...is diminishing? Yesterday night I was hanging out with some of my author friends. And one of the ladies was discussing about how readers of today, don't necessarily like long winded exposition or long winded amounts of detail. They want you to get to the point and want you to continue to keep them engaged and not segway off into other parts of the story. All the writers expressed the readers of today don't have the time or necessarily have the attention span to dedicate to a book. Do you honestly really think this is true?
I know that I have less patience for what I recall as any flaw or bland part in a book, and I think that it's absolutely due to too much time on Internet forums. (But I'm staying on this one anyway. ) I find myself reading my old favorites, rather than reading new books.
I don't like investing my time into something that isn't worth it. It's differen't when i know the creators and trust them, but for new media, If I'm not interested in what i'm reading after the first few sentences, i'll find something else. Also... uh... No ones reading this anymore are they? I need to be more interesting.
And for me I really like books like Micheal Crichtons Timeline. Which spends good chunks explaining quantum physics from time to time and time travel. And all this sort of heavy duty stuff.
Actually, come to think of it, my reduced tolerance only applies to fiction. When I'm reading nonfiction, I seem to have more, not less, tolerance for long explanations--more compared to my past self, that is. Hmmm.
I think ever since I started heavily investing time into my writing, I have found myself being more critical when reading, which I suppose is natural. I'm far less lenient than I used to be, and there are a number of books now that I have started but decided not to continue. Whereas when I was reading only, it was a rare occasion that I didn't finish a book. I think there is some merit of truth in what you say, alough I don't know whether this is due to current trends or down to becoming a writer. I used to devour epic fantasies. I picked up books such as Gardens of the Moon and Eye of the World, and both infuriated me to no end. I find myself just losing patience very quickly whereas I had previously learned to persevere. That's partly down to change in tastes as well. I've become more disinterested in magic as time has gone by, and more interested in the world building.
I can only answer for me... It's not that I have less time (I have more now than I ever had) or an inability to pay attention (my job demands laser-beam focus), but instead it's about wanting something either: - Dramatically engaging (I'm reading The Expanse novels now and they deliver) - Deeply intriguing (the Southern Reach trilogy I read last year just blew me away as regards depth of characters and the central theme of communication as a paradigm) - Familiar and cozy (I can return to the sands of Arrakis a million times and never tire of imagining myself a gaunt, fierce Fremen warrior calling to Shai Hulud with my thumper.) I'm in my fifth decade of life. There have been many, many books. Sometimes, five pages into a book, you already know how it's going to end.
Yes and yes. First it was movies compacting the narrative into smaller, more digestive bites. Now it's video games. Check out a lot the fantasy stuff the kids want to write these days. Most if seems to be built around RPG character design, complete with the opening town and starter quest. I got no beef with any of that, but sometimes when I read it I feel like I'm holding an Xbox controller, bringing up the map menu, and following the marker to the first plot point. The old school 19th century stuff is a pretty poor analogue to compare eras of attention span. Those books were written when most of the world was illiterate and only the aristocratic few read books. Those cats studied Latin and spoke French in court already, so slogging through excruciating concrete walls of prose was probably no big deal. Still, you can see how books became simpler when movies became popular in the 40s. I'm thinking about the dime store paperbacks that were written for mass consumption and mirrored the action curves of cinema at the time.
I think it depends on the writer. Stephen Jay Gould was a science writer who never talked down to you, but demanded that you pay close attention to what he was saying. But he made it worth your while. I have oceans of respect for people who can write like that. But I agree with Homer that radio, television, and the cinema have altered the way we are expected to take in information. I doubt if the more florid writers of the nineteenth century would find much of an audience these days. And a lot of contemporary fiction (particularly fantasy fiction) reads to me like proposals for screen treatments, as if the author was writing with the expectation of selling it to a movie studio for big bux. I can't blame them, but there is a sameness to it all.
There is some irony here. Visual media offers a faster experience. Nevertheless, there are far more writers today than there were before the internet and computer graphics. Before the age of computers, it took considerable effort to publish. Now, well, in a manner of speaking, I'm publishing my writing as I respond to this post. Kids today might be harder to please with writing, but I think there are far more opportunities for writers today.
Well I think it is the fact that if they are getting simpler things to read, means that they don't have time to be challenged by books. Probably due to not doing a lot of reading outside of the simple and easily written stuff out there. I was listening to a guy last night that was complaining how video game RPGs are getting too simplistic, with lack of options in affecting the outcome of the game. He used the Mass Effect series as an example, noting that by the third game there was no options to play things out like a 'rogue' character over being the 'good'. So it really pushes the player to follow the desired outcome as opposed to playing with choices that will change the story as they play, based upon those decisions. So who really knows. People who write to not challenge their readers with more complexity, might be part of the problem. It takes time to find a newer book, that is not trying to just be simplistic. Where we know right from the start how things will end, and not surprised by how predictable the twists and turns really are. You get what you put into it after all. Simplicity and easy language, does not mean you have to do the same. Also for me, if I can be honest, only means I will probably not have much good to say about your writing as a reader or writer. Movies and games can make things for people who don't have the attention to read, books should not follow suit in dumming down as well.
For me? No. For everyone else? Maybe. I do prefer to be engaged, but I'm a stubborn ass and when I start a book, story, whatever, I have to finish it. I've fought my way through some horrifyingly bad stories. On the other hand, I prefer a challenge. I don't buy books, as a general rule, that are under 300 pages, and I prefer them to be much higher than that. I read very quickly, and I prefer to have something that will keep me entertained for at least 2 days, and 300 pages barely gives me that (depending on what else I have going on of course). That's not to say that I want 300 pages of garbage, but I do always look at how long it is as one of the first requirements. I'm likely the exception though, rather than the rule.
Interesting. But now we have a new phenomenon going on: TV series that last seasons and seasons and seasons. Episodes focused only on a character's backstory. Cliffhangers. Cliffhangers not only at the end of an episode but at the end of a season, leaving the viewers waiting (im)patiently for six whole months. No idea what this means and how it relates to written fiction, just adding this bit to the discussion. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
i was told waiting six months for a new book would equal that series death. the reason being is that readers don't want to wait that long. I heard Martin is in trouble because he hasn't wrote a GMT book in a while and is delaying doing so.
loads of authors have longer time frames than that ... Lee child is doing about one reacher book a year and it hasnt done him any harm
Well I should probably point out she meant authors that are virtually unknown. Lee Child is established and people may accept that long wait time. But someone who is virtually unknown may not be able to do that. Readers want a book that is quickly accessible.
That is not true. I have at least 2-3 readers waiting for my sequel/ending novel, and it has been over 6 months.
For readers to want anything the author has to be fairly well known, if you're not the number of people waiting with baited breath for your next work is probably so small as to not be worth worrying about
Neither do I. The first novel I ever wrote took me at least 2 years. But that was because I was frankly inexperienced. I wrote the novel, then did the editing, and then had to track down a network of beta readers. So I wasn't near as connected with people as I am now. So that's the only reason. The other issue is the simple fact that my mental health slows down my progress at times, and that's the reason why some things just take me a little longer.
As an (unpublished) SciFi/Fantasy writer who's spent the last half a decade studying how to write SciFi/Fantasy, I've seen a lot of articles online about avoiding lengthy exposition scenes. Which is disappointing to me because I love extended exposition My favorite realistic genre is that of the crime thriller, and a murder mystery is essentially a novel-length exposition sequence
Me as well in science fiction novels. I think for me, its mostly because [and confession time] I love to build worlds. Its actually my favorite part of writing is building expansive worlds, and building the backstories, myths and legends of this world. And I want to share it. Because I like the mechanic part of it as a writer.
There have been recent studies on this. While I don't have those handy, this article is very relevant to your OP: "An Arms Race Of Monetized Distraction" (the comments are also insightful; responses from other authors.)
