Why We Read What We Read by John Heath and Lisa Adams is not the book I expected it to be. This is not a bad thing. Let me explain. I had expected the book to be an investigation of sorts into the publishing industry and its dirty little secrets. What the book turned out to be is an investigation into the books–bestsellers–people are reading and what it says about our culture and psychology which is very likely more interesting than the book I expected.
Heath and Adams have combed the bestseller lists from 1993-2005 for both fiction and nonfiction. They have compared and contrasted. They have observed trends and grouped books accordingly. Why We Read is broken up into chapters based on the groups Heath and Adams created. These groups include self-help diet, finance and inspiration books, adventure novels and political nonfiction, love, romance and relationships, and religion and spirituality, among a few others The Da Vinci Code gets a chapter all to itself. Each chapter was full of interesting bits that I could go on and on about, but I’m not going to, you just have to read the book.
I will, however, give you some highlights. One of the chapters I found most astonishing was the romance and relationship chapter. According to statistics from the Romance Writers of America, romance fiction is the best selling genre fiction in the U.S. In 2004 romance fiction accounted for 54.9% of all popular fiction sold. Almost 65 million Americans read romance novels (most of them are women). Over 6 million people read more than 20 romance titles a year. Over a million of those read 51-100+ books a year. Heath and Adams write, “These numbers suggest that a great many people are intensely reliant on the emotional effects of reading these books.” Romance novels need to be taken seriously, especially if they truly are a form of coping mechanism:
their excessive and growing consumption presents such a sobering picture of the emotional state of women in America. The reading may provide temporary relief and genuine joy, but it doesn’t actually solve problems, first and foremost because escaping from difficulty will never revolutionize an unhappy marriage. More troubling, many of these books, especially the traditional romance novels, airbrush and glorify the old-fashioned marital standards that make women unhappy enough to read romances in the first place!
Sobering thoughts.
I don’t think I have yet mentioned how funny Heath and Adams are. The book is peppered with wry comments. They even include a list of Chicken Soup titles you will never see on the shelf. You can get a small taste of their humor in a bit of what they have to say about the plethora of religious books on the bestseller lists:
Yet it seems that we in America have this “religious” mentality not only about religion, but about everything–our diet, our relationships, our politics. We look to other people–to writers, no less, who barely qualify as people–to tell us how to live. We don’t go out in the world trusting our experience…and we very readily discard our experiences and take advice from “experts” instead. We don’t even trust our own reading of the Bible, a great book (and perennial bestseller) that will outlive every one of its bestselling interpreters. Why are we so religiously challenged?
In spite of the humor and lighthearted tone of the book, Heath and Adams have some worrisome things to say. The authors worry that the bestsellers reveal that
our reading too often simplifies, rather than adumbrates; commands, rather than suggests; answers rather than questions; pardons, rather than challenges; accuses rather than seeks to understand.
We read books looking for help and answers but only the kind of help and answers we want to hear. We do not read for ideas. Our opinions and world view are not challenged. And if they are we don’t believe it. Their study of the bestsellers also suggests that Americans do not read very carefully. They use The Da Vinci Code as a sort of case study on this. Many smart people thought the book was true. Because we can’t even seem to read well the simple books we agree with, Heath and Adams worry that “we may ultimately lose our ability to sift through complex information, to walk safely through the quagmire of indeterminancy, to work together in a world of difference to find common ground and progress.”
Occasionally some of the detailed discussion of the bestsellers got a bit tiresome and I wished a chapter or two was a bit shorter. Overall, however, I found the book good and quite interesting. Heath and Adams reveal that it isn’t only the decline in numbers of readers we need to be concerned about. We should also be troubled by what is being read and how (there is a great analysis of Oprah books). I don’t want you to think the authors are elitist in any way, there is nothing wrong with reading a bestseller. But if your reading never challenges you or makes you see the world a bit differently, if it doesn’t prompt you to change or act, then something isn’t right.
Why We Read What We Read should provide some thoughtful reading to anyone who values books for more than just an escape.
Whoah, the authors seem to have a huge problem with people seeking advice in books. What’s up with that? It seems to me it’s the people who think they have all the answers that cause trouble in this world.
LikeLike
“our reading too often simplifies, rather than adumbrates; commands, rather than suggests; answers rather than questions; pardons, rather than challenges; accuses rather than seeks to understand”
I really like this and it underlines my basic skepticism about the mass culture trends. The statistics on romance novels are also quite frightening.
p.s. I just mooched the Pinker book – I can’t wait!
LikeLike
This sounds like an interesting book.
The part about The Da Vinci Code reminds me of a story on the BBC News a couple of years ago, in which an American reader was being interviewed in front of the Louvre in Paris.
‘Well,’ he said, ‘I wanted to come here to this museum because of reading the Da Vince Code, and what I’ve seen in there [ie, the entire contents of the Louvre], well, that’s almost as good as the book.’
Who says reading doesn’t broaden the mind?
LikeLike
Sylvia, I misrepresent the authors if I have given that impression. They find nothing wrong with going to books looking for advice. It is the often shallow advice many of the bestselling books offer as well as using the reading of the book as a panacea for the problem instead of doing the hard work of actually making a change that is the issue.
Verbivore, aren’t those stats startling? Congrats on mooching a Pinker book. Which one did you get?
Rob, the Louvre almost as good as the book? Oh so sad. That’s exactly the kind of thing the authors are concerned about.
LikeLike
Look up the Anthony Lane on reading books on the N.Y. Times bestseller list.
Now that’s worthwhile reading.
LikeLike
It sounded like the authors came to their own conclusions about why we read the books they found on the bestseller lists. I would have expected they should interview readers to find out why. Perhaps the title should be “What People Read and Why We Think They Do.” I think your summary was probably more interesting than the book, so I’m happy I read it. Thanks for writing it up.
Hmm… I wonder if I read any books that were on the bestseller list…
LikeLike
Sounds like a good book.
I think reading is a balance of education and entertainment – sometimes in differing quantities – at least that is why I surround myself with these papery creatures.
I think people reading anything is better than they reading nothing – but they do need to be aware of what they are reading – what is real, what isnt etc. Perhaps big warnings on the sides of books – cigarette style?
LikeLike
Well, I think the authors are quite misinformed if they think living (and especially reading the Bible!) doesn’t require the guidance of experts. The fact that they put the word “experts” in quotes makes clear their philosophical outlook–pouty individualism of the “no one can tell me what to do!” variety. That kind of attitude is not much of an improvement over looking for easy answers in popular self-help books. It’s just the mirror image.
LikeLike
By the way, Bikkuri brings up an excellent point. I was wondering if they had actual data to support their inferences about why women read romance novels.
LikeLike
Thank you very much Sylvia! As a stalwart, though no longer avid, reader of romances, I have to say I am wholeheartedly tired of people who think we women read our romances because we’re in some dismal emotional state and look to Fabio coming in on a white horse to save us from our terrible lives. No doubt manly mystery readers go for Hammett because they really want to shoot bad guys and flirt with dangerous women?
*ahem*
So instead of linking to the writers’ blog, my original intention, I’m going to link to two posts on the excellent “Smart Bitches Read Trashy Books” website, edited by two smart, university educated women who aren’t reading romances in place of seeking an appearance on Dr. Phil.
On the Acceptability of Emotions and Romance
Romance novels and subversion
And there’s more like it in archives. Harrumph.
LikeLike
Interesting stuff on romance, in your post, Stefanie, and in the comments. It reminds me a bit of 18C preoccupations (of course it reminds me of the 18C🙂 ) with what women were reading. People were upset and worried about women wasting their time reading sentimental novels, filling their heads with trash that would make them lose their virginity and end up prostitutes. It seems that people have been obsessed for a long, long time with regulating what women read, and this latest worry about romances is another manifestation.
LikeLike
Imani – Of course we (men, that is) do want to shoot bad guys and flirt with dangerous women, but… they are both frightening to us. I think a quick look at the average script for an adventure movie kind of displays that. Hollywood could show us other stuff (Remains of the Day, Shadowlands, etc.) but they need to sell tickets as well. I hold my breath – and turn a little blue – waiting for the good ones. But books, ah books: we can choose the one we want, when we want it. (The two ‘Librarian’ movies were pretty amusing twists on adventure films though.)
Dorothy – As long as there is writing, there will probably be folks worried about what women read. I’ll try not to be one of them. The books themselves are not as influential as critical thinking; once a person (of either gender) has developed that, then there are no dangerous books. Read on!
LikeLike
There’s another Librarian movie?! And I thought I was the only one who’d seen “Quest for the Spear.”
LikeLike
Pingback: Why We Read What We Read » Blog Archive » Romance isn’t dead
Pingback: A Follow Up and Some Kittens That are Turning Into Cats « So Many Books
My response was going to be too long, so I just banged it out and put it on my blog.
Visit and comment: http://www.redroomlibrary.com!
LikeLike
Smart people thought The Da Vinci Code was real? Uh….no comment.
LikeLike
THANK YOU for all of your very interesting comments and links, I would not like to miss only one.
The solution of the problem to be solved (“Analysis of our Reading Interests”) may be questioned this way:
“Tell one of us what you are reading, and we are able to decipher your mood, your psychological situation and you longings within the moment of your reading”.
A psychiatrist once told us in a public discussion, that he uses paintings in cases where it seems difficult to gain access to the patient’s real problem.
In case I would be a psychiatrist (I am no one) I would do the same with reading.
But he warned us to be cautious: Our results are only valid for a more or less SHORT moment. Such an analysis is very important for a therapist, but for no one else and not FOR EVER.
So – to simplify – it is POSSIBLE to say “tell me what you are reading, and I am able to give you a valid characterization of your personal qualities”, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to say that this would describe the “character of the reader” (or the character of the “American Reader”, what the authors of the discussed book seemed to question). Sigh !!!! And THAT is good.
Have a good time
Jurgen
LikeLike
Sorry I’ve not been involved much with this great discussion, sometimes keeping up is hard to do.
Bikkuri and Sylvia, the authors to use other sources and analyses of reading habits. And Sylvia, I don’t think they mean to disparage all expert advice, only the kind of advice in books like The Prayer of Jabez which is one of the bestseller they looked at.
Imani, thanks for the links!
Dorothy, what an interesting connection! leave it to you to make it🙂
J.S, yeah, I kind of wondered about that too but I gave them the benefit of the doubt.
Jurgen, thank you for adding to the discussion. You make some interesting and, I think, valid points. The books we read do say a lot about us, but as you point out, it is something that is constantly changing.
LikeLike
The Librarian movies are:
“Quest for the Spear” and “Return to King Solomon’s Mines”. The second one was good, but it suffered from some of the weaknesses of Hollywood. The relationship that was established at the end of the first show vanished in the second. I presume this is due to contract negotiation issues or a need to churn the same sexual tension repeatedly. Books trump movies, because the stars never demand higher paychecks. Serious literature trumps movies because the same hackneyed story lines don’t have to be recycled when a master writer is at work. Karate Kid did the same thing. The ‘Girl of His Dreams’ vanished without a thought between the first two shows.
LikeLike
The more I hear about this book, the more I want to read it. It sounds like a fabulous, thought-provoking read.
LikeLike
Well, it wouldn’t take much to trump The Karate Kid. (Not that I’ve seen it. Or the sequel. *cough*) “Fearless,” on the other hand…
(Sorry for getting off topic, Stefanie!)
LikeLike
Bikkuri, thanks for the titles of the librarian movies. I had to laugh at your Karate Kid reference. What did ever happen to the girl from the first movie?
Court, it certainly has provoked a good discussion!
Sylvia, how can you have not seen Karate Kid? You should be tied down and made to watch it and all it’s sequels! Off topic is ok🙂
LikeLike
Wax on, wax off.
LikeLike
LOL!😀
LikeLike
Pingback: Romance isn’t dead in this house | Lisa Adams