Lisa Adams (1)

... contemporary" is right, making this a bit dated. Also a bit US-centric. Still interesting. For example, an analysis of inspirational and self-help books includes a list of parody titles for Chicken Soup for the Soul books, and this revelation of what's inside Don't Sweat the Small Stuff:

Adams and Heath point out that Carlson is aware "of how hard it will be to adopt some of his simple suggestions, to change one's perspective so completely.... 'people and dogs are hard to love unconditionally.... A plant, however, is easy to love just the way it is.' Practice makes perfect; start on the road to inner peace by opening your heart to a fern."

Btw, I'm reading this because I don't read best-sellers. Not because I'm a snob, but because they don't appeal to me. I'm hoping to learn to understand, at least a bit, readers who do. So far I'm mostly getting that those readers are the ones who don't really want to learn, but simply to have their own perspective & opinion confirmed. Eh. Not sure that's exactly right. But this is an engaging read and I'll keep going.
.....

Of course the biggest problem with books like this is the lack of respect for an accurate definition of "We." I alluded to it above, but it needs reinforcing... by me, since the authors lose sight of it. The only people that are better understood by this book are those people who are actually buying these books. They probably aren't being bought, at least the self-help, recipe, celebrity biography, pop history (etc.) books, by avid readers; in fact, many of those books are probably never actually read, but rather skimmed, received as gifts & given back to charity, and/or shelved with the intention to read 'someday.' The genre books, the thrillers, romances, adventures, are likely read by a core set of true fans. Depending on how you phrase the poll question, probably half of US residents don't read best sellers or *L*iterature or serious science & history. This book does not analyze "Americans."

And then library users are a whole 'nother beast. We don't buy books directly, but we do influence the choices libraries make when they buy. Do patrons really read those books, or do they check them out and return them skimmed? Adams and Heath suggest that just reading an inspirational book feels good, and doing the work isn't necessary. A quick search of Nevada's rural library system, including Carson City, returns 118 results of a Chicken Soup for the Soul search... I do suppose those are read because 1. they're short & easy and 2. the sequels would likely be bought by readers, as they are clearly more of the same, not a new take on the first idea. I had to wait a *long* time for my request of Marie Kondo's Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up (the "spark joy" decluttering book) to be filled, but not through a lot of patrons, leading me to believe that at least some patrons were reading it carefully and taking notes, trying to really implement the advice.

Btw, since this was written, e-books have become much more popular, and so have self-published authors. A's K device (I won't name them because they have business practices I cannot in good conscience endorse, but you know who I mean) does, I'm convinced, deserve credit for bringing more people to books. The convenience of being able to read anything anywhere, on a toy many folks (especially, I believe, folks who don't necessarily use libraries) already own, does seem to be increasing the number of 'books read' that people will claim in a poll, and maybe the number of books sold (because, as far as I can tell) sharing is more difficult. At least in forums on GR, ppl are talking all the books on their devices that they've read and that they hope to, and not as often talking about switching from print books to e-books. I think I represent, at least somewhat, older avid readers, and what my tablet has done for me is increased the number of books I'm reading, as I read just as many print books and am adding e-books to the list.

I wouldn't mind seeing some serious research on who reads what how....

Meanwhile, this is a fun book, and I've typed enough and am going back to it now.
......
And done. The overall message, despite the authors' claims that it's not what they're saying, is that we *shouldn't* be reading what we're reading. Looking for facile answers, and for stories that polarize good vs evil, makes us think that politics and real life resemble the thrillers and diet-of-the-month books that are bought in such numbers. Ah well. Though the book didn't do for me what I hoped it would, it was still interesting.

Some more book darts:

So, genre romance: "[W]omen read to renew their hopes that marriages to they hyper-masculine can be emotionally fulfilling.... or that a husband's aloof mien is actually a sign of a powerful love...."

Oprah's book club doesn't always pick the best books, and certainly doesn't encourage the kind of questioning & critiquing examination that the authors would prefer, but instead promotes an emotional connection & response from reader to text, but: "we contend that getting people to read more complex books--and, by extension, to accept the complexity of life and tolerate more viewpoints, is truly important. Oprah should be praised...!"

Formulaic bestsellers "try to suppress... there are no easy answers to humanity's complex problems, whether they manifest themselves in cancer, loneliness, terrorism, a beer gut, or an apparently indifferent universe."

And, *I* will add, there's no easy answer to Why We Read (or Buy, or Borrow) What We Read (...)."… (meer)

You know that phrase "It made me laugh, it made me cry"? It applies to this book.

Adams has a wonderfully engaging writing style (I read through the entire thing in a zip!), and her main character is so fun. Rhiannon manages to find the humor in her situation, and genuinely cares for her stepdaughters in spite of this not being the life she'd envisioned--so the book is beautifully bittersweet. I imagine anyone from a blended family (stepmothers especially!) might find some validation within its pages.

I don't want to spoil the book, but there are some scenes that ring so true--her characters are never fake or cardboard--I read them over a few times just to absorb them more fully.

Highly recommended. This book will stick with me for a long time.… (meer)

The authors read or at least skimmed the Publishers Weekly bestseller lists for about the past 15 years and drew conclusions about American readers from their reading. I tended to agree with most of them, although I must admit that the "literary novel" category was the only one in which I'd read more than a handful of the books. The mysteries I read are not by Mary Higgins Clark or James Patterson, and I haven't even read The Da Vinci Code! The authors have a good sense of humor and brought me quite a few chuckles. I picked this up because it was National Library Week and it was on a shelf near the circulation desk of books about reading.… (meer)

Not a riveting read, but interesting nonetheless; and some chapters were more engaging than others. Across the board - romances, memoirs, religious and New Age, self-help and diet, political, literary, fiction and non-fiction - we as Americans seem to desire quick and easy fixes, reiteration and reinforcement of beliefs we already hold, and, above all, happy endings. We're not big fans of tragedy (bad things can happen, as long as everything turns out OK in the end), we don't like to consider other viewpoints from our own, and we're lacking in empathy. There's a lack of honest discourse and dialogue; we read to escape, not to think.

In the authors' words, we want "straightforward answers and reassurance. Our reading too often simplifies, rather than enriches; validates, rather than undermines; explains, rather than adumbrates*; commands, rather than suggests; answers, rather than questions; pardons, rather than challenges; and accuses, rather than seeks to understand." (274)

In other words...we're sheep. Lazy sheep.

*I had to look this up. Adumbrate (v): 1. To give a sketchy outline of; 2. To prefigure indistinctly; foreshadow; 3. To disclose partially or guardedly; 4. To overshadow; shadow or obscure.
… (meer)