There are a few people in my life who I am constantly lending books out to. It really isn’t really their choice — when they come over, we talk about our reading or author preferences, and then they usually leave with an armful of “suggested reads.” One of these people reads a lot of books and we usually have similar tastes, so it’s pretty easy to find an author on my shelf that she has to read.
Last year, I had lent her my favourite author — Sophie Kinsella. I have everything that she’s ever put out and just recently received her latest, I’ve Got Your Number, in the mail. A few weeks or so ago, she had returned the Sophie Kinsella books among other books I had lent her (i.e. a huge tote bag full. You never leave here dissatisfied.). So when I saw this person the other day, I thought to ask what she had thought of my favourite author, as I had just finished reading IGYN and wanted to lend it out.
Unfortunately for me, my friend really disliked the books. She said she read the first one in the Shopaholic series and that was it. She said she wanted something with substance, like a mystery or something. On the outside, I recommended a book to her, but on the inside I was sad that she was saying my favourite author writes books with no substance.
That got me thinking about reading preferences. For me, I’m all over the place, reading chick lit or YA books, mysteries or Sci-Fi, fantasy or contemporary. I’m usually easy to please. But when it comes to substance in a book, is there a specific definition? Take the new Sophie Kinsella, for instance: Sure, the main character is a bit frazzled and girlie (which I love!) but there’s also mystery going on in the book. Just because it takes the chick-lit route, surely that doesn’t mean that it’s lacking substance.
I’m a big mood reader and sometimes I can read chick-lit book after chick-lit book, and then maybe some fun YA books. I feel like I have to be in a certain mood for books that may be considered to have more “substance” than others. Does that not make me a serious reader? Because I like and enjoy reading books that may not be taken so seriously?
Am I reading wrong into this? What are your reading preferences? Do you prefer books with substance, or books defined as “fluff?”
—
© 2012, Reading In Winter. All rights reserved.
I don’t think being a “serious reader” is dependent on what you read, but with the voracity of how you read. While one can argue that Crime and Punishment may have more “substance” than a chick-lit title, if C&P is the only book you read in a year vs someone else reading 100 chick-lit works, it’s not really that substance that matters.
I am all over the place with my reading as well. It’s always sad when a friend doesn’t love our favorite authors as much as we do, but with a varied library, you will have more of a selection to offer your friends and eventually (hopefully) you will both find an author in common that you love. (Also, a totebag of books lended out at a time makes me really wish I lived in Canada).
I agree with that! Being a serious reader should matter more about how MUCH you read, not what you read. If you read one book in a year that’s a classic, can you really call yourself a serious reader? I’m on my 115th-ish book of the year. Sure, not all of them have been heavy reads, but I still consider myself to be a serious reader! Books are books … I don’t think anyone should be judged by the types of books they read. Personally, I think if people are judged for reading a “fluffy” novel, it’s usually by non-readers.
While reading Wuthering Heights a couple of weeks ago it crossed my mind that IT might have been considered the insubstantial reading of its times, like, as your friend might think, Kinsella’s books are. Of course, I love me some Kinsella’ but doubt that she will ever turn into the Brontes, BUT let’s also consider how few writers were around back in the 1800′s.
Also, I suppose we can look at contemporary literary fiction and consider that “substantial” (i.e. Atonement) literature will last through the times. Perhaps it’s the language, vocabulary, writing? I suppose when I think of substantial, I associate length of time it takes for me to read. I can devour a Shopaholic book in a day, but currently, I’m pouring through Anna K and although I love it, the 250 pages read so far has taken me a few days.
Finally, I think you should push your friend to at least read the 2nd in the Shopaholic series. The first one was enjoyable, but I could have skipped over it, easily. There were A LOT of shopping references that just didn’t excite me. But the rest of the series – holy geez cow. I love them. In fact, I have the last (latest?) one in the series and still haven’t read it because I want to hold onto the joy of a new-to-me Shopaholic book.
Yes! You’re right! Certain books from certain time periods could definitely have been considered insubstantial — maybe the Bronte’s were like the Sophie Kinsella of that time?
I’m with you — I think I associate substance with length. I mean, could Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander books be considered substantial? They’re all close to 1,000 pages in length, so I would think so!
Thanks for commenting!
I’m a big mood-reader also – Sometimes I’m just craving fluff (like the week I read the entire Fifty Shades Series AND Two Susan Mallery books!) and sometimes, I’m craving substance. But when I need substance? That’s when I typically go for the really heavy stuff – either non-fiction or something like To Kill a Mockingbird or a Stephen King. I don’t go for the mysteries often, because they are too middle ground in my thought.
-Jac @ For Love and Books
I don’t think I ever really go for the “heavy” stuff … I do read some heavier YA books, but I admit that I’ve been neglecting my more “adult” books and my classic reads shelves. I really should dive into them sometime!
Good for you for reading such classics and Stephen King. I tried Stephen King a few times, but only made it through his most recent short story book and his book on writing. One day I plan to read Bag of Bones — that’s one that I’ve been eyeing for a while!
Im the same way with my reading, I’m all over the place in what I liked to read. It completely depends on my mood at the time, sometimes I want lighthearted read that makes me swoon, other times I want a sci-fi book that requires a lot of thinking and sometimes I want a good, juicy teenage romance with swoonworthy male characters. I don’t think any are any better than the others (specific books in those genres, yes, but entire genres, no).
And I adore Sophie Kinsella! I’ll have to check out her newest book
I like your thinking! I’m the same way. I’m a HUGE mood reader … though I admit that I don’t read a ton of “heavy” reads (I do have some Nikolai Gogol on my shelf … a little scared to crack it open!).
You should definitely check out her new book!! It’s fantastic.
Good question, Kristilyn. I think every book as its merit and its “substance” to offer, even if it’s commercial, mass-market “fluff” or a “classic.” Because a reader is always affected by what he or she reads, and it’s impossible to read a book and not grow as a person. Even if it’s horribly written and unoriginal, you have experienced a world that another person has created, and you come through as a wiser, more enlightened person. Reading without discrimination is a talent, and not all of us can do it, but those who can are inevitably better people for it.
I love that, Ram – “Reading without discrimination is a talent.” I think there are some people who are too afraid of what they’ll look like reading a certain book that they miss out. Every book definitely has something to offer — maybe not for everyone, but not all books are meant for everyone. I also totally agree with you — reading ANY book puts you into the world of the person who wrote it. Rather than feel like we’re being judged by the type of books we read, we should feel lucky to have the FREEDOM to read what we want to read. I mean, we’re quite lucky to have the selection we have and live in a country that allows us to pick and choose as we like.
Thanks for the comment!
I think I’m just like you, I read whatever I feel like reading at the time. Yeah, sometimes I will sit and read a book that has no “substance”. I don’t like reading books that I’ll have to sit and try to figure out what’s going on all the time. Sometimes I want to just sit and read and lose myself in a silly plot that makes for a nice light read.
Great topic, I hadn’t really thought about it much before!
Exactly! I think with most of my reads, I don’t like to think too hard. I know that sounds terrible, but I find those kind of books get put on the back burner constantly. I love light reads!
Substance is such a relative term. I could read a light YA dystopian, like The Selection, and when compared to something like The Hunger Games, The Selection would seem like it’s lacking in substance whereas The Hunger Games has an abundance.
But then I could take The Hunger Games and compare it to something like Atlas Shrugged, and it would seem like it was lacking in substance!
So while I definitely consider some books fluffier then others, the type of substance I’m looking for will vary depending on my mood! Great post Kristilyn!
Thank you, Kelly!
I’m a huge mood reader, too. There are so many BIG HEAVY BOOKS (definitely necessary to capitalize all of that) that are on my reading list, but I’m a little scared to dive in. Maybe once I need a break from YA, I’ll dig out some Gogol, or maybe some Dumas, or even some of my science books to read. For now, I’m content. We’ll see what happens when the mood shifts.
I find lots of people like to judge and sometimes, they aren’t even readers. I’ve picked up many a historical romance book and been AMAZED at the level of period detail. On the surface,it may seem like “fluff” but I don’t think anyone but a history professor to be that knowledgeable.
That’s a good point! There are a few historical romances I love and it’s not necessarily for the romance, but how the writing takes me away to a certain place and time. It’s really magical when writing can do that. That’s talent in and of itself. I agree that the people who are so keen to judge, usually aren’t readers. Or maybe they only read a handful of books a year.
I have to be in the mood to read certain books too, especially if I think they’re going to be more heavy with the story. But I also like the lighter reads, substance or not. I think it’s great that you read a bit of everything, and not everyone will enjoy the same type of books for sure. I think that reading lighter books doesn’t make you any less serious, everyone needs a break from the more dramatic and complicated ones, just like taking the weekends off from work, it’s a small break. And it’s more important that we enjoy what we read instead of worrying
Exactly. Enjoyment is the key. I mean, why read book after book of heavy material that you have to nitpick and dissect? For me, at least, it would cause massive headaches and a hatred of reading. Some people might like it. But I’m at a stage in my life where I like a WIDE variety!
When it comes to buying books I generally focus on Fantasy, Sci-Fi, and some nonfiction if I’m researching a particular topic. From what you shared in your post, I believe that “substance” was not the term your friend meant to use. A mystery or crime thriller can be as fluffy as any chick lit. To me, substance is defined by the content found between the lines. Is there an underlying message? If yes, the book has substance. If no, it’s fluff and pure entertainment regardless of the genre.
Yes. You’re right — a book of any genre can still lack substance. And really, there’s nothing wrong with either a book with an underlying message, or a book without — it’s all in the hands of the reader (ha! literally!).
Honestly, I’m a crazy kind of reader – I’ll read whatever catches my attention at a particular moment. I believe that each story I read has merit, no matter what the plot, and so, I’m a little confused at your friend’s request for more “substantial” reads.
P.S. I LOVE Sophie Kinsella! Haven’t read her new book yet though.
Yes! This is the kind of answer I like. You’re on the same page as Ram, who commented earlier. Each book definitely does have its merit and books shouldn’t be put aside based on genre alone. Maybe once a reader OPENS a book of a certain shunned genre, they’ll realize they connect with it more than they thought they would. Every book feeds me something.
You should read the new book! It’s really, really good.
I like both! Sometimes I want a mindless romance that will sweep me off my feet, and other days I want a complex mystery that will keep me up at night!
Exactly! My thoughts exactly.
I think I’m the same as you – I read a wide variety of genres, some of them very fluffy and some more “meaty”. I do enjoy books with substance, that give me something to think about, because I like flexing my brainpan muscles. But sometimes, I just want to be breezy and read a book that requires very little effort on my part. That being said, I don’t think a mystery necessarily has more “substance” than chick-lit – it’s all about the individual book.
If it helps, I’m the same boat as your friend – I read the first Shopaholic book and couldn’t stand it, because I couldn’t get over the main character’s frustrating lack of self-control. It wasn’t because it was chick lit or fluffy, it was just a book that I couldn’t get into. Maybe your friend thought that her comment about substance would avoid her insulting your favorite author? Or she might have just been trying to say that it wasn’t her kind of book.
Maybe … I wonder if I picked up the book now and read it (that is, if I hadn’t read it before), if I would feel the same way about it as I did when I first read it. Would I still love it? Though, I do love a good chick-lit read, so I’m biased. I’m just not one to say that I will ONLY read books that mean something, or books that have a lot going on. Breezy and light is pretty awesome sometimes — and sometimes you can find real gems!
Pingback: Sunday Reads: Volume 32 (The Massive 3-Week Edition) «
The literary world tends to be uber snobbish about books outside of the adult literature and classic canon, and so certain demographics follow the media’s suit. Practically every article about the YA or romance genres that I’ve read is mildly condescending, with the exception of the Meghan Cox Gurdon fiasco. However, I don’t really think that it’s necessary to read classics and contemporary lit in order to be a legitimate reader, and I think the media tends to devalue the substance of genres beyond their limited view of fiction. My mood constantly changes, so sometimes I prefer fluffy and other times I prefer more dense stories, but both hold an exceptional amount of value.
Good comment. I agree — I think that no matter what you’re reading at least you’re reading. With so many books available at our fingertips these days, why should we feel restricted to only read certain types of books. I’d like to see some of these critics try their hand at writing a book — then see what everyone else has to say about it.