into whatever the message is.
A thought provoking video. Reading builds general knowledge, vocabulary etc. depending on genres chosen. Also, generally, this may not always be the author's fault for the dumbing down of subtlety, but the publishers, who care only for the dollars earned over quality. Thus a series such as Twilight, not to single out but certainly an example of a series that didn't need to be written past one book, but sales drive. One can give so many examples.
I don't read enough to have a valid opinion on if things are getting less subtle or not, but I think your point about authors maybe being concerned about their image is similar to you and every good book tuber having to always clarify their thoughts, for fear of being misunderstood! It's just necessary in our world because the internet has mean people on it. Loved your thoughts on kids... I took a poetry/short story class in college for fun, and I LOVED it. I loved searching for that hidden meaning. If things are headed away from that now, that's a little depressing. But also we have recent Piranesi! And also, I absolutely love me some fun reading😄 but my favorite books of all time all have something to say. Though now that I think about it they aren't always subtle(Yumi?).🤔 Anyway, I'm rambling, lol. I don't know how I enjoy any of this stuff with my adhd brain!🤣
Yeah that's why it's so hard to measure 😭 Also your bringing up the being misunderstood thing, I wonder if it's also an affect of just...having access to too many people lol. Like there are very few generations that have had to recon with literally being able to communicate with the ENTIRE WORLD instead of just the people in their own communities.
Thank you, your video gave me a lot to think and chew on! The topic is very interesting. The only thing I would have liked you to add were more specific examples. I'm a slower reader so the books I'm usually on are a few months to years behind latest trends. I will say that I've noticed the decline in subtlety in other media that I enjoy. And also anecdotally speaking, I find critical thinking skills to be lacking in many people out in the world
Considering the sheer volume of information we are inundated with on a daily or even hourly basis in the modern internet-connected world, it's not surprising that people would gravitate towards more easily digestible books.
I think the problem is that many people want fiction to be propaganda. They think books should express certain beliefs, values, etc. and spread them to others, enforcing ideological purity in the world. They don't want books that are subtle or encourage people to think critically about ideas. They just want others to accept their philosophy as correct. And they especially want to condemn or censor books that argue the opposite of their beliefs, present a balanced thematic argument, encourage empathy for other opinions, or offer nuance or context. This was always true in certain genres (inspirational books, especially religious books made for children). But the political division in culture today seems to have made many people more militant in wanting to stomp out contrary ideas. I don't know if it's because authors feel pressured by editors and some readers to be more propagandistic, or because many authors take courses that train them to put ideology ahead of subtlety. Maybe it's a combination of both.
Fantastic video. Was having trouble putting this feeling into words and you summed it up perfectly! I’ll also add that I have been feeling this way about many movies that have been coming out recently too.
Great video! I am not sure if I've noticed it as a general trend but I've definitely run across some recent examples were the message was too obvious. I'm thinking of NK Jemisin's The City We Became, for example, where the message was just too on the nose for me. Compare that to The Broken Earth series which is much more subtle and effective. But I also think it is a problem with the SFF genre in general when contrasted with "literary fiction". I hate elitism in literature but the SFF genre tends to simplify concepts more often than other genres in my experience. Not to say that there aren't any non SFF books that do it, there's a lot actually. But yeah, I sometimes prefer when authors are ambiguous about what they're trying to convey, and even better when they leave questions unanswered, because real life is too complex for easy answers.
Yeah, I've noticed the same thing. Even in the things promoting politics and messages and views that I strongly agree with, it's so unsubtle that it bothers me. I think your points about reading as a skill vs just decoding words is really good!
This is such a great video. I've definitely been noticing this as well, particularly in the first two books you mention by name. Star Wars novels in the Disney era tend to have this flaw also. I appreciate your comments on the reasons for this, all of which make sense. I'll just add that political/social polarization is contributing to this also. So much political and social discourse at present is focused on signposting your tribal affiliation, not on making any substantial arguments. Anybody who doesn't signpost strong enough gets pilloried as being part of the "other" tribe, whatever that may be.
Watched this twice and had great discussions with my partner! There were a few questions that kept popping up for us: In consideration of a previous video of yours where we learn the phenomenonal amount of books published, are there really (quantitatively speaking, not proportionally) less books written that are rich in subtlety? Or are we lost in the vast ocean of ‘noise’? - is this an issue that is universal to authors, or is it those with the power to mediatize, market and push forward who are giving power to ‘obviousness’? Is this due to capitalism (sell to the youth and their level of maturity) and/or is this a shift in positions where anyone can write, thus anyone can also have a job to promote books. What I mean is, if the typical human prefers comfort (easy, obvious, similar to our biases) rather than discomfort (type of exercise, pushes out of our boundaries) and the typical human can now access any type of job, then they’d promote the first? Also, it was interesting that the subject is lack of subtlety, and how we are affected by internet and the need to be obvious can stem from a protection mechanism to avoid being mislabelled and you soon after explained how you weren’t trying to push aside fun reading with this video…which was ironically stating the obvious (buuut…just in case, right?) - I felt that moment was pretty revelatory of the phenomenon discussed. Thanks for daring to tackle a complex subject! Lots of drawers were opened 😂
Thanks for the video. I've been thinking about this a lot lately as well, but more in the context of television writing. As a life-long Star Trek fan, this topic is now very clear in the writing. I've wondered, do the writers think the viewers are stupid? Or are the writers stupid? There's no more nuance or allegory, it's all spelled out for you and ham-fisted. I can't imagine modern SF TV writers tackling a script like Next Gen's "The Measure of a Man" or DS9´s "In the Pale Moonlight". But there is still some fantastic writing and show running out there - just see Ronald D Moore and Apple TV's For All Mankind! Thank you for tolerating my Star Trek mini rant. 😁
Your Reading Level comments really hit home. When I was in 6th grade, my entire class had to take a test to determine our reading level, and I scored the highest in my class and was ranked as being at a college reading level. We were then told to pick a book that was at our reading level and do a book report on it... the only book my school library had at my reading level was The Scarlet Letter. Let me tell you, as an 11yr I could NOT read that book. YES, I could decode the words; NO, I could not comprehend them.
I'm sorry but I laughed 😭 Imagining an 11 year old reading The Scarlet Letter is horrible but also sooo funny 😂 Yeah, my child is scoring really high on reading as well, but it was interesting - we tried to read Artemis Fowl together when he was really young, and even that had context he just didn't have - he didn't know what Holy Water was! I realized sometimes it's just like...you need some LIFE EXPERIENCE to understand things. It was very eye opening.
Yeah... I remember feeling like such a failure, I just didn't understand why I couldn't understand the book. Like I'm supposedly at this reading level, so why is this book so hard lol 😭 Looking back, I'm convinced that the reading level test was just very flawed - I distinctly remember not understanding the last 5 or so questions, but the test was multiple choice and I must've just guessed correctly 😅 I'm happy to see the decoupling of reading ability vs reading comprehension now. Clearly it's something my school didn't understand 😂
Becky Chambers is interesting to me. I just barely made it through a Psalm for the wild born, because I felt like it was hitting me on the head with its message. The long way to a small angry planet had basically the same message, but I LOVE that book. Lookingback, I don't think Long Way is any less subtle than Psalm, but the characters are just better and their relationships take up more space. Psalm is not the only case I can think of where the characters were sacrificed in favor of messages. To me, that's far more devastating to my reading experience than lack of subtlety
3:32 important to note that it's been basically completely abandoned in philosophy of aesthetics. Barthes was completely wrong, meaning is generally regarded to come from the intent of the author, your own influence is largely irrelevant. This isn't as prominently known as it should be, but it's true. Read Noel Carroll here, _Art Intention and Conversation._
And it's not just that it feels like we're being hit over the head with the message, but the idea is often pretty mainstream already. I just shrug and say, well yeah, of course. There's nothing transgressive about it, no bite. Which partly comes from us all being oh so sure that we're right now, and partly the author just aiming for a big audience. Now that's easy for me to say though, the white guy over here. It's not for me to decide what other people get out of a book. I do think YA spreading to solidly adult readers is shifting all kinds of norms, in terms of nuance. Death of the author is a never ending discussion 😅. My answer is, it depends! Or why not both!
I think that there is this idea that everything a writer writes is intentional. However, I don’t think that’s always the case. I believe current writers have become more intentional, but the art of writing is much less intentional. In the past, when a writer wrote fiction, they didn’t necessarily know what the point of their work would be until they read it over again, figured it out, then went back and enhanced the points they thought were important. So, there was much more subtlety. Whereas today there is more intention right from the start. Writers might be more afraid of their biases coming out in their work. To make sure it doesn’t happen as much or in a way they didn’t intend, they plan things out more and it erodes that natural subtlety. At least, this is my opinion of what is happening.
I'd agree, I have found a happy medium for death of the author. The example I use is actually the Game of Throns show. They made a show, really well btw save for one ep which was trash, but at the end of the ep they would do interviews with the makers and they would say what they ment by something. Almost every time it ended up being, exaggerated example here, them- "we wanted to show that the door was red" the audience- "but there is no door, it's a window with no glass...". For House of the Dragon it happened again and again, it blew my mind how out of touch they were with what they were making. It was almost like they saw an alternative reality.
I completely agree. I think that authors now impose their ideas and thought as true instead of being humbly and subtle presenting them, so readers can make a critical reading and enjoy that subtility that become the lyricism and literary value of the work.
I've noticed this across all platforms. I have no idea why, I have a theory, but no real evidence. My theory is that the authors that made good scifi have either died/retired/or were forced out/kept out, and the new lot live on Twitter or surround themselves with people who aren't encouraging them to become the best they can be. Because of that they never have to expand and think deeper, the surface level idea is all they ever think about, and because nothing exists before 2012 (pick a random date in the 2000 onwards) they never read or see stuff that did their idea long before and better. Atleast that's my theory from what I've observed.
Definitely enjoyed this thought provoking discussion. I agree with your theory that authors, or perhaps it is really the publishers, are afraid of public opinions.
I've definitely noticed this trend. Since so many books are published these days, you can definitely still find challenging work but I think the more popular and celebrated books tend to be simplified. I love a challenging work so I find it frustrating. Very thoughtful video, you did a great job articulating your points!
The Left Hand of Darkness was a story that opened my mind to thinking about gender in ways I never would have encountered in the rural Alaskan town I grew up in. I never would have read a screed on gender fluidity and equality, but Mrs. Le Guin's writing is so compelling that I never felt that I was being preached at. I was being told an amazing story. Menolly's struggles to become a Harper despite the prejudices against her and her apparent handicaps taught me a lot about the misogyny that women face that I never would have learned if the story tried to just sledgehammer those ideas in instead of being a good story first. It's possible that there are people out there who want to read a message with a story attached, and if there are authors out there who want to fill that niche, then more power to them. It's not my job to say what's good and bad. I feel that most people want a good story with good characters and that it takes a very talented author to deliver a novel that combines the story, the characters and the message in such a way that a person's mind can be expanded without them realizing it until the end.
blown away to click on a random video on my recommended page only for it to have one of the only accurate explanations of barthes' death of the author i've ever seen in a video!!!!! thank u so much for that!!! one thing i always point when talking about the idea people online seem to have about "declining media literacy" is the exact point you made right before about social media--before the internet, if you were a random person with a bad take, you'd keep it to yourself. nowadays, it's easy to post it somewhere, which means we're all seeing more bad takes from random people all the time, which makes it easy to say that media literacy is declining. but come on, i just don't think those same randos would be writing journal-worthy reviews if they were around 30 years ago or whatever. it's probably a good critical thinking actually, to try and discern WHY you're seeing more of something instead of just assuming it's because there's more of it on the whole than there used to be.
I really appreciate and tend to agree with your position. Critical thinking and comprehension are things that I rarely see discussed in the broader "public" discourse around literacy levels. Thank you for your well-thought-out and thought-provoking video!
I think it is somewhat that author's have to worry about reputation and optics and such due to the much faster news/media cycle turn-around or whatever. But, even more than that, I think it is in fact because so many people do actually conflate an author or creator together with their created works-and because so many feel that everyone has a moral accountability for whatever potential effects what they put out into the world might or might now have on the world around them, as much or moreso than the world around their works has a responsibility for how people are or aren't effected by the works or such that are put out into the world around them and then received or interacted-with by them in the world, rather than seeing "moral lessons" or what-such as optional and not mandatory(and then if you DO decide to have some kind of a 'moral lesson' or whatever in your works..then you are expected to make it somehow as absolutely clear and unambiguous or impossible to ever be misconstrued by anyone as possible...instead of anyone just accepting that different stories or different fictional works can each serve sometimes very very different purposes and it doesn't always need to be meant to morally educate anyone nor be personally reflective of their own individual worldviews or whatever at all). If that makes any sense?😅
You made a great point in breaking the errant conclusion that literacy only includes the ability to decode, which, thankfully, we are still able to do that. Comprehension is the true test of literacy, and I lay the blame for dropping comprehension scores on the simple fact that reading is slow. The younger generations demand immediacy and ease, in which there is no room for subtlety. Heck, I even watch youtube videos on double speed when I can.
Fantastic analysis Bookborn. I wonder how much of that comes from publisher notes to an author (trying to improve reach to new readers) and how much or a lack of personal subtlety. Regardless, it’s always nice to have your fresh opinions on a regular basis. Kudos!
One of my favorite reading lessons I gave my son was having him read Of Mice and Men so we could discuss the concept of how intention does not always control consequences. Lenny meant well but his actions had negative consequences. It was an exercise on getting my son to think about how our perception of the world is not the same as someone elses. Now I am one of those "the curtains are blue because they're blue" people but I also do recognize that there can be symbolism and lessons within a book. Either way, I agree that books seem to be too obvious with their points lately.
I think the fact books are now expected to reach the largest audience possible is a factor. Before books would be OK being more adventurous because they would target a specific audience, now there's a tendency to try and cross into other target audiences. Also, the education systems have gotten worse, from too much control of teaching, to making sure the bottom achievers feel included.
This was a great video and I agree with a lot of the stuff you said, but if I'm being honest I do get really annoyed with people constantly misinterpreting Stormlight and ASOIAF. I also feel like my enjoyment of themes in a book is less reliant on how subtle they are and more reliant of how much I think they are smart/clever/align with my own views etc. Its not that I don't enjoy subtlety. I do, and like I said I agree with a lot of what you say. The point is that its a factor in my enjoyment, but its not the main one. For example, I enjoy decoding obscure stuff in books like Piranesi or the Slow Regard of Silent Things, but I also think Yumi and the Nightmare Painter is one of the strongest books I've ever read thematically. That's not to say its totally devoid of subtlety; I think most of Brandon's books, including that one, have a mix of really obvious stuff and really obscure stuff. But for the most part its not particularly subtle compared to many other books. I also get slightly annoyed by books that are so "subtle" that I can't tell whether the author is actually being subtle or if they're just totally unaware that they're bringing up the things they're bringing up. Wheel of Time (which I have admittedly not yet finished) is the only example of this I can think of. And, that of course, doesn't mean that I don't appreciate some of the philosophy and themes in WOT. Again, I do, I just think it could be done better.
I've definitely felt this as well. There are so many books out there that tell a great story, but they feel like they have to hold your hand. I don't know if these authors aren't capable of showing instead of telling or if they just think we aren't capable of understanding context and subtlety. It honestly takes me out of it frequently and I have to set it down for a minute. Part of that might be that the interpretation of show don't tell that's most prominent is info dumps of lore, but I've never thought that. To me, it's always meant, don't tell me that your MC is a sarcastic badass with a heart of gold, show me. Take a few chapters and put them in situations that show me these things in action.
Chewing on some of the points you made - subtlety, like nuance, is a tricky 'game' to play - and perhaps one that not everyone is willing to play... because it does require a certain amount of work in both directions: from the one creating -> to allow for interpretive criticism; and the one consuming -> to piece things together? Hmm... And it is diff-i-cult to attempt to create something (or just to say something) and then throw it to the wolves. I think it keeps a lot of us from creating (or just speaking)... and then to your point, the inherent difficulty of allowing subtlety/nuance has built an environment where creators are beating the proverbial dead horse? Of your two example books, I've only read Psalm, and for me it was just cozy cute and I appreciated it for that. Overall, I enjoyed hearing your points, and I appreciate you putting this out there.
subtlety is dangerous these days - especially for YA writers - the book is presented directly to the mob (twitter) and treated with all the nuance a mob can muster
Yep, I noticed that - really feels the pile ons happen quicker than ever these days and rarely worry about sources.
Yes, and because the majority of their target audience is what makes up much of the mob portion of twitter/social media, they can't reliably count on the push back support that authors in other genres might get. A high fantasy author, or anyone with an audience that skews older could probably count on making sales to people who are actively trying to push against the cancel mob mentality, but YA novels probably won't benefit from that, in fact most of the people who would be against a cancel mob might bd assuming, erroneously or not, that the author would be someone in favor of cancel mobs, and get some kind of feeling of schadenfreude seeing them become victims of one.
@@Bookborn Thank you for you post. You gave me good reason to pause and think. You mention author's fear of being misinterpreted, and being thought to be conveying an unacceptable message. Could the cause for the loss of subtlety be that today there is often only one permissible message on a given subject?
I think it's worse then that.
It only takes one influential presence to say something and their fans will hivemind. They don't even have to read the book. Could get paid by a rival author to say something, or have personal beef with the author, or just not like the cover art used in the book.
@@BiggBoned I swear “schadenfreude” was a word I’ve been trying to remember for years, so thank you for that lol
I've worked in education my whole life (currently in higher ed), and anecdotal evidence from instructors at various levels, as well as statistical evidence, points toward some huge struggles with critical thinking. I used to teach a course where we were analyzing complex poetic texts in a foreign language, and even the self-selected students in this AP course struggled to go beyond recounting what happened. After a lot of modeling what analytical thinking and writing looks like, I was able to get them closer, but it took a lot of scaffolding and effort.
I read a book about today's generation of high schoolers and college students for work, and one of the key characteristics she associated with this generation was risk-aversion. While avoiding risk is good for things like saving money, or not getting into car-crashes, avoiding risks in critical thinking and discussion leads to recounting the same ideas constantly rather than pushing to think further or find a new take on something. I don't think this is the only part of the puzzle, but I do think the perfectionism that has been drilled into so many students today makes it hard for them to volunteer something even if they only think they might be wrong, rather than trying to engage to the fullest.
Man, I just LOVE it when educators come into my comment section with such great insight. Particularly what you said in your last paragraph really resonates: "perfectionism has been drilled into so many students today makes it hard for them to volunteer something they think might be wrong and engage to the fullest". Those words are reminding me that I should make an effort to make our home a safe place for that kind of "wrong answers" to flourish so that it shows it's ok to think and be wrong and give ideas.
@@Bookborn You are spot on about what you are saying in the video about the comprehension and the textual understanding. I'm teaching 16-18 year olds English as a Second language and using literature. So much scaffolding and trying to activate critical thinking. I recommend looking up articles about inference instruction and the effects of inference instructions on reading comprehension and language skills. Students today struggle with what is called Higher-Level Process of reading and the students are stuck at the lower-level of processing language.
I see a lot of difference between students who read/game and watch video game streamers and students who are mostly interested in short form media. They seem to have a hard time keeping a track of the overall story and lack the ability to understand longer narratives.
Isn't this a US only thing though ? I know that the education system in my country put an emphasis on critical thinking in High School teaching. We even study philosophy
1) I emphatically agree with the OP on several of their points. (I'm also an educator.)
2) @HRH, it is not a skill-issue. Imo your take on it as a skill-issue is an oversimplification and a logical fallacy in that it assumes no agency on the part of youth (if nothing else).
@Ellyra - No, it's not only a "US-thing". Please don't be reductive.
@@quinn0517 I wasn't being reductive, I was broadening the topic by asking if the issue was wide spread or had an US biased to it. Most of conversation in the internet tends to be seen through an US centered perspective. That is why you generally need the opinion of people living in different countries to get a more accurate view.
The comprehension and critical thinking points are super-pertinent. I've encountered so many reviews that take a villain or otherwise unlikeable character being racist, sexist, etc., as the author endorsing racism, sexism, etc. It's no wonder some authors see that and think "let me be SUPER CLEAR AND OBVIOUS."
i hate that so much!! i remember back in the day saying i thought Negan was a good character from a fictional standpoint and got jumped online with comments like "you think Negan is good!! you endorse what he does!!" like no!! i think he's a well written character and was good from a narrative standpoint not necessarily a moral standpoint but they can't tell the difference
This is like removing the elements of sexism from the Netflix Airbender adaptation. The inclusion of it in the beginning was a commentary AGAINST it, and ironically removing it will make the show more ambivalent about it. They are going so socially conscious that they came out the other side, and somehow became less so.
I read Doris Lessing's The Golden Notebook a year ago. At one point the main character has a gay boarder. She is disgusted by his effeminate behavior, not sympathetic at all. I have no idea what Lessing really thought herself and don't care. But there is no way that book would be published "as is" or critically praised today. It's a shame that everyone is walking on eggshells. It tends to make trite, unrealistic characters.
I've summed this up in recent years as "Scott Pilgrim is the protagonist, not the hero". Sub in Walter White or other villain focus characters as needed.
@@donjindraThat IS a case where it's probably problematic, though, at least from this short description. If you have a main character who is meant to be sympathetic be racist, homophobic, etc., and you don’t comment on it in any way or have them grow/change, then you will rightfully be interpreted as racist/homophobic. And it doesn’t sound like the homophobia was integral to the story, so would the book really be worse if it wasn’t there?
I agree with the article you linked to when it says "subtlety" is being confused with "nuance". Which is to say, I think what you're referring to is not actually "subtlety", but the fact that books today feel a need to drive home the philosophical, political, aesthetic (etc.) point they're trying to make without giving the topic at hand any nuance, and thereby simply declaring "this is the point, it is the right point, and there is no other point that could be right, and I will make sure there is no nuance to what I'm saying so as to not give you any wrong ideas".
And yes, this is why some people read "Kindred" and feel it "excuses" slave owners. Because Butler, being the genius she is, knows nuance. And yes, as you say, I think this is why authors now write without nuance -- because they're VERY connected to their readership today and are, plainly speaking, afraid of being canceled by readers who mistake nuance for apologism.
I don't even think this is a problem of a decline in reading comprehension (people have had bad reading comprehension forever). It's a change in how readerships have come to understand what "judging a book" means. To most people who review YA or fantasy on goodreads/twitter/booktok, "judging a book" means "pointing out everything in a book you agree or disagree with morally and tallying them up", which they consider to be exactly synonymous with "making a judgement on the book's quality".
Funny some peoples reaction to the slave owners in Kindred, because I actually thought the humanization of Rufus and his parents makes them more terrifying characters. These are actual living people and people like that existed. They were not monsters, they were actual human beings. Rufus I found was most interesting cause he does start out as a child, but due to the environment he grew up in, he ends up becoming just as bad as his father. These nuanced depictions leave much more impression than the straight forward and safe approach of “good vs evil” I imagine (given the whole social media platforms) this book would be blacklisted or deemed “controversial” and ripped apart by twitter if it was published today.
This reminds me of conversations I see about the rise of purity culture in fandom. I wonder if creators' (possible) fear of being misinterpreted comes from seeing how strict and vitriolic fans can be about enforcing moral purity in fiction.
That has to be a huge factor. It's a shame we've got to this point. I thought, and even believed, that reading broadens the mind!
What happened to the creators of Coffin of Andy and Leyley is a travesty.
People are seeking to tear down art that intends on pushing their buttons rather than considering how and why it makes them feel that way.
I am fearful on the behalf of amateur artists and writers who don't have the financial security to explore morally ambiguous territory anymore.
for trad published authors i also wonder how much the editorial team at the publishing house encourage them to make the books less subtle. perhaps the publishers are scared to have books on challenging subjects not spell things out because they don't want any negative press affecting their other authors.
I've seen a couple people bring this up and I think it's super compelling. I often talk about the author, but in trad pub, it's the publishers who are making the decisions on who they pick up and why. I wonder if press/purchasing power is having a large influence on this too.
This was my thought as well. I imagine the industry naturally selects for what they deem most marketable, whether or not they're correct about consumer demand. It seems to me that most, if not all, media industries including film, television, games, and literature tend to (intentionally) underestimate the critical thinking skill of their audience at every opportunity. Perhaps because abstract narratives are more difficult to convert into other forms of media, like books becoming movie franchises.
I don't have any hard evidence for this but my feeling is that artists or authors in any medium generally dislike 'simplifying' their work unless they're somehow incentivized or coerced into doing so as in a publisher requesting/demanding changes, or if they have a particular motive for doing so. If anything I've observed the opposite tendency in creative works: creators relish presenting challenges to their intended audience. But again, no real evidence, just a general impression.
I was thinking along these lines as well
Can confirm that most editors encourage writers to be more "comprehensible", some writers even tend to overcompensate or just fix everything flagged just to get over with it quickly.
Considering I've seen people say that Punk Music shouldn't be making political statements and that they long for when it wasn't, the comprehension of media has changed a lot, or at least we have more of a platform for fools to be heard. I also recently heard someone claim The Expanse is the greatest scifi because it's not political, Star Trek isn't political. A lot of people who don't understand what they're consuming are being very vocal.
Guess it depends on how they view politics. Is it a struggle for power where there can be only one winner or right mode of thinking at a time? Or is it a process of dissemination and reasoned response, where multiple interpretations are valid, even if not all are of equal value wrt social norms, and the journey is the point, not the result? I struggle with those “well, this has always been political” conversations too, because there is a valid debate between the show vs tell forms of political subtext. I theorize a lot of people prefer to be asked to think than be told what to.
@@lacolem1 Star Trek, for instance, was never subtle or shy about telling you which side of an issue is right.
I'm pretty sure 90% of people who say they miss when X wasn't political can't tell the difference between apolitical and politics that reinforce the status quo
@@jimjimson6208Yeah 100% this. There is no such thing as being apolitical. Media which aggressively shows the status quo as normal or desirable as just as political as ones which aggressively deviate from the norm.
I think your comment defines the lack of subtlety that the creator is pointing out. I really lament the fact that when people say thing 'X' was/is not 'political', disingenuous critics (ironically in the context of subtlety discussion) pretend to not understand what people are actually saying or what the complaints are.
Good point about authors being scared of being misinterpretted. So many reviewers confuse *character* views and *author* views. If a character behaves badly, it must be very clearly condemned in the text, and the "bad" character must be punished. Very Hayes Code.
I heard an educational radio programme recently that had a problem with "An Inspector Calls". Why? Because one character was guilty of s*x*l assault, and yet was also one of the few characters to accept responsibility for their actions. So, is he a "bad" or a "good" person? He did a Bad, so he must be Bad. But he took responsibility and showed genuine remorse, which is Good. But he did a Bad! Are we supposed to love him or hate him? So confusing!
The presenters had to give a big shrug and dismiss the author as the product of his time; someone who probably didn't think that assault was a big deal. Which is complete garbage, as revealed by the rest of the play.
The idea that the author was creating "more of a discussion starter than an answer" seemed completely beyond their comprehension. And these were educators! /headdesk /facepalm
It's a bit of a YA-ization of SFF. Not that YA books are dumb, but they have mass appeal, so overexplaining and handholding are requirements for authors not to lose the mainstream audiences. Adult SFF is seeking to be more and more like YA in that sense, it feels like.
The mass appeal factor is really interesting. I wonder if we can measure that in any way or figure out reasoning: is it because book reading is becoming more popular within a certain age range? Is it because of social media platforms and what performs best there? I wonder why YA is growing so much as a genre when it was defined so recently.
I agree with the mass appeal factor. But I also think the reason for this simplification to appeal to masses is that as whole, the average reading skills of people are going in the wrong direction. YA age group is not young enough to have any issues comprehending a semi-complicated text. But the way YA is written does not require advanced reading skills. I wonder which one came first and which lead to the other. The lack of reading comprehension or the simplification of YA texts.
I think it's a combination of a few things, but this may be a lengthy, round-about way for me to get to my answer.
First, when I was the age of the current target audience for YA SFF books, there was Eragon and not a whole lot else. I essentially jumped from Eragon to Lord of the Rings because I was interested in the content of the stories. Reading books like The Name of the Wind and Lord of the Rings forced me to be a better reader than most of my peers at the time because I needed the comprehension and vocabulary skills to understand what I was reading. This leads me to my second point...
I think YA books started as a way to bridge the gap that I was missing, and in order to do that, there needed to be some form of mass appeal for the books that filled that void. Not everyone in that age group has the same reading skills/comprehension as their peers, which necessitates a certain amount of more obvious storytelling and theme exploration to allow for more kids in the YA age group access to stories that interest them.
I would argue the simplification of YA stories came first simply to fill the void, and with the mass appeal came more readers reading stories that didn't challenge them. In turn, reading skills diminished as the popularity of YA content increased. Now we are seeing a situation where reading seems to be increasing in popularity due to social media, which is brining more and more people with different reading skills into the fold. Some of them haven't read a book for fun since middle school, which may explain some of the explosion in YA. But it also means that anyone trying to branch out into SFF will gravitate to the more obvious storytelling because that's what they know.
Sorry for the lengthy response. As I was typing I just kept thinking of things to add.
🤣
All that conversation is very interesting, but I have to point 2 things. First, I'm kinda tired of YA being referred to as a genre; it is a (I don't know how to say it) marketing strategy, not a genre. Second, several of you point to a decline in the reading skills of people, but I'm not sure that there really is one. It's very common throughout history that one generation thinks that the ones that come after are always dumber. It's almost as common as a generation thinking that the ones that came before were dumber :). Or to put it simply, we have a tendency to think that our generation is always the smartest one, no doubt. But, I have yet to see a study that actually concludes that "reading skills diminished" (maybe it's just because I haven't looked into it, and such studies do exist).
@@tithannisk7470I don’t necessarily think it’s the reading skills of the generation after me, I just think there are a lot of things that contribute to an overall decline in reading comprehension/skills across all generations. These might include:
Ready access to all information on the internet, giving people the option of finding a detailed synopsis, limiting the need to comprehend everything while reading.
More books published for a wider audience with simpler themes to understand to maximize sales.
Texting and instant messaging reducing the need to read and write full thoughts/paragraphs/etc., unlike a full-blown letter.
I don’t know…it’s an interesting conversation for sure. I don’t really think people are dumber now, just that reading skills are diminishing because they aren’t needed as much in our day to day lives. We have apps that read to us, whether that be books, the emails that are sent to us, or an article on the web. Our attention spans are dropping because of how instant everything is these days. In all honesty, another reason the reading skills could be diminishing on the whole are because we just don’t need the skills to survive anymore and evolution is catching on.
EDIT to add that I agree YA isn’t a genre and I’m sorry if my comment came off that way. It’s a generalized pool of content like “Adult” books that encompasses SFF, Romance, Biography, etc.
Finallly, someone said it!! I'm sick of reading books that feel more like a tumblr post than a story. I also hate this false dichotomy between 'reading for fun' and 'challenging reading'. They're not mutually exclusive. I only read books for fun - and I find nuance and complex themes enjoyable to read! Being hit over the head with the author's point, even if I agree with it, isn't fun! It robs stories of their authenticity when every character speaks like a twitter thread on 'why racism is bad' etc. It also leads to a lot of flat characters because god forbid a gay/poc/neurodivergent/etc character have flaws like a real person
One of the many reasons I don't read my reviews is something you touched on - when a reader doesn't get what the book is actually about. They read the story, but they don't or can't tell the difference between the story and what a book is about. They're not looking, or are skim reading, or just don't care, and so they don't fully see the book. This is not something I can control and it is enormously frustrating, obviously, so I don't go looking as it is likely to prove upsetting. The equivalent of snail mail letters today is in person event discussion with readers, or sometimes I get emails from people asking questions, or commenting on things beneath the surface, those are the moments that are super rewarding as an author. The best SFF for me is about something more than what is presented on the surface. Most often, these stories are talking about a facet of our world, through a lens, so it's not heavy on your reading palette, like peanut butter. The worst kind of books for me are those that are a sermon, or propaganda, or they're just telling me how I should live my life, according to their POV and even if I agree, I throw them out and stop reading. Presenting ideas is one thing, telling me how to be is something I cannot abide. As you said, not every book has to be intense. The world is bleak, and escapism and adventure stories are as valid as those that challenge your mindset, but readers should not mistake one for the other because they can’t tell the difference.
Nope. I never think about Tumblr, don't use it, and didn't know there was a mob. The first line is designed to sum up many different factors connected to heroism vs reality, while also being slightly humorous to show that everyone is human.
I've noticed a lot of modern SFF has something "shocking" or just gross in the first few pages, as if the authors are putting them there as a kind of content warning. Is that a consideration for you? Kell could have ploughing his field and erotically sniffing the dirt like Rebel Moon, instead he falls into horse turds , for example.
I think you are correct in that this is a real problem, even beyond Science Fiction and Fantasy novels. An issue with this is, when people are told what to believe rather than given something to think on... they are less likely to change their perspective. It's much more effective to get someone to reflect and consider why they believe what they believe rather than "you are wrong, this is what you should think". This is also how people often change their beliefs in therapy.
This. Illustrating what "show vs tell" actually means practically.
For those who think it might be a problem, I'm curious about who we're comparing today’s authors with. Do you think past decades of Hugo winners are generally less in-your-face with their themes? I wonder how much of it just boils down to us remembering the challenging reads more (or the more subtle works remaining relevant longer), even if the more accessible or explicit ones always existed as well. I generally think it’s good to have a range of styles for various reading levels and preferences.
This is a HUGE thing someone else pointed out and I wish I would've talked about it! It may be that the works that survive through generations tend to be better quality overall, and so when we compare it to *everything* that's current, we lose sight on the fact that the lesser stuff was being published and read "back then" too! I am eventually going to go back and read as many Hugo's as possible, and it'll be interesting to see if I see any differentials or if about the same ratio of great-to-mediocre will feel the same. I will say, I do think more "fun/frivolous" books got nominated for Hugos back in the day... I find it really hard pressed to think Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (or its equivalent) would win the award today.
@@Bookborn Even if you don't go as far as saying more subtle books are objectively better, I would think there's more opportunity for varying interpretations, which probably makes them better to discuss/teach and keeps them relevant longer. It's a great topic because there are so many ways to look at it.
Reading old sci-fi, there is a loooooot of in-your-face "metaphor" and "sybolism" for sure. If I had a penny for every piece of trite, half-baked "alien stand-ins for noble native americans face off against alien stand-ins for evil cowboys" allogory... (But the thing is, a good writer can write this with nuance and make it work.)
Yes, some of it was obvious with a lot of simplistic tropes mixed in. I'm in my 60s and still remember a story in a best-of multi-author collection about a local phenomenon of other sentients, including humans, voluntarily becoming infected with a parasitic organism that made them part of its ecstatic shared consciousness as it slowly consumed them. The metaphors not subtle and applicable to many things, but I often think of that story.
This is actually a good point. It could also be that something might have seemed much deeper and more subtle when to a person when they were younger, less mature, and had less developed reading skills. A lot of people might see a book they read a long time ago differently if they read it again today.
I actually just had an example of this very recently happen in my own life. I just reread A Clockwork Orange, which was a book that absolutely blew me away when I first read it as a teenager. When I reread it as an adult, I still enjoyed it, but I wasn’t nearly as impressed by it as I used to be. And a big part of that was that it wasn’t nearly as subtle and open to interpretation as I remembered it being. The author stated his message directly way more than I remembered. I did read the last chapter this time and the forward by the author, and I can’t remember if I did that the first time, so that might have had some effect. But the feeling of the author blatantly making his opinion clear came well before that, within the novel itself, and I didn’t remember it being quite so obvious as a teenager. Both times, I ended up disagreeing with the author’s message in basically the same way (and the last chapter didn’t change that), so it wasn’t just a matter of a changed opinion on the topic making me like it less. It was an interesting experience.
As my mom has said for a few years now, “the pendulum is swinging back but it always goes too high”. She’s a high school teacher and has been since the 80s. She’s watched the changes and while she was happy with some at first, many have been actively harmful to education. Before teachers and admin had too much power, could hit a kid, parents believed them 100% over kids, it was a problem. There was a slight mid point when I way about 16 and now that im 28, it’s completely hit the other side. Students and parents are ganging upon teachers, admin literally hides until the last second then looks for someone to blame, and kids are getting pushed along a system whether they actually understood the material or not. So if a kid at 6 is pushed to the next grade without the ability to read their current level, they’re now behind and reading starts becoming a ‘challenge’ for lack of a better word. Even fun books offered are gonna be harder to get through. Now it’s the next year and they’re two years behind. It continues. While reading may or may not improve critical thinking, it does improve reading skills! You can’t read a big book if you’ve not read a small one, if you can’t understand common words you are gonna have a harder time jumping to larger ones (not impossible just much much harder)
Sorry that was a lot! But you’re right, it’s a great jumping off video in terms of conversation 😊
I totally agree! It's all about the pendulum of backlash. Authority had too much control, and now the kids/parents have too much control. Things were super strict, and now they're unbelievably relaxed. Society had a strict code that excluded marginalized groups, and now there is an extremely weak sense of society (social norms) or a moral code that people can universally get behind aside from extremely vague concepts - because everyone has their own truth and their own sense of what's good - so any deeper discussion even amongst marginalized groups turns to infighting very quickly. There used to be very clear "coming of age" phases in most people's lives, and those are so out the window due (in large part) to wealth inequality that phases from one point in life to another are more based significantly more on your socioeconomic standing than your general age range.
All of these trends are reflected in these stories - where critical thinking is going by the wayside for what's easier for the individual to consume while putting in as little effort as possible.
My sister is a teacher and has expressed SO much of this. And, I think the pandemic exasperated problems: if you had students already struggling, now they are struggling x 10 - add in to the mix teachers that are underpaid and overworked with little ability to have control over their classrooms, and you have the mess we are in.
The "critical thinking and media literacy" and "reading: the skill vs the hobby" portions of this video are so well-explained and nicely presented. I'm so glad you included what I guess some people might think of as tangents in the final video. Fascinating stuff.
Thank you 🥰
OK, I'm going to go ahead and visit author intent here. I think specifically with The Calculating Stars and A Psalm for the Wild Built, what the authors are doing is presenting a issue or a set of issues that the reader may also be experiencing, and the showing them examples of characters coping with them or just presenting a case for them to empthise with-to give a sort of, "I see you, and you see me" kind of experience-which is there to create discussion between readers about those issues. In that case, being subtle, and cryptic is harmful, not helpful.
To take an opposite example, I would point to Kazuo Ishiguro. So, I read Klara and the Sun, and at the end felt a bit confused as to what point he was making. So I decided t look up interviews with him talking about the book to see if I could get anything from them. Well, it turns out he is notorious for not talking about the themes in his books and absolutely leaving it to the reader to work out. I kept seeing interviews where an interviewer would mention AI, and he would say something like, "Yes, that's in the book, but that's not what it's about." Or someone would talk about gene editing, and he would say, "Yes, that's in the book, but that's not what it's about." And it was really frustrating until I saw another interview where he said almost all his books explore the same theme. Which led me to reading Never Let Me Go, and about halfway through that, I got it. So my point is, these people who were interviewing him-smart people, who you would never accuse of having poor critical thinking, or bad media literacy-did not get what the book was about. He's just maybe a little too on the cryptic side. And therefore, the conversation he is trying to have with the reader about what he perceives as a huge blind spot that people have in society is not happening.
I mean, maybe I'm actually a dumb guy too, and maybe it was a random sampling of those interviewers and me that didn't get it. But, you know... 😅
Anyway, those are my two cents.
Oh wow! I hadn't considered the first part of your comment. I found A Psalm for the Wild Built frustrating because those who agree with the environmental and LGBTQIA+ points are already on board and those who don't aren't likely to be convinced through an SFF book...so those points felt like getting repeatedly hit over the head with the obvious stick...and it kept taking me out of the story. Considering it to be less of a lesson and more of an "I see you, you see me" for readers who identify with the protagonist (which I didn't until the very end) gives me a different perspective of the story's goal and makes me appreciate it more.
Have you considered that you as the reader can infuse your own meaning into the work? That's supposed to be the way it works, at least to some extent it should be possible to sort out one's "take" on a piece of literature on one's own. Or, why not just publish a pamplhlet entitled, "All You Ever Needed to Know About What This is About and More! (with Appendices)."
Regarding Ishiguro, I only discovered him about a year ago and he's quickly become one of my favorite authors, partly for the reasons you've described. His style and subtlety has been a breath of fresh air, and I would honestly hate for him to become considered "too cryptic." He requires more work from the reader than average, maybe, but The Remains of the Day is a masterpiece which, while subtle and nuanced, I did not find at all unclear.
This was so interesting. SFF isn't the main genre that I read, I mostly read literary fiction and this trend is something that is also being commented on a lot in that space. I was listening to a podcast about The Booker Prize last week and they were lamenting that lots of prize contenders lack a bit of brashness and moral complexity - they're often brilliant books, really nuanced and insightful and yet nevertheless have a really clear and specific 'comment' that they're making. I think your hunch about the internet is spot on. I think some writers can be a little scared to add moral ambiguity and complexity to a story for fear of their words being taken out of context. I've often lamented the trend online for people not distinguishing between the author and the character in their critique - a racist character doesn't mean the author is racist, a misogynistic character doesn't mean the author is a misogynist. Obviously sometimes there is a correlation, of course! Really interesting - always enjoy your essays!
This is why I read, and watch so little of the books, tv, comics, movies, etc of the last 10 years. I don't mind morality parables, even overt ones, but when it feels like everything is just rehashing the same 4-5 messages, often so overtly it affects the overall plot and makes it feel like the creator thinks I'm an idiot, I just don't want to engage. I've probably missed some good work because of that but I just don't have the patience to sift through the dross.
To be fair, I don't blame the authors/creators, it's more to do with the gatekeepers (both formal and informal) such as publishers, influencers/journalists, and twitter/x activists punishing authors who don't do this and rewarding authors that do.
The topic of this video immediately made me think of RF Kuang. I’ve definitely noticed her books intentionally hit you over the head with their intended meaning, and I think worsened the work’s potential. Blood over bright haven was also remarkably unsubtle and is part of the reason I enjoyed it less than Sword of Kaigen. I know myself I don’t have the patience to reread difficult text so I tend to move on so I’m probably part of the problem too lol.
Yes! I totally agree, I came to the comment section to say that I didn't like Babel because of its constant hitting you over the head with "colonialism BAD". Yes, I know that, I can think for myself, thank you. I think the concept of the book was super interesting and fun, but it was completely ruined by the author's lack of subtlety
(It's actually why I haven't read Babel - a friend told me exactly what you said so I avoided it 🙈) Bummed to hear that about Blood over Bright Haven though...I've been so eager to read that and SoK is one of my favorite books of all time 😭
Thanks to Babel I now know that colonialism was bad. Like, really bad. Really really bad.
This was so unnecessary too because that's not even a controversial topic. I have never met a person who thought that colonialism was a great thing. I stayed away from that yellow book after that because I don't want to find out how she handles topics that are a bit more controversial. Address the reader directly to make sure they get her point?
Agree. Loved BOBH because it was a thrilling , rapidly moving, rollicking ride of a novel that I finished in a day but, thinking on it after, I realised that gosh, if it had been a duology and therefore longer, there would've been space for actual, real character development and fleshing out of the world building holes (the WHY of the city builders).
@@Aigra "I stayed away from that yellow book after that because I don't want to find out how she handles topics that are a bit more controversial. Address the reader directly to make sure they get her point"
She literally has a self insert character and then makes the self insert character experience various criticisms that she herself has experienced throughout her career (eg, her awful treatment of Taiwan in The Poppy War), and then dismisses all the haters as just jealous because she's too pretty, too talented, and too successful. (It's a little more complicated than this, but basically.)
Haven’t gotten to finish this yet but I’m grateful for this topic- as someone attempting to write for the first time this is something I’m struggling with balancing. I think the way we consume and discuss media is a factor, everything’s so fast paced and dopamine driven, not designed to be thought about after reading or watching anything, a great video on this is from Patrick H Willems on “Everything is Content”. We don’t even let credits roll in digital media without the next episode taking 5 seconds to start and minimizing the window. We’ve never had such quick access to quick dopamine as we do now with smart phones, TikTok, the internet to access any info at any time, etc and it’s all in how we teach it and regulate ourselves.
This is a topic I'm constantly thinking about and I'm SO curious to see how the rise of the way we use media will affect us in the coming decades. It's too soon, imo, to really understand the effects, those take generations to shake out. But I notice it a lot within myself - when I'm waiting for a video game to load, why do I have the urge to grab my phone? Why do I have the urge to be entertained whenever I'm slightly bored? It's caused me to really reflect on phone usage and try to limit it, tbh.
I've recently been trying to chill on the habit of grabbing my phone and looking for a YT video to throw on during every and any brief moment of idleness in my life.
It is definitely something we as a society have trained ourselves to do, but I would wager it is 100% an effect of the internet. Not saying stop using it or watching videos, but it is helpful to try to keep mindfulness as a value, as a curbing tool.
Yes!! 100%! I definitely have noticed this recently, and my feelings about it are... Complicated. It reminds me so much of programs like "No Child Left Behind", where we begin catering to the lowest common denominator, offering them marginal increase in success at the detriment to everyone else. I think it's important to have works that deal with really difficult ideas, but if they're too digestable, then when someone adopts those ideas/opinions themselves, they may have more difficulty defending them outside their echo chambers because they arrived at those interpretations too easily and without knowing how to present them to other people critically. We definitely remember and understand things better when we "chew" on them... Probably why I love when booktubers get together to do discussion videos--we get a fuller picture of ANY work outside our own vaccuum, but especially more complex books!
Also, nailed it on the head with childhood literacy. My kiddo's ability to read has allowed us to really get into the Pokemon TCG, but when his friend comes over I have to really help him because his literacy isnt as good, and it makes me appreciate the doors it has unlocked for us in SO many ways because he has those skills!
Complicated is the right word; it's like I don't need everything to be confusing and obscure but also I want to think?? lol and YES I'm so glad I'm not the only one who noticed how many doors open when your kid learns to read. I'm trying not to pressure my daughter but sometimes I'm like...can you PLEASE READ SO WE CAN DO STUFF
I think that at least part of this trend has to be rooted in the larger cultural moment we find ourselves in. We live in ideologically polarizing times and some authors feel the need to more explicitly signal their opinions so that they get labeled as the 'right' kind of person. Definitely the rise of the Internet and the democratization of opinion-sharing via social media is one of the biggest influences behind this general culture shift.
Just found your channel today and spent the last hour and a half watching! Loving the content and looking forward to engaging more in the future!
We currently have an abundance of genre material and fandom around that material that makes a lot of fans practically live immersed continually in F/SF and related genre content. This is great since we enjoy that material, but it is very limiting. The more limited amount of genre content in times past meant that we, fans who grew up loving reading because of our initial love of F/SF, gradually shifted to other books because of limited content supply. That led us to wider fields of literature. And the same applied to the authors writing this content. We tend to frown upon the older authors who came from engineering and science fields and had little formal academic training in writing, but they often brought in not just a wealth of technical knowledge that enriched the works, but also a lot of practical life experience in jobs outside academia and fandom. Most current newer authors think they have greater literary skill because of the years of writing seminars and workshops, but often that just makes their outlook more recursive, more in-grown, limited and restricted to superficial forms and structures and levels of socially acceptable sub-text. And this shows in the content. F/SF tends to be very much in conversation with itself, but sometimes you need voices from outside the same rooms, to keep it from being, really, merely elevated fanfic.
Interesting take. A couple of things: modern political discourse seems to have gotten less subtle and more antagonistic, which makes me wonder if some of this (less subtlety in fiction) is a reaction to that. Also, as one gets better at seeing the allegories and themes, the less-subtle presentations start to grate more and more. I wonder if you're getting more annoyed by it just because you've become a more sophisticated reader (this definitely happened to me, and it didn't happen until my 40's, this isn't a knock against your youth).
Your second point is super interesting and one I haven't seen brought up yet; I never considered that just having continually *read more*, that things could seem less subtle because I am more practiced at it. That's giving me lots of food for thought...
The social media point is actually a really good one I think. Lots of authors can get a mob formed due to things taken out of context, or even just honest mistakes. Especially in YA. So they might want to be upfront just to reduce the odds of that happening, which is unfortunate.
Do you think it's happening more in YA than adult content, and if so, why? I'm not on twitter or really THAT online (surprisingly lol) so I'm wondering if that's a trend people are actually seeing or not - I literally have no idea. But yeah, even as a small youtuber I have experienced the stress of things being taken out of context - I can't imagine for a popular author what a bigger scale that must happen on.
@@Bookborn "Do you think it's happening more in YA than adult content, and if so, why?"
Yeah, in YA spaces it's sort of "known" that YA Twitter will jump on things without context/with misleading context. I think part of it is the nature of algorithms feeding us contentious content, and another part is younger audiences being on social media more for various reasons (even as far as the simple reason as simply having more time to be on it.) It seems like the smartest thing a Fantasy author can do is replace their Twitter with one of those "I'm not really here" status updates and ONLY post promo materials.
@@Bookborn I also saw an article making the rounds on Twitter last year, I think around the end of November, that hypothesized that younger audiences have a tendency to want to purity test their media and creators as part of a by-blow of capitalism. The idea was that it's so hard to consume goods ethically under the system that people want to at least make ethical decisions in their engagement with frivolous entertainment, so they poke and prod at media's messages and creators to find out if they're "good" or "bad." I thought it was really a fascinating idea.
Ok both of these comments are extremely enlightening. This seems like a generational shift - and I wonder if it's also happening because our current "YA generation" is the first one to grow up with internet access and social media since birth. They don't remember a time where we knew less about people - now everything is potentially politicized, and like you said, a way to show ethics. @@NonAnonD
@@Bookborn I think a lot of it is that this is the first generation (from Harry Potter or so) where a living writer of books they were reading were just as much a part of the overall world as the story itself. You could find out about the authors and they became people you could follow on social media and interact with and where authors used to exist in relative obscurity, now they were able to have every word they said able to be examined and interpreted. No one can withstand that sort of scrutiny. We all say dumb things, or things that are so vague as to invite interpretation that goes wildly off the rails (also known as 'being married'). When you combine that with the clout people get for being the watchdog that caught the bad guy, people in the public eye don't stand a chance. It takes very little to create an online mob.
Great Video Bookborn! I think this goes with the rise of YA.
1) YA books are usually not controversial. They don't deal with any type of topic that would get the authors "canceled". They usually never do anything that a more grim dark author would do. They like to play it safe.
2) YA books tend to be more straight forward. They have lot more action, relationships, easier to read prose, etc. 4th wing is lot easier to read the Malazan. I feel like readers tend to pick up more books like 4th wing because its easier to read and to the point.
3) Lot of Authors are pushing towards writing for YA or having there books closer to the YA. I mean Joe Abercrombie writing YA books in the shattered sea or Brandon Sanderson Cytoverse is a perfect example. Cytoverse and Shatterd Sea are lot less subtle then First law or Stormlgiht.
This is not to insult anyone who likes to read YA, but i feel like with the rise of YA had lead to books being less subtle and all of your points in your video.
It's so interesting to me that so many people have brought up the rise in YA as a possible reason, and I think you guys are *really* on to something. I talked a long time ago about how one distinguishing factor for me between YA and Adult wasn't always the age of the protagonist, but rather the content - did it require more mature knowledge, or thinking, to understand the story? And I think that's an oft-overlooked piece when discussing adult vs YA. Like we give a young teen we know a ton of books to borrow; the other day my husband asked if we should give him Sword of Kaigen. It's completely *appropriate* technically - no extreme graphic content - but we both decided that the themes of motherhood/parenthood would go over a 13 year old's head.
I wonder if there is a reason to the rise of YA. Is it a certain age group that is reading/purchasing more? Is it just that those books tend to get the most attention in hollywood?
@@Bookborn it's one part of two broader trends in art and culture: 1) The drive by corporations to maximize profit more reliably, consistently, and predictably by funding art that can appeal to as broad an audience as possible, and 2) The desire on the part of (many) millennials and gen z to retreat from the complexity and unpredictability of the real world.
Regarding the first point, this trend can be seen in cinema with the near total removal of depictions of sexuality, since sexuality reduces the number of demographics the film can appeal to. Online, this trend can be seen through Mark Zuckerberg's failed attempt to promote the "Metaverse" which would've essentially turned much of the internet into a corporate office. In general, the push is to make *everything* safe for advertising and to make profits more predictable.
Regarding the second point, the world is becoming much more terrifying as we watch the climate catastrophe slowly spiral out of control, rising fascist movements all over the world, and the destruction of public / communal life through privatization. In the face of so much uncertainty and looming catastrophe, many people withdraw into themselves and create of cocoon of moral comfort through the consumption of safe, predictable, and simple art that morally flatters the reader. This is a source of a lot of toxic behavior (like equating depiction of evil with endorsement of evil) because these readers want to maintain that cocoon of safety and moral flattery. Corporations are more than happy to cultivate this audience and fund the art they demand.
@@Bookborn I agree its content of the book vs the age of the main characters. Though I do believe most YA does usually evolve around the protagonist being under the age of 21. However, not every book with a young protagonist is YA. I read Assassins Apprentice last year. Fitz is young in that book, but I would never consider that YA. There a lot of mature themes in that book.
I think Hollywood has a lot to do with it. That and Harry Potter. I feel like Harry Potter made a whole generation of YA fans. Lot of the successful movies after harry potter have been YA. Like Hunger Games, Divergent, etc. Also YA is accessible for everyone kids and adults a like.
Kind of reminds me like how Game of Thrones started the grim dark movement. There seems like there more grim dark books these days as well.
I also wonder if the "content" mentality has something to do with this. With reading challenges getting more popular, people trying to read more books each year, and the consume and move on mindset of content online is leading a lot of readers to read too quickly to engage with books. Jumping through so much so quickly might also explain the thing I see the most frequently, which is people being unable to see how something that seems illogical to us might be logical to the characters within the framework of the book. I see a lot of negative reviews were people say "well this part just didn't make any sense because...", which is usually followed by an argument about why that action wouldn't make sense within the context and circumstances we live in; but usually with a little reflection a justification can be found within the context and circumstances of the book.
First of all, I agree with you completely. Second of all, I don't think A Psalm for the Wild-Built is a good example. The entire point of that novella duology is the exploration of philosophical themes through dialogue. If it was trying to make a moral message or an argument for something I too think I would be annoyed but I think those books were not answering questions, merely asking them.
You are perfectly articulating my own thoughts, I’ve been so annoyed with all the political pandering, that I will not continue with the book because of how obvious author is. And i understand it’s not easy for them either, they have to please hordes of want to be critics online, and risk being accused of all the deadly sins plus all the new fashionable ones, but I just can’t get over how to turned off I am by all this 🤮
I just find myself rolling my eyes a lot and saying to myself "yeah I get it" 😭
I feel that there's been a shift from "let's build a world like this and see how things pan out" - and where issues will naturally present themselves in some parallel way to reality - to "I want to make a statement about this issue, let's structure a story around that" which will come off as a lot less, well, subtle. I don't think there's a right or wrong there, though. Upton Sinclair certainly did the latter and succeeded wildly well.
Well said. I agree with your notion about the "death of the author." However, many readers refuse to allow the author to "die" and many authors refuse to camouflage themselves behind their works. Personally speaking, I am convinced that there are authors who want to be true to themselves AND provide absolute clarity rather than allow for open interpretations. In addition, I feel that the problem is not just that authors are broadcasting the meaning of symbolism, imagery, and the ultimate endgame of the series, etc. (in and outside of the work itself), but it's that this causes some to overuse very tired and common tropes too (for clarity). Most of these tropes are used for story (or morality) advancement -- but they are so commonly used now.
I also see a problem with how literature is taught today. I've had teachers who encouraged readers to learn how to interpret books -- because they wanted to encourage literary analysis. I had a high school teacher who encouraged me to find allegory in Hemingway's THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA. While I was confident in the underlying themes within the text, I just didn't find any clear allegory in the novella. So, I made it up. I wrote an essay that essentially told the teacher what she wanted to hear (deduced from the little that I knew of her). She loved that essay! She "knew" that I was "intuitive" to the point that I could perceive the allegory that she said "no one else could see."
A year later, I had a different high school teacher who explained everything in each assigned work. There was no room for developing literary analysis or interpretation. For that teacher, there was only ONE interpretation. So, he demanded adherence to the interpretation that he had concluded. In a way, I feel that many modern authors are becoming more like this teacher. Instead of feeling the liberty to freely write and leave the interpretation to the readers, they seem to no longer trust the reader's analytical skills. So, they lose subtlety and write a story using tropes that even a child could interpret correctly.
This is problematic for SFF. While they will often keep gray space when it comes to characters (i.e., no one is fully good or fully evil), they don't do the same with the moral themes. Any writing professor will attest that the best villains think of themselves as the heroes. However, I would take another step and say that the best villains sometimes behave as heroes (with the opposite also being true). This is becoming a rarity in modern SFF.
Think of Germany in the years leading up to World War 2. Modern narratives would paint Hitler and Co. as purely evil men. Some historical novels paint them as such. Yet, as evil as they undoubtedly were, they thought of themselves as heroes. A few historical novels will include this type of portrait. However, few authors will depict a Hitler or Goebbels who loved their country, liked dogs, cared for German children, etc. They are not portrayed as men who cared for Germany.
In my opinion, the two former portrayals are inaccurate and often amount to unwitting caricatures. Obviously, Hitler, Goebbels, etc. orchestrated many terribly evil acts. They were monsters. Yet, they were not entirely unempathetic. They actually held a degree of empathy for the people, children and, yes, dogs of Germany. They saw themselves as the heroes of Germany. Yet, they were convincing enough to the people of Germany that an overwhelming majority of Germans followed Hitler. Thus, this more authentic portrayal is a much more accurate depiction of both history and the characters of these otherwise very evil men. In fact, it makes them to be more complex and, ultimately, more evil. After all, it contrasts the enormous empathy that they had for Germans or "Aryans" with the monstrous brutality that they had for others. They were men who loved German dogs more than Jewish or Romani children. This is an accurate and more troubling display of their psyches.
I think that many authors fear that they will be portrayed as coming across as "sympathetic" for evil or even what is deemed to be proper morality. So, to avoid any chance of confusion, they wear their social views, politics and ideology on their sleeves so as to identify themselves. Others aren't quite so absolute yet fear the idea that anything they've written would be misinterpreted. For them, that is another form of evil and reflective of ineffective writing skills. I'd prefer to read a more realistic depiction of such matters (such as how Catherine Cookson used to write her novels) than via overused tropes or literary broadcasting.
I really liked your thoughts in this video. I think another problem with the lack of subtlety is authors feeling the need to “say something” with their text. There are significant authors in the SFF community who pretty loudly say that the purpose of their novels is to make political or cultural messages. That’s fine, they can do whatever they want, but it’s not very subtle and it’s not what truly excellent novels do. It’s the book equivalent of the “God’s not dead” movies. They’re not telling a story or presenting reality, they’re just using a story as an excuse to preach. When I look at really brilliantly subtle novels that really impact people, they don’t do so because they’re hamfisted with their messaging. A Christmas Carol isn’t impactful because Dickens preaches about the value of charity, it’s impactful because we see the poison of greed and narcissism play out in Scrooges life and then rejoice when he changes. The themes of the danger of a stiff unbending moral code in “A Game of Thrones” are memorable because we see the ideas played out, not because Martin has characters spell it out and preach to us about it. It takes more skill to write that way anyway. These “preachy” authors are trying to write essays in the bodies of novels. The purpose of a novel is for the author to tell the truth and reflect it in their book. It’s the job of a perceptive reader to see that truth rather than expecting it be spoon fed.
Hopefully that makes sense. Thanks for the thoughtful videos!
I would argue Martin also has the opposite commentary in A Song of Ice and Fire (GoT). While he definitely shows the dangers of a stiff, unbending moral code (a la Ned Stark, and the High Sparrow), he also highlights just how dangerous having effectively no moral code can be (such as Cercei Lannister, and Ramsey Bolton), and how dangerous having a moral code with exceptions for convenience/pleasure can be (Rob Stark, and Jaime Lannister).
The overall message there seems to be: have a moral code, but be willing to break it when it makes sense from a critically aware perspective - not just when it's convenient or enjoyable.
@@jeremyvanneman8112that’s a much better way to say it. Thanks!
This was SO insightful, I would have never thought about it this way@@jeremyvanneman8112
It's funny because the article that argued for more obvious art said that A Christmas Carol was one of the least subtle works of all time 🤣I think subtle can come in different forms. Obviously A Christmas Carol has a message, but it's packaged in an interesting way, which maybe is why it works better for some people (I mean, I love the Christmas Carol, to be clear). I should've mentioned that I feel like Pratchett does an incredible job at this too. It's not that his works don't have a message - they clearly do - he's just so smart and clever about it that it doesn't feel you're being preached at.
@@samm8190 @bookborn thanks!
Thank you for this, this is spot on and a great discussion to have. This is one of the reasons I love Malazan so much. I'm given so little to work with but Erikson lets me figure it out as a reader. It's so rewarding. It's not exactly on point, but has the same idea behind it.
Subtlety is why I love Robin Hobb's books so much.
She writes about gender nonconformity, homosexuality, disability, homosexuality, and prejudice (all things that modern authors seem intent on preaching about, and things which I'm not particularly fond of being preached to about, if that makes sense) but she writes about them with a subtlety that lets the humanity shine through, and I find myself in awe of her themes more as the books go on.
Yeah, it's definitely the way I prefer to read about social issues. I think of Pratchett. He isn't necessarily SUBTLE, but he is so CLEVER and just so *smart* about it.
Tad Williams and Neil Gaiman are also writers who seem to respect the readers' intelligence.
Neil is really the living GOAT right now imo. I haven't ready any Tad yet 🙈@@pepeedge5601
@@Bookbornyou need to read Tad!!! 😂
Oof, I wouldn't be singing praises tk Hobb about queer representation, tbh. It's a little iffy (yes even for her time)
Have you read Le Guin's "A Matter of Trust?" It deals with this topic. I personally prefer subtle works and it's a huge turn-off if I feel like the author is simplifying their message and talking down to me. I've been wondering how well a lot of these works are going to age since it seems like there's much less fruit for analysis when everything is on the nose. I know some classics are explicit in their themes, but I don't think they're inelegant in execution the way some of the more recent works are (and don't necessarily condescend to the reader). Idk lol. Great video and food for thought 😊
I believe it has to do with the current difficulty of breaking out as a new author. There are so many competing works that an author might be heavy handed with what they are saying as a way to say "hey this is what I write about and it means this, which is what separates me from other similar works". I believe this also shows in (at least in my experience) a declining amount of ambiguous endings. The author wants to make sure the reader understands their vision so the reader will keep buying their books.
I was about to reply to this with "lol, Bookborn's Sad Puppy arc has begun," but all joking aside, it got me thinking how that ties into your point about authors being too afraid to be subtle due to social media: They're afraid some yahoo in the comment section will chime in with "lol, [author]'s Sad Puppy arc has begun."
Not my sad puppy arc 😭😭🤣
This is why awards don't mean anything anymore. Oscars, Emmys, Grammies, Nebula, Caldecott, Pulitzer...
Some interesting points. I'm not especially current in my science-fiction reading, but a question of subtlety is something I'll try to keep in mind with my channel as I work through my Box of Paperback reviews. Also, as someone who teaches literature and creative writing, I understand the complaints about over analysis, but I think that's more a product of education systems rather than readership. I have to spend time teaching my students that short stories, poems, and novels are not equations or riddles to be solved. Instead, we encounter them, make discoveries, and draw conclusions and insights from how the text interacts with our own lives and other, surrounding knowledge.
@@rsr7014 Maybe. I'm sure a lot of writers in earlier decades also had concerns that were not about telling "the best story" whatever they think that might mean. I do agree, though, that there is a lot of contemporary pressure, especially through social media, that stories and authors have some sort of social or political message because that's how "seriousness" gets judged nowadays.
Excellent topic!! I think that we have become such an instant gratification society that thinking for yourself is hard. People want things to be handed to them and be "easy" to process. While there is something to having a nice easy read sometimes, the true great works make you think and push your mind to understand deeper concepts and meanings. That process leads to growth and development (which you touch on well with the literacy and comprehension topics). I remember the books that changed my life... not because they physically did anything, but because they made me THINK about things in vastly different ways. Much of our current world is down to candy novels... sweet and easy but no healthy or wellness sustenance.
You just made me think of some of the most formative books of my younger years and the majority are the ones that made me either think really hard or view something in a different way - kind of interesting to think about!
I totally agree with most of your points and I'm afraid that fantasy is also falling into this trap. I recently picked up "Foundryside". While the world-building was stellar, there were numerous instances where the action paused and the author inserted ("shoved in" would better describe the method) commentary on current social issues. Many of them were completely unrelated to the plot or to the particular scene.
In many cases, the main character was literally running for her life. But the sense of urgency was less important than proving to the audience that the character has the right opinions, so I guess we should care about her? I finished it but the preaching drained me.
And that's a crying shame.
I have a feeling that modern literature analysis often ends up very intent on drawing parallels between ANY literary work (and same goes for movies, shows, etc.) and some contemporary political stances, events and people - even when these things are completely irrelevant to what the actual work (in my opinion) is trying to say.
So I believe when it comes to how social media is affecting how authors see their works' reception, that is something they would inevitably end up very aware of.
Great analysis!
I definitely thinking there is some lack of critical thinking occurring for a variety of societal reasons.
But on the flip side to what you're saying, I think a lack of critical reasoning can lead one to believe that subtlety ALWAYS trumps the obvious.
I saw that in some reviews for Iron Widow by Xiran Jay Xiao, saying that the author beat the reader over the head with its theme of female rage... but like, isn't that the point? In that culture female rage has been so suppressed that women have had to be subtle to express themselves, so in this book, the main character gives into the rage and it's decidedly unsubtle. Like, it couldn't be any other way. But there was a certain snobbishness to some of the critiques of that book... which I feel misses the point
Ugh such a good point, and why this conversation is so hard. There are many famous and well beloved revenge stories, for example, that aren’t exactly subtle 🤣 or the article I mentioned talked about how Dickens was hardly subtle and he’s considered one of the greatest writers of our time.
It's dominating movies and tv now too. Preachy, on the nose politics, lack of nuance and complexity, and very one-sided politics, etc. Rings of Power, Star Trek, Star Wars, Halo, Witcher (later seasons), Dr. Who, Willow, etc. Its very sad.
Another great video. I feel like this is a growing trend not just in books but in all media. Where at one point in time a piece of media would subtly or casually have themes integrated into the overall story, now we get these overly preachy books. I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with the themes or opinions, depending on what it is, but I find that it grates on me a lot and takes a ton away from the enjoyment of the art.
When I was a child, my YA reading was Lovecraft, E.R. Burroughs, H.G. Wells, which then expanded into the SFF of the 60s & 70s. Round about 1990, I gave up on SFF; it just didn't do it for me anymore (as I would give up on Rock & Roll when grunge came out). I turned to literary works & haven't looked back. I enjoy reading a book that makes me work, that challenges me to understand what the author is trying to convey (People have asked me what I read for "fun", & my response is "THIS is what I read for fun"), that leaves my brain humming with the effort & passion that have been poured into those long, convoluted, heavily subordinated sentences. The best poems are never really about the words printed, but the author is using those words in hopes they will be the threshold which the reader must step over to even try to understand the deeper meaning. & that takes work. I have tried to question some people about the spoon-fed nature of YA books & whether that tendency will restrict or prohibit readers from taking on more challenging works. Since most of the people I have asked about this are young, they usually just get offended & resort to ad hominems. That's okay, perhaps it's because they have no other frame of reference & older folks haven't really read YA novels (I haven't; & to be honest, my brothers [older & younger] are still chugging away of the SFF). I do believe that social media is a net negative on society (watched a video yesterday about artists trying to decide which of the now dozens of sites one can reach a wider audience on--there was no consensus).
There will always be those few, though, that seek more of a challenge & to them I would say READ ON! I would recommend Hermann Broch's The Death of Virgil, which is basically a 500 page prose poem, but even in translation, is so well worth the effort put into reading it.
Love this! I know this is a poorly timed comment due to recent Hugo controversy and I totally support RF Kuang in that but this was my issue with Babel 😬
I think it can be a balance though because I think some things can go too far the other way where they’re so layered in metaphor and allusion that I have no idea what point they’re trying to make
Yeah I actually heard that criticism a lot about Babel which is why I didn’t end up picking it up - although like you I still think it’s sooo crappy what happened to her 😭 it was one of the biggest books of the year she deserved her nom without tampering!
Looking at this video, just the fact that you had to re-iterate 20 times that you don't think that all reading should be heavy and deep goes to show why subtlety is being left behind. You had to clarify something that should be obvious in fear that a part of your audience would interpret your content in the most mean spirired way possiblebl 😂
Yeah I think UA-cam has def taught me I will be misinterpreted in the most ridiculous ways no matter what I say 😭 it feels sometimes that people will try to willfully misinterpret - although maybe I should just start ignoring that smaller portion 🤪
Eager to watch, but I want to say that I have noticed that some of these less subtle books are REALLY popular. So in response to the Video Title: Maybe they do think that, and maybe they're kind of right?
"So in response to the Video Title: Maybe they do think that, and maybe they're kind of right?" Mic drop? I honestly can't add anything, this is just a very good comment lol.
I watched this twice - you've presented a ton of interesting ideas. I think we're spoiled for choice these days, and that people prioritize pleasure reading over critical thinking.
Speaking for myself, I mostly want a good story, but part of the reason I love SFF is that it presents a buffer to analyze and think about issues our world is currently facing. I don't think it matters *how* people are presented with the information as long as it provokes some reflection.
Getting people to think at all about broader issues is a win in my book!
I think you've also hit on something important which is when a message overtakes the quality of story, that can also make it feel less subtle. I wonder if less subtle stories, but are still very very well written stories just simply plot wise, outside the message - go over better.
@@Bookborn Agreed - I've been thinking about the Barbie movie within this context. I consider myself an educated feminist - none of the themes presented in that film were a surprise or subtly presented. But it got the nation talking!
Perhaps being beat over the head with themes doesn't make for a pleasant experience personally, but at times I think the cultural value outweighs personal enjoyment.
I love your channel - always nuanced, well-articulated, and rewatchable - thank you!
A psalm for the wild built is objectively one of the best books of this decade.
Love this topic. Please do a follow up with all the comments and discussions!!
I wonder what you all think of large language models… reading is just more and more training for your brain and the neural pathways that develop from practice and repetition and variety…
I think when we read, we don’t remember every word and paragraph… somehow we condense the whole thing and remember the point without all the words. Developing the ability to not only condense information but also recall it… that just has to be really important and really advantageous throughout life when we are asked to do the same thing with different context
I agree, and this definitely extends beyond books and SFF. I strongly believe a contributing factor is the early necessity to truncate and condense interactions online, diminishing the effort for nuance and subtlety, as responses need to be direct and intent is believed to be perfectly binary, virtuous or trollish
I think this is an interesting topic. However, it is an entirely personal subject for me. I do think that sometimes books lack subtlety and try too hard to convey a message. I also feel this can and does get in the way of enjoyment. Mileage is going to vary, though.
You started by showing two books that I loved. A Psalm for the Wild Built was one of my favorite books that came out that year. It seems to have not hit the same way for you. On the other hand, Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie was a rough book for me. I felt its message battered my reading enjoyment. I never read the sequels.
It isn't like obvious messaging in books hasn't been around forever. Two of my childhood favorite books were Little Fuzzy by H. Beam Piper and Dune by Frank Herbert. Even as a kid the messages of those books hit me over the head like a brick. I read them again recently, and I still felt joy. I think the skill of the author really plays a huge part in the equation. Mixing in your own personal bias toward writing styles and the message itself, and you end up at the finish line of This book drove me crazy......this one did not.
As far as the internet goes when it comes to influencing writers and how they write. I think it probably does have some cause and effect but how much is anyone's guess. I know it has definitely messed with me. I still think Ender's Game is frakking amazing. I light up a little inside when I think about the young me pulling that book off the shelf and then staying up all night to read it. The book has a lot of meaning in my life. I am not a fan of Orson Scott Card, the public persona, and I find it difficult to bring myself to buy and read his books now. I once read an internet exchange between Dan Simmons and a person that made me think, "Man, I wish I hadn't read that." because of what it made me feel about Dan Simmons at that moment.
This is a very long post to essentially say I agree a little but how do you decide when it is too much. It will be so different for everyone. Ultimately, fans will choose with their wallets, which will directly influence what publishers publish.
So, before the end of the death of the author section- I think that this has a little bit less to do with the author not wanting to be subtle these days, so much as it is that publishers don’t want to wade in on that, or are unwilling to purchase/promote more subtle or unclear works. It’s easier to market something that is digestible.
Also, LOVE this video. Thanks for interrogating this!
Oh man that’s a fascinating angle that I didn’t even think about - how does the publisher influence this? And the bottom line? If those books are performing well, then maybe I’m completely wrong about it - if that’s what the audience wants, why would publishers chase something else
@Bookborn Exactly- it's frankly a difficult thing to grapple with, honestly. Writers influenced by what is being purchased, which influences what people read (and tend to like/buy). All of this influences accessibility to more complex things.
This isn't a perfect comparison, but I think it's pervasive throughout a lot of culture/fiction, and not just books/novels as a medium.
I got off to a very slow start reading. I spent all of 6th grade reading - but not finishing - Journey to the Center of the Earth. Yet, beginning in the 7th grade, I became an inveterate reader, _always_ having a book with me. This continued through college and well into my professional life, sadly crashing to a halt when I was diagnosed with ME/CFS a few years ago. Though I never really grasped the technical nuances of grammar (much to the disgust of my grandmother, who taught grammar - and failed in her attempts to teach me the same), I nonetheless have a good grasp of what a well written sentence/paragraph looks like, along with a quite huge (reading) vocabulary, all through context gleaned from thousands of books (mostly scfi and fantasy, but hardly exclusively). Such a large (reading) vocabulary that I scored something like 94th percentile in the verbal portions of the GMAT (sadly, only around 56th percentile for the quantitative section, much to the chagrin of the biochemistry professor I was working for at the time). I emphasize _reading_ because I can't spell worth a damn and absolutely depend on spell (and grammar) checkers to not look like a 2 year old hammering on a keyboard. The biggest complaint my college creative writing professor had on my work was my restricted vocabulary, there not being spell checkers at the time - and I find the whole 'look it up in the dictionary' thing to be pointless if I got no idea how to spell. Indeed, I had to use Google to correct my spelling of 'inveterate,' since it's so good at guessing what I really meant to say.
My point? I guess an aspect of it is addressing your self-filtering comments on reading comprehension, critical thinking skills, etc. I have lots of friends and have had even more colleagues and co-workers - who are the exact opposite of inveterate readers - and don't do so well with reading comprehension (though many do well with critical thinking). Our college-aged son really doesn't like reading, much to my chagrin (had to use Google to verify I spelt that correct ;-), and there doesn't seem to be anything I can do to help with that.
On another channel a lady posted about her absolute inability to 'see' anything in her mind as she reads. I commented that when I write I'm pretty much just documenting the imagery I'm watching in my head. Maybe there's an aspect of people who lack the ability to see such and their lack of enjoyment in reading, which then has the potential to lead into lack of development in their critical thinking skills (and maybe even empathy).
As for your comment about subtlety, or the lack thereof, in more modern writing, I'm not sure I can provide much insight. Before I more or less gave up reading anything more complex than a Reddit post (only a slight exaggeration), the vast bulk of my library was from last century. I agree in principle with your argument, it's certainly plausible social media can pressure writers in writing less complex prose, less subject to interpretation. But I also think there's a non-trivial element that there are simply more writers today, as the barriers to publish are essentially nonexistent (the barriers to getting _readers_, on the other hand, are substantial, and what has kept me from self publishing anything) and those that write more subtle prose may simply be drowned out. Or, it may very well be that the tiny handful of actual publishing companies left are selecting works that lack subtlety today, naturally driving writers to produce such. Or maybe there's a self-reinforcing element, where more popular modern authors were less subtle for one reason or another and the youngsters growing up reading those works thought that's how prose should be, thus started producing the same lack when they started writing.
All that said, thinking back to many of my favorite novels (most well over a half century old now and with authors long dead), I'm hard pressed to think of many that were subject to a lot of wildly different interpretations. I recently watched a UA-cam vid discussing Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land and how the former has the reputation of being an ode to fascism while the latter is so liberal it might struggle to get acceptance today, yet written by the same author within a year or two of each other. I only read Stranger once, but have read Troopers many times. I never got the idea of fascism reading Troopers, and I characterize myself along the lines of a 'bleeding heart liberal' today. So maybe there's also been a generational change in looking for subtlety that may not be there. Or I'm just naive.
Personally, I think once something is published, it's no longer the authors, it's now owned by the readers. And each reader is free to interpret the author's ideas however they like, even if it's diametrically opposite from other readers. Indeed, my intention in my own writing is to engender a wide variety of reactions among readers, ideally provoking thought and consideration, potentially even opening their world view somewhat. And entertain, of course.
There is also a recent trend of marketing one type of media or product to all ages. Last Christmas, some gifts popular among teenagers and preteens were articles previously marketed toward people over 35 or 40. This trend has also affected the publishing industry: books for mature readers are written in simplified language and with unsubtle messaging; they are looking for books that can be marketed to readers of all ages.
We are slammed with so much on slaught of information and to avoid falling behind (or in literay media you don't want FOMO), simple explanation/reading is easier to digest. Straight forward. When addressed with a problem, we dig online until we find a simple 5 minute explanation of how to do something because we have to finish the next problem. Your explanation on this in the death of the author was perfect. To be lead on too long, the reader gets frustrated, to be teased slightly, its perfect, but can't do this for 100s of pages. Even marketing is an example on this, authors want to condense an entire book down to simple tropes so the book is easily picked up. Readers want to know what they are getting right away because there are so many (good) options out there. Tell reader will work with them right away or not. Anne Rice did this though perfectly with Interview with a Vampire. That blurb is SHORT.
Could it also be that the access we have to each other via social media not only makes authors feel they have to be more direct, but also makes readers more hesitant to have a unique interpretation of a text?
If there is one prevailing narrative, and you come out with a different one, it’s highly likely a social media storm will occur. Or at the very least a requirement to engage in substantiating conversations about it for a long time. Maybe that’s not something readers are always willing to do?
If I do some self reflection, I can see that happening to me sometimes. Like I COULD send out a post with my thoughts, but then I know it’ll be hours of engagement after that I’m not prepared to dedicate my time to.
This is too real! Do I really want to deal with all the comments that'll come out of it? It's a hard balance because on the one hand, this sort of stuff rarely happens in person, which is why I love discussing books with the people around me. On the other hand...that's very limited, and I love how the internet has helped me meet new people to talk books with.
@@Bookborn Oh definitely! The broad scope of engagement is one of the best things about being a part of this community and having a platform. But spending hours arguing about minutae is a very specific type of conversation that often happens with others willing to make the most uncharitble of interpretations (specifically because of the distance the internet creates I think).
So maybe it's not that most readers have the same idea about a text, we're just too tired to fight for another view 😂
I don't think that books deemed "good" by critics were ever popular. So maybe it has to do something with the internet, but a little differently. Maybe when Hugo was young and sci-fi not so popular, mostly people who were interested in the genre and willing to analyze these books voted in it. Today many authors have a huge following - and the more popular author, the bigger following. So that could reflect in awards that are ultimately decided by number of people and not literary critics (for Hugo anyone who pays a fee can nominate a book I think). And voting is easier on the internet.
So although Hugo winner/nominee is the book highligted by the award, I am quite confident that subtle books exist today as well. Only they don't have a great chance to win a popularity contest. As they never did. So maybe only our perspective changed based on what we highlight, not the landscape.
I agree, SFF has become quite explicit and not as nuanced as they were before. As if old books posited "what ifs" in an inviting way, while the new stories are quite prescriptive in the idea they want to present and/or force down the authors. I loved your discussion starter idea, tbh--you are never imposing, always inviting people to get involved into the discussion and I love that. Completely agree that a reader's background can lead them to interpret the book differently--and that's where the richness of speculative fiction actually lies, right? On all the nuance each person can add which, quite often, can differ from the author's original intention.
I'm quite sure that authors are concerned about being misinterpreted; the internet has no nuance and will likely lean towards a mean interpretation rather than assuming a Henlon's Razor and/or taking the time to understand the real meaning/intention or where the author's is coming from. Especially if the book is a thought experiment.
I read recently in a writing craft book (Wired for Story), that writers should be careful not to editorialize to their readers because it feels ham-fisted and off-putting and because newspapers exist for editorials / opinion pieces. This felt really timely because I realized that the "editorializing" of stories is one of things that started to sour my love of a lot of modern story-telling. For me it's most notable in comics and comic book movies, which I find almost unreadable and unwatchable these days, but there is a fair bit of it current novels as well. Which might be why I've been reading older books these days.
I agree, similar to what is being done with movies, where "Message" is more important than telling a good story or character development or plot
This isn’t limited to books. Film has gone through a similar change. Obviously it’s subjective, but in the late 2000s there were films that I enjoyed that critics thought lacked subtlety.
I think ever since 2016, people have been afraid of subtly when the counter argument would inevitably be over the top. However even for me, I feel we have swung too far the other direction and there is not much interesting content for adults.
Been binge watching your videos lately. You're by far the best booktuber and talk about some really interesting topics. Well done Bookborn!
I really appreciate the types of questions that you ask and delve into on your channel - I feel like no one else in the scene is doing exactly that! Keep it up!
I love this discussion, and I feel like even though you had a lot to bring up there's so, so much further to dive in. I'm sure you had so much more to say on the subject, and I'd love to hear all of those thoughts.
One of the things I love about your topics on this channel is that all of the book discussion translates almost directly to film (which is my area of expertise). And I think you're spot on - critical thinking skills are most definitely struggling (in general, in literacy, and in film), and being "preached at" is the new way that media presents itself.
Back in college I studied art history a *lot* and there's a lot of parallels there too. There used to be (particularly from about 1900-2000) a division between "low art" and "high art" in traditional art media. High art (most recently modern and contemporary art) were art that included messages that were inherent in the media type. For instance the classic piece "c'est nest pas un pipe" which is a painting of a pipe with those words below it is quite literally calling out that just because a painting looks like a pipe doesn't mean that it is one - it's a commentary on representational art. And that transitioned into color field abstract painting, which is a commentary on how even things that look flat still have physical depth (no matter how flat you paint something, the painting is still as thick as a single layer of paint itself). But you had to be part of the art world to understand the commentary - and if you understood it, it was slapping you in the face. So I totally agree with your comment on how obvious a message is can be completely subjective.
But "low art" was the common, kitschy, form of media. It was drawn cartoons, paintings of scenery, portraits - representational art that's "fun" for people not in the art world. These were either slapping you in the face with the message (like cartoons in the newspaper), or there was no intentional message. It was rare for a piece of art to find a happy medium where there was commentary that people who casually enjoyed paintings could appreciate, but that wasn't slapping you in the face with the message.
I think this translates really well into both film and books, where you have your "super deep" conceptual films that get critical praise for taking you through a tumultuous emotional journey to finally be presented with a message that has both direct meaning and multiple layers of subtlety underneath (Parasite from 2019 was a great example of that - although I think it walked the line perfectly between high art and accessible art). Then you have your superficial films that are just for fun, where there's things to discuss about the story and possibly some intellectual discussion to be had, but it's mostly to turn your brain off and enjoy (like the Fast and the Furious movies, Godzilla, superhero films, Transformers, etc). Then there's films that walk the line between the two - which I personally think are the best - which have the visually interesting, superficial qualities but also include deeper underlying meaning that's hidden in layers (Inception, Get Out, and Everything Everywhere All at Once are three quick examples off the top of my head).
But the new genre that splits all three in the worst possible ways are the "lowest common denominator" films. More often than not they're a sequel, reboot, or based on existing IP. They completely miss the point of the established story. They ruin the original characters by reworking them in a way that destroys their character development in the previous/alternate installments. They generally have weak writing that's full of plot holes, and rely heavily on the visually interesting, superficial qualities of those fun films you can turn your brain off for. But then they include *extremely* hamfisted messaging that fits trending social commentary. These messages are impossible to ignore, and plot holes are made even bigger just to ensure the message gets across. Sometimes even the finale of a season (or ending of a book/film) will be ruined because the character development, plot development, and consistency in the story is so weak that the climactic moments are so beyond unearned that they're boring.
Barbie gets a special mention here, because I thought it was brilliant. It was absolutely filled with extremely hamfisted messaging, but that was kind of the point. It was absolutely a "turn your brain off and enjoy the silly story" film. AND it was absolutely a super deep film that is borderline conceptual in the layers and layers of meaning behind almost every scene. How it balanced it all, I have no idea, but it was wonderfully done.
I don't think it's so much the internet that's causing this trend toward the lowest common denominator (although it is contributing for sure), but rather those with money and power that are facilitating it. The publishing companies determine which authors they give contracts to, and how many copies they'll publish. The production companies decide which writers/directors they hire. And they find those who are sending the message they want - usually with the facade of being entertainment - which is the easiest way to attempt to control social commentary. When you've seen a scene play out a certain way, you're much more likely to believe it could happen in real life (and does) - even if it makes absolutely no sense to someone with critical thinking skills. New books are going to keep getting sold (as you've called out, they're coming out in larger numbers than ever). New films are going to keep getting seen. It's only a matter of what films/books get the most marketing to reach the broadest audience.
Thankfully it does seem like there's been a tipping point, because a lot of the lowest common denominator films that have come out lately haven't done nearly as well as those with more subtle messaging, or those without intentional messages. One can hope we return to books and films being pushed that are fun *and* require critical thinking skills, rather than continuing in the muck of the lowest common denominator, which serve no purpose but as an echo chamber that further fanaticizes those who have bought into whatever the message is.
A thought provoking video.
Reading builds general knowledge, vocabulary etc. depending on genres chosen.
Also, generally, this may not always be the author's fault for the dumbing down of subtlety, but the publishers, who care only for the dollars earned over quality. Thus a series such as Twilight, not to single out but certainly an example of a series that didn't need to be written past one book, but sales drive. One can give so many examples.
I don't read enough to have a valid opinion on if things are getting less subtle or not, but I think your point about authors maybe being concerned about their image is similar to you and every good book tuber having to always clarify their thoughts, for fear of being misunderstood! It's just necessary in our world because the internet has mean people on it.
Loved your thoughts on kids...
I took a poetry/short story class in college for fun, and I LOVED it. I loved searching for that hidden meaning. If things are headed away from that now, that's a little depressing. But also we have recent Piranesi! And also, I absolutely love me some fun reading😄 but my favorite books of all time all have something to say. Though now that I think about it they aren't always subtle(Yumi?).🤔 Anyway, I'm rambling, lol. I don't know how I enjoy any of this stuff with my adhd brain!🤣
Yeah that's why it's so hard to measure 😭 Also your bringing up the being misunderstood thing, I wonder if it's also an affect of just...having access to too many people lol. Like there are very few generations that have had to recon with literally being able to communicate with the ENTIRE WORLD instead of just the people in their own communities.
Thank you, your video gave me a lot to think and chew on! The topic is very interesting. The only thing I would have liked you to add were more specific examples. I'm a slower reader so the books I'm usually on are a few months to years behind latest trends. I will say that I've noticed the decline in subtlety in other media that I enjoy. And also anecdotally speaking, I find critical thinking skills to be lacking in many people out in the world
Considering the sheer volume of information we are inundated with on a daily or even hourly basis in the modern internet-connected world, it's not surprising that people would gravitate towards more easily digestible books.
I think the problem is that many people want fiction to be propaganda. They think books should express certain beliefs, values, etc. and spread them to others, enforcing ideological purity in the world. They don't want books that are subtle or encourage people to think critically about ideas. They just want others to accept their philosophy as correct. And they especially want to condemn or censor books that argue the opposite of their beliefs, present a balanced thematic argument, encourage empathy for other opinions, or offer nuance or context.
This was always true in certain genres (inspirational books, especially religious books made for children). But the political division in culture today seems to have made many people more militant in wanting to stomp out contrary ideas.
I don't know if it's because authors feel pressured by editors and some readers to be more propagandistic, or because many authors take courses that train them to put ideology ahead of subtlety. Maybe it's a combination of both.
Fantastic video. Was having trouble putting this feeling into words and you summed it up perfectly!
I’ll also add that I have been feeling this way about many movies that have been coming out recently too.
Great video! I am not sure if I've noticed it as a general trend but I've definitely run across some recent examples were the message was too obvious. I'm thinking of NK Jemisin's The City We Became, for example, where the message was just too on the nose for me. Compare that to The Broken Earth series which is much more subtle and effective. But I also think it is a problem with the SFF genre in general when contrasted with "literary fiction". I hate elitism in literature but the SFF genre tends to simplify concepts more often than other genres in my experience. Not to say that there aren't any non SFF books that do it, there's a lot actually. But yeah, I sometimes prefer when authors are ambiguous about what they're trying to convey, and even better when they leave questions unanswered, because real life is too complex for easy answers.
Yeah, I've noticed the same thing. Even in the things promoting politics and messages and views that I strongly agree with, it's so unsubtle that it bothers me. I think your points about reading as a skill vs just decoding words is really good!
This is such a great video. I've definitely been noticing this as well, particularly in the first two books you mention by name. Star Wars novels in the Disney era tend to have this flaw also. I appreciate your comments on the reasons for this, all of which make sense. I'll just add that political/social polarization is contributing to this also. So much political and social discourse at present is focused on signposting your tribal affiliation, not on making any substantial arguments. Anybody who doesn't signpost strong enough gets pilloried as being part of the "other" tribe, whatever that may be.
Watched this twice and had great discussions with my partner! There were a few questions that kept popping up for us:
In consideration of a previous video of yours where we learn the phenomenonal amount of books published, are there really (quantitatively speaking, not proportionally) less books written that are rich in subtlety? Or are we lost in the vast ocean of ‘noise’?
- is this an issue that is universal to authors, or is it those with the power to mediatize, market and push forward who are giving power to ‘obviousness’? Is this due to capitalism (sell to the youth and their level of maturity) and/or is this a shift in positions where anyone can write, thus anyone can also have a job to promote books. What I mean is, if the typical human prefers comfort (easy, obvious, similar to our biases) rather than discomfort (type of exercise, pushes out of our boundaries) and the typical human can now access any type of job, then they’d promote the first?
Also, it was interesting that the subject is lack of subtlety, and how we are affected by internet and the need to be obvious can stem from a protection mechanism to avoid being mislabelled and you soon after explained how you weren’t trying to push aside fun reading with this video…which was ironically stating the obvious (buuut…just in case, right?) - I felt that moment was pretty revelatory of the phenomenon discussed. Thanks for daring to tackle a complex subject! Lots of drawers were opened 😂
You do these analytical essays so well and so much more valuable to watch than the fluff that appears on some other channels.
Thanks for the video. I've been thinking about this a lot lately as well, but more in the context of television writing. As a life-long Star Trek fan, this topic is now very clear in the writing. I've wondered, do the writers think the viewers are stupid? Or are the writers stupid? There's no more nuance or allegory, it's all spelled out for you and ham-fisted. I can't imagine modern SF TV writers tackling a script like Next Gen's "The Measure of a Man" or DS9´s "In the Pale Moonlight". But there is still some fantastic writing and show running out there - just see Ronald D Moore and Apple TV's For All Mankind!
Thank you for tolerating my Star Trek mini rant. 😁
Your Reading Level comments really hit home. When I was in 6th grade, my entire class had to take a test to determine our reading level, and I scored the highest in my class and was ranked as being at a college reading level. We were then told to pick a book that was at our reading level and do a book report on it... the only book my school library had at my reading level was The Scarlet Letter. Let me tell you, as an 11yr I could NOT read that book. YES, I could decode the words; NO, I could not comprehend them.
I'm sorry but I laughed 😭 Imagining an 11 year old reading The Scarlet Letter is horrible but also sooo funny 😂 Yeah, my child is scoring really high on reading as well, but it was interesting - we tried to read Artemis Fowl together when he was really young, and even that had context he just didn't have - he didn't know what Holy Water was! I realized sometimes it's just like...you need some LIFE EXPERIENCE to understand things. It was very eye opening.
Yeah... I remember feeling like such a failure, I just didn't understand why I couldn't understand the book. Like I'm supposedly at this reading level, so why is this book so hard lol 😭 Looking back, I'm convinced that the reading level test was just very flawed - I distinctly remember not understanding the last 5 or so questions, but the test was multiple choice and I must've just guessed correctly 😅
I'm happy to see the decoupling of reading ability vs reading comprehension now. Clearly it's something my school didn't understand 😂
Becky Chambers is interesting to me. I just barely made it through a Psalm for the wild born, because I felt like it was hitting me on the head with its message. The long way to a small angry planet had basically the same message, but I LOVE that book. Lookingback, I don't think Long Way is any less subtle than Psalm, but the characters are just better and their relationships take up more space. Psalm is not the only case I can think of where the characters were sacrificed in favor of messages. To me, that's far more devastating to my reading experience than lack of subtlety
I had a very different experience with Psalm, what point did you think it was hitting you with?
Excellent video, and fine points made. Thanks.
3:32 important to note that it's been basically completely abandoned in philosophy of aesthetics. Barthes was completely wrong, meaning is generally regarded to come from the intent of the author, your own influence is largely irrelevant. This isn't as prominently known as it should be, but it's true. Read Noel Carroll here, _Art Intention and Conversation._
And it's not just that it feels like we're being hit over the head with the message, but the idea is often pretty mainstream already. I just shrug and say, well yeah, of course. There's nothing transgressive about it, no bite. Which partly comes from us all being oh so sure that we're right now, and partly the author just aiming for a big audience.
Now that's easy for me to say though, the white guy over here. It's not for me to decide what other people get out of a book. I do think YA spreading to solidly adult readers is shifting all kinds of norms, in terms of nuance.
Death of the author is a never ending discussion 😅. My answer is, it depends! Or why not both!
I think that there is this idea that everything a writer writes is intentional. However, I don’t think that’s always the case. I believe current writers have become more intentional, but the art of writing is much less intentional.
In the past, when a writer wrote fiction, they didn’t necessarily know what the point of their work would be until they read it over again, figured it out, then went back and enhanced the points they thought were important. So, there was much more subtlety. Whereas today there is more intention right from the start. Writers might be more afraid of their biases coming out in their work. To make sure it doesn’t happen as much or in a way they didn’t intend, they plan things out more and it erodes that natural subtlety.
At least, this is my opinion of what is happening.
I'd agree, I have found a happy medium for death of the author. The example I use is actually the Game of Throns show. They made a show, really well btw save for one ep which was trash, but at the end of the ep they would do interviews with the makers and they would say what they ment by something. Almost every time it ended up being, exaggerated example here, them- "we wanted to show that the door was red" the audience- "but there is no door, it's a window with no glass...". For House of the Dragon it happened again and again, it blew my mind how out of touch they were with what they were making. It was almost like they saw an alternative reality.
I completely agree. I think that authors now impose their ideas and thought as true instead of being humbly and subtle presenting them, so readers can make a critical reading and enjoy that subtility that become the lyricism and literary value of the work.
I've noticed this across all platforms. I have no idea why, I have a theory, but no real evidence. My theory is that the authors that made good scifi have either died/retired/or were forced out/kept out, and the new lot live on Twitter or surround themselves with people who aren't encouraging them to become the best they can be. Because of that they never have to expand and think deeper, the surface level idea is all they ever think about, and because nothing exists before 2012 (pick a random date in the 2000 onwards) they never read or see stuff that did their idea long before and better. Atleast that's my theory from what I've observed.
Definitely enjoyed this thought provoking discussion. I agree with your theory that authors, or perhaps it is really the publishers, are afraid of public opinions.
I've definitely noticed this trend. Since so many books are published these days, you can definitely still find challenging work but I think the more popular and celebrated books tend to be simplified. I love a challenging work so I find it frustrating. Very thoughtful video, you did a great job articulating your points!
The Left Hand of Darkness was a story that opened my mind to thinking about gender in ways I never would have encountered in the rural Alaskan town I grew up in. I never would have read a screed on gender fluidity and equality, but Mrs. Le Guin's writing is so compelling that I never felt that I was being preached at. I was being told an amazing story.
Menolly's struggles to become a Harper despite the prejudices against her and her apparent handicaps taught me a lot about the misogyny that women face that I never would have learned if the story tried to just sledgehammer those ideas in instead of being a good story first.
It's possible that there are people out there who want to read a message with a story attached, and if there are authors out there who want to fill that niche, then more power to them. It's not my job to say what's good and bad.
I feel that most people want a good story with good characters and that it takes a very talented author to deliver a novel that combines the story, the characters and the message in such a way that a person's mind can be expanded without them realizing it until the end.
blown away to click on a random video on my recommended page only for it to have one of the only accurate explanations of barthes' death of the author i've ever seen in a video!!!!! thank u so much for that!!!
one thing i always point when talking about the idea people online seem to have about "declining media literacy" is the exact point you made right before about social media--before the internet, if you were a random person with a bad take, you'd keep it to yourself. nowadays, it's easy to post it somewhere, which means we're all seeing more bad takes from random people all the time, which makes it easy to say that media literacy is declining. but come on, i just don't think those same randos would be writing journal-worthy reviews if they were around 30 years ago or whatever. it's probably a good critical thinking actually, to try and discern WHY you're seeing more of something instead of just assuming it's because there's more of it on the whole than there used to be.
I really appreciate and tend to agree with your position. Critical thinking and comprehension are things that I rarely see discussed in the broader "public" discourse around literacy levels. Thank you for your well-thought-out and thought-provoking video!
I think it is somewhat that author's have to worry about reputation and optics and such due to the much faster news/media cycle turn-around or whatever. But, even more than that, I think it is in fact because so many people do actually conflate an author or creator together with their created works-and because so many feel that everyone has a moral accountability for whatever potential effects what they put out into the world might or might now have on the world around them, as much or moreso than the world around their works has a responsibility for how people are or aren't effected by the works or such that are put out into the world around them and then received or interacted-with by them in the world, rather than seeing "moral lessons" or what-such as optional and not mandatory(and then if you DO decide to have some kind of a 'moral lesson' or whatever in your works..then you are expected to make it somehow as absolutely clear and unambiguous or impossible to ever be misconstrued by anyone as possible...instead of anyone just accepting that different stories or different fictional works can each serve sometimes very very different purposes and it doesn't always need to be meant to morally educate anyone nor be personally reflective of their own individual worldviews or whatever at all).
If that makes any sense?😅
You made a great point in breaking the errant conclusion that literacy only includes the ability to decode, which, thankfully, we are still able to do that. Comprehension is the true test of literacy, and I lay the blame for dropping comprehension scores on the simple fact that reading is slow. The younger generations demand immediacy and ease, in which there is no room for subtlety. Heck, I even watch youtube videos on double speed when I can.
Fantastic analysis Bookborn. I wonder how much of that comes from publisher notes to an author (trying to improve reach to new readers) and how much or a lack of personal subtlety. Regardless, it’s always nice to have your fresh opinions on a regular basis. Kudos!
One of my favorite reading lessons I gave my son was having him read Of Mice and Men so we could discuss the concept of how intention does not always control consequences.
Lenny meant well but his actions had negative consequences. It was an exercise on getting my son to think about how our perception of the world is not the same as someone elses.
Now I am one of those "the curtains are blue because they're blue" people but I also do recognize that there can be symbolism and lessons within a book.
Either way, I agree that books seem to be too obvious with their points lately.
I think the fact books are now expected to reach the largest audience possible is a factor. Before books would be OK being more adventurous because they would target a specific audience, now there's a tendency to try and cross into other target audiences. Also, the education systems have gotten worse, from too much control of teaching, to making sure the bottom achievers feel included.
This was a great video and I agree with a lot of the stuff you said, but if I'm being honest I do get really annoyed with people constantly misinterpreting Stormlight and ASOIAF.
I also feel like my enjoyment of themes in a book is less reliant on how subtle they are and more reliant of how much I think they are smart/clever/align with my own views etc. Its not that I don't enjoy subtlety. I do, and like I said I agree with a lot of what you say. The point is that its a factor in my enjoyment, but its not the main one.
For example, I enjoy decoding obscure stuff in books like Piranesi or the Slow Regard of Silent Things, but I also think Yumi and the Nightmare Painter is one of the strongest books I've ever read thematically. That's not to say its totally devoid of subtlety; I think most of Brandon's books, including that one, have a mix of really obvious stuff and really obscure stuff. But for the most part its not particularly subtle compared to many other books.
I also get slightly annoyed by books that are so "subtle" that I can't tell whether the author is actually being subtle or if they're just totally unaware that they're bringing up the things they're bringing up. Wheel of Time (which I have admittedly not yet finished) is the only example of this I can think of. And, that of course, doesn't mean that I don't appreciate some of the philosophy and themes in WOT. Again, I do, I just think it could be done better.
I've definitely felt this as well. There are so many books out there that tell a great story, but they feel like they have to hold your hand. I don't know if these authors aren't capable of showing instead of telling or if they just think we aren't capable of understanding context and subtlety. It honestly takes me out of it frequently and I have to set it down for a minute.
Part of that might be that the interpretation of show don't tell that's most prominent is info dumps of lore, but I've never thought that. To me, it's always meant, don't tell me that your MC is a sarcastic badass with a heart of gold, show me. Take a few chapters and put them in situations that show me these things in action.
Chewing on some of the points you made - subtlety, like nuance, is a tricky 'game' to play - and perhaps one that not everyone is willing to play... because it does require a certain amount of work in both directions: from the one creating -> to allow for interpretive criticism; and the one consuming -> to piece things together? Hmm... And it is diff-i-cult to attempt to create something (or just to say something) and then throw it to the wolves. I think it keeps a lot of us from creating (or just speaking)... and then to your point, the inherent difficulty of allowing subtlety/nuance has built an environment where creators are beating the proverbial dead horse? Of your two example books, I've only read Psalm, and for me it was just cozy cute and I appreciated it for that. Overall, I enjoyed hearing your points, and I appreciate you putting this out there.