(Why) Have we stopped reading fiction ?

[Zaharoff]

I have resubbed several Japanese Doramas.
I have always been upfront with my methods and aims.
Correct grammar errors, fix tense mistakes, and streamline dialogue.
If a character says, "I will definitely be helping you!" I shorten to "I will help you."
Too many subs are over-literal, when the essence will suffice.
With dubbed movies, that is not possible.

In most cases, I shun dubbed and go for subbed.
I always run the .srt file through Subtitle Edit or similar software, if nothing else to fix common errors.
Worst subs - computer generated.

Most people I know - coworkers, friends, relatives - would rather trim weeds than watch a foreign film (which they equate with thinkaches and homework).
And most of them, to recap the topic, do not read unless it is a menu or Meme.

[ToALonelyPeace]

I mostly watch subtitled films because my ears are bad and sometimes I cannot make out the accents. I prefer it over dub but sometimes I miss what happens on the screen as I read the subs. Especially when the subs are in cursive...

[Zaharoff]

Quote Originally Posted by ToALonelyPeace

... sometimes I miss what happens on the screen as I read the subs. Especially when the subs are in cursive...

Sounds like the episode or film is hard-coded (HC) which is frowned upon.
I prefer .srt myself, so I can give it a quick pass through an editor.
Cursive ... son-of-a-bitch ... they should not have done that.
English is the default sub for other nationalities who want to view foreign fare. Say, someone in Thailand wanting to see a French series.
Cursive is a pain in the ass. A simple font is easiest in most instances.

[Druidic]

We have stopped reading contemporary horror because it's not very good. There are no Machens, no Blackwoods, no Lovecrafts, or Ligottis.

Simple fact.

Only contemporary writers I enjoy are Ligotti and Samuels.

There are probably some amazing horror writers out there who aren't Thomas Ligotti, Mark Samuels, Reggie Oliver and Ramsey Campbell, but they're unlikely to come up through the current weird fiction circuit because all it seems to produce are endless Laird Barron clones.

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

There's more writers than ever now so I'm sure they're around. Who can say they've read every writer going in the small presses and magazines?

If there was a Year's Best Horror back early last century I doubt there'd be that many great writers in them beyond the obvious.

[Speaking Mute]

I read quite a few lesser known authors, both past and present, and find that the writing that appeals to me the most is concentrated between the late 19th century and WWII. I have no problem assuming that this is just my peculiar tastes, but if I had to justify my preferences I'd say:

- The Pre-WWII reading market supported proportionately more full-time writers (and poets and playwrights); writing is just like any other skill - the more time authors can dedicate to their writing, the better authors they'll become. Fewer full time authors means fewer great authors.

- Sort of an addendum to the prior point, and one that I've already complained about, but the number of writers who are academics, and the number of publishers supported by academia (even if only indirectly - web hosting, access to printing at cost, student labor etc.) increased considerably post-WWII . There are numerous ways this hurts contemporary fiction, but the most straightforward is that it subsidizes and lends prestige to a lot of writing that would otherwise die out for lack of readership.

- People read more fiction Pre-WWII, which in turn meant that they applied higher literary and creative standards to writers.

- Genres were not as rigidly defined, and in many cases, not defined at all. Whereas writers have always looked to other writers, genre-consciousness creates the tendency to think of stories as permutations of discrete tropes, which in turn justifies a lot of formulaic writing.

[Robert Adam Gilmour]

Quote Originally Posted by Speaking Mute

There are numerous ways this hurts contemporary fiction, but the most straightforward is that it subsidizes and lends prestige to a lot of writing that would otherwise die out for lack of readership.

Is this such a bad thing? Don't a lot of good things only happen this way? Animation springs to mind.

[Justin Isis]

Quote Originally Posted by Speaking Mute

I read quite a few lesser known authors, both past and present, and find that the writing that appeals to me the most is concentrated between the late 19th century and WWII. I have no problem assuming that this is just my peculiar tastes, but if I had to justify my preferences I'd say: - The Pre-WWII reading market supported proportionately more full-time writers (and poets and playwrights); writing is just like any other skill - the more time authors can dedicate to their writing, the better authors they'll become. Fewer full time authors means fewer great authors. - Sort of an addendum to the prior point, and one that I've already complained about, but the number of writers who are academics, and the number of publishers supported by academia (even if only indirectly - web hosting, access to printing at cost, student labor etc.) increased considerably post-WWII . There are numerous ways this hurts contemporary fiction, but the most straightforward is that it subsidizes and lends prestige to a lot of writing that would otherwise die out for lack of readership. - People read more fiction Pre-WWII, which in turn meant that they applied higher literary and creative standards to writers. - Genres were not as rigidly defined, and in many cases, not defined at all. Whereas writers have always looked to other writers, genre-consciousness creates the tendency to think of stories as permutations of discrete tropes, which in turn justifies a lot of formulaic writing.

I'd agree with everything re: academia. The rise of professor-writers has led to writing becoming an incestuous guild system (this happened to poetry first) with Iowa, Clarion and the other Writing Workshops feeding directly into the industries. You could include the various award industries in this as well (Man Booker, Pulitzer, National Book Award) for validating very specific models of writing and for encouraging literary homogenization.

With all that said, I think writing (at least at the upper ends of achievement) generally gets better over time due to the progressive accumulation of influences, techniques, etc. as well as more translations coming out and more technology platforms that make it easier to access a wider range of books. Things that you once would have had to pay out for or else scour used bookstores to find are now freely available on Project Gutenberg or as PDFs. If writers are so inclined, they can draw from a more diverse pool than ever.

As for the decreasing number of full time authors: the flipside to this is that if you have to fit in writing on top of a full time job and any kind of family/social obligations, you're probably pretty serious about it. Generally, the less monetary and social validation you receive, the less time you'll have to waste on anything that doesn't really need to be done. Many of the respected writers prior to WWII were full time authors or else managed to write due to having "legacies" or "inheritances" (I've just Googled E.M. Forster, for example)...and so it doesn't surprise me that their writing is less than interesting, given that they weren't exactly forced into confrontation with life (the current academy model seems like another way to avoid engaging with anything outside a very limited sphere).

Additionally, the rise of the Internet has led to people publishing "think pieces" and essayistic, opinion-based writing online rather than dropping it in book form. For example, I recently read an essay collection by G.K. Chesterton called Heretics. After about 50 pages I thought "lol nice opinions bro." After nearly reaching the end I thought "these opinions are expressed with some clever paradoxes and inversions but are still basically wrong lol, this should have been a series of blog posts." But it wasn't a series of blog posts...it was an actual book published in 1905.

Now, the presence of Internet forums (fora?) and message boards means that if I want to make fun of a 46 year old Caucasian male for debuting a collection of weird tales or whatever, I don't actually have to waste paper.

[qcrisp]

Quote Originally Posted by Justin Isis

Quote Originally Posted by Speaking Mute I read quite a few lesser known authors, both past and present, and find that the writing that appeals to me the most is concentrated between the late 19th century and WWII. I have no problem assuming that this is just my peculiar tastes, but if I had to justify my preferences I'd say: - The Pre-WWII reading market supported proportionately more full-time writers (and poets and playwrights); writing is just like any other skill - the more time authors can dedicate to their writing, the better authors they'll become. Fewer full time authors means fewer great authors. - Sort of an addendum to the prior point, and one that I've already complained about, but the number of writers who are academics, and the number of publishers supported by academia (even if only indirectly - web hosting, access to printing at cost, student labor etc.) increased considerably post-WWII . There are numerous ways this hurts contemporary fiction, but the most straightforward is that it subsidizes and lends prestige to a lot of writing that would otherwise die out for lack of readership. - People read more fiction Pre-WWII, which in turn meant that they applied higher literary and creative standards to writers. - Genres were not as rigidly defined, and in many cases, not defined at all. Whereas writers have always looked to other writers, genre-consciousness creates the tendency to think of stories as permutations of discrete tropes, which in turn justifies a lot of formulaic writing. I'd agree with everything re: academia. The rise of professor-writers has led to writing becoming an incestuous guild system (this happened to poetry first) with Iowa, Clarion and the other Writing Workshops feeding directly into the industries. You could include the various award industries in this as well (Man Booker, Pulitzer, National Book Award) for validating very specific models of writing and for encouraging literary homogenization. With all that said, I think writing (at least at the upper ends of achievement) generally gets better over time due to the progressive accumulation of influences, techniques, etc. as well as more translations coming out and more technology platforms that make it easier to access a wider range of books. Things that you once would have had to pay out for or else scour used bookstores to find are now freely available on Project Gutenberg or as PDFs. If writers are so inclined, they can draw from a more diverse pool than ever. As for the decreasing number of full time authors: the flipside to this is that if you have to fit in writing on top of a full time job and any kind of family/social obligations, you're probably pretty serious about it. Generally, the less monetary and social validation you receive, the less time you'll have to waste on anything that doesn't really need to be done. Many of the respected writers prior to WWII were full time authors or else managed to write due to having "legacies" or "inheritances" (I've just Googled E.M. Forster, for example)...and so it doesn't surprise me that their writing is less than interesting, given that they weren't exactly forced into confrontation with life (the current academy model seems like another way to avoid engaging with anything outside a very limited sphere). Additionally, the rise of the Internet has led to people publishing "think pieces" and essayistic, opinion-based writing online rather than dropping it in book form. For example, I recently read an essay collection by G.K. Chesterton called Heretics. After about 50 pages I thought "lol nice opinions bro." After nearly reaching the end I thought "these opinions are expressed with some clever paradoxes and inversions but are still basically wrong lol, this should have been a series of blog posts." But it wasn't a series of blog posts...it was an actual book published in 1905. Now, the presence of Internet forums (fora?) and message boards means that if I want to make fun of a 46 year old Caucasian male for debuting a collection of weird tales or whatever, I don't actually have to waste paper.

In the interests of perpetuating a chain of slight disagreement: I agree with much of the above, but find the impression growing on me that increased access to variety doesn't seem to equal increased interest in variety, or very deep interest in anything at all. Potentially, history provides us with spectacularly fertile compost, but a perusal of current writing against almost any other period seems to suggest that people are not sending out very searching roots into the literary soil, and that creative growth is, as a result, dwarfed and pock-marked.

On the question of opinions, having abandoned my blog some years ago, I am happy to find my opinions building up in me once more in a kind of fermentation, and I am conscious in wanting to divert what would have been blog impulses into something more carefully and thoughtfully formed. I do like the essay/discursive form, though perhaps more for its lyrical and mood possibilities than for any sense that it is the best medium for defining a truth.

I am currently considering narrowing my leisure reading to Chinese biji, histories of the blues, Old- and Middle-English texts, classical histories, and occasional science fiction novels for contrast. And tales about werewolves. And possibly one or two other things.