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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some more book darts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why We Read What We Read by Lisa Adams and John Heath is the second book I've read for the Dewey Decimal Challenge and the first one I can recommend. Ms. Adams and Mr. Heath have read a wide range of best selling books, just about all the major ones from the last few years, and come up with an entertaining and enlightening overview of what Americans read most.

Why We Read What We Read is divided by genres. The authors take a look at diet and self-help books, religious and spirituality books, relationship guides, romance novels, political nonfiction, adventure thrillers, literary fiction, Oprah books and, of course, The Da Vinci Code. While their book is a serious study, their approach is humorous, much like that of a very smart student who prefers to sit in the back row passing notes. For example their take on Sean Covey's The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People:

His treatment of each habit can be monumental; for instance, his presentation of the fourth habit, "Think Win/Win," reaches nearly mock-epic proportions. To the uninitiated, this practice would appear to need little defence, but Covey spends thirty pages arguing that win-win is generally superior to other possibilities, such as, for example, lose-lose. There are charts listing all the possible permutations, with analyses of the pros and cons of each. Clearly, Covey often doesn't quite know when to stop (he is the father of nine, in case one is looking for further evidence). And he's got graphs and pictures. This is a project born for the boardroom, with enough diagrams to inspire even the most ineffective middle-management wannabe.

One of the good things about reading books about books is that you can become familiar with so much without actually having to read it all. I do read bestsellers, though not many best selling self-help books, diet books, or relationship books. Why We Read What We Read is certainly one way to fill in this whole in one's education. Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus by John Grey, The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands by Dr. Laura and Relationship Rescue by Dr. Phil, and so many other titles are all summed up as follows:

They may be physically dissimilar brothers, but the DNA nevertheless proves their connections; a preference for celebrity authorities; simple analyses of problems; quick and relatively easy, comfortable fixes; and an appeal to our deepest preconceptions (and fears) about the roles of men and women. The multicolored messiness of real-life partnering is filtered through nature's (or God's) chromosomal prism to prove that only the ends of the spectrum actually exist, red versus blue; Mars versus Venus; male versus female. The differences between genders are exaggerated and caricatured to the point where surrender is the only reasonable response.

The authors examine two sub-sets of books on spirituality: Christian books and books on New Age Spirituality; two genres that are often at war with each other. The arguments each set of books present is examined fairly, if a bit snarkily, but as the authors conclude it is impossible to prove an argument about spirituality--one either believes or one doesn't. Even if the Bible or some other text is quoted as evidence, one must believe that text and also believe that it is being interpreted correctly, often by someone who cannot read it in its original language.

The book concludes with a look at literary fiction and non-fiction and at Oprah books. I admit that I was surprised to find that there really is no "Oprah book." Ultimately, the authors find no real difference between the books on Oprah and the rest of the best selling literature of the day. What they did find was that Oprah and her audience read for one main reason, realness. They all wanted a story they could identify with, place themselves inside, as though it could or did happen to them. This may be one reason why Oprah became so angry with James Frey once he admitted that his memoir A Million Little Pieces was largely fictional. (For the record, I read it and I knew it! No one gets a root canal with anesthetic.)

If you're looking for a book that will add a few titles to your TBR stack, I don't think Why We Read What We Read will help you. But it will give you some insight into what's on the best seller list and to why so many people are buying a reading the same books. It may also give you some food for thought and more than a few laughs on the way. ( )

This book starts off good, a searing critique of modern America but slips too easily into cynicism and typical left-wing propoganda, assuming everyone who reads this type of book is too high-brow to have read many (if any) of the books that comprise the best-sellers lists. This book is sort of an oxymoron because they deride many best-sellers as vapid, but their writing falls into that same vein... pat answers without putting forth the effort to write convincing arguments. ( )