Men not reading much, especially not fiction

[KEV67]

Read an article I. the Telegraph lamenting that men did not read many books, and what books we read tended to be non-fiction. Is this a problem? What are we to make of this? 

[timebug]

I am male and have always been an avid reader, since I first discovered from my Mother, that those curious symbols on the breakfast cereal packet, actually meant something! I read anything that appeals to me, be it factual, fiction, biography/autobiography whatever. I have a large collection of 'real' books which was much larger at one time, but I had to do a cull for reasons of space in my small home! The past few years I have read my various ereaders, and always have a book 'on the go'. But in fairness, the majority of my male friends are not readers. They will happily read a two or three column(s) per page magazine, but cringe at the thought of a book! And one friend (bless!) who loves nothing more than films, claims he would never read fiction because 'it's all made up'. Like films, aren't, of course?

[Madeleine]

I think it's always been the case, that males don't read as much as females.  

 

And one friend (bless!) who loves nothing more than films, claims he would never read fiction because 'it's all made up'. Like films, aren't, of course? - not much you can say to that is there!

[lunababymoonchild]

My father and my brother read and always have. My brother is an avid reader and my father slightly less so but always has a book 'on the go'. One of my friend's husband read and that's about all I know about.

 

I wonder why men in general don't read? Did the article say?

[KEV67]

Noël Gallagher said he only read factual books, fiction being a waste of time. Philip Roth said there was not a readership capable of concentrating enough to read one of his books. The reporter thinks there are too many other distractions: Netflix, computer games, Spotify, online pornography. Readership has been in decline for decades, but more so among men. Men are twice as likely as women not to read at all. Women read 80% of fiction. Men read more fiction than women only in science fiction, fantasy and horror. Apparently men think reading fiction is a waste of time. Men are reluctant to read books by women. Publishing has become dominated by women. Male authors are turning to screenwriting because it is better paid and it is more difficult to get a book published. Some neuroscientists think women's brains are hardwired for empathy while male brains are hardwired for systems. Girls learn to read quicker than boys, and boys can get put off.

 

The article was by Ed Cumming but it is behind a paywall.

Edited November 22, 2021 by KEV67

[KEV67]

When I was a schoolboy in the 70s there did seem a real movement in schools to discourage boys from reading Biggles. I don't know why. I only read one or two Biggles books, well maybe three of four, but it was quite difficult to find them in the school library. My class in middle school were quite avid readers. We tended to like the Willard Price adventure books (Tiger Adventure, Jungle Adventure, etc). I also liked Enid Blyton's Famous Five series, but my favourite books were The Hobbit and Watership Down, which were both band of brothers quests. My secondary school was in a rougher area, and most kids did not read for pleasure. I could not see the point of English literature myself. I was hostile to poetry, which was about daffodils and suchlike. Shakespeare was like a foreign language, whom I suspected hardly anyone truly understood or liked. Then for our O level we had to study Jane Eyre, which is not just romantic fiction, but Victorian romantic fiction, so double girly. At that age most boys are praying they're not gay, so they definitely won't be into reading books like that.

[lunababymoonchild]

8 hours ago, KEV67 said:

Noël Gallagher said he only read factual books, fiction being a waste of time. Philip Roth said there was not a readership capable of concentrating enough to read one of his books. The reporter thinks there are too many other distractions: Netflix, computer games, Spotify, online pornography. Readership has been in decline for decades, but more so among men. Men are twice as likely as women not to read at all. Women read 80% of fiction. Men read more fiction than women only in science fiction, fantasy and horror. Apparently men think reading fiction is a waste of time. Men are reluctant to read books by women. Publishing has become dominated by women. Male authors are turning to screenwriting because it is better paid and it is more difficult to get a book published. Some neuroscientists think women's brains are hardwired for empathy while male brains are hardwired for systems. Girls learn to read quicker than boys, and boys can get put off.

 

The article was by Ed Cumming but it is behind a paywall.

 

8 hours ago, KEV67 said:

When I was a schoolboy in the 70s there did seem a real movement in schools to discourage boys from reading Biggles. I don't know why. I only read one or two Biggles books, well maybe three of four, but it was quite difficult to find them in the school library. My class in middle school were quite avid readers. We tended to like the Willard Price adventure books (Tiger Adventure, Jungle Adventure, etc). I also liked Enid Blyton's Famous Five series, but my favourite books were The Hobbit and Watership Down, which were both band of brothers quests. My secondary school was in a rougher area, and most kids did not read for pleasure. I could not see the point of English literature myself. I was hostile to poetry, which was about daffodils and suchlike. Shakespeare was like a foreign language, whom I suspected hardly anyone truly understood or liked. Then for our O level we had to study Jane Eyre, which is not just romantic fiction, but Victorian romantic fiction, so double girly. At that age most boys are praying they're not gay, so they definitely won't be into reading books like that.

 

Wow. I've been reading articles online that more paper books than ever were being sold as a result of lockdown. Also the odd articles about important men like Bill Gates reading on a regular basis. That said I did read that Bill Gates only read factual books. 

[muggle not]

7 hours ago, lunababymoonchild said:

Wow. I've been reading articles online that more paper books than ever were being sold as a result of lockdown. Also the odd articles about important men like Bill Gates reading on a regular basis. That said I did read that Bill Gates only read factual books. 

I believe that Bill Gates primarily reads non-fiction but also enjoys fiction. Two books that Gates has stated are in his favorites are:

Where The Crawdads Sing .......and 

Eleanor Oliphant Is Completely Fine.

 

In the U.S. it appears that the percentage of men vs women that read books are pretty equal, 75% women and 73% men. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249781/book-reading-population-in-the-us-by-gender/

 

[Hayley]

I remember reading something ages ago which pointed out that the argument 'men don't read' arises periodically. The author was suggesting that the very act of publishing that statement over and over again actually puts boys off reading because they end up feeling as though they aren't supposed to enjoy it. Saying that, when I'm tutoring I always ask the students whether they like to read and I have an equal amount of male and female students who do (preferred genre for boys seems to be detective fiction!).

 

I also always wonder with this kind of newspaper research - who did they actually ask? 

[Brian.]

I used to be one of those men who didn’t read fiction. It wasn’t because I thought it was a waste of time as such but more because I was reading for a specific purpose, to learn something. At the time I never really considered reading just to read as a pleasurable pursuit. Thinking about it now, that is really daft because I really enjoyed reading non-fiction and did so because I enjoyed it, not because I felt like I had to.

 

What changed things for me was finding the right kind of fiction for me. 

[Hux]

I was put off in school. A combination of being forced to read 'Carrie's War' which wasn't remotely suitable (school was obsessed with stories about the evacuees for some reason) and not realising that there were other, different kinds of books out there that might be more likely to grab me.

 

Used to read the Beano and Dandy every week though. 😊 Good times.

[KEV67]

7 hours ago, Brian. said:

 

What changed things for me was finding the right kind of fiction for me. 

Which was?

[Brian.]

16 hours ago, KEV67 said:

Which was?

 

It started with Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, moved through the Wallander books by Henning Mankell, and these days I'll give anything a go. If you told me 10 years ago that I would read Pride & Prejudice for fun and end up loving it I would have thought you'd lost the plot.

[willoyd]

There are so many factors contributing to why males read less than females (it's as true of boys and girls as it is of men and women), some of which are touched on above.  Another one that I found bore out when teaching (I was a primary teacher until retiring 3-4 years ago):  the complete lack of male role models, not least at that critical age of reading development in primary schools.  Once a child has learned to read, reading itself has a very low priority in the school curriculum, and where it does feature, it's utterly, utterly tedious.  Schools seem to work hard at knocking the joy out of reading at a very early stage, and it carries on into secondary (where it's almost worse).  By the time most children got to me in Year 5, I felt as if I was having to do a whole load of catch-up work, with parents as well as students.  Reading schemes were a complete no-no in my class, and reading diaries (a real bugbear) were massively streamlined! Instead we did a lot of reading for pure pleasure.  Being seen as, and making a bit of a joke of being a complete 'reading geek' helped!  It was rare not to find something children enjoyed reading by the end of the year, including fiction books for the boys (although I had to regularly tell parents that it was perfectly fine for their son to be reading non-fiction!).

 

Incidentally, over the past decade my reading has consisted of 64% fiction vs 36% non-fiction, although this year it's been 46% fiction vs 54% non-fiction.  Over the same decade, the author gender split has been 59% male vs 41% female, with one year (2016) where I actually read more female than male, also the year I read proportionately the most fiction; this year it's been fairly similar to the overall figures: 57% male vs 43% female.

 

A couple of other points: I don't think the speed of learning to read is relevant to enjoying reading, but that's purely on anecdotal experience not on anything scientific. What can cause damage is trying to read too early - we push reading and writing formal learning far too early in this country and it can do (and does) serious damage.  If boys in general do learn later, then that could be a contributing factor.  Anecdotally: I learned to read before starting school, whilst my brother (2 years younger) didn't learn to read until at least 8 or so.  In those days my worried parents were told by the school not to worry, he'd catch up when he was ready. I can guarantee that wouldn't happen today.  We are equally avid readers now, with not dissimilar reading profiles (although he conforms to male stereotype by reading a lot of fantasy, whereas I read hardly any).

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by willoyd

[Anna Faversham]

Interesting thread with responses hitting various nails on the head.

 

I hope we all have more chance to read during the Christmas holidays. 

[Danspaghettiman]

This is my first time in this group and really impressed by the level of debate. I read fiction every day but don't know any other men that do. My dad had the same opinion as Noel Gallagher: that reading fiction was a waste of time. He, my father, read non-fiction everyday. He like many, felt you could not learn anything from fiction. I find this astounding. I used to argue with him about where he thought fiction came from. Did he really think it was completely made up and not based on fact  and of course is all non-fiction completely factual. Anyway I did not win and he never read fiction which was a real shame - for him.

 

I did not read fiction at school because the books did not relate to my life. When I left school and disovered texts that did I started reading fiction and have never stopped. The problem I feel is that schools, especially now, have set texts they have to use. It is not the fault of the teachers. The Government decides what children should read and these texts do not relate to the children's everyday lives and does not inspire them to carry on reading.

 

Children should be able to read any book, within reason and decency, that tIhey want - as i belived that getting them to read is more important than what they read.

[Madeleine]

Yes school can do a good job of putting children off books! Hopefully they'll find their own way back at some point, and find something they want to read about.

 

Interesting point re fiction vs non fiction, as you say fiction comes from somewhere, and how do you know how much of a non-fiction book is true, or actually happened?  Still, each to their own!

 

Welcome to the forum, by the way, what type of books or genres do you like?

[lunababymoonchild]

I was asounded to find out a school friend of mine was put off reading as a result of school. We went to the same school and she was brought up in the same atmosphere I was i.e. everybody read all of the time. I loved most of the school texts we had and continued to read what I wanted to read in addition.

 

I've always read fiction and non-fiction for a variety of different reasons but it all boils down to : I read because I enjoy it.  And that's good enough for me.

[Madeleine]

I didn't enjoy most of the books we did at school.... A Level English started off well with Frankenstein, then they changed the syllabus and we got Jane Austen and her frilly bonnets and match making instead... I never forgave the school for that!  I was talking about books read at school with a work colleague years ago, and she said that she thought a lot of teenagers wouldn't be able to identify with the characters from the classics, as they just didn't have the life experience required, which I thought was an interesting point.  And then there's the simple reason that it's because we were forced to read something we didn't want to read, or might not have been interested in, because, as my colleague said, we didn't have the emotional maturity to really appreciate the texts, or OK some of them were downright boring - I hated 1984 and still do, even though I can see what Orwell was getting at now.

Edited November 2 by Madeleine

[Hayley]

5 hours ago, lunababymoonchild said:

I was asounded to find out a school friend of mine was put off reading as a result of school. We went to the same school and she was brought up in the same atmosphere I was i.e. everybody read all of the time. I loved most of the school texts we had and continued to read what I wanted to read in addition.

 

I've always read fiction and non-fiction for a variety of different reasons but it all boils down to : I read because I enjoy it.  And that's good enough for me.

Me too! I think it made a big difference for me (and maybe it's the same for you!) that I already loved reading fiction before we started reading classics in class. Something I find all the time now, when I'm tutoring, is that students who read for fun pick up new texts much more easily (which completely makes sense, because they see familiar patterns in things). But also, all art forms are subjective - it makes sense that even if we happened to get books that we liked, another avid reader would have hated the same selection. 

 

4 hours ago, Madeleine said:

And then there's the simple reason that it's because we were forced to read something we didn't want to read, or might not have been interested in, because, as my colleague said, we didn't have the emotional maturity to really appreciate the texts, or OK some of them were downright boring - I hated 1984 and still do, even though I can see what Orwell was getting at now.

I loved 1984 😅 but I agree on Frankenstein. I love that too and I don't think I'd have enjoyed Pride and Prejudice as much at the time. Funnily enough, Jane Eyre is on one of the GCSE lists right now, and I noticed a teacher discussion about not using it because it doesn't appeal to the boys. So there is some consideration of how boys might react to certain texts differently.

 

[Danspaghettiman]

I love George Orwell but 1984 is my least favourite. I have read and enjoyed most of the classic female Victorian authors, George Elliott, Brontes, as an adult but would not have read them at school. When you are a boy and reading is not exactly cool the book has to be engaging and identifiable. I think the first book I read that hooked me was Catcher in the Rye. Steinbeck worked for me too. Easy to read and compelling. Do you buy physical books or digital? 

[lunababymoonchild]

12 hours ago, Hayley said:

Me too! I think it made a big difference for me (and maybe it's the same for you!) that I already loved reading fiction before we started reading classics in class. Something I find all the time now, when I'm tutoring, is that students who read for fun pick up new texts much more easily (which completely makes sense, because they see familiar patterns in things). But also, all art forms are subjective - it makes sense that even if we happened to get books that we liked, another avid reader would have hated the same selection. 

 

Absolutely. To me, then, as now, reading is like breathing and I genuinely have no idea that other people don’t read. So when I was forced to read at school I was already familiar with the concept and could concentrate on the text. We read Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men which absolutely horrified me and I had no idea that he had written anything else until recently. So I can see why school would put a child off reading for pleasure. OMaM didn’t put me off reading but I did not seek out John Steinbeck until now. 
 

On the other hand, how does the education system in this country otherwise encourage children to read?

[Brian.]

When I was at school the the literature we were forced to study in English classes put me off 'classic literature' for over a decade. I assumed that it wasn't for me as I didn't like authors like Shakespeare and Thomas Hardy. At that age I also didn't really understand a lot of the nuance so thought I was too dumb to appreciate literature. Fortunately I have always read a lot of non-fiction and eventually I decided to dip my toes back into modern classics like George Orwell. As a result I eventually tried other writers like Jane Austen, George Eliot, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky and that made me realise that literature is a broad church and there is stuff out there I will love, I just need to find it. There is still some classic literature I don't like and I'm not sure I will ever give Hardy another shot.

 

Had I not been a life-long reader I doubt that I would have ever made this jump so I can see why some people never read again after school. When I think of the 80 or so people I work with (almost all men) there are perhaps half a dozen people who still read for leisure.

[Danspaghettiman]

I used to love Hardy. He has tragic characters that for me were so extreme that it would strangely make me laugh - like poor Jude, I mean could anything else have gone wrong for him. I can see why anyone would be turned off by this though.

 

I had to read the classics at college and apart from Jane Austin I have read most Victorian novelists. Women seem to love Jane Austin but I have yet to meet a man that does. 

 

But these days there are so many really great books that you can just read whatever you want.