Do SFF authors think we are stupid now 

subtlety is dangerous these days - especially for YA writers - the book is presented directly to the mob (twitter) and treated with all the nuance a mob can muster

I've worked in education my whole life (currently in higher ed), and anecdotal evidence from instructors at various levels, as well as statistical evidence, points toward some huge struggles with critical thinking. I used to teach a course where we were analyzing complex poetic texts in a foreign language, and even the self-selected students in this AP course struggled to go beyond recounting what happened. After a lot of modeling what analytical thinking and writing looks like, I was able to get them closer, but it took a lot of scaffolding and effort. I read a book about today's generation of high schoolers and college students for work, and one of the key characteristics she associated with this generation was risk-aversion. While avoiding risk is good for things like saving money, or not getting into car-crashes, avoiding risks in critical thinking and discussion leads to recounting the same ideas constantly rather than pushing to think further or find a new take on something. I don't think this is the only part of the puzzle, but I do think the perfectionism that has been drilled into so many students today makes it hard for them to volunteer something even if they only think they might be wrong, rather than trying to engage to the fullest.

The comprehension and critical thinking points are super-pertinent. I've encountered so many reviews that take a villain or otherwise unlikeable character being racist, sexist, etc., as the author endorsing racism, sexism, etc. It's no wonder some authors see that and think "let me be SUPER CLEAR AND OBVIOUS."

I agree with the article you linked to when it says "subtlety" is being confused with "nuance". Which is to say, I think what you're referring to is not actually "subtlety", but the fact that books today feel a need to drive home the philosophical, political, aesthetic (etc.) point they're trying to make without giving the topic at hand any nuance, and thereby simply declaring "this is the point, it is the right point, and there is no other point that could be right, and I will make sure there is no nuance to what I'm saying so as to not give you any wrong ideas". And yes, this is why some people read "Kindred" and feel it "excuses" slave owners. Because Butler, being the genius she is, knows nuance. And yes, as you say, I think this is why authors now write without nuance -- because they're VERY connected to their readership today and are, plainly speaking, afraid of being canceled by readers who mistake nuance for apologism. I don't even think this is a problem of a decline in reading comprehension (people have had bad reading comprehension forever). It's a change in how readerships have come to understand what "judging a book" means. To most people who review YA or fantasy on goodreads/twitter/booktok, "judging a book" means "pointing out everything in a book you agree or disagree with morally and tallying them up", which they consider to be exactly synonymous with "making a judgement on the book's quality".

This reminds me of conversations I see about the rise of purity culture in fandom. I wonder if creators' (possible) fear of being misinterpreted comes from seeing how strict and vitriolic fans can be about enforcing moral purity in fiction.

for trad published authors i also wonder how much the editorial team at the publishing house encourage them to make the books less subtle. perhaps the publishers are scared to have books on challenging subjects not spell things out because they don't want any negative press affecting their other authors.

It's a bit of a YA-ization of SFF. Not that YA books are dumb, but they have mass appeal, so overexplaining and handholding are requirements for authors not to lose the mainstream audiences. Adult SFF is seeking to be more and more like YA in that sense, it feels like.

Considering I've seen people say that Punk Music shouldn't be making political statements and that they long for when it wasn't, the comprehension of media has changed a lot, or at least we have more of a platform for fools to be heard. I also recently heard someone claim The Expanse is the greatest scifi because it's not political, Star Trek isn't political. A lot of people who don't understand what they're consuming are being very vocal.

One of the many reasons I don't read my reviews is something you touched on - when a reader doesn't get what the book is actually about. They read the story, but they don't or can't tell the difference between the story and what a book is about. They're not looking, or are skim reading, or just don't care, and so they don't fully see the book. This is not something I can control and it is enormously frustrating, obviously, so I don't go looking as it is likely to prove upsetting. The equivalent of snail mail letters today is in person event discussion with readers, or sometimes I get emails from people asking questions, or commenting on things beneath the surface, those are the moments that are super rewarding as an author. The best SFF for me is about something more than what is presented on the surface. Most often, these stories are talking about a facet of our world, through a lens, so it's not heavy on your reading palette, like peanut butter. The worst kind of books for me are those that are a sermon, or propaganda, or they're just telling me how I should live my life, according to their POV and even if I agree, I throw them out and stop reading. Presenting ideas is one thing, telling me how to be is something I cannot abide. As you said, not every book has to be intense. The world is bleak, and escapism and adventure stories are as valid as those that challenge your mindset, but readers should not mistake one for the other because they can’t tell the difference.

As my mom has said for a few years now, “the pendulum is swinging back but it always goes too high”. She’s a high school teacher and has been since the 80s. She’s watched the changes and while she was happy with some at first, many have been actively harmful to education. Before teachers and admin had too much power, could hit a kid, parents believed them 100% over kids, it was a problem. There was a slight mid point when I way about 16 and now that im 28, it’s completely hit the other side. Students and parents are ganging upon teachers, admin literally hides until the last second then looks for someone to blame, and kids are getting pushed along a system whether they actually understood the material or not. So if a kid at 6 is pushed to the next grade without the ability to read their current level, they’re now behind and reading starts becoming a ‘challenge’ for lack of a better word. Even fun books offered are gonna be harder to get through. Now it’s the next year and they’re two years behind. It continues. While reading may or may not improve critical thinking, it does improve reading skills! You can’t read a big book if you’ve not read a small one, if you can’t understand common words you are gonna have a harder time jumping to larger ones (not impossible just much much harder) Sorry that was a lot! But you’re right, it’s a great jumping off video in terms of conversation 😊

Finallly, someone said it!! I'm sick of reading books that feel more like a tumblr post than a story. I also hate this false dichotomy between 'reading for fun' and 'challenging reading'. They're not mutually exclusive. I only read books for fun - and I find nuance and complex themes enjoyable to read! Being hit over the head with the author's point, even if I agree with it, isn't fun! It robs stories of their authenticity when every character speaks like a twitter thread on 'why racism is bad' etc. It also leads to a lot of flat characters because god forbid a gay/poc/neurodivergent/etc character have flaws like a real person

I think you are correct in that this is a real problem, even beyond Science Fiction and Fantasy novels. An issue with this is, when people are told what to believe rather than given something to think on... they are less likely to change their perspective. It's much more effective to get someone to reflect and consider why they believe what they believe rather than "you are wrong, this is what you should think". This is also how people often change their beliefs in therapy.

The "critical thinking and media literacy" and "reading: the skill vs the hobby" portions of this video are so well-explained and nicely presented. I'm so glad you included what I guess some people might think of as tangents in the final video. Fascinating stuff.

Haven’t gotten to finish this yet but I’m grateful for this topic- as someone attempting to write for the first time this is something I’m struggling with balancing. I think the way we consume and discuss media is a factor, everything’s so fast paced and dopamine driven, not designed to be thought about after reading or watching anything, a great video on this is from Patrick H Willems on “Everything is Content”. We don’t even let credits roll in digital media without the next episode taking 5 seconds to start and minimizing the window. We’ve never had such quick access to quick dopamine as we do now with smart phones, TikTok, the internet to access any info at any time, etc and it’s all in how we teach it and regulate ourselves.

This was so interesting. SFF isn't the main genre that I read, I mostly read literary fiction and this trend is something that is also being commented on a lot in that space. I was listening to a podcast about The Booker Prize last week and they were lamenting that lots of prize contenders lack a bit of brashness and moral complexity - they're often brilliant books, really nuanced and insightful and yet nevertheless have a really clear and specific 'comment' that they're making. I think your hunch about the internet is spot on. I think some writers can be a little scared to add moral ambiguity and complexity to a story for fear of their words being taken out of context. I've often lamented the trend online for people not distinguishing between the author and the character in their critique - a racist character doesn't mean the author is racist, a misogynistic character doesn't mean the author is a misogynist. Obviously sometimes there is a correlation, of course! Really interesting - always enjoy your essays!

For those who think it might be a problem, I'm curious about who we're comparing today’s authors with. Do you think past decades of Hugo winners are generally less in-your-face with their themes? I wonder how much of it just boils down to us remembering the challenging reads more (or the more subtle works remaining relevant longer), even if the more accessible or explicit ones always existed as well. I generally think it’s good to have a range of styles for various reading levels and preferences.

I think that at least part of this trend has to be rooted in the larger cultural moment we find ourselves in. We live in ideologically polarizing times and some authors feel the need to more explicitly signal their opinions so that they get labeled as the 'right' kind of person. Definitely the rise of the Internet and the democratization of opinion-sharing via social media is one of the biggest influences behind this general culture shift. Just found your channel today and spent the last hour and a half watching! Loving the content and looking forward to engaging more in the future!

Yes!! 100%! I definitely have noticed this recently, and my feelings about it are... Complicated. It reminds me so much of programs like "No Child Left Behind", where we begin catering to the lowest common denominator, offering them marginal increase in success at the detriment to everyone else. I think it's important to have works that deal with really difficult ideas, but if they're too digestable, then when someone adopts those ideas/opinions themselves, they may have more difficulty defending them outside their echo chambers because they arrived at those interpretations too easily and without knowing how to present them to other people critically. We definitely remember and understand things better when we "chew" on them... Probably why I love when booktubers get together to do discussion videos--we get a fuller picture of ANY work outside our own vaccuum, but especially more complex books! Also, nailed it on the head with childhood literacy. My kiddo's ability to read has allowed us to really get into the Pokemon TCG, but when his friend comes over I have to really help him because his literacy isnt as good, and it makes me appreciate the doors it has unlocked for us in SO many ways because he has those skills!

We currently have an abundance of genre material and fandom around that material that makes a lot of fans practically live immersed continually in F/SF and related genre content. This is great since we enjoy that material, but it is very limiting. The more limited amount of genre content in times past meant that we, fans who grew up loving reading because of our initial love of F/SF, gradually shifted to other books because of limited content supply. That led us to wider fields of literature. And the same applied to the authors writing this content. We tend to frown upon the older authors who came from engineering and science fields and had little formal academic training in writing, but they often brought in not just a wealth of technical knowledge that enriched the works, but also a lot of practical life experience in jobs outside academia and fandom. Most current newer authors think they have greater literary skill because of the years of writing seminars and workshops, but often that just makes their outlook more recursive, more in-grown, limited and restricted to superficial forms and structures and levels of socially acceptable sub-text. And this shows in the content. F/SF tends to be very much in conversation with itself, but sometimes you need voices from outside the same rooms, to keep it from being, really, merely elevated fanfic.

OK, I'm going to go ahead and visit author intent here. I think specifically with The Calculating Stars and A Psalm for the Wild Built, what the authors are doing is presenting a issue or a set of issues that the reader may also be experiencing, and the showing them examples of characters coping with them or just presenting a case for them to empthise with-to give a sort of, "I see you, and you see me" kind of experience-which is there to create discussion between readers about those issues. In that case, being subtle, and cryptic is harmful, not helpful. To take an opposite example, I would point to Kazuo Ishiguro. So, I read Klara and the Sun, and at the end felt a bit confused as to what point he was making. So I decided t look up interviews with him talking about the book to see if I could get anything from them. Well, it turns out he is notorious for not talking about the themes in his books and absolutely leaving it to the reader to work out. I kept seeing interviews where an interviewer would mention AI, and he would say something like, "Yes, that's in the book, but that's not what it's about." Or someone would talk about gene editing, and he would say, "Yes, that's in the book, but that's not what it's about." And it was really frustrating until I saw another interview where he said almost all his books explore the same theme. Which led me to reading Never Let Me Go, and about halfway through that, I got it. So my point is, these people who were interviewing him-smart people, who you would never accuse of having poor critical thinking, or bad media literacy-did not get what the book was about. He's just maybe a little too on the cryptic side. And therefore, the conversation he is trying to have with the reader about what he perceives as a huge blind spot that people have in society is not happening. I mean, maybe I'm actually a dumb guy too, and maybe it was a random sampling of those interviewers and me that didn't get it. But, you know... 😅 Anyway, those are my two cents.

Good point about authors being scared of being misinterpretted. So many reviewers confuse *character* views and *author* views. If a character behaves badly, it must be very clearly condemned in the text, and the "bad" character must be punished. Very Hayes Code. I heard an educational radio programme recently that had a problem with "An Inspector Calls". Why? Because one character was guilty of s*x*l assault, and yet was also one of the few characters to accept responsibility for their actions. So, is he a "bad" or a "good" person? He did a Bad, so he must be Bad. But he took responsibility and showed genuine remorse, which is Good. But he did a Bad! Are we supposed to love him or hate him? So confusing! The presenters had to give a big shrug and dismiss the author as the product of his time; someone who probably didn't think that assault was a big deal. Which is complete garbage, as revealed by the rest of the play. The idea that the author was creating "more of a discussion starter than an answer" seemed completely beyond their comprehension. And these were educators! /headdesk /facepalm

The topic of this video immediately made me think of RF Kuang. I’ve definitely noticed her books intentionally hit you over the head with their intended meaning, and I think worsened the work’s potential. Blood over bright haven was also remarkably unsubtle and is part of the reason I enjoyed it less than Sword of Kaigen. I know myself I don’t have the patience to reread difficult text so I tend to move on so I’m probably part of the problem too lol.

The social media point is actually a really good one I think. Lots of authors can get a mob formed due to things taken out of context, or even just honest mistakes. Especially in YA. So they might want to be upfront just to reduce the odds of that happening, which is unfortunate.

Great Video Bookborn! I think this goes with the rise of YA. 1) YA books are usually not controversial. They don't deal with any type of topic that would get the authors "canceled". They usually never do anything that a more grim dark author would do. They like to play it safe. 2) YA books tend to be more straight forward. They have lot more action, relationships, easier to read prose, etc. 4th wing is lot easier to read the Malazan. I feel like readers tend to pick up more books like 4th wing because its easier to read and to the point. 3) Lot of Authors are pushing towards writing for YA or having there books closer to the YA. I mean Joe Abercrombie writing YA books in the shattered sea or Brandon Sanderson Cytoverse is a perfect example. Cytoverse and Shatterd Sea are lot less subtle then First law or Stormlgiht. This is not to insult anyone who likes to read YA, but i feel like with the rise of YA had lead to books being less subtle and all of your points in your video.

Interesting take. A couple of things: modern political discourse seems to have gotten less subtle and more antagonistic, which makes me wonder if some of this (less subtlety in fiction) is a reaction to that. Also, as one gets better at seeing the allegories and themes, the less-subtle presentations start to grate more and more. I wonder if you're getting more annoyed by it just because you've become a more sophisticated reader (this definitely happened to me, and it didn't happen until my 40's, this isn't a knock against your youth).

Subtlety is why I love Robin Hobb's books so much. She writes about gender nonconformity, homosexuality, disability, homosexuality, and prejudice (all things that modern authors seem intent on preaching about, and things which I'm not particularly fond of being preached to about, if that makes sense) but she writes about them with a subtlety that lets the humanity shine through, and I find myself in awe of her themes more as the books go on.

So, before the end of the death of the author section- I think that this has a little bit less to do with the author not wanting to be subtle these days, so much as it is that publishers don’t want to wade in on that, or are unwilling to purchase/promote more subtle or unclear works. It’s easier to market something that is digestible.

Excellent topic!! I think that we have become such an instant gratification society that thinking for yourself is hard. People want things to be handed to them and be "easy" to process. While there is something to having a nice easy read sometimes, the true great works make you think and push your mind to understand deeper concepts and meanings. That process leads to growth and development (which you touch on well with the literacy and comprehension topics). I remember the books that changed my life... not because they physically did anything, but because they made me THINK about things in vastly different ways. Much of our current world is down to candy novels... sweet and easy but no healthy or wellness sustenance.

I really appreciate the types of questions that you ask and delve into on your channel - I feel like no one else in the scene is doing exactly that! Keep it up!

I really liked your thoughts in this video. I think another problem with the lack of subtlety is authors feeling the need to “say something” with their text. There are significant authors in the SFF community who pretty loudly say that the purpose of their novels is to make political or cultural messages. That’s fine, they can do whatever they want, but it’s not very subtle and it’s not what truly excellent novels do. It’s the book equivalent of the “God’s not dead” movies. They’re not telling a story or presenting reality, they’re just using a story as an excuse to preach. When I look at really brilliantly subtle novels that really impact people, they don’t do so because they’re hamfisted with their messaging. A Christmas Carol isn’t impactful because Dickens preaches about the value of charity, it’s impactful because we see the poison of greed and narcissism play out in Scrooges life and then rejoice when he changes. The themes of the danger of a stiff unbending moral code in “A Game of Thrones” are memorable because we see the ideas played out, not because Martin has characters spell it out and preach to us about it. It takes more skill to write that way anyway. These “preachy” authors are trying to write essays in the bodies of novels. The purpose of a novel is for the author to tell the truth and reflect it in their book. It’s the job of a perceptive reader to see that truth rather than expecting it be spoon fed. Hopefully that makes sense. Thanks for the thoughtful videos!

Well said. I agree with your notion about the "death of the author." However, many readers refuse to allow the author to "die" and many authors refuse to camouflage themselves behind their works. Personally speaking, I am convinced that there are authors who want to be true to themselves AND provide absolute clarity rather than allow for open interpretations. In addition, I feel that the problem is not just that authors are broadcasting the meaning of symbolism, imagery, and the ultimate endgame of the series, etc. (in and outside of the work itself), but it's that this causes some to overuse very tired and common tropes too (for clarity). Most of these tropes are used for story (or morality) advancement -- but they are so commonly used now. I also see a problem with how literature is taught today. I've had teachers who encouraged readers to learn how to interpret books -- because they wanted to encourage literary analysis. I had a high school teacher who encouraged me to find allegory in Hemingway's THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA. While I was confident in the underlying themes within the text, I just didn't find any clear allegory in the novella. So, I made it up. I wrote an essay that essentially told the teacher what she wanted to hear (deduced from the little that I knew of her). She loved that essay! She "knew" that I was "intuitive" to the point that I could perceive the allegory that she said "no one else could see." A year later, I had a different high school teacher who explained everything in each assigned work. There was no room for developing literary analysis or interpretation. For that teacher, there was only ONE interpretation. So, he demanded adherence to the interpretation that he had concluded. In a way, I feel that many modern authors are becoming more like this teacher. Instead of feeling the liberty to freely write and leave the interpretation to the readers, they seem to no longer trust the reader's analytical skills. So, they lose subtlety and write a story using tropes that even a child could interpret correctly. This is problematic for SFF. While they will often keep gray space when it comes to characters (i.e., no one is fully good or fully evil), they don't do the same with the moral themes. Any writing professor will attest that the best villains think of themselves as the heroes. However, I would take another step and say that the best villains sometimes behave as heroes (with the opposite also being true). This is becoming a rarity in modern SFF. Think of Germany in the years leading up to World War 2. Modern narratives would paint Hitler and Co. as purely evil men. Some historical novels paint them as such. Yet, as evil as they undoubtedly were, they thought of themselves as heroes. A few historical novels will include this type of portrait. However, few authors will depict a Hitler or Goebbels who loved their country, liked dogs, cared for German children, etc. They are not portrayed as men who cared for Germany. In my opinion, the two former portrayals are inaccurate and often amount to unwitting caricatures. Obviously, Hitler, Goebbels, etc. orchestrated many terribly evil acts. They were monsters. Yet, they were not entirely unempathetic. They actually held a degree of empathy for the people, children and, yes, dogs of Germany. They saw themselves as the heroes of Germany. Yet, they were convincing enough to the people of Germany that an overwhelming majority of Germans followed Hitler. Thus, this more authentic portrayal is a much more accurate depiction of both history and the characters of these otherwise very evil men. In fact, it makes them to be more complex and, ultimately, more evil. After all, it contrasts the enormous empathy that they had for Germans or "Aryans" with the monstrous brutality that they had for others. They were men who loved German dogs more than Jewish or Romani children. This is an accurate and more troubling display of their psyches. I think that many authors fear that they will be portrayed as coming across as "sympathetic" for evil or even what is deemed to be proper morality. So, to avoid any chance of confusion, they wear their social views, politics and ideology on their sleeves so as to identify themselves. Others aren't quite so absolute yet fear the idea that anything they've written would be misinterpreted. For them, that is another form of evil and reflective of ineffective writing skills. I'd prefer to read a more realistic depiction of such matters (such as how Catherine Cookson used to write her novels) than via overused tropes or literary broadcasting.

Fantastic video. Was having trouble putting this feeling into words and you summed it up perfectly! I’ll also add that I have been feeling this way about many movies that have been coming out recently too.

Your Reading Level comments really hit home. When I was in 6th grade, my entire class had to take a test to determine our reading level, and I scored the highest in my class and was ranked as being at a college reading level. We were then told to pick a book that was at our reading level and do a book report on it... the only book my school library had at my reading level was The Scarlet Letter. Let me tell you, as an 11yr I could NOT read that book. YES, I could decode the words; NO, I could not comprehend them.

You do these analytical essays so well and so much more valuable to watch than the fluff that appears on some other channels.

Thank you for this, this is spot on and a great discussion to have. This is one of the reasons I love Malazan so much. I'm given so little to work with but Erikson lets me figure it out as a reader. It's so rewarding. It's not exactly on point, but has the same idea behind it.

I was about to reply to this with "lol, Bookborn's Sad Puppy arc has begun," but all joking aside, it got me thinking how that ties into your point about authors being too afraid to be subtle due to social media: They're afraid some yahoo in the comment section will chime in with "lol, [author]'s Sad Puppy arc has begun."

Some interesting points. I'm not especially current in my science-fiction reading, but a question of subtlety is something I'll try to keep in mind with my channel as I work through my Box of Paperback reviews. Also, as someone who teaches literature and creative writing, I understand the complaints about over analysis, but I think that's more a product of education systems rather than readership. I have to spend time teaching my students that short stories, poems, and novels are not equations or riddles to be solved. Instead, we encounter them, make discoveries, and draw conclusions and insights from how the text interacts with our own lives and other, surrounding knowledge.

I watched this twice - you've presented a ton of interesting ideas. I think we're spoiled for choice these days, and that people prioritize pleasure reading over critical thinking. Speaking for myself, I mostly want a good story, but part of the reason I love SFF is that it presents a buffer to analyze and think about issues our world is currently facing. I don't think it matters *how* people are presented with the information as long as it provokes some reflection. Getting people to think at all about broader issues is a win in my book!

When I was a child, my YA reading was Lovecraft, E.R. Burroughs, H.G. Wells, which then expanded into the SFF of the 60s & 70s. Round about 1990, I gave up on SFF; it just didn't do it for me anymore (as I would give up on Rock & Roll when grunge came out). I turned to literary works & haven't looked back. I enjoy reading a book that makes me work, that challenges me to understand what the author is trying to convey (People have asked me what I read for "fun", & my response is "THIS is what I read for fun"), that leaves my brain humming with the effort & passion that have been poured into those long, convoluted, heavily subordinated sentences. The best poems are never really about the words printed, but the author is using those words in hopes they will be the threshold which the reader must step over to even try to understand the deeper meaning. & that takes work. I have tried to question some people about the spoon-fed nature of YA books & whether that tendency will restrict or prohibit readers from taking on more challenging works. Since most of the people I have asked about this are young, they usually just get offended & resort to ad hominems. That's okay, perhaps it's because they have no other frame of reference & older folks haven't really read YA novels (I haven't; & to be honest, my brothers [older & younger] are still chugging away of the SFF). I do believe that social media is a net negative on society (watched a video yesterday about artists trying to decide which of the now dozens of sites one can reach a wider audience on--there was no consensus). There will always be those few, though, that seek more of a challenge & to them I would say READ ON! I would recommend Hermann Broch's The Death of Virgil, which is basically a 500 page prose poem, but even in translation, is so well worth the effort put into reading it.

You are perfectly articulating my own thoughts, I’ve been so annoyed with all the political pandering, that I will not continue with the book because of how obvious author is. And i understand it’s not easy for them either, they have to please hordes of want to be critics online, and risk being accused of all the deadly sins plus all the new fashionable ones, but I just can’t get over how to turned off I am by all this 🤮

I love this discussion, and I feel like even though you had a lot to bring up there's so, so much further to dive in. I'm sure you had so much more to say on the subject, and I'd love to hear all of those thoughts. One of the things I love about your topics on this channel is that all of the book discussion translates almost directly to film (which is my area of expertise). And I think you're spot on - critical thinking skills are most definitely struggling (in general, in literacy, and in film), and being "preached at" is the new way that media presents itself. Back in college I studied art history a *lot* and there's a lot of parallels there too. There used to be (particularly from about 1900-2000) a division between "low art" and "high art" in traditional art media. High art (most recently modern and contemporary art) were art that included messages that were inherent in the media type. For instance the classic piece "c'est nest pas un pipe" which is a painting of a pipe with those words below it is quite literally calling out that just because a painting looks like a pipe doesn't mean that it is one - it's a commentary on representational art. And that transitioned into color field abstract painting, which is a commentary on how even things that look flat still have physical depth (no matter how flat you paint something, the painting is still as thick as a single layer of paint itself). But you had to be part of the art world to understand the commentary - and if you understood it, it was slapping you in the face. So I totally agree with your comment on how obvious a message is can be completely subjective. But "low art" was the common, kitschy, form of media. It was drawn cartoons, paintings of scenery, portraits - representational art that's "fun" for people not in the art world. These were either slapping you in the face with the message (like cartoons in the newspaper), or there was no intentional message. It was rare for a piece of art to find a happy medium where there was commentary that people who casually enjoyed paintings could appreciate, but that wasn't slapping you in the face with the message. I think this translates really well into both film and books, where you have your "super deep" conceptual films that get critical praise for taking you through a tumultuous emotional journey to finally be presented with a message that has both direct meaning and multiple layers of subtlety underneath (Parasite from 2019 was a great example of that - although I think it walked the line perfectly between high art and accessible art). Then you have your superficial films that are just for fun, where there's things to discuss about the story and possibly some intellectual discussion to be had, but it's mostly to turn your brain off and enjoy (like the Fast and the Furious movies, Godzilla, superhero films, Transformers, etc). Then there's films that walk the line between the two - which I personally think are the best - which have the visually interesting, superficial qualities but also include deeper underlying meaning that's hidden in layers (Inception, Get Out, and Everything Everywhere All at Once are three quick examples off the top of my head). But the new genre that splits all three in the worst possible ways are the "lowest common denominator" films. More often than not they're a sequel, reboot, or based on existing IP. They completely miss the point of the established story. They ruin the original characters by reworking them in a way that destroys their character development in the previous/alternate installments. They generally have weak writing that's full of plot holes, and rely heavily on the visually interesting, superficial qualities of those fun films you can turn your brain off for. But then they include *extremely* hamfisted messaging that fits trending social commentary. These messages are impossible to ignore, and plot holes are made even bigger just to ensure the message gets across. Sometimes even the finale of a season (or ending of a book/film) will be ruined because the character development, plot development, and consistency in the story is so weak that the climactic moments are so beyond unearned that they're boring. Barbie gets a special mention here, because I thought it was brilliant. It was absolutely filled with extremely hamfisted messaging, but that was kind of the point. It was absolutely a "turn your brain off and enjoy the silly story" film. AND it was absolutely a super deep film that is borderline conceptual in the layers and layers of meaning behind almost every scene. How it balanced it all, I have no idea, but it was wonderfully done. I don't think it's so much the internet that's causing this trend toward the lowest common denominator (although it is contributing for sure), but rather those with money and power that are facilitating it. The publishing companies determine which authors they give contracts to, and how many copies they'll publish. The production companies decide which writers/directors they hire. And they find those who are sending the message they want - usually with the facade of being entertainment - which is the easiest way to attempt to control social commentary. When you've seen a scene play out a certain way, you're much more likely to believe it could happen in real life (and does) - even if it makes absolutely no sense to someone with critical thinking skills. New books are going to keep getting sold (as you've called out, they're coming out in larger numbers than ever). New films are going to keep getting seen. It's only a matter of what films/books get the most marketing to reach the broadest audience. Thankfully it does seem like there's been a tipping point, because a lot of the lowest common denominator films that have come out lately haven't done nearly as well as those with more subtle messaging, or those without intentional messages. One can hope we return to books and films being pushed that are fun *and* require critical thinking skills, rather than continuing in the muck of the lowest common denominator, which serve no purpose but as an echo chamber that further fanaticizes those who have bought into whatever the message is.

I think the problem is that many people want fiction to be propaganda. They think books should express certain beliefs, values, etc. and spread them to others, enforcing ideological purity in the world. They don't want books that are subtle or encourage people to think critically about ideas. They just want others to accept their philosophy as correct. And they especially want to condemn or censor books that argue the opposite of their beliefs, present a balanced thematic argument, encourage empathy for other opinions, or offer nuance or context. This was always true in certain genres (inspirational books, especially religious books made for children). But the political division in culture today seems to have made many people more militant in wanting to stomp out contrary ideas. I don't know if it's because authors feel pressured by editors and some readers to be more propagandistic, or because many authors take courses that train them to put ideology ahead of subtlety. Maybe it's a combination of both.

Looking at this video, just the fact that you had to re-iterate 20 times that you don't think that all reading should be heavy and deep goes to show why subtlety is being left behind. You had to clarify something that should be obvious in fear that a part of your audience would interpret your content in the most mean spirired way possiblebl 😂

I've definitely noticed this trend. Since so many books are published these days, you can definitely still find challenging work but I think the more popular and celebrated books tend to be simplified. I love a challenging work so I find it frustrating. Very thoughtful video, you did a great job articulating your points!

There is also a recent trend of marketing one type of media or product to all ages. Last Christmas, some gifts popular among teenagers and preteens were articles previously marketed toward people over 35 or 40. This trend has also affected the publishing industry: books for mature readers are written in simplified language and with unsubtle messaging; they are looking for books that can be marketed to readers of all ages.

Love this topic. Please do a follow up with all the comments and discussions!! I wonder what you all think of large language models… reading is just more and more training for your brain and the neural pathways that develop from practice and repetition and variety… I think when we read, we don’t remember every word and paragraph… somehow we condense the whole thing and remember the point without all the words. Developing the ability to not only condense information but also recall it… that just has to be really important and really advantageous throughout life when we are asked to do the same thing with different context

I totally agree with most of your points and I'm afraid that fantasy is also falling into this trap. I recently picked up "Foundryside". While the world-building was stellar, there were numerous instances where the action paused and the author inserted ("shoved in" would better describe the method) commentary on current social issues. Many of them were completely unrelated to the plot or to the particular scene. In many cases, the main character was literally running for her life. But the sense of urgency was less important than proving to the audience that the character has the right opinions, so I guess we should care about her? I finished it but the preaching drained me. And that's a crying shame.

Thank you, your video gave me a lot to think and chew on! The topic is very interesting. The only thing I would have liked you to add were more specific examples. I'm a slower reader so the books I'm usually on are a few months to years behind latest trends. I will say that I've noticed the decline in subtlety in other media that I enjoy. And also anecdotally speaking, I find critical thinking skills to be lacking in many people out in the world

I believe it has to do with the current difficulty of breaking out as a new author. There are so many competing works that an author might be heavy handed with what they are saying as a way to say "hey this is what I write about and it means this, which is what separates me from other similar works". I believe this also shows in (at least in my experience) a declining amount of ambiguous endings. The author wants to make sure the reader understands their vision so the reader will keep buying their books.

I agree, similar to what is being done with movies, where "Message" is more important than telling a good story or character development or plot

Another great video. I feel like this is a growing trend not just in books but in all media. Where at one point in time a piece of media would subtly or casually have themes integrated into the overall story, now we get these overly preachy books. I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with the themes or opinions, depending on what it is, but I find that it grates on me a lot and takes a ton away from the enjoyment of the art.

Eager to watch, but I want to say that I have noticed that some of these less subtle books are REALLY popular. So in response to the Video Title: Maybe they do think that, and maybe they're kind of right?

We are slammed with so much on slaught of information and to avoid falling behind (or in literay media you don't want FOMO), simple explanation/reading is easier to digest. Straight forward. When addressed with a problem, we dig online until we find a simple 5 minute explanation of how to do something because we have to finish the next problem. Your explanation on this in the death of the author was perfect. To be lead on too long, the reader gets frustrated, to be teased slightly, its perfect, but can't do this for 100s of pages. Even marketing is an example on this, authors want to condense an entire book down to simple tropes so the book is easily picked up. Readers want to know what they are getting right away because there are so many (good) options out there. Tell reader will work with them right away or not. Anne Rice did this though perfectly with Interview with a Vampire. That blurb is SHORT.

Have you read Le Guin's "A Matter of Trust?" It deals with this topic. I personally prefer subtle works and it's a huge turn-off if I feel like the author is simplifying their message and talking down to me. I've been wondering how well a lot of these works are going to age since it seems like there's much less fruit for analysis when everything is on the nose. I know some classics are explicit in their themes, but I don't think they're inelegant in execution the way some of the more recent works are (and don't necessarily condescend to the reader). Idk lol. Great video and food for thought 😊

Excellent video, and fine points made. Thanks.

Fantastic analysis Bookborn. I wonder how much of that comes from publisher notes to an author (trying to improve reach to new readers) and how much or a lack of personal subtlety. Regardless, it’s always nice to have your fresh opinions on a regular basis. Kudos!

I agree, and this definitely extends beyond books and SFF. I strongly believe a contributing factor is the early necessity to truncate and condense interactions online, diminishing the effort for nuance and subtlety, as responses need to be direct and intent is believed to be perfectly binary, virtuous or trollish

I read recently in a writing craft book (Wired for Story), that writers should be careful not to editorialize to their readers because it feels ham-fisted and off-putting and because newspapers exist for editorials / opinion pieces. This felt really timely because I realized that the "editorializing" of stories is one of things that started to sour my love of a lot of modern story-telling. For me it's most notable in comics and comic book movies, which I find almost unreadable and unwatchable these days, but there is a fair bit of it current novels as well. Which might be why I've been reading older books these days.

Absolutely loved hearing your thought process on all of this. It’s always great when your statistics knowledge comes out, too! 😂

Great video 🙌🏽 love the depth of research you do on these topics… quoting Barthes 😁 👌🏼

A thought provoking video. Reading builds general knowledge, vocabulary etc. depending on genres chosen. Also, generally, this may not always be the author's fault for the dumbing down of subtlety, but the publishers, who care only for the dollars earned over quality. Thus a series such as Twilight, not to single out but certainly an example of a series that didn't need to be written past one book, but sales drive. One can give so many examples.

I think this is an interesting topic. However, it is an entirely personal subject for me. I do think that sometimes books lack subtlety and try too hard to convey a message. I also feel this can and does get in the way of enjoyment. Mileage is going to vary, though. You started by showing two books that I loved. A Psalm for the Wild Built was one of my favorite books that came out that year. It seems to have not hit the same way for you. On the other hand, Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie was a rough book for me. I felt its message battered my reading enjoyment. I never read the sequels. It isn't like obvious messaging in books hasn't been around forever. Two of my childhood favorite books were Little Fuzzy by H. Beam Piper and Dune by Frank Herbert. Even as a kid the messages of those books hit me over the head like a brick. I read them again recently, and I still felt joy. I think the skill of the author really plays a huge part in the equation. Mixing in your own personal bias toward writing styles and the message itself, and you end up at the finish line of This book drove me crazy......this one did not. As far as the internet goes when it comes to influencing writers and how they write. I think it probably does have some cause and effect but how much is anyone's guess. I know it has definitely messed with me. I still think Ender's Game is frakking amazing. I light up a little inside when I think about the young me pulling that book off the shelf and then staying up all night to read it. The book has a lot of meaning in my life. I am not a fan of Orson Scott Card, the public persona, and I find it difficult to bring myself to buy and read his books now. I once read an internet exchange between Dan Simmons and a person that made me think, "Man, I wish I hadn't read that." because of what it made me feel about Dan Simmons at that moment. This is a very long post to essentially say I agree a little but how do you decide when it is too much. It will be so different for everyone. Ultimately, fans will choose with their wallets, which will directly influence what publishers publish.

I think that there is this idea that everything a writer writes is intentional. However, I don’t think that’s always the case. I believe current writers have become more intentional, but the art of writing is much less intentional. In the past, when a writer wrote fiction, they didn’t necessarily know what the point of their work would be until they read it over again, figured it out, then went back and enhanced the points they thought were important. So, there was much more subtlety. Whereas today there is more intention right from the start. Writers might be more afraid of their biases coming out in their work. To make sure it doesn’t happen as much or in a way they didn’t intend, they plan things out more and it erodes that natural subtlety. At least, this is my opinion of what is happening.

Could it also be that the access we have to each other via social media not only makes authors feel they have to be more direct, but also makes readers more hesitant to have a unique interpretation of a text? If there is one prevailing narrative, and you come out with a different one, it’s highly likely a social media storm will occur. Or at the very least a requirement to engage in substantiating conversations about it for a long time. Maybe that’s not something readers are always willing to do? If I do some self reflection, I can see that happening to me sometimes. Like I COULD send out a post with my thoughts, but then I know it’ll be hours of engagement after that I’m not prepared to dedicate my time to.

This is why awards don't mean anything anymore. Oscars, Emmys, Grammies, Nebula, Caldecott, Pulitzer...

I agree, SFF has become quite explicit and not as nuanced as they were before. As if old books posited "what ifs" in an inviting way, while the new stories are quite prescriptive in the idea they want to present and/or force down the authors. I loved your discussion starter idea, tbh--you are never imposing, always inviting people to get involved into the discussion and I love that. Completely agree that a reader's background can lead them to interpret the book differently--and that's where the richness of speculative fiction actually lies, right? On all the nuance each person can add which, quite often, can differ from the author's original intention. I'm quite sure that authors are concerned about being misinterpreted; the internet has no nuance and will likely lean towards a mean interpretation rather than assuming a Henlon's Razor and/or taking the time to understand the real meaning/intention or where the author's is coming from. Especially if the book is a thought experiment.

I loved this video. I almost didn't watch it because of the two books in the icon that I both love. But then I really enjoyed your take on it. Plus you doing statistics ist always awesome.

Very interesting video👍 I've also notice that lack of subtlety in the past few years and I think social media absolutely has something to do with it all.

Great analysis! I definitely thinking there is some lack of critical thinking occurring for a variety of societal reasons. But on the flip side to what you're saying, I think a lack of critical reasoning can lead one to believe that subtlety ALWAYS trumps the obvious. I saw that in some reviews for Iron Widow by Xiran Jay Xiao, saying that the author beat the reader over the head with its theme of female rage... but like, isn't that the point? In that culture female rage has been so suppressed that women have had to be subtle to express themselves, so in this book, the main character gives into the rage and it's decidedly unsubtle. Like, it couldn't be any other way. But there was a certain snobbishness to some of the critiques of that book... which I feel misses the point

This is such a great video. I've definitely been noticing this as well, particularly in the first two books you mention by name. Star Wars novels in the Disney era tend to have this flaw also. I appreciate your comments on the reasons for this, all of which make sense. I'll just add that political/social polarization is contributing to this also. So much political and social discourse at present is focused on signposting your tribal affiliation, not on making any substantial arguments. Anybody who doesn't signpost strong enough gets pilloried as being part of the "other" tribe, whatever that may be.

I always enjoy your analysis and thoughts! Especially when you bring in the nerdy stats stuff. I teach research methods for Psychology.

I've noticed this across all platforms. I have no idea why, I have a theory, but no real evidence. My theory is that the authors that made good scifi have either died/retired/or were forced out/kept out, and the new lot live on Twitter or surround themselves with people who aren't encouraging them to become the best they can be. Because of that they never have to expand and think deeper, the surface level idea is all they ever think about, and because nothing exists before 2012 (pick a random date in the 2000 onwards) they never read or see stuff that did their idea long before and better. Atleast that's my theory from what I've observed.

This is why I read, and watch so little of the books, tv, comics, movies, etc of the last 10 years. I don't mind morality parables, even overt ones, but when it feels like everything is just rehashing the same 4-5 messages, often so overtly it affects the overall plot and makes it feel like the creator thinks I'm an idiot, I just don't want to engage. I've probably missed some good work because of that but I just don't have the patience to sift through the dross. To be fair, I don't blame the authors/creators, it's more to do with the gatekeepers (both formal and informal) such as publishers, influencers/journalists, and twitter/x activists punishing authors who don't do this and rewarding authors that do.

Your breaking down the different parts of reading reminds me of an assignment I had in college. I had to read a section of The Divine Right of Kings by James I. I could read it, decode the words and figure out what each one meant, but as a whole sentence or more conveying meaning I was clueless. I had to have someone read the section to me, so I could concentrate on comprehending the archaic language rather than focusing on the weird spelling of all the words and what they really were.

This is stellar. I get really put off when a narrative (whether I agree or not) is too didactic. The first time I read one of my favorite non-fiction books as a teen, I did not understand it well, but I knew there was something in there I really WANTED to understand, so I read it again, dictionary in hand, pausing, taking notes. Still love it to this day. A book that makes me pause is a book I'll be much likelier to remember. That perseverance through a tough text is something I really want to teach my kids.

blown away to click on a random video on my recommended page only for it to have one of the only accurate explanations of barthes' death of the author i've ever seen in a video!!!!! thank u so much for that!!! one thing i always point when talking about the idea people online seem to have about "declining media literacy" is the exact point you made right before about social media--before the internet, if you were a random person with a bad take, you'd keep it to yourself. nowadays, it's easy to post it somewhere, which means we're all seeing more bad takes from random people all the time, which makes it easy to say that media literacy is declining. but come on, i just don't think those same randos would be writing journal-worthy reviews if they were around 30 years ago or whatever. it's probably a good critical thinking actually, to try and discern WHY you're seeing more of something instead of just assuming it's because there's more of it on the whole than there used to be.

I got off to a very slow start reading. I spent all of 6th grade reading - but not finishing - Journey to the Center of the Earth. Yet, beginning in the 7th grade, I became an inveterate reader, _always_ having a book with me. This continued through college and well into my professional life, sadly crashing to a halt when I was diagnosed with ME/CFS a few years ago. Though I never really grasped the technical nuances of grammar (much to the disgust of my grandmother, who taught grammar - and failed in her attempts to teach me the same), I nonetheless have a good grasp of what a well written sentence/paragraph looks like, along with a quite huge (reading) vocabulary, all through context gleaned from thousands of books (mostly scfi and fantasy, but hardly exclusively). Such a large (reading) vocabulary that I scored something like 94th percentile in the verbal portions of the GMAT (sadly, only around 56th percentile for the quantitative section, much to the chagrin of the biochemistry professor I was working for at the time). I emphasize _reading_ because I can't spell worth a damn and absolutely depend on spell (and grammar) checkers to not look like a 2 year old hammering on a keyboard. The biggest complaint my college creative writing professor had on my work was my restricted vocabulary, there not being spell checkers at the time - and I find the whole 'look it up in the dictionary' thing to be pointless if I got no idea how to spell. Indeed, I had to use Google to correct my spelling of 'inveterate,' since it's so good at guessing what I really meant to say. My point? I guess an aspect of it is addressing your self-filtering comments on reading comprehension, critical thinking skills, etc. I have lots of friends and have had even more colleagues and co-workers - who are the exact opposite of inveterate readers - and don't do so well with reading comprehension (though many do well with critical thinking). Our college-aged son really doesn't like reading, much to my chagrin (had to use Google to verify I spelt that correct ;-), and there doesn't seem to be anything I can do to help with that. On another channel a lady posted about her absolute inability to 'see' anything in her mind as she reads. I commented that when I write I'm pretty much just documenting the imagery I'm watching in my head. Maybe there's an aspect of people who lack the ability to see such and their lack of enjoyment in reading, which then has the potential to lead into lack of development in their critical thinking skills (and maybe even empathy). As for your comment about subtlety, or the lack thereof, in more modern writing, I'm not sure I can provide much insight. Before I more or less gave up reading anything more complex than a Reddit post (only a slight exaggeration), the vast bulk of my library was from last century. I agree in principle with your argument, it's certainly plausible social media can pressure writers in writing less complex prose, less subject to interpretation. But I also think there's a non-trivial element that there are simply more writers today, as the barriers to publish are essentially nonexistent (the barriers to getting _readers_, on the other hand, are substantial, and what has kept me from self publishing anything) and those that write more subtle prose may simply be drowned out. Or, it may very well be that the tiny handful of actual publishing companies left are selecting works that lack subtlety today, naturally driving writers to produce such. Or maybe there's a self-reinforcing element, where more popular modern authors were less subtle for one reason or another and the youngsters growing up reading those works thought that's how prose should be, thus started producing the same lack when they started writing. All that said, thinking back to many of my favorite novels (most well over a half century old now and with authors long dead), I'm hard pressed to think of many that were subject to a lot of wildly different interpretations. I recently watched a RU-vid vid discussing Starship Troopers and Stranger in a Strange Land and how the former has the reputation of being an ode to fascism while the latter is so liberal it might struggle to get acceptance today, yet written by the same author within a year or two of each other. I only read Stranger once, but have read Troopers many times. I never got the idea of fascism reading Troopers, and I characterize myself along the lines of a 'bleeding heart liberal' today. So maybe there's also been a generational change in looking for subtlety that may not be there. Or I'm just naive. Personally, I think once something is published, it's no longer the authors, it's now owned by the readers. And each reader is free to interpret the author's ideas however they like, even if it's diametrically opposite from other readers. Indeed, my intention in my own writing is to engender a wide variety of reactions among readers, ideally provoking thought and consideration, potentially even opening their world view somewhat. And entertain, of course.

And it's not just that it feels like we're being hit over the head with the message, but the idea is often pretty mainstream already. I just shrug and say, well yeah, of course. There's nothing transgressive about it, no bite. Which partly comes from us all being oh so sure that we're right now, and partly the author just aiming for a big audience. Now that's easy for me to say though, the white guy over here. It's not for me to decide what other people get out of a book. I do think YA spreading to solidly adult readers is shifting all kinds of norms, in terms of nuance. Death of the author is a never ending discussion 😅. My answer is, it depends! Or why not both!

I don't think that books deemed "good" by critics were ever popular. So maybe it has to do something with the internet, but a little differently. Maybe when Hugo was young and sci-fi not so popular, mostly people who were interested in the genre and willing to analyze these books voted in it. Today many authors have a huge following - and the more popular author, the bigger following. So that could reflect in awards that are ultimately decided by number of people and not literary critics (for Hugo anyone who pays a fee can nominate a book I think). And voting is easier on the internet. So although Hugo winner/nominee is the book highligted by the award, I am quite confident that subtle books exist today as well. Only they don't have a great chance to win a popularity contest. As they never did. So maybe only our perspective changed based on what we highlight, not the landscape.

I really appreciate and tend to agree with your position. Critical thinking and comprehension are things that I rarely see discussed in the broader "public" discourse around literacy levels. Thank you for your well-thought-out and thought-provoking video!

3:32 important to note that it's been basically completely abandoned in philosophy of aesthetics. Barthes was completely wrong, meaning is generally regarded to come from the intent of the author, your own influence is largely irrelevant. This isn't as prominently known as it should be, but it's true. Read Noel Carroll here, _Art Intention and Conversation._

I think the fact books are now expected to reach the largest audience possible is a factor. Before books would be OK being more adventurous because they would target a specific audience, now there's a tendency to try and cross into other target audiences. Also, the education systems have gotten worse, from too much control of teaching, to making sure the bottom achievers feel included.

Thank you for discussing this. It is both an interesting and important question: How readers learn from the literature they read. I’ve noticed a similar effect to what you describe and do ascribe to what you’re saying regarding the topic. If I’m honest to my upbringing, I was told to ‘show don’t tell’ while in my writing courses in college and a core tenet to the theory was to allow the reader to interpret the events of your writing, rather than be fed the ideas. This separated the courses of Creative Writing and Academic Writing, where Academic Writing was designed largely for logos, but also some pathos. Unfortunately, a lot of colleges don’t highly value Creative Writing courses, often regarding them pretty poorly, accusing them to be some artsy-fartsy rigamarole with badly designed modules. If there might have been some value to Covid, a lot of, if not all, schools reevaluated their approaches to education, revising the material taught and repurposing it to be fed to students online. I’ve noticed that current Creative Writing courses are much more structured, perhaps addressing topics clearer, conciser and with much more tact. Anyways, great video! Thanks for making it.

I completely agree. I think that authors now impose their ideas and thought as true instead of being humbly and subtle presenting them, so readers can make a critical reading and enjoy that subtility that become the lyricism and literary value of the work.

As a research methods professor, I loved the stats clarification! 😀

This is one of your best videos yet, IMO. It involves philosophy, which is an oft-neglected discipline. One of the more useful maxims regarding screenwriting, which applies equally to novel writing, is that one ought never to assume that one is smarter than one's audience. Hollywood movies of the last several years provide numerous examples of what happens when writers and directors forget this. The "death of the author" is a Post-Modern trope. The philosopher Jacques Derrida preferred an endless succession of "yesses," without ever arriving at a definitive outcome, when considering the meaning of words or ideas. But this belief that a word or text does not signify anything, but only stands _as_ a word or text _per se_, renders communication ultimately meaningless. To be sure, the reader will apply his or her own background, experiences, prejudices, beliefs, etc., to a work, which, as you point out, fills out the reader's engagement with it. Neither pole can be dismissed without turning reading into, on the one hand, a slavish academic exercise, with no room for the reader's personal engagement, thus sterilizing what ought to be a fecund experience, or, on the other hand, turning said reading experience into an onanistic orgy. And reading really is a skill. The more you kearn, the more you can learn, no?

The reading level comments you brought up were interesting because I never thought of it that way. I learned to read “late” but once I was reading I genuinely could read and comprehend three years ahead of my grade. I always scored almost in the 100th percentile for reading comprehension. And I didn’t always know certain words but I usually used context clues and my family always shoved the dictionary in my face. So I never thought about how a lot of people know the words they’re reading but when you put them all together they don’t understand the overarching meaning.

I think that pulp fiction has always been a big part of SFF, with the more subtle works being rare. Heinlein isn’t exactly subtle, Baen publishing isn’t exactly subtle, meanwhile LeGuin’s writing is far more complex and layered. While SFF can present the opportunity for challenging, ambiguous stories, so much of it has been blatantly obvious, whether libertarianism, capitalism, or misogynistic. The way I’ve heard a couple of other booktubers dismiss literary SFF as if it were not ‘real’ SFF tells me there is a significant population of readers that just want adventure and escapism. And that’s fine. It surprises me that Margaret Atwood is not an absolute darling in SFF, what with her dystopian novels. Also, I would love it if you would identify some of the more literary SFF works out there besides LeGuin (can’t immediately think of others, though I know I’ve read them).

Very thoughtful, I loved it!

While I think you have a very good point about social media, I think it's also worth pointing out that books from the past that are still read today are often the exception not the rule. For example you mentioned Kindred - I think it is extremely likely that in the year it was published, 1979, there were a lot of SFF books published which were not subtle or complex - they're just not books that still get talked about 40 years later. I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, just that it may be less of a changing trend than it feels because the books from the past you have read are more carefully curated than the books coming out today. Even less subtle books published in your lifetime that you read 10 years ago may get overlooked compared to books from 10 years ago that really made an impact on you so are much more memorable.

I blame focus groups, publishers and media in general is made for a too broad audience, not realizing that the guy in the back saying "I didn't understand what was happening." isn't the audience to begin with. They think the audience will be turned off by big words and complex situations, when what they really need is just a better author who can cater to a broad audience WITHOUT dumbing it down.

Definitely enjoyed this thought provoking discussion. I agree with your theory that authors, or perhaps it is really the publishers, are afraid of public opinions.

One of my favorite reading lessons I gave my son was having him read Of Mice and Men so we could discuss the concept of how intention does not always control consequences. Lenny meant well but his actions had negative consequences. It was an exercise on getting my son to think about how our perception of the world is not the same as someone elses. Now I am one of those "the curtains are blue because they're blue" people but I also do recognize that there can be symbolism and lessons within a book. Either way, I agree that books seem to be too obvious with their points lately.

Great video! Lot's to think about here

I don't read enough to have a valid opinion on if things are getting less subtle or not, but I think your point about authors maybe being concerned about their image is similar to you and every good book tuber having to always clarify their thoughts, for fear of being misunderstood! It's just necessary in our world because the internet has mean people on it. Loved your thoughts on kids... I took a poetry/short story class in college for fun, and I LOVED it. I loved searching for that hidden meaning. If things are headed away from that now, that's a little depressing. But also we have recent Piranesi! And also, I absolutely love me some fun reading😄 but my favorite books of all time all have something to say. Though now that I think about it they aren't always subtle(Yumi?).🤔 Anyway, I'm rambling, lol. I don't know how I enjoy any of this stuff with my adhd brain!🤣

You made a great point in breaking the errant conclusion that literacy only includes the ability to decode, which, thankfully, we are still able to do that. Comprehension is the true test of literacy, and I lay the blame for dropping comprehension scores on the simple fact that reading is slow. The younger generations demand immediacy and ease, in which there is no room for subtlety. Heck, I even watch youtube videos on double speed when I can.

I feel that there's been a shift from "let's build a world like this and see how things pan out" - and where issues will naturally present themselves in some parallel way to reality - to "I want to make a statement about this issue, let's structure a story around that" which will come off as a lot less, well, subtle. I don't think there's a right or wrong there, though. Upton Sinclair certainly did the latter and succeeded wildly well.

Chewing on some of the points you made - subtlety, like nuance, is a tricky 'game' to play - and perhaps one that not everyone is willing to play... because it does require a certain amount of work in both directions: from the one creating -> to allow for interpretive criticism; and the one consuming -> to piece things together? Hmm... And it is diff-i-cult to attempt to create something (or just to say something) and then throw it to the wolves. I think it keeps a lot of us from creating (or just speaking)... and then to your point, the inherent difficulty of allowing subtlety/nuance has built an environment where creators are beating the proverbial dead horse? Of your two example books, I've only read Psalm, and for me it was just cozy cute and I appreciated it for that. Overall, I enjoyed hearing your points, and I appreciate you putting this out there.

Great video! I am not sure if I've noticed it as a general trend but I've definitely run across some recent examples were the message was too obvious. I'm thinking of NK Jemisin's The City We Became, for example, where the message was just too on the nose for me. Compare that to The Broken Earth series which is much more subtle and effective. But I also think it is a problem with the SFF genre in general when contrasted with "literary fiction". I hate elitism in literature but the SFF genre tends to simplify concepts more often than other genres in my experience. Not to say that there aren't any non SFF books that do it, there's a lot actually. But yeah, I sometimes prefer when authors are ambiguous about what they're trying to convey, and even better when they leave questions unanswered, because real life is too complex for easy answers.

The Left Hand of Darkness was a story that opened my mind to thinking about gender in ways I never would have encountered in the rural Alaskan town I grew up in. I never would have read a screed on gender fluidity and equality, but Mrs. Le Guin's writing is so compelling that I never felt that I was being preached at. I was being told an amazing story. Menolly's struggles to become a Harper despite the prejudices against her and her apparent handicaps taught me a lot about the misogyny that women face that I never would have learned if the story tried to just sledgehammer those ideas in instead of being a good story first. It's possible that there are people out there who want to read a message with a story attached, and if there are authors out there who want to fill that niche, then more power to them. It's not my job to say what's good and bad. I feel that most people want a good story with good characters and that it takes a very talented author to deliver a novel that combines the story, the characters and the message in such a way that a person's mind can be expanded without them realizing it until the end.