Men

[kev67]

I was listening to the radio the other day. Some speakers were expressing concern about the low amount of fiction that men read. Men tend to prefer non-fiction if they read anything at all. Is this really a problem? What's reading fiction supposed to do for you?

[kev67]

I meant to title this "Men's reading habits" or something like that, but I somehow hit a wrong key.

[free]

Escape from realiy, developing imagination, being in the mental community with the creative people who write fiction...

[Lykren]

I was explaining to my uncle one day about what I was reading (The Tale of Genji at the time) and he paused and then replied by saying, "I just read the journals of Lewis and Clark, and that's real; someone didn't have to make it up."

Many people (not only men) seem to hold the opinion that fiction is somehow lesser because it isn't 'true'. The reason I put true in quotes there is because I think it's absurd to pretend that one work can have a greater claim to being a representation of objective reality. It startles me to think that some people believe there is an objective reality, but there you are.

I would have thought Joyce's Ulysses, with its focus on the nature of perception and of thought processes, would be intriguing or at least surprising to people who place great faith in there being an objective reality. Of course, I've found that most people feel threatened by it rather than having their curiosity aroused.

[Calidore]

Just curious: Was this based on a formal survey, or was any source cited?

Assuming it's true, "non-fiction" is still a pretty big umbrella, and the type might make a difference. For instance, tech jobs are very male-heavy and also require a lot of reading to keep up-to-date. That would be non-fiction.

[Emil Miller]

While there will always be exceptions to every rule, I think this is true. However, looking at the nearest bookcase I see that there are books on various subjects such as history, travel, horticulture, art, politics etc. but the great majority of them are novels which can often be as instructive in their own way as those that are specifically non-fiction. A good example are the books by Emil Zola that will tell the reader a lot about the political and social development of France while being for the most part fiction.

[Sancho]

And that's just it, isn't it? In some ways good fiction gets at the truth better than a history. Where a history looks a specific thing that happened, a novel can tell us what it was like to be there. Who gets at the British industrial revolution better than Dickens, or the privations of the dust bowl better than Steinbeck?*

So it seems to me, if women are reading fiction and men are reading nonfiction, then the fairer gender must have the big picture while us knuckle-daggers only know a jumble of facts. They multi-task - do and understand a bunch of different stuff at the same time, but we only focus on one thing at a time - like that lone wildebeest we're tearing after across the savanna. Barefooted. Only our loins clothed. Spear in hand. Hungry.


* It's a rhetorical question. I'm not really seeking an answer.

[JBI]

I was explaining to my uncle one day about what I was reading (The Tale of Genji at the time) and he paused and then replied by saying, "I just read the journals of Lewis and Clark, and that's real; someone didn't have to make it up."

Many people (not only men) seem to hold the opinion that fiction is somehow lesser because it isn't 'true'. The reason I put true in quotes there is because I think it's absurd to pretend that one work can have a greater claim to being a representation of objective reality. It startles me to think that some people believe there is an objective reality, but there you are.

I would have thought Joyce's Ulysses, with its focus on the nature of perception and of thought processes, would be intriguing or at least surprising to people who place great faith in there being an objective reality. Of course, I've found that most people feel threatened by it rather than having their curiosity aroused.


Well, Genji has historically been regarded as a woman's book in Japan, though now it has become more Of a national icon than anything else. Generally fiction in Asia has been regarded as inferior to classics and poetry, though women readers hardly ever surface in discussions.

[Lykren]

JBI, what specifically do you mean by classics, if that category includes neither fiction nor poetry?

Sancho, I agree with your assessment. I work in a bookshop, and I often see women buy fiction while their husbands buy nonfiction; though the fiction is usually of little worth - I don't often see anyone of either gender buying classic literature. So I don't think women have a better grasp overall of what to read.

[Delta40]

So while women read more fiction than men, there is an issue about the sort of material women read? How do you think what women and men currently read might shape us or where it may lead us?

[liza]

deleted

[Mathor]

I mean, this is a relatively baseless argument, because, as was pointed out above, there are exceptions to every rule. That being said, if we're going to generalize, I'd say that the general opinion is that women tend to draw closer to the arts: film, music, art, opera, etc. I think a lot of men tend to like more tangible and pragmatic things.

However, I really enjoy all of those things that could be attributed to a feminine characteristic. I don't know if it's necessarily true for women as a whole or if this is more of a perception by people, but if it is, then I guess I'd say I have some female qualities, because I'd much rather read fiction than anything else.

That being said, I don't really think all of that matters too much. Though I'd think it's sad if I met someone who finds no interest in music, the truth is some people have said to me "Music does nothing for me."

Different people like different things, and people should gravitate towards what they enjoy, whether they are male or female.