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.
I don't know if it's attention spans or w/e but it does feel like fewer people of all generations are reading now, and when they do read, they just want slop. Anything that demands engagement or effort from the reader is denounced as 'badly written'. It drives me a bit mad tbh, because at the same time that people smugly reject good literature, you can see that they're unfulfilled reading the same old dreck for the millionth time.
A common thing I used to see on Book Twitter was people complaining at the lack of beautifully written prose that focuses on the interior life and I just want to scream THAT'S MODERNISM YOU'RE DESCRIBING MODERNISM, READ THE WAVES, PLEASE READ THE WAVES, IT WILL MOVE YOU SO DEEPLY, but the thing is that while they want that, they also only read YA dystopian fiction written in the past simple as an iron rule.
Most conversations I have with people my age start with "I saw this Tiktok...". Very dire. Don't care if I sound like a cranky boomer.
Eh, this one is a funny point tbh, do you get the same reaction when someone says "I saw this YouTube video" or "I saw this on the news" etc?
Depends on the context really, but yeah, sometimes. I don't mind any of it if other things get discussed, but it gets tiresome after a while.
No one has ever been "i saw _____ on youtube" and it ever been anything morally good, very occasionally my IRL friend will reference a YT video essay or something, but otherwise it's usually something frivolous (not necessarily bad) or some heinous culture war shit.
No one has ever been "i saw _____ on youtube"
I guess, but it's usually "this video is cool" or something like that. But it's usually a YouTube link
do you get the same reaction when someone says "I saw this YouTube video"
How could you not?
Aren't tiktoks necessarily like <60 seconds? That's intentionally engineered to be more mindless than a YouTube at least has the potential to be. On the other hand, I hear on the news that the tiktoks are radicalizing the youths so I gotta give critical support.
On the OTHER other hand, it's an APP
I also appreciate that tiktok seems to intentionally lower the barrier to entry by (so I've heard) showing new accounts' videos to people, where youtube would bury them
30 minutes I'm seeing online, that's decent for a video essay even.
I only started using TikTok cause a cool commie I follow on YouTube posts exclusive (long-form) content on TikTok 🤷♂️
And tbh I found many other cool commies on my FYP. Like the algorithm is much better than YouTube. YouTube will still from time to time suggest sigma grindset videos to me, or straight up fascist shit even. That has never happened on TikTok.
Its crazy how important a book can be. A whole concept can be understood by a culture almost entirely through the lens of one piece of literature. It makes me think of the post "Sci-fi short stories are very efficient. You read something in 20 minutes and think about it for the rest of your life"
If something isn't immediately understandable it's "badly made". This is true of software too. The term "user friendly" has come to mean "can a clueless new/prospective user pick this up and engage with it immediately?" less "Does this provide the experience existing users want to see?"
Oh man don't get me started. I'm so tired of Angry That The Terminal Even Exists Guy, and that's before we even get to the co-optation of the concept of 'accessibility'. NO, NOT BEING ARSED WITH LEARNING A DIFFERENT PARADIGM, WHILE UNDERSTANDABLE, IS NOT A DISABILITY
"I want to rename my music library using this specific naming scheme and organize them in this specific directory structure and I REFUSE TO USE THE TERMINAL"
If something isn't immediately understandable it's "badly made".
Applying this standard to art is a bad idea
but the thing is that while they want that, they also only read YA dystopian fiction written in the past simple as an iron rule.
I was watching a YouTube video yesterday tmaking fun of YA dystopian fiction and there were endless comments about how great the Hunger Games is. A lot of "Best book ever! Someday it will be seen as proper literature!" Granted, I haven't read the book (only saw the movies), but it was Battle Royale in the future instead of the present day.
I dunno. I want to let people enjoy things, but I also think a lot of this stuff is just shit. Battle Royale was already pulp, so Hunger Games being a copy is even more pulp. The same goes for 50 Shades of Gray being Twilight fan fiction turned into a whole series.
I want people to enjoy things, and there's nothing wrong with trash! I enjoy a lot of trash! But there's so much more!
You ever watch Terrible Writing Advice on YouTube? Recurring bits include love triangles, Man with No Name spoofs, evil empire that's evil for reasons, chosen one prophecies, self-insert wish fulfillment, etc.
Still can't believe that book was not only a bestseller, but also got made into a movie. I get it, not everyone wants to trudge their way through obscure 18th. century literature or avant-garde meta commentary on English academia. But like..."The idea hit me like an anvil on the top of my head." Really? 300 pages of that? Why would you do that to yourself?
Okay but Heinlein is kinda mid so that tracks lmao
At least your chud reads. My chuddiest chud relatives think reading is for dorks and I'm pretty sure one of them hasn't picked up a book since high school (despite being almost 50).
That's a
Show
from me considering how open the director and cast have been about the movie being satire. These last few years have convinced me you have to be explicitly and vocally anti-fascist in storytelling because these brainlets don't realize when they aren't welcome.
but philosophical letters by voltaire is basically slop as is candide which is also by him.
Is it a bad thing that Pangloss was what made me seriously question my own apathy and conformism? I can see why Candide is kinda slop but I think if everyone read Candide we'd have a lot more people interested in actually changing the world, IDK.
Not at all it had (if im understanding correctly) the same on me when i first read it in my teens. I genuinely thought pangloss was the bees knees
Right, and I think that this idea of "the world is exactly as it ought to be" is just such an important tenet of liberalism (ironic since Voltaire is one of the most important thinkers behind liberalism, someone more educated on philosophy can probably explain the contradiction there) and I think that breaking out of that bliss is so important for building a pro-social worldview. A better world is actually possible!
what reforms are you talking about comrade, never heard of this, is this a usian thing?
Critical thinking skills are not on the test, so they won't be needed!
IT SUCKS IT SUCKS IT SUCKS
I'm begging anyone in my immediate circle to just read a book or think about what they watch just a little. You don't have to be a scholar, God knows I'm not either, but it's so BORING. I dunno, maybe it's me, but I try to like, have a slightly in-depth conversation about any piece of media or art or whatever with someone and I just get nothing. We're all hooked up to the slop spigot and can't turn it off.
Also GET OFF YOUR FUCKING PHONE WHEN WE'RE HANGING OUT.
I do not use any social media (except this site, I guess) and it is bizarre trying to connect with anyone else. When people ask for my insta or whatever, I just say I have a phone number and that's it. If you want to get at me, text me or call me. I don't look at my phone when I'm hanging out with people unless it's to show them a picture or video that I took. People are always showing me tiktoks and I'm just like, "Oh, it's youtube but worse." Algorithmic content is poison. We're approaching a point where people make zero choices about what goes into their brains and it's terrifying and also the lamest fucking thing ever.
Same here. I have a dummy cell phone that I use exclusively to receive calls or some text from my relatives (I prefer calls). It's worrying how you can become a ghost if you're not on any social network. People are usually like "give me your WhatsApp", "tell me your Instagram user", what? If you need me, here's my number, that's it, haha.
I'm not of that age, but imo it's more a technological thing than a generational thing. People, of any age, cannot put their phones down. I personally have to make the conscious decision to disconnect if I'm going to read something or watch a movie or whatever. I imagine that for people who grew up with smartphones, that's like cutting off a limb.
People have been complaining that kids are constantly on their phone as long as kids have had phones, but, from the perspective of someone who was in high school when high schoolers first started getting cell phones, the most text messaging addicted person in my peer group back then would be about average from what I've seen now.
Remember the wired earpiece guy? Guy holds up a finger and holds his other hand to his ear: "Yea sorry I gotta take this."
From 100 WPM on a T9 keyboard to grandma's addicted to FarmVille and candy crush in only a few years
In that sense, yes absolutely. There's a huge prevalent mindset of anti-intellectualism and hopelessness that leads to individualistic hustle culture with no appreciation for the arts. I think you'd see the same thing in any nascent fascist society in history, where any actual love for art is replaced by much shallower symbols in the service of reinforcing hegemonic masculinity. But even among my leftier friends, if I send them a message that's longer than 2 sentences I'm very likely to receive an "I ain't reading all that" (even a literal 3 sentence message).
I think music has probably retained a similar relevance for my age group as previous ones, but the way that people engage with music is a lot more easy come easy go, which means that unless you have a specific kind of personality you're unlikely to try to dig much meaning out of music, especially men with lower emotional intelligence. But there's still the same drive to make music a part of your identity, just shallower.
"Uhm, whatever that means" Gestures broadly, appealing to nonexistant crowd
But even among my leftier friends, if I send them a message that's longer than 2 sentences I'm very likely to receive an "I ain't reading all that" (even a literal 3 sentence message).
This is wild, are all your conversations lacking any challenging thoughts?
Well I said "very likely," the truth is probably closer to "I'm autistic and sometimes start a mini infodump on a friend who isn't interested, but also sometimes I have a genuine thing to share that gets boy-who-cried-wolfed into being ignored." If we're already in conversation in person or over a call, we can usually talk about deeper subjects, although usually the men don't participate as much in a deep convo. I don't know how much of that is unique to my age group, but it lines up with OP's observations.
Funny enough one of my close friends, same age group, tells me he almost never talks about politics with another circle of friends of his, but one time got into a huge struggle session because one of them very dumbly kept defending the idea that it was cool and good that people could buy up and own lakes, while everyone else rejected the idea because it just seemed incongruent with their values, without much theoretical basis. And it makes sense that something like that happens, right? Private property is a downright intuitive ideological principle, but also has all sorts of points of contradiction with other values people have, even when people don't go and read up on the enclosure of the commons, primitive accumulation, etc they understand that it's not natural for a single person to be able to claim a whole lake. But because no one had the language or a system to talk about this problem, they just went in circles. Would this discussion have happened in a gen X group of dumb guys? I think it easily could have, but something about the fact that no one involved had a real dog in the race ideologically, they were just saying "no it doesn't work that way" or "yeah but if you think about it should work that way," is new.
the truth is probably closer to "I'm autistic and sometimes start a mini infodump on a friend who isn't interested, but also sometimes I have a genuine thing to share that gets boy-who-cried-wolfed into being ignored."
Many such cases, down with neurotypicals.
although usually the men don't participate as much in a deep convo.
I have interest in this, could you expand on it by chance?
I have interest in this, could you expand on it by chance?
I don't have a huge sample size, since I'm the only COVID conscious person I know and therefore haven't been social IRL since 2020, but out of everyone I talk with the only one who bothers talking about the themes and framing of media in a deeper level is a femme NB friend. All the guys subscribe to the "it ain't that deep" school of thought. That's just my anecdotal experience though.
I have this anecdote more broadly, I can count on one hand the amount of deep, considered discussions I've had with men in my life, lol. Ty for sharing.
The way people engage with music these days seems to be whatever gets popular on tiktok and whatever hits the spotify algorithm jackpot. Outside of my friends who are musicians, I don't think I've talked to single person under 40 that listens to albums.
That's interesting, you don't know many terminally online (online outside of tiktok) people? All the terminally online guys I know are at least kinda into some music subculture, usually some kind of indie rock or hip hop subgenre. The more normie types of guy aren't listening to albums though.
But even among my leftier friends, if I send them a message that's longer than 2 sentences I'm very likely to receive an "I ain't reading all that" (even a literal 3 sentence message).
Keepin it a band I cut people off and out for this.
If you can't be fucked to read something longer than two sentences I don't fuckin want you around me; and I don't give a fuck how elitist that makes me come off. I don't have time, energy, or patience for the willfully ignorant; and with my list of comorbidities, that kind of flippant comment is probably one of the quickest ways to tempt me into splitting on a motherfucker.
every now and then I ask my friends if they read the article I sent them, makes me feel bad because of the asymmetry since they haven't sent me anything to read either so I can't hold myself to the same standard. But we should all endeavor to surround ourselves with people that challenge us intellectually and hold ourselves to a higher standard along the way.
Not a man but I am in the age range. I mean it may be the case that more people are turning to parasocial relationships and falling into manosphere holes because of the internet. But also idk, maybe we've got to take stock of how misogyny plays a role into all this? Most men (and I truly mean, like 99% of them) don't want to unpack the way they hold privilege and power over women. In decades past in which men were reading books more, they also had legal control over their wives? Women were gatekept out of academia for centuries. We live in a patriarchy and that needs to factor into any analysis of men as a social class that happens.
I think there's an internalized misogyny that's getting worse at play as well, where it's feminine (and therefore weak and shameful) to explore feelings or one's inner life in a serious way. It seems like that kind of misogyny is increasing.
I think a good question to ask, is the misogyny increasing or are you just getting better at recognizing it and/or being exposed to more of it because of the internet?
(the misogyny has always been there and is incredibly widespread)
That's a good question. It's generally my view that the past four years have been a massive setback for the left and the general sentiment has become much more reactionary, including an increase in overall misogyny. But I don't know to what extent that's reality or my own perception of things.
I think this ties back into my main comment.
Nobody posts on their social media that they just enjoyed X, Y, or Z literature or art. I won't say for sure that this is because the people who take the time to genuinely enjoy these things don't really give a fuck to tell everybody else about it, but that's what I think is happening.
The internet has provided all sorts of assholes the ability to spread their message to millions of people. Unfortunately, you might be right that this is leading to an increase. Personally, I think these people were always around, and would've latched onto these type of ideas with or without the internet.
Xi pays the big bucks tbh. I get 20000 RMB a second!
These are consequences of living in a system that rewards your individualism.
I am in that age bracket, and when I was in college I found it quite difficult to get friends just because of that. Young men are easily influenced by capitalist propaganda, and not only are they manipulable, but they like to feel that way. So, most commonly, they feel like they're in a competition all the time. If they read philosophy, they read about individualism and idealism (if they read philosophy at all). If they read fiction, they read only the misogynistic and crass author, and so on.
Of course, today we live in the society of spectacle, so these people do not usually read, but are merely educated by images. This, coupled with zero critical thinking, simply generates a wave of stupid, misogynistic and individualistic people.
If they read philosophy, they read about individualism and idealism (if they read philosophy at all). If they read fiction, they read only the misogynistic and crass author, and so on.
yeah the only neurotypical young man I know of that reads outside of school is a libertarian weirdo who reads (or pretends to have read) libertarian shit, and maybe like marcus aurelius or something
and maybe like marcus aurelius or something
And they misinterpret what they read to fit their ideals. They use stoicism to try to be rich (they will never be).
I read almost all of those books when they came out and the author lived not far from me 😬
I read all the original Dune books plus Hero With A Thousand Faces (and I enjoyed all of it). I will face the wall now.
I like the use of the Community gif since it's creator, Dan Harmon, is a huge Campbell stan lol
I'm a pig for his slop for sure
Glad Roiland is facing some amount of justice
I feel that 100%
I was a fan of his podcast but whenever he strayed into his own- or often fucking America's- myth-making, I wanted to breath fire at him. Also when he had people come on simping for Clinton.
Funny guy though and he did bring a DSA guys a few times
Of course, today we live in the society of spectacle, so these people do not usually read, but are merely educated by images.
The Spectacle certainly includes writing. It's hard to get more Society of the Spectacle than by being a Hemingway Guy. The point of the Spectacle is that it replaces "being something" with "having the aesthetic of something," and literature most definitely conveys aesthetics that people have chased after, and in fact that's very strongly a trope of writing aimed at younger men.
Edit: See also: https://web.archive.org/web/20210610042340/https://the-toast.net/2013/11/04/male-novelist-jokes/#idc-cover (including some of the comments)
Edit: See also: https://web.archive.org/web/20210610042340/https://the-toast.net/2013/11/04/male-novelist-jokes/#idc-cover (including some of the comments)
It's like the one responding were Jordan Peterson.
Now that you mention it, yeah. Of my school cohort, me and my best friend at school are the only guys in the year who went into the arts. It's actually kind of insane.
At my uni, I was one of 2 guys in my class. In the whole year, it was me and maybe like 2 other guys who had any sort of traditional male hobbies/ways of presenting. Otherwise it was camp gay men, and a couple of straight guys who were just like, idk, theatre kids.
I think it speaks to a socioeconomic thing too though. Most other guys I meet who are in the arts are living off daddy's money.
Anecdotal, but my friend is a high school math teacher and said most of the dudes want to be in real estate. So, at least in that particular high school the grindset pipeline seems to be in full effect.
Is that in a relatively wealthy area? Could be normal if it's somewhere bougie.
anywhere that's like upper 40 percentile could probably be like that now. There's so much trash slop on youtube and tiktok about getting rich via various passive income techniques and varying levels of scam, and becoming a landlord+realtor seems to be a common one.
To be fair, being a landlord seems like one of the few viable avenues to material comfort and security. Getting a degree of working hard is certainly not enough anymore. The kids are reacting rationally to a sick economic system.
all roads now lead to the FIRE economy: Finance, Insurance and Real Estate. Real Estate is the one that requires the least credentialing to get into and promises the highest income for least effort if one hustlegrind the most shrewdly.
It's about a desire for wealth. They see where the money is and want in on it. Also it's relatively low-skill and non-university than most professions. Bryan Quimby on Guys Podcast said like half the class his daughter just graduated in, the ones who weren't going to university or weren't planning to said they wanted to go into real estate. Which makes me think it's not even like they crave it that badly, it's just a backup plan they have because they gave up interest and hope in anything else.
Yeah that's definitely the case, it is about wealth, but the difference between going into medicine, engineering, or law and real estate is that you don't need to start off wealthy to make the others work (assuming you can deal with student loans), but real estate takes wealth to break into. So what's making so many working class men think they can become landlords or realtors without the connections and capital that are obviously prerequisites to attain that class position?
It being a product of the generations simply being younger is made up, but the actual conditions that give rise to all these problems is objective. You can't deny that younger generations are way more individualistic, cynical and even find it "cringe" when someone actually gives a shit about the world to sit down and learn about something that isn't just an investement to their fucking career.
Boomers and X-ers absolutely do this at least as much as younger generations.
Maybe I have an overly negative opinion on the new generations, because being part of it, they are the ones that I hope will wake up and get organized the most, so when they act like wage zombies unable to think critically I get really disappointed in the world as a whole
No generation is magically more class conscious than others. We need to educate people and in order to do that we need to read theory.
Yeah; I'd say X's take the cake for that bullshit. At least a good chunk of Z is interested in politics; either it be subtly or just general grassroots activism. X was a bunch of apathetic, depressive assholes who completely caved in the second they got any power or money. is this the case for all X? No. I don't believe in clear generational differences.
Millenials get a lot of shit; but in my opinion, they have gotten that power and money and there's been a good few of them who maintain their humanity/morality in a fucked up system. X came after the boomers and wanted a piece no matter what they had to sacrifice to get it. I'm a Z.
X literally grew up in one of the most hedonistic, individualistic eras of American history. Drugs, rock n roll and women were being commercialized and commodified in some excessive ways for the first time.
We are all basically boomers. Our lives are more or less the same as theirs, except for cellphones and blatantly obvious American decline.
Except I couldn't buy a house on my single income from the factory that gave me a job with full benefits and pension the moment I walked in the door.
I don't know if anyone has said this, cause there's a lot to read here, but I think you're just seeing all this online. Nobody posts on their social media that they just enjoyed X, Y, or Z literature or art. I won't say for sure that this is because the people who take the time to genuinely enjoy these things don't really give a fuck to tell everybody else about it, but that's what I think is happening.
I'm pretty sure there's a term for this phenomenon that I can't think of right now, but yeah you're just getting exposed to drivel that is not representative of actual people.
I'm older than this range, but still a "Zillenial" for context.
Survivorship Bias, basically. The presentation of data is filtered out by physical circumstances.
