Most articles about the “death of the novel” focus on declining book sales and reading rates*. A few address shortened attention spans. But Damien Walter, in this blog spot, points the finger at lack of innovation in writing. So many people prefer television, he writes, because the storytelling is better. Walter writes:
The novel has fallen behind as a storytelling medium. Not so long ago, novels were the most reliable fix of story you could find. Now they have heavy competition from box sets, video games, comics, movies and more. And here’s the really crucial issue…that contest has RAISED OUR EXPECTATIONS of what storytelling can and should.
It’s hard to argue with this. But I’m going to do it anyway.
There are innovative writers working now. In no particular order, writers like David Mitchell, the Oulipians, N.K. Jemisin, Colson Whitehead, and countless others have written stunningly creative books in recent years. I concede that these writers are only responsible for a small number of the total outpouring of new books in a year. Most books published these days are retreads of successful formula or, in some cases, continuations of popular series from dead authors. But the fact that there are diamonds in all that dross gives me hope that the novel is not dead. Authors are still finding ways to reinvent the form and tell brilliant stories. A reader simply has to dig to find them.
I blame risk-averse publishers for all that dross. (I have similar complaints about Hollywood and all the remakes.) From a cost perspective, it makes sense that publishers would spend their money on books that they know will make at least some money. It’s short-sighted, sure, but it makes sense. I resent their timidity—and not just because I frequently get déjà vu when I read book reviews in the industry magazines. I resent their timidity because the sure-bets make it harder for readers to find the good stuff.
I have hope for the future of novels, unlike Walter. I have hope because there are imprints and independent publishers who will take risks. Initiatives like We Need Diverse Books have paid dividends in getting more books by and about people of color, LGBTQ people, and people with disabilities. Now, more than ever, I think more people are seeing themselves in fiction.
Another thing that gives me hope is the vibrancy of the bookish internet. Readers can help keep literature alive by swapping recommendations and geeking out about authors, and make it easier to sift through the dross. I’m happily doing my bit to spread the word about good and great books with this blog and by sending readers home from my library with stacks of books. Readers, let’s spite naysayers like Walter by talking about books and sharing our bookish joy. The novel won’t die as long as readers keep reading.
* There is some good news about this. Pew Research recently reported that more younger people are using libraries.
The whole question of reading being a dying art baffles me. If you look at Goodreads 2017 challenge, it declares that members have marked nearly 32 million books as read so far this year. Given that Goodreads membership is a small subset of readers and that even GR members don’t always mark up every book, then it seems to me that quantity of reading is doing just fine! Quality might be a different question, but I don’t think so (and anyway it’s so subjective) – the big “literary” novels always get many, many thousands of ratings on Goodreads, both classics and new releases. I’d love to know where the “reading is dying” trope comes from. I wonder if it’s not just that readers acquire books in ways that don’t make the statistics – from Project Gutenberg and the likes, perhaps, or second-hand book sales.
I’ll confess that creative fiction when put on a cover is something that frightens me away. On the other hand, I’ve been baffled by the storytelling of many podcasts recently (This American Life, Serial, STown) that was waay better than many novels I read.