Basically a repost pf things I said in the mega, but anecdotally I'm hearing that sales of fiction read by men are dropping precipitously, and English and literature classes in colleges are now dominated by women. It seems like young men are not being exposed to literature in the same way that they used to. Like, when I was in high school and college, you could be a "bro" kind of guy and read Chuck Palahniuk, or Hunter S. Thompson, or David Foster Wallace. For decades, authors like Hemmingway and Bukowski found receptive audiences in young men, not to mention all the crime fiction, horror, sci-fi, and fantasy that men have traditionally consumed. The "guy in your English class who loves David Foster Wallace" was a stereotype for a reason. I read in another thread that music is less culturally important to young men than it used to be. It seems like younger men just straight up see no value in reading literature or fiction, or exposing themselves or critically engaging with art and music, because the algorithms just railroad them into Alpha Gridset world.
Am I wrong about this? Am I being condescending and out of touch, or is this a real thing that's happening, where the whole "male" culture is turning into grindset podcasts and streamers?
Edit: Okay, so the impression I'm getting is that everything is worse but also kind of the same as it ever was, which sounds right.
It just seems like an odd "THEYRE NOT READIN ANYMORE type of thing when guys had no problem being just as insufferable when they did ostensibly read, too?
I frankly think you're being the insufferable one.
Uh okay, I guess. Idk it's like, I think framing it around "they aren't reading the classics anymore!" is kinda weird is all. I mean western academia broadly isn't exactly progressive, right? Nothing in the western canon of classics upholds hedgemonic masculinity right?
If I had to hazzard a guess, I'd say a lot of non-attendance of english lit classes probably has as much to do with worsening economic conditions. But you have this:
right next to this:
I just do not really understand "the culture is fucked because the lads aren't in english lit classes". It seems weird. The average normo has always had atrocious media sensibilities.
My broader concern is that any cultural space for men to do the things that engaging with art and literature encourages, like exploring their own interiority, or developing empathy, or critically engaging with a message that's put before them, is being slowly erased. I'm concerned that this leaves the world a much poorer place.
No, but people who can read critically frequently produce progressive ideas, so it seems like a bit of a negative that there might be fewer of those people, particularly in an entire gender. Like however imperfect literary men could be, having a cultural space where men can be literary is still better than men reading fucking NOTHING.
Also, it's really annoying that you're mischaracterizing my point as being about "the classics" and the authors I mentioned were like Hunter S. Thompson and Chuck Pahlaniuk. I'm not being some Greek statue PFP person here
Well I guess so, I dunno. Do you truly think english lit classes do all that? You got a lot more faith in the institutions than I do. I kind of see them as imperialist propaganda pushers a lot of the time. And then, is this cultural space degrading only for men but women are all good?
I did note that you mentioned some vaguely lefty guys at least, but do you not think "educational institutions" in the west play a part in producing greek statue guys?
I'm not OP but I think the reason the gender divide is particularly relevant is that, without a focus on the humanities, alienated men largely will just turn into fascists because that's the endpoint of shallow populism that would be born in current poor material conditions. Women in the same position are less likely to go that direction (although obviously still often do so you have a point) even if they aren't exposed to any academic conversations or whatever. Empathy is critical for men to develop because we gotta learn to see ourselves as part of a whole, if you're marginalized because of your gender then you'd already understand this system by virtue of being excluded from it.
I see, that woulda been good to have laid out. It seems odd to me that A) there's an idea that the humanities have always developed empathy in men? Like dudes will only understand the system if... universities teach them about it? Which they apparently do? and B) this is new, Idk.
You don't need to go to a university to read Hemingway or Hunter S. Thompson, even if they are also taught at universities.
Yeah, the idea that this backslide is happening because guys aren't in university classes is just odd to me Idk. Dudes could always just read stuff?
I don't think it's taken as a primary cause, the primary cause is whatever is making them not read. Furthermore, yeah, they could read stuff, and yet they don't. That's OP's point, not there being a lack of English majors.
Then the focus on academia seems weird...
I'm not talking about English lit classes as an institution, I'm talking about the kind of person who might be interested in what English lit classes, and more importantly literature in general, have to offer them.
Probably not, but I think that's a separate conversation, so I didn't want to talk about it here.
Not really? Greek Statue guys don't have a real interest in engaging with the things they pretend to like, and their understanding of them is very shallow. Thinking back to my own college literature classes, I don't think that would have been rewarded, but maybe I got lucky with my professors.
Removed by mod
I'm disengaging from this conversation
They aren't writing in support of Hemingway, Hemingway is just an easy "Even dumb guys at least read this" example
This part is important in understanding their meaning. They aren't being narrowly prescriptive, they're just pulling at recognizable examples.
I guess so yeah. It just seems weird, the crime fiction one stands out to me, since people still love true crime for many of the wrong reasons.
Crime fiction is substantially different from true crime. Do you think a podcast about a serial killer has the same sort of content as a detective novel? Yeah, sometimes they revel a bit to much in the violence of the murder, but they really aren't the same thing. One is basically about the crime from a pretty third-person omniscient perspective and the other is usually grounded very strongly in the perspective of the detective and involves their interiority and sometimes other issues they have going on (addiction and exes are the classic ones, but there are others).
I'd also argue that crime fiction typically isn't exploiting the murders and grief of actual people, which changes how you relate to it.
I guess crime fiction has a more regular tendency to be copaganda, but I think they can both do that, as well as having that disdain for "undesirables" built in. I think they're pretty similar, myself.