• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Do people still read for entertainment?

E

ewomack

Member
This may seem out of place in a writer's forum, but in the recent edition of "Best American Short Stories" Stephen King claims that many of the readers of literary journals are other writers looking not for entertainment but to see what the journals are publishing. He calls this "ucky reading."

Given that, do you think most readers today are also writers, or does a population of readers "for entertainment only" still exist? Perhaps King is only referring to literary fiction, as romance, sci-fi, and fantasy still seem to have market draw.

Opinions? Thoughts?
 
ewomack said:
do you think most readers today are also writers, or does a population of readers "for entertainment only" still exist?
Click to expand...

Well, first of all King was only referring to short stories in literary journals, saying that the only people that buy them are those who have a want to be published in them, so need to know what passes editorially. I've done it myself, sometimes being bored by the excess poetry - or what passes for poetry - in these things.

But, beyond literary journals, I don't know anyone who would read something if not for entertainment. The exception, maybe, is students, who are studying.
 
Stewart said:
But, beyond literary journals, I don't know anyone who would read something if not for entertainment. The exception, maybe, is students, who are studying.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends what you mean by entertainment. I like to read things that enlarge my experience. I just finished The Bookseller of Kabul, not for entertainment but get some feel for living within a traditional Afghan family.

Sometimes ego is involved. After my two-month struggle with Maimonides, I can stare anyone down and say, Yes, I have read The Guide for the Perplexed. Of course, if they tell me that it is easier in the original Arabic, I will have to step down from my proud position.
 
I have always had a hard time focusing on reading... When I was started reading for fun I had to spread the books out a lot because I would confuse characters from each of the books...

I am 31 and I still have a hard time reading but for me I read a lot more... sometimes a couple of books a month if I get on a kick...

I think less people read books because of what they first read.... I tried a few books and man they turned me off faster than john Candy in a thong... I got hooked on Sydney Sheldon and it took.... I read all of his books and have read since... more and more for fun...

I think bad books may turn people off and have a huge effect on their out look of all books... also most people see it as work... it was for me in the beginning... and sometime still is....
 
Stewart said:
Well, first of all King was only referring to short stories in literary journals, saying that the only people that buy them are those who have a want to be published in them, so need to know what passes editorially. I've done it myself, sometimes being bored by the excess poetry - or what passes for poetry - in these things.

But, beyond literary journals, I don't know anyone who would read something if not for entertainment. The exception, maybe, is students, who are studying.
Click to expand...

I think people use art these days to keep up the appearance of learning. And as for movies, they're only still good for taking a date.
...It's like the case of the emperor's clothes that the pretense of artfullness is kept up in movies. It's clear that the movies are artless, but as long as there are a few minumum criterias met in the movies, people can at least ignore that society is naked/artless, and ignorance/non-admission is worth the price of admission
 
For fun

I think people read for entertainment.Unfortunately, more and more people don't have the time or the patience to read:confused: I heard people saying so.
But those who read do it for entertainment and for the fun they get when discussing the book with some friends.:) It's what I do.
 
helgi said:
I've only read about ten or fifteen books in my whole life.
Click to expand...

My condolences.

As to the original question - the fact that Dan Brown et al outsell good writers 100 to 1 would suggest that most people ONLY read "for entertainment". Not that I don't consider proper literature to be entertaining, but... the readers of literary journals are hardly a sample on which to base generalizations about the entire world's reading habits. It's a bit like looking at who reads magazines about high-class wine and drawing the conclusion that nobody in the world drinks Coca-Cola anymore.
 
The original post referred to a question of readership of literary journals, not conluding anything based on the quality of the content, as with the wine/coca-cola example.
P.S. I don't accept your condolences. Take them back if they're worth anything.
 
Wine is not just high-quality coca-cola. They're two completely different things with two completely different target groups, usually drunk for completely different reasons - just like literary journals are for a different target group than most books published "for entertainment". The whole point is that neither of those two comparisons is valid.

P.S. I don't accept your condolences. Take them back if they're worth anything.
Click to expand...
Well, excuse me then. I just got the impression that you were an aspiring writer, and I've never heard of anyone being any good at writing something they themselves wouldn't read. Hence, my condolences. Whether they're worth anything is not up to me to decide.
 
I'll take those condolences if you've still got them, beer good. I hate to see anything go to waste. A bit of a packrat, I am.

I have to agree with pretty much everyone else that people do still read for entertainment. I can't think of any type of reading that falls outside of entertainment or learning/informational.
 
beer good said:
Wine is not just high-quality coca-cola. They're two completely different things with two completely different target groups, usually drunk for completely different reasons - just like literary journals are for a different target group than most books published "for entertainment". The whole point is that neither of those two comparisons is valid.


Well, excuse me then. I just got the impression that you were an aspiring writer, and I've never heard of anyone being any good at writing something they themselves wouldn't read. Hence, my condolences. Whether they're worth anything is not up to me to decide.
Click to expand...

I thought the wine/coca-cola example was more of a disparity than was between literary journals and alterior content.
...the writers who read the journals to make successful entries are not a target audience if they are reading the content in any case for their livelihood. The target audience for the literary journal would better be described as the leisure-reader portion of the audience, who would read it for entertainment (and the question is not whether or not people still read for entertainment, but in what proportion) Even at 1/4 readership, the readers who read the journals soley for the content would be considered the target audience, determining content.
...you yourself said you find proper literature to be entertaining, and so the original post may not fail in comparison because it is a case of apples and oranges, but simply because it is an observation of incedental readership that does not indicate general readership.
....&
And as for the condolences, you do indeed decide their inherint value. Just as one offers ones deep-est apologies, this is a voluntary selection from an array of varying degrees of gesture.
 
Fred R said:
I'll take those condolences if you've still got them, beer good. I hate to see anything go to waste. A bit of a packrat, I am.

I have to agree with pretty much everyone else that people do still read for entertainment. I can't think of any type of reading that falls outside of entertainment or learning/informational.
Click to expand...

You're a packrat? Then I'm sure you have his condolences.
 
Many good observations here. Though King was talking about literary journals, as pointed out, I wanted to get a sense of what people thought concerning reading in general. I'm glad to hear that many of you think reading for pleasure still exists. I still read for pleasure, but I have also read journals in the "ucky" way King describes. Guilt seeps through me. I really want to like what I've read in those journals, but nothing has really captured me yet. Some of it seems "literary for literary's sake" and not pleasurable.
 
Well I read for entertainment most of the time and my current book is certainly entertaining, best laughs I have had in ages.
 
sparkchaser said:
I find that hard to believe.
Click to expand...

Really, I've only read about 15 books.

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
Don Quixote
The Invincible
Futurological Congress
The Picture of Dorian Grey
Quo Vadis?
The Confederacy of Dunces
The Great Gatsby
The Man Who Would Be King
Romeo and Juliet
Richard the 3rd
Sherlock holmes novel about the corrupt mining town
Love's Labor Lost, a point well taken in not reading too many books, I think
and I think I read the Hobbit

I read the Confederacy of Dunces to try and assimilate myself
 
^^^^^^^

I see that for some reason you conveniently left out the books you read, for pleasure or otherwise, from K-12.
 
well, I was a really bad student, like Einstein. This accounts for my ~15 books in part, but I also went to catholic school in secondary school, where we read bible passages and abridged material, inculding Romeo & Juliet, which I would read again in highschool. I didn't complete highschool, and while I was in I didn't do the assignments past ninth grade.
...so the number 15 was given in good faith. We are not all scholars.
also add to the list The Prince, and the Michael Crichton book about the vikings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top