There are too many good stories and not enough good readers, listeners, and watchers. Shakespeare had to contend with the same systemic problem. By telling the a single story at different levels of appreciation, he created works that lasted for centuries. Maybe we storytellers have to be a little more realistic and stop blaming our audiences. Their plates are full. It's our job to seduce them and make them want to go deeper.
An extraordinary essay. A couple of times recently I entered into some literary discussion and got, “oh, the book has a theme!” Like, real surprise. That’s why Substack matters. We need this place to talk and learn about books, about literature, art, life. We need to peel back the layers of yellow wallpaper. Should The Bell Jar become so familiar it becomes a trope, a cliche? Damn straight, but not in such a way as Tale of Two Cities, where everyone knows the first few words and nothing else. The Bell Jar and all books that can teach humanity about itself on that level need to be taught, reviewed, discussed, read again five years later, repeat. This is how humanity grows itself into something worth saving.
Thanks, and yes, the deep dives lead to collective introspection that is necessary for humanity. Also LOL at people only knowing the first two lines of Tale of Two Cities.
I wonder if there is a time in one's reading life when all that can be expected is a surface-level understanding of fiction, and maybe it takes growth, education, and guidance to see the more complex layers and meaning.
When I was in high school, for example, there was a definite obsession among many of the girls with Plath and other depressed female writers. The girls were drawn to what they identified with (and surely idolizing the writers and what they took from their writing must have intensified their feelings on some level, the way listening to a sad song when you're sad will help you cry).
But as they took more classes, maybe, or got older and read with more personal experiences to draw from, they probably had an easier time identifying other qualities of the work.
Much of what we see online is probably written by younger readers who simply aren't in a place, yet, where they can see beyond what they want to see - or need to see. (?)
Yes, i see that perspective. But I wonder about the outcome of this type of surface reading. As I quoted in this piece, there are real consequences that go beyond simply not comprehending. Is it possible to make space for surface reading but also not turning it into an aesthetic that could cause real harm?
I needed to read this and put if not a name, then at least an idea of what I've been experiencing lately (and by lately I mean the past 3-4 years) in my reading journey. This phenomenon of straight-to-the-point plots with one-dimensional characters and a "New York Times Bestseller" sticker slapped on the cover has been suffocating me. How can the Harry Potter series, made for children, have more nuance than books, written for grown people who can supposedly pick up on subtle themes? Now this is a joke. But can we be really surprised? I cannot open any social media account without seeing a person who has read 50 books in a month rating them. We are constantly bombarded with this surface-level intellectualism which unfortunately shapes the publishing industry. It's really rather ironic when you think about it. 3 or 4 centuries back, most people couldn't read and thus, information was limited, and they were easily controlled. Now, most of the population has both reading abilities and access to the Internet, which provides information from basically anywhere. The problem is, it's not filtered. You still have to actually think and comprehend what you're reading. Most want the information handed to them on a platter, but in a subtler way, as if they have come to the conclusion themselves. I just think it's funny how even though literacy rates are higher than ever, most will still refuse to actively use the skill. They want the seeming perks of reading, the approval of the community, the reduction to a multi-surfaced novel to an easily understandable aesthetic vision board. It now seems worse than ever.
Your last two sentences feel vivid for me, Sylvia. It does seem like people do want all the privileges that comes with reading but don't want to actively do the reading, and that surface level of comprehension is causing deep issues in society. I think people really discount the importance of critical thinking, which is one of the biggest benefits of reading deeply.
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, what’s happening in media (like Netflix) is absolutely problematic. But I think the lack of thinking critically or even wanting to engage with art is symptomatic of just soooo muchhhh overload in the world. The constant exposure to media, the constant exposure to bad news, the constant exposure to scrutiny, the constant pressure to be productive … it feels like people are shutting down and protecting themselves the only way they know how: humor and or isolation. I don’t have a solution, but I think the first step is forcing breaks and letting people get bored again. Then maybe they’d finally be forced to find some meaning in the world and art around them?
I think that makes sense to me. The overload is a real thing and I never considered that the response to that overload could be disconnecting from deep connection. Really interesting theory.
What you're saying really makes sense and we are overloaded. This is one reason I'm appreciating thinkers and writers on sub stack that are telling us to disengage from the insanity and actually put our efforts into the lives around us in our community. It's better for us and it's also protective of our minds and hearts. Thank you for pointing this out and reminding us of this important fact... We need movements to disengage from what is making us crazy and re-engage with what will restore our sanity and health.
Wow it's uncanny! I am in the middle of writing a short piece on how Hayden's (Ethel Cain's) music has been so moving for me, and here you go discussing her struggles with the irony-poisoned interactions with her work.
But another question is the reduction of literature (and art) typically to something ironic and 'humorous' still better than no engagement? It still has people get one foot in the door of engagement, even though it may turn misguided and require deeper introspection.
At the risk of going ham on the pontificating, they are at least on the first stage of Kierkegaard's "life ways" - the aesthetic stage (where it's pure enjoyment and connection) and later they can move upwards to the ethical and then the religious stage (getting more sincere and serious about it). And it always is an individual's journey, like how you mentioned Sophia Brousette's own realization about the "aesthetic". We just gotta be mindful of our own and other's journey through these "stages of life"
I do agree with you, Sabyasachi, everyone is on their own journey and enjoyment is a part of engaging with literature. I'm not just speaking purely of enjoyment here, though, but of transforming a surface understanding of a piece of literature and portraying that level of understanding as a desirable aesthetic on public forums for others to consume. The struggle I have is that even what I just described is not inherently negative because, again, it is engagement which is great. But the examples I expressed in this piece shows how that reduced engagement can be dangerous and if not dangerous, at the very least problematic for publishing and for critical thinking, which we are seriously in need of right now.
You are right about all this, Kern. I think there was a time when as a society we could have leaned into the arts for every school child as the important ground for moral, personal and even spiritual inquiry that it is - maybe between end of WW2/counter-cultural revolution and the advent of the Greed is Good 80s? But we leaned a different way, and we are the poorer for it.
It’s easy to experience sensory overload, which not only dulls the senses, but takes away from savoring. Sometimes, you just gotta turn it off, smell the roses, get stuck by its thorns.
Way back in the day I got a double degree in English and Spanish literature. I really appreciate what you wrote here. I was just having a discussion with my 19-year-old tiktok addicted daughter about literary novels versus other types of novels. I think it is a shame about how technology has changed attention spans in general. It's distressing to learn about the simplification of film via Netflix. I'm sure novels aren't far behind.
Ugh, I hope you're not right about novels not being far behind. Love that you're having those convos with your daughter, though. I just feed mine books and tell her go on her way LOL.
Ooft I really connect with this experience and your thoughts. Plath and The Bell Jar made a huge impact on me as a young woman who was already living with mental illness. I was in awe at her ability to use her literary talents to work through and explore her experiences but I can imagine that if I had read it during my teens, my immaturity and resentment towards my illness might very well have enabled me to indulge in a more shallow reading and, as a kid desperate for a sense of identity, it would have been all too easy to adopt the romanticised version of Plath that people curate for themselves. So interesting!
Definitely! And something I think is made much easier to indulge in with the over use/incorrect use of medical terminology when it comes to mental health and therapy-speak.
"Let me give you an example outside of literature. According to a wonderful piece written by Will Tavlin, Netflix has been telling its screenwriters to cater to viewers who are casually viewing. More specifically, Tavlin says Netflix tells writers to make their characters, “announce what they’re doing so that viewers who have this program on in the background can follow along.”
Umm…what?
So now we’re catering art to people who aren’t even fully engaged? Even writing this right now, I feel so angry. Or maybe not angry, but really disappointed that the most prominent streaming platform in the world is purposely choosing to dumb down its shows and movies and for no creative reason at all."
Hey Kern, that up there really got me! Wow! They need to have a chat with the world's original blogger Seth Godin. Hasn't he been railing against catering to the lowest common denominator of your market forever? Have they not been listening? His blog posts are so short. Have they not been reading?
Seriously, I was about to argue that of course the deep readers are there - it's just that everybody has a voice now and everyone feels pushed to give their view on everything - so your superficial readers are noisier than they used to be ...
... but oh my goodness, that story about NetFlix really makes the point, as does the person who suggested her mood challenges made her 'interesting.' However, NetFlix has responsibility and power here. Young people being driven by ego and insecurity to be 'interesting' are hardly to blame for the cultural shift that being immersed in social media has created. The Smartphone Free Childhood movement (SFC) is working on solving the latter but it seems NetFlix is going the way of the soulless corporation - chasing attention and dollars at the expense of principle. One writer I know of who shall not be named, describes capitalism as the original 'artificial intelligence'.
Capitalism as the original artificial intelligence is deep! I will find this person lol but seriously, it's such a layered issue that really should be addressed. I'm just not sure how.
As I read this about Netflix, my hope is that, as Disney put it, quality will out. A creative business model built on drek is not sustainable, and it's the good stuff that will last the rest of time. I still believe that.
Interesting that you draw a connection between Plath, Chopin and Gilman. "The Awakening", "The Bell Jar" and "The Yellow Wallpaper" are all works dealing with the social and mental health consequences of being a woman. Negative reaction to "The Awakening" caused Chopin to largely give up writing novels, while Plath, as you show, was going towards death as her book came out. Gilman, in contrast, was a first-wave feminist who used both fiction and non-fiction repeatedly to attack sexist attitudes; for her, mental health mistreatment was but just one of many needed crusades.
Yup, that connection was important to show that Plath was not necessarily writing in a vacume but was still making a bold statement that honored the legacy of those other authors. Thanks for the tidbit about Chopin. I didnt know that the reaction to her book pushed her in that direction. Kinda makes sense for the times, though, and also proves how important the acceptance of The Bell Jar truly is.
This is a fair point, Alexa, but i actually think we're agreeing on some points. I acknowledge in the piece that I appreciate the connection readers are having to Plath. I think accessibility to literature is important. But I can't deny that there is a clear danger to turning deeply nuanced literature into a simple aesthetic
esthetic. That's why I included the quote by a woman in this piece who feels like this type of aesthetic directly contributed to her depression. It's a really complicated discussion but glad you shared your opinion. You have a perspective that not many can offer so I'm so grateful for your comment.
There are too many good stories and not enough good readers, listeners, and watchers. Shakespeare had to contend with the same systemic problem. By telling the a single story at different levels of appreciation, he created works that lasted for centuries. Maybe we storytellers have to be a little more realistic and stop blaming our audiences. Their plates are full. It's our job to seduce them and make them want to go deeper.
I actually like this mindset, Marty. I welcome the challenge of enticing readers!
Very helpful! I’m in the midst of plotting my next novel…and it gives me something to think abt and work towards. Thank you, Joan
An extraordinary essay. A couple of times recently I entered into some literary discussion and got, “oh, the book has a theme!” Like, real surprise. That’s why Substack matters. We need this place to talk and learn about books, about literature, art, life. We need to peel back the layers of yellow wallpaper. Should The Bell Jar become so familiar it becomes a trope, a cliche? Damn straight, but not in such a way as Tale of Two Cities, where everyone knows the first few words and nothing else. The Bell Jar and all books that can teach humanity about itself on that level need to be taught, reviewed, discussed, read again five years later, repeat. This is how humanity grows itself into something worth saving.
Thanks, and yes, the deep dives lead to collective introspection that is necessary for humanity. Also LOL at people only knowing the first two lines of Tale of Two Cities.
I wonder if there is a time in one's reading life when all that can be expected is a surface-level understanding of fiction, and maybe it takes growth, education, and guidance to see the more complex layers and meaning.
When I was in high school, for example, there was a definite obsession among many of the girls with Plath and other depressed female writers. The girls were drawn to what they identified with (and surely idolizing the writers and what they took from their writing must have intensified their feelings on some level, the way listening to a sad song when you're sad will help you cry).
But as they took more classes, maybe, or got older and read with more personal experiences to draw from, they probably had an easier time identifying other qualities of the work.
Much of what we see online is probably written by younger readers who simply aren't in a place, yet, where they can see beyond what they want to see - or need to see. (?)
Yes, i see that perspective. But I wonder about the outcome of this type of surface reading. As I quoted in this piece, there are real consequences that go beyond simply not comprehending. Is it possible to make space for surface reading but also not turning it into an aesthetic that could cause real harm?
I needed to read this and put if not a name, then at least an idea of what I've been experiencing lately (and by lately I mean the past 3-4 years) in my reading journey. This phenomenon of straight-to-the-point plots with one-dimensional characters and a "New York Times Bestseller" sticker slapped on the cover has been suffocating me. How can the Harry Potter series, made for children, have more nuance than books, written for grown people who can supposedly pick up on subtle themes? Now this is a joke. But can we be really surprised? I cannot open any social media account without seeing a person who has read 50 books in a month rating them. We are constantly bombarded with this surface-level intellectualism which unfortunately shapes the publishing industry. It's really rather ironic when you think about it. 3 or 4 centuries back, most people couldn't read and thus, information was limited, and they were easily controlled. Now, most of the population has both reading abilities and access to the Internet, which provides information from basically anywhere. The problem is, it's not filtered. You still have to actually think and comprehend what you're reading. Most want the information handed to them on a platter, but in a subtler way, as if they have come to the conclusion themselves. I just think it's funny how even though literacy rates are higher than ever, most will still refuse to actively use the skill. They want the seeming perks of reading, the approval of the community, the reduction to a multi-surfaced novel to an easily understandable aesthetic vision board. It now seems worse than ever.
Your last two sentences feel vivid for me, Sylvia. It does seem like people do want all the privileges that comes with reading but don't want to actively do the reading, and that surface level of comprehension is causing deep issues in society. I think people really discount the importance of critical thinking, which is one of the biggest benefits of reading deeply.
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, what’s happening in media (like Netflix) is absolutely problematic. But I think the lack of thinking critically or even wanting to engage with art is symptomatic of just soooo muchhhh overload in the world. The constant exposure to media, the constant exposure to bad news, the constant exposure to scrutiny, the constant pressure to be productive … it feels like people are shutting down and protecting themselves the only way they know how: humor and or isolation. I don’t have a solution, but I think the first step is forcing breaks and letting people get bored again. Then maybe they’d finally be forced to find some meaning in the world and art around them?
I think that makes sense to me. The overload is a real thing and I never considered that the response to that overload could be disconnecting from deep connection. Really interesting theory.
I agree. We are all overstimulated to the point we can’t absorb anything anymore. Like wet sponges.
What you're saying really makes sense and we are overloaded. This is one reason I'm appreciating thinkers and writers on sub stack that are telling us to disengage from the insanity and actually put our efforts into the lives around us in our community. It's better for us and it's also protective of our minds and hearts. Thank you for pointing this out and reminding us of this important fact... We need movements to disengage from what is making us crazy and re-engage with what will restore our sanity and health.
Wow it's uncanny! I am in the middle of writing a short piece on how Hayden's (Ethel Cain's) music has been so moving for me, and here you go discussing her struggles with the irony-poisoned interactions with her work.
But another question is the reduction of literature (and art) typically to something ironic and 'humorous' still better than no engagement? It still has people get one foot in the door of engagement, even though it may turn misguided and require deeper introspection.
At the risk of going ham on the pontificating, they are at least on the first stage of Kierkegaard's "life ways" - the aesthetic stage (where it's pure enjoyment and connection) and later they can move upwards to the ethical and then the religious stage (getting more sincere and serious about it). And it always is an individual's journey, like how you mentioned Sophia Brousette's own realization about the "aesthetic". We just gotta be mindful of our own and other's journey through these "stages of life"
I do agree with you, Sabyasachi, everyone is on their own journey and enjoyment is a part of engaging with literature. I'm not just speaking purely of enjoyment here, though, but of transforming a surface understanding of a piece of literature and portraying that level of understanding as a desirable aesthetic on public forums for others to consume. The struggle I have is that even what I just described is not inherently negative because, again, it is engagement which is great. But the examples I expressed in this piece shows how that reduced engagement can be dangerous and if not dangerous, at the very least problematic for publishing and for critical thinking, which we are seriously in need of right now.
You are right about all this, Kern. I think there was a time when as a society we could have leaned into the arts for every school child as the important ground for moral, personal and even spiritual inquiry that it is - maybe between end of WW2/counter-cultural revolution and the advent of the Greed is Good 80s? But we leaned a different way, and we are the poorer for it.
Such an insightful point, Troy. If we did lean a different way, I'm sure our world would've been a completely different place.
It’s easy to experience sensory overload, which not only dulls the senses, but takes away from savoring. Sometimes, you just gotta turn it off, smell the roses, get stuck by its thorns.
Well said, Geoff. Sometimes that's all that's necessary.
Way back in the day I got a double degree in English and Spanish literature. I really appreciate what you wrote here. I was just having a discussion with my 19-year-old tiktok addicted daughter about literary novels versus other types of novels. I think it is a shame about how technology has changed attention spans in general. It's distressing to learn about the simplification of film via Netflix. I'm sure novels aren't far behind.
Ugh, I hope you're not right about novels not being far behind. Love that you're having those convos with your daughter, though. I just feed mine books and tell her go on her way LOL.
Well, she's been binging on fanfiction novels on her tiny little phone. I guess that's something. Considering she has dyslexia, especially.
Ooft I really connect with this experience and your thoughts. Plath and The Bell Jar made a huge impact on me as a young woman who was already living with mental illness. I was in awe at her ability to use her literary talents to work through and explore her experiences but I can imagine that if I had read it during my teens, my immaturity and resentment towards my illness might very well have enabled me to indulge in a more shallow reading and, as a kid desperate for a sense of identity, it would have been all too easy to adopt the romanticised version of Plath that people curate for themselves. So interesting!
It is interesting, right? It's such a thin line between inspiration and indulgence.
Definitely! And something I think is made much easier to indulge in with the over use/incorrect use of medical terminology when it comes to mental health and therapy-speak.
"Let me give you an example outside of literature. According to a wonderful piece written by Will Tavlin, Netflix has been telling its screenwriters to cater to viewers who are casually viewing. More specifically, Tavlin says Netflix tells writers to make their characters, “announce what they’re doing so that viewers who have this program on in the background can follow along.”
Umm…what?
So now we’re catering art to people who aren’t even fully engaged? Even writing this right now, I feel so angry. Or maybe not angry, but really disappointed that the most prominent streaming platform in the world is purposely choosing to dumb down its shows and movies and for no creative reason at all."
Hey Kern, that up there really got me! Wow! They need to have a chat with the world's original blogger Seth Godin. Hasn't he been railing against catering to the lowest common denominator of your market forever? Have they not been listening? His blog posts are so short. Have they not been reading?
Seriously, I was about to argue that of course the deep readers are there - it's just that everybody has a voice now and everyone feels pushed to give their view on everything - so your superficial readers are noisier than they used to be ...
... but oh my goodness, that story about NetFlix really makes the point, as does the person who suggested her mood challenges made her 'interesting.' However, NetFlix has responsibility and power here. Young people being driven by ego and insecurity to be 'interesting' are hardly to blame for the cultural shift that being immersed in social media has created. The Smartphone Free Childhood movement (SFC) is working on solving the latter but it seems NetFlix is going the way of the soulless corporation - chasing attention and dollars at the expense of principle. One writer I know of who shall not be named, describes capitalism as the original 'artificial intelligence'.
Capitalism as the original artificial intelligence is deep! I will find this person lol but seriously, it's such a layered issue that really should be addressed. I'm just not sure how.
As I read this about Netflix, my hope is that, as Disney put it, quality will out. A creative business model built on drek is not sustainable, and it's the good stuff that will last the rest of time. I still believe that.
And I still want to believe that.
Interesting that you draw a connection between Plath, Chopin and Gilman. "The Awakening", "The Bell Jar" and "The Yellow Wallpaper" are all works dealing with the social and mental health consequences of being a woman. Negative reaction to "The Awakening" caused Chopin to largely give up writing novels, while Plath, as you show, was going towards death as her book came out. Gilman, in contrast, was a first-wave feminist who used both fiction and non-fiction repeatedly to attack sexist attitudes; for her, mental health mistreatment was but just one of many needed crusades.
Yup, that connection was important to show that Plath was not necessarily writing in a vacume but was still making a bold statement that honored the legacy of those other authors. Thanks for the tidbit about Chopin. I didnt know that the reaction to her book pushed her in that direction. Kinda makes sense for the times, though, and also proves how important the acceptance of The Bell Jar truly is.
Thank you for saying this. I agree that it’s disappointing at the least and terrifying about what it means for our society (and brains).
This is a fair point, Alexa, but i actually think we're agreeing on some points. I acknowledge in the piece that I appreciate the connection readers are having to Plath. I think accessibility to literature is important. But I can't deny that there is a clear danger to turning deeply nuanced literature into a simple aesthetic
esthetic. That's why I included the quote by a woman in this piece who feels like this type of aesthetic directly contributed to her depression. It's a really complicated discussion but glad you shared your opinion. You have a perspective that not many can offer so I'm so grateful for your comment.