糖心传媒

logo

A Venn Diagram of Not Reading

糖心传媒淚f I actually finish a book, I feel like I deserve a Nobel Prize.糖心传媒�

糖心传媒淚 can’t even guess when I last read a book. But I’d watch movies all day if I could. Especially Marvel ones.糖心传媒�

Overheard on a 糖心传媒 Shuttle

糖心传媒淚n the last decade, she says, history has toppled from the king of disciplines to a numbing data set: a litany of trackable moments, the realm of machines.糖心传媒�

糖心传媒�Same Bed Different Dreams, Ed Park

 

I糖心传媒檝e been struggling with this piece for over two months now. Originally conceived of as a data-driven essay, it became unwieldy, a four-handed mess that pivoted over and again, yearning for a point to be made, a Big Idea to land.

Re-reading糖心传媒攁nd lightly editing糖心传媒擡nrique Vila-Matas糖心传媒檚 Montano糖心传媒檚 Malady (my favorite Vila-Matas, my favorite malady) has provided a structural solution that糖心传媒檚 also a return to form. For better or worse, I don糖心传媒檛 write essays. I don糖心传媒檛 know how to categorize what it is that I do write, but this Vila-Matas novel that takes the form of a diary about writers who write diaries and who are literature-sick, infected with graphomania 脿 la Fres谩n and the ex-writer in his 糖心传媒淧art Trilogy,糖心传媒� endlessly referencing books, authors, living his life through literature, is more or less the spirit that has always inhabited this blog.

This attitude can come off as a bit elitist and a lot out of touch糖心传媒攑ar for the course when you read incessantly and the rest of the world generally doesn糖心传媒檛糖心传媒攂ut hopefully in the end all this handwringing about what these posts are or what their value is results in a momentary respite from the insanity of modern-day life, an intellectually stimulating journey through a journal. So here goes.

*

Over the past few months, I糖心传媒檝e been asking as many people as I could: 糖心传媒淗ow many books did you read last year? Include anything and everything. Books you listened to. Graphic novels. I糖心传媒檓 just curious as to how many books you consumed in 2023.糖心传媒�

I didn糖心传媒檛 get a ton of responses (twenty-three to be exact, which may lead to small sample size problems, but let糖心传媒檚 go with it anyway), with total numbers ranging from 7 to 152 and averaging out at a smidge over 55.

I don糖心传媒檛 know what I expected糖心传媒攁nd as you糖心传媒檒l hopefully see, the actual number doesn糖心传媒檛 really matter. I糖心传媒檓 chasing a different whale here.

But, but the sake of nerdy numberness, feeding my statistical-mania, I want to point out that the mode of my data set was 40, the median 43. And, once again, the mean of my dataset was 55.2, with a standard deviation of 36.4. So 67% of the people I surveyed read between 18.8 and 91.6 books last year. That糖心传媒檚 a huge difference糖心传媒攔eading less than one book every two weeks, versus almost reading two each week糖心传媒攜et, to be honest, most probably captures the reading habits of all the people you and I know. The booksellers, editors, tweeters, general readers, family.

*

I糖心传媒檓 still not sure this is the best way to start this post, but like I alluded to above, it糖心传媒檚 a piece I conceived of as having four big beats, each overlapping a bit, creating a Venn diagram about reading (or not reading). As such, any starting point is valid, since there is no real logical development. Nothing truly linear.

For example, on December 29th, 2023, I tried to start this piece from the exact opposite place: the semi-recent report from National Endowment for the Arts on 糖心传媒� in 2022.糖心传媒�

In the style of Montano糖心传媒檚 Malady, I can tell you the exact situation in which this journal started being written. I was in River Falls, WI, at Kaija糖心传媒檚 house, in front of the fireplace, ignoring Domino, our corgi, as he whined for yet another dinner before destroying yet another stuffed object. I had been reading Paul Auster糖心传媒檚 Moon Palace, which Kaija had gifted me as part of a newfound ritual of gifting books neither of us have read for the holidays so that we can spend Christmas Day reading something 糖心传媒渁t random.糖心传媒�

I don糖心传媒檛 know what I think of Paul Auster. I met him a couple times, including during his visit to Rochester back around 2011 when he told me two of the greatest baseball stories I糖心传媒檝e ever heard. His brand of post-modernism糖心传媒攃oincidences and the novel as metaphor for the novel, for writing糖心传媒攚as the shit when I was really into in college and for a few years thereafter. The New York Trilogy is a feat, 听it糖心传媒檚 super fun to read and a book that asserts it糖心传媒檚 bookness at almost every turn. It糖心传媒檚 not unimportant to note that the three volumes that constitute the trilogy, and the trilogy itself, were first published by Sun & Moon Press (victory for the independent presses of America), run by Douglas Messerli and a series of 糖心传媒渆mployees糖心传媒� I糖心传媒檓 not sure ever really existed.

Nowadays, almost three decades on, aspects of Auster糖心传媒檚 vibe seem pat, too cute. I糖心传媒檓 not sure if that糖心传媒檚 because the world was a simpler place back in 1995, or I was. And then there was that aggro James Wood takedown糖心传媒攚hich 糖心传媒淲as it Fair? Was it Deserved?,糖心传媒� a great podcast about vicious reviews and whether they糖心传媒檙e warranted, will be covering in an upcoming episode糖心传媒攕ure did harsh my Auster interest, but, to be fair, reading him again in 2024, I have to admit, his books sure do go down smooth, and there糖心传媒檚 something to be said for that. He糖心传媒檚 fun to read, and his novels feel conventional, yet veer off down Lynchian paths but ways that are jouncy, filled with life-enhancing synchronicities rather than space-time foldings around ideas of evil. (Like Bob. Like Judy, whom we don糖心传媒檛 talk about.)

The other time I met Paul Auster was when he did an event with Enrique Vila-Matas at the Cervantes Institute in New York for the release of Bartleby & Co. (Most people糖心传媒檚 favorite Vila-Matas, possibly because it was first to be translated. It糖心传媒檚 the prequel to, or flipside of, Montano糖心传媒檚 Malady.) Declan Spring of New Directions was selling Vila-Matas糖心传媒檚 books, the on-stage conversation about erasing the line between real-life and fiction because fiction, words, literature is a core part of the real-life of these two writers and many of us, was brilliant. There was Spanish wine. Everyone had a great time. (And my hotel accidentally charged me $5.45 for my stay instead of $545. I didn糖心传媒檛 say a word. I糖心传媒檓 sorry, Sohotel. I owe you one.)

Although your mileage with Auster, Vila-Matas, Fres谩n may vary, but there糖心传媒檚 something comforting about slipping into a book where the narrator is an over-read intellectual thinking only in books and quotes. This sort of character糖心传媒攁 consummate reader糖心传媒攊s both a mirror and an aspiration; I read a ton, I get the references, but I don糖心传媒檛 get all of them, we can糖心传媒檛 read everything. Well, most of us, anyway.

And in America? Most people don糖心传媒檛 read at all. As illustrated in that National Endowment for the Arts semi-recent report on 糖心传媒� in 2022糖心传媒� mentioned above.

I糖心传媒檒l let these statistics speak for themselves. According to Figures 8 & 9, the percentage of Americans who read a book in the previous year has gone from 54.6% in 2012 to 48.5% in 2022. With only 37.6% of those surveyed having read a novel or short story collection last year. Which, to be fair, totally dwarfs the paltry 9.2% of Americans who read a poetry collection. (I personally didn糖心传媒檛.)

What I found interesting about this report, which I came across after setting down Moon Palace for the night, alone in front of the fireplace, surrounded by woods, loving the silence yet craving connection, a connection that felt so distant at that time, a very bleak one in my life, the latest in a string of mental health disasters that end friendships and leave me trashed and frantic, the interesting thing about the NEA study was how unsurprising it all was. And, given the paucity of coverage of the study and its depiction of modern life糖心传媒攕ure, I was on a hand-wringing episode of 糖心传媒淐onnections糖心传媒� on NPR糖心传媒檚 WXXI, and I know others fretted after hearing these stats, but the overall shock and awe expressed at earlier iterations of this study was definitely muted this time around糖心传媒攊t糖心传媒檚 as if all it generated was a big shrug. Yep, people don糖心传媒檛 read as much as they used to. What did you expect?

*

In my last post, I wrote out eleven suggestions for what scheme could define this blog for the next year. None of which I糖心传媒檝e actually pursued. That said, as a sucker for programs and rubrics that last a calendar year糖心传媒攖o be honest, anything cyclical speaks to me糖心传媒擨 decided that over the course of 2024, I would read all of In Search of Lost Time (at a rate of 10 pages a day) and all twelve volumes of Anthony Powell糖心传媒檚 A Dance to the Music of Time (at a rate of a book per month beginning March 2024, ending in February 2025, based on the fact that the set I own starts with 糖心传媒淰olume 1: Spring糖心传媒� and it糖心传媒檚 most definitely still winter here in Rochester). Plus I want to finish Ali Smith糖心传媒檚 Seasonal Quartet, which bears mention her. I only have Summer left to go, and I糖心传媒檓 saving it for when I need it. I know it will be brilliant and consume my thinking in the best possible way. It糖心传媒檚 nice to have things to rely on.

I started writing this post for the third time two weeks ago, immediately after finishing Swann糖心传媒檚 Way in Lydia Davis糖心传媒檚 translation. Lydia Davis, who, for anyone unaware, was Paul Auster糖心传媒檚 first wife. I sketched out a plan to write seven articles this year: each one appearing a day or two after finishing a volume of Proust糖心传媒檚 epic. They would build on one another, using December糖心传媒檚 糖心传媒渉oarding糖心传媒� post as the launching point, spiraling out into all my usual touchstones: why do we read what we read?, how have MFA programs and Amazon algorithms changed our relationship to literature?, what is value?, how should we judge success?, etc.

Part of every article, or post, or whatever, would be a reading journal with stray quotes from Proust, ideas his work inspired, funny reactions糖心传媒攁 sort of real-time reading in the vein of the Two Month Review.

听But, to be honest, in reading Swann糖心传媒檚 Way I took no notes. I sent along a few quotes to someone who could appreciate them and how they related to our lives, but for over half the book, I didn糖心传媒檛 underline anything or fold over any pages, wanting my version of Swann糖心传媒檚 Way to remain immaculate, as if the goal was to read it without leaving a trace.

That aside, quoting Proust at length in a blog post is Max Masturbatory. I could cite all the passages that, for me, reframed and annihilated jealousy. Swann糖心传媒檚 Way contains beautiful ideas about memory, about how reputation and expectations determine reality. It糖心传媒檚 brilliant and very quotable. As they say, it糖心传媒檚 a damn good book.

The thing about Proust though, that I糖心传媒檝e become most fixated on, is how funny his gargantuan novel really is. There糖心传媒檚 Marcel糖心传媒檚 aunt, lying in bed, eternally unwell, very high maintenance, absurd in all her obsessions and concerns. Also, this volume includes an extended party scene where a costumed woman runs her bohemian salon from a throne, overseeing her guests, which include a doctor who can糖心传媒檛 read human beings (a bit on the nose about the doctoring profession, if you ask me) and is never sure if they糖心传媒檙e being sarcastic or not. His solution?: walk around half-smirking, ready to laugh if others laugh, scowl if they scowl. He creeps out everyone. And the conversations throughout! So French, so very very French. But with a hint of mockery.

Which I don糖心传媒檛 remember from the first time I read Swann糖心传媒檚 Way. (And then promptly stopped with his pursuit of lost time. Instead, I put off reading the rest to that mythical 糖心传媒渟omeday.糖心传媒�) I was in awe of literature like this back when I was in my 20s. Proust was Big Literature with Big Ideas and Loads of Difficulty. A rite of passage. Not a beach read. And who has time for that?

*

This is the first year I糖心传媒檝e ever paid attention to the Oscars. I have no time for movies given that I read approximately 120 books a year? But since I糖心传媒檝e seen Barbie and Poor Things and American Fiction (all adaptations of pre-existing texts, which tracks) I feel a bit more invested than usual. The fact that Oppenheimer and The Zone of Influence and Killers of the Flower Moon are also book-based adaptations is a bit of a thirst trap. That and my friend Lisa has seen almost all of them, and being able to talk to someone else about media you experience is always enjoyable. One could argue that art is less fun when you can糖心传媒檛 tell anyone about the ending of The Curse. (Or, the only person you can talk to about it experienced the show only through written recaps.)

Although it糖心传媒檚 getting down to the wire, the only thing preventing me from watching every 糖心传媒淏est Picture糖心传媒� nominee is me. Most of the ones I haven糖心传媒檛 seen are streaming, the others are running at the local theater I can walk to. If my heart was in it, I could be fully versed on the Oscars by March 10th. It糖心传媒檚 totally doable. Which is not true of the National Book Awards.

The five longlists for the NBAs are traditionally announced mid-September with finalists revealed at the start of October and winners about six weeks later. With ten titles per category, there糖心传媒檚 almost no possibility you糖心传媒檒l be able to read the longlisted titles糖心传媒�30 if you ignore poetry and young people糖心传媒檚 literature, which I do, because I糖心传媒檒l never sleep with a poet and I don糖心传媒檛 believe in the concept of literature written exclusively for minds incapable of understanding the 糖心传媒渞eal stuff,糖心传媒� the 糖心传媒渁dult糖心传媒� literature糖心传媒攂efore the finalists are announced two weeks later. Thirty books over even twenty-one days is a no go.

If you only consider the fifteen to twenty-five finalists and spread them out over six weeks . . . that糖心传媒檚 maybe doable! Those ten poetry collections and picture books will take like 14-20 days max, and you糖心传媒檒l have 22 or so days left for the 15 books in the 糖心传媒減remier糖心传媒� categories of Fiction, Nonfiction, and Translation. Hmm. That糖心传媒檚 a book every 1.47 days. Which extrapolates to a rate of 248 books per year.

*

In 2023, 496 titles were submitted for the National Book Award for Fiction. Overall, across all five categories? 1,931. Based on the last estimates I糖心传媒檝e seen糖心传媒�50,000 works of poetry and fiction a year from traditional publishers, 1,000,000 books via self-publishing every year糖心传媒攖his is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what糖心传媒檚 being published.

Awards have biases based on the biased nature of the books submitted. But more importantly, no one human is going to read all 496 of those submissions. Even if you break it out over five judges, that糖心传媒檚 almost a hundred titles each. Which is a lot.

There were 301 feature films submitted for the Oscars this year. Although it would be exhausting, in some ways, to watch that many movies, you could do it and still have a summer vacation.

If we assume that the average movie is 2 hours long, the average book 300 pages (which takes about 7.5 hours to read), the Oscar Academy is looking at a max time commitment of 602 hours to consume everything eligible versus 3,720 hours spent for the NBA fiction judges to do the same.

But you clearly don糖心传媒檛 need to read a full book糖心传媒攐r watch a full movie糖心传媒攖o know if it糖心传媒檚 great or trash. I糖心传媒檇 bet you don糖心传媒檛 need more than 40 pages to dismiss 400 of those 496 NBA-submitted titles. If you spend an hour a piece on those 400 eliminated books, you still end up at 1,120 total hours of reading, or almost double what an Oscar judge could spend seeing everything.

As a non-judge (for the National Book Award at least, although episode four of seven of this year糖心传媒檚 Three Percent posts is about the award I do help judge), I aspire to 糖心传媒渉aving a handle糖心传媒� on various art forms every year.听 Cinema, TV, books, music. Which, in three of those four areas, is impossible.

I糖心传媒檓 arbitrarily setting this as the threshold, but I think you need to be familiar with at least 25% of the output for a particular art form before you can claim to 糖心传媒渒now糖心传媒� it. If you look at all the movies, all the books, all the albums for a given year, that糖心传媒檚 beyond unrealistic. But if you see a movie a week throughout the year糖心传媒攜ou糖心传媒檙e pretty solid. You糖心传媒檝e seen around 1/6 of the movies submitted for the Oscars, and, given the 糖心传媒減ower law of buzz糖心传媒� (see parts of episodes 3, 4, and 6 of this series of posts) by the time the 糖心传媒淏est Picture糖心传媒� finalists are announced, you糖心传媒檒l likely have seen 67-75% of them.

If you were to read 52 books in a year糖心传媒攚hich is more or less what all of you, on aggregate, do糖心传媒攜ou糖心传媒檒l know a bit about the books that came out in 2024. A bit. Dedicate yourself to this year糖心传媒檚 translations only and if you read 52, you糖心传媒檒l have read about 1/8 of all of them. Or, leaving translations behind, you糖心传媒檒l have 1/1,000 of all the fiction books that came out.

*

I didn糖心传媒檛 follow up with anyone I surveyed. But if I had my druthers, I would have asked for a complete list of each book read by each person who responded. I would look at the crossover, the themes, the metadata.

Even though this is all small sample size and assumption, I truly believe that the overlap between readers as to what books they糖心传媒檝e read/are reading is a fraction of what it is for movies or television.

Of the 55 books the average reader surveyed read, it糖心传媒檚 pretty unlikely that five other survey respondents read five of the same books they read. We read across decades, we read by impulse. Every so often everyone gravitates toward a book糖心传媒攂e it 2666 or Harry Potter糖心传媒攂ut for the most part, we drift. We pursue lines that are individual and idiosyncratic. We read D. H. Lawrence or Kathy Acker. We join book clubs, we try to convince others that these books are worth spending time on. We can糖心传媒檛 always articulate why.

*

Two Month Review is an explicit, wear your heart on your sleeve, attempt to find community in literature. When you糖心传媒檙e literature-sick, when you see yourself through all the books you糖心传媒檝e read, when you feel alone in front of the fire, reading, while everyone else is living their lives, together, free from 糖心传媒渆ating pages糖心传媒� for a living (like coaches 糖心传媒渆at tape糖心传媒�), you seek company.

But, given the numbers, finding company is unlikely.

*

Episode II Coming Soon!: Will Chad find solace? Are there readers out there? Can AI help? Is ChatGPT a better NBA judge than Nick Buzanski? This and more as soon as I finish In the Shadow of Young Girls in Flower.

( associated with this post is copyrighted by .)



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam.