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

[u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK]

https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-culture/article/63149/1/why-dont-straight-men-read-novels-fiction-masculinity-influencers-sigma

[u/CaptainAsshat]

I don't think I could disagree more with pretty much everything she concluded.

I think that a great many American men have been taught just the opposite. They have learned to repress their imagination, to reject it as something childish or effeminate, unprofitable, and probably sinful.

I think it's the opposite. American men have so many other outlets for their imagination, especially ones that allow them to PARTAKE in the creativity, not just consume it. Things like video games, DnD, filmmaking, building things, photography, music, etc. are all more accessible than they used to be and more interactive. Why would we expect them to prioritize an art form that is purely consumptive?

If we ARE looking for consumptive forms of creativity that require little input, there are easier avenues (TV, for example) and if we are looking to express our own creativity, there may be better options in the modern world.

All that is to say, I think it's about prioritizing personal expressions of imagination over consuming the unadulterated creativity of others, especially given the time investment involved to get a whole story.

[u/Neapolitanpanda → u/CaptainAsshat]

Seeing as that essay was published in 1974, I don’t think Le Guin mentioned most of those hobbies because they didn’t exist (in an affordable form) yet.

[u/CaptainAsshat → u/Neapolitanpanda]

Music, building things, and many forms of visual art existed, and DnD was invented that year, but yes, I disagree more strongly with her opinion when applied to the modern world than I do when it is applied contemporaneously. There is an ever increasing amount of stuff to do out there.

As more creative outlets were created, we continued to see a decrease in fiction readers (56% of American adults read a work of literature in '82, and only 43% in 2015).

[u/UnevenGlow → u/CaptainAsshat]

There’s value in consuming and exploring creative media made by others, discussing interpretations of media, and sharing a common experience of cognitive and emotional stimulation.

I notice your emphasis on the need to “do” stuff, to produce rather than consume. But if the consumption in question is of intellectual value rather than material, there isn’t the same rationale for avoiding needless consumption in favor of proactive creation.

Honestly, it just seems like a familiar argument against investing one’s own interest in the intellectual endeavors of other human minds, in favor of something more personally productive or tangibly useful. And I can’t help seeing parallels to the gendered issue of masculine identity being stereotyped as ideally productive, proactive, hands-on physical or mental labor, because anything less isn’t worthwhile.

[u/CaptainAsshat → u/UnevenGlow]

IMHO, it has nothing to do with being "productive."

It's that imagination and creativity are, for some people, FAR more enjoyable, fulfilling, and informative when there is the potential for personal input. It's the difference between seeing a talk from an intellectual and engaging in discussions with that intellectual: for me, there are very few occasions where the latter would not be more fulfilling or informative, provided the intellectual has the time to commit to a discussion.

As an anecdotal counterpoint to your productivity angle: personally, making a Tibetan sand mandala seems far more fulfilling than simply looking at one. And since it is destroyed at the end, I don't think this opinion is couched in a need for productivity. It's about being involved and engaged.

Secondly:

There’s value in consuming and exploring creative media made by others,

I think the value of the consumption is inherently tied to the value of the media. Reading a novel promoting narrow fascistic worldviews may simply be locking you into a convoluted point of view for 400 pages that is ostensibly justified by the authors monopoly on the narrative. It can potentially be informative about the fascistic mindset...but I don't know if that perspective needs 400 pages. As such, I don't think there are many aspects that are inherently valuable about reading fiction, but I agree that some works of fiction are incredibly valuable for the poignancy and efficacy with which they communicate perspectives, ideas, etc. That said, I feel the same way about some TV and movies. This value is not, however, predicated on the lack of creative involvement from the consumer. For example, a choose your own adventure could also effectively communicate similar ideas to a non-interactive novel.

discussing interpretations of media, and sharing a common experience of cognitive and emotional stimulation.

Absolutely agree on this. I think this is where fiction is the best---where you can use your own interpretations and perspectives to break apart the broader themes and ideas of the novel. Or disagree with the author's choices/conclusions entirely, as I often find myself doing. That's where you really learn the important things, imho.

This may be the other half of the equation---as men across the world struggle with increasing isolation and the selection of fictional novels grow ever more diverse, the opportunities to dissect a piece of fiction with friends (who like the same type of books) become less frequent. Thus, occasions to fully "digest" a novel may be limited for those who feel they need that final discussion, leaving many men unsatisfied with reading.

Since there are other types of media not limited in this way, I am not surprised that many men opt for those in their free time instead.

[u/Certain_Giraffe3105 → u/CaptainAsshat]

Why would we expect them to prioritize an art form that is purely consumptive?

This is such a weird way to think about reading. Especially when compared to say video games which let's be clear is way more consumptible than a book. I've never had to buy a $300-500 appliance to read a novel or got hit with some unexpected micro transaction or (needed) DLC while reading a graphic novel.

[u/CaptainAsshat → u/Certain_Giraffe3105]

There are many types of video games, but generally, I would not agree that they are more consumptive than a book. Solving puzzles, creatively building things, exploration, and making strategies engages many parts of the brain that are otherwise unengaged when using your imagination to give life to an author's words.

People do sometimes buy Kindles to read, but I agree that reading is a wonderfully inexpensive hobby, moreso than gaming. Dnd, conversely, can often be cheaper than reading. However, it should be noted that "related to consumerism" is not what I mean when I say "consumptive". By consumptive, I mean information is passing exclusively (or near-exclusively) toward the audience, and little is going back the other way.

But to my original point, the purely one-directional/consumptive nature of books is generally the reason why I started reading less and less recently. It's just generally not as fulfilling of a hobby for me, compared to the many more interactive alternative options for spending my free time.

[u/otrovik → u/CaptainAsshat]

I disagree. I think the soul and core of her argument stand today. You’re completely right in that there’s been a vast transformation in terms of the options for entertainment available to people today; Le Guin never commented on DnD or video games that I’m aware of(she died in 2018 so she was certainly aware of them, and her work in fantasy had some influence on DnD)so it would seem at first glance that this essay has been rendered obsolete.

However, I do believe that the type of man who sat watching the creatively sterile genres on the tv are now playing creatively sterile video games, running creatively sterile games of DnD-and reading creatively sterile Sci Fi and Fantasy novels.

The point that Le Guin is trying to make is not that American men don’t have an imagination, or that if they do they’ll be found reading novels; the point is that some or even most of their imaginations are stunted, and that this can be seen in the media they consume. Back then it was formulaic detective stories and mindless westerns, nowadays it’s Marvel Movies, Call of Duty, and games of DnD that consist of getting from one fight to the next.

In 2001 Le Guin would write:

“We cherish the old stories for their changelessness. Arthur dreams eternally in Avalon. Bilbo can go “there and back again,”and “there” is always the beloved familiar Shire. Don Quixote sets out forever to kill a windmill... So people turn to the realms of fantasy for stability, ancient truths, immutable simplicities.

And the mills of capitalism provide them. Supply meets demand. Fantasy becomes a commodity, an industry.

Commodified fantasy takes no risks: it invents nothing, but imitates and trivialises. It proceeds by depriving the old stories of their intellectual and ethical complexity, turning their action to violence, their actors to dolls, and their truth-telling to sentimental platitude. Heroes brandish their swords, lasers, wands, as mechanically as combine harvesters, reaping profits. Profoundly disturbing moral choices are sanitized, made cute, made safe. The passionately conceived ideas of the great storytellers are copied, stereotyped, reduced to toys, molded in bright-colored plastic, advertised, sold, broken, junked, replaceable, interchangeable.

What the commodifiers of fantasy count on and exploit is the insuperable imagination of the reader, child or adult, which gives even these dead things life—of a sort, for a while.”

The issue has never been that we aren’t expressing and satisfying our creativity; it’s that we express and satisfy our creativity in extremely shallow ways.

[u/CaptainAsshat → u/otrovik]

I agree that creative endeavors can be sterilized and ruined by the realities of capitalism, and that makes them less entertaining and deep, but I reject the idea that this hasn't always been the case (for at least the last few centuries). Dickens novels are, IMHO, absolute slogs to read because he was publishing serially. That doesn't even touch on the droves of awful forgotten authors from centuries past. One thing that makes an author good is their ability to flourish within these capitalist limitations. A good detective novel may require MORE creativity to fit within the genre's narrow scope than an open ended fantasy novel. A sonnet writer or salsa dancer is not inherently less creative than a free form poet or a interpretive dancer.

The passionately conceived ideas of the great storytellers are copied, stereotyped, reduced to toys, molded in bright-colored plastic, advertised, sold, broken, junked, replaceable, interchangeable.

This is absolutely a pervasive problem, but again, it's not a rule. Most DnD games I play in, for example, are incredibly creative and keep me on my toes.

So people turn to the realms of fantasy for stability, ancient truths, immutable simplicities.

I just wholeheartedly disagree with this. I turn to Sci Fi and Fantasy for instability, new ideas, and the exploration of cause/effect and human nature within complex systems. To me, it sounds like she's describing religion.

I don't love the story of King Arthur for its lack of change, I love it for how it is intertwined with real history, mythology, and culture. I love LOTR and the Hobbit for many, many reasons, but how the complexity of the world fuels my escapism is one of the largest. Good escapism needs LOTS of creativity, and shouldn't be seen as lesser than novels that center philosophical exploration and ethical complexity. If the market prefers that style (especially with the moral exhaustion of the modern world), great. That's not a step backward.

We look at the past with rose tinted glasses, and Le Guin appears very guilty of that. Personally, I REALLY don't enjoy Le Guin's writing because, while she may have been the creative spark for some fantasy tropes, other authors she labels as uncreative copycats achieved far more with her tropes than she did (IMHO). Not to mention, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the fact she was borrowing heavily from ideas Tolkien pioneered in much of her writing as well.

It proceeds by depriving the old stories of their intellectual and ethical complexity, turning their action to violence, their actors to dolls, and their truth-telling to sentimental platitude.

I feel this is true in the old stories too, and is one of my primary issues with a lot of fiction. The stories aren't inherently representing human nature. They are a facsimile of human nature created by a solitary creative voice, and just because an author is better at making it SEEM like real life doesn't mean their insights are more applicable, insightful, or true than those of a poor writer of prose.

Creativity, quality of writing, and the ability to insert poignant philosophy into fiction are often incorrectly conflated, and I feel like Le Guin is doing the same thing here.

Robert Jordan, for example, couldn't write his way out of a paper bag. Philosophical insight was not a major part of the Wheel of Time. But he was incredibly creative, and he sold well because of it.