How to Not be a Pretentious Reader

Most of you will know that I'm an English major, and I chose to major in English because I genuinely love reading. Eventually I want to be a high school teacher, or maybe even a college professor, because it's important to me that reading is being taught to kids correctly (and I have many opinions on what that means). That being said, as an English major, my biggest fear is walking in on the first day of classes and being asked to tell the class what my current read is.

I know, that seems weird, but Book People are generally some of the most pretentious people you've ever met. Book People will get really big egos about the books they read, which makes me feel silly for then interjecting with the fact that I'm rereading a bunch of old YA novels that were popular when we were kids. Don't get me wrong, I love reading these books (my friend and I are doing it as a kind of book club), but when the person before me just said that they're reading Crime and Punishment? For FUN? No, I really cannot follow that up with Percy Jackson.

While nobody is going to say something judgmental in my college English class, the rules of decency are different on the Internet. You'd be shocked to see how many "hot takes" I see that are really just people trying to gatekeep reading as a hobby. A lot of Book People that I see online turn out to be some of the most ableist, classist, or generally annoying people you've ever seen. But there are a few arguments that are especially upsetting.

Reading the Right Format of Books

My dad and I have a constant battle going on about the fact that I refuse to read eBooks, but that's because I like the look and feel of a physical book. I like being able to see my progress as I read, and I like being able to look at physical copies (even if it does mean that I have stacks and stacks of books everywhere). However, as much as I love reading physical books, I will never judge anyone (other than maybe my dad -- if you're reading this, hi) for finding another format to read books. Audiobooks, graphic novels, eBooks, etc -- these are all perfectly valid ways to read books. Heck, I've even seen people get an ego boost over reading hard backs! And for what?

The important part of reading is the act of reading, not the way in which you participate. Reading has been proven to have a variety of positive effects, including strengthening the brain, improving empathy skills, helping to build a better vocabulary, reducing stress and more. It shouldn't matter to you how people are able to read books, just that they do.

Traditional books just don't work for everyone. eBooks are cheaper, and might be more accessible for people who travel a lot. Things like graphic novels and comic books can be helpful for people, particularly young readers, who have a hard time sitting through an entire novel. Even something like fanfiction is an awesome way to engage with literary storytelling while focusing on a universe that you've already fallen in love with. Audiobooks can be beneficial for people who drive a lot, but also people who literally cannot read words on a page (for example, people who are blind or dyslexic). But some people get so obnoxious about clarifying the difference between reading a book and listening to a book, calling it "false advertising" if you classify it incorrectly. If we're going to do that, should we shame parents who read to their toddlers, too? Get it together, child, and finish your own book. It's not my problem that you can't read When You Give a Mouse a Cookie on your own. If you want to be a real reader then you better start acting like it.

Reading the Right Books

This touches more on what my first story was about. And while I do think people have a responsibility to intentionally diversify their book shelves, that's different than actively shaming people for what they choose to read. Obviously everyone has opinions on what books are worth reading; if you're going to look me in the eyes and tell me that your favorite book is Fifty Shades of Grey then yeah, I'm going to judge you a little bit. But I'd never tell someone they can't read it. Personally, I've mostly seen Book People be judgmental about adults who read YA novels or people not reading classics.

Officially, YA (young adult) novels are made for people 12-18 years old. They traditionally have heavier themes than middle grade books, but their target audience is still younger. That being said, teens are not the only ones allowed to read YA novels. I tend to gravitate towards YA books because I like that when romance is included, it usually doesn't have any sexual elements (take a guess as to why). YA novels can have darker themes (think about all the trauma packed into books like the Hunger Games or Harry Potter), but they're presented in a way that's maybe easier to digest. The fact that these books are intended for a younger audience does not mean the quality is any worse, it just means they're going to be packaged differently. And while I do think there are some problems with the way adults behave in YA spaces, I don't think adults should be forbidden from reading these books, or deemed a worse reader for it. Right now, my book club friend and I are rereading the Selection series, which is basically a mix between the Hunger Games and the Bachelor. I'm not going to pretend that the quality of books is blowing me away, but they're genuinely fun to read, and we're both having a good time. We don't always have to consume media of the highest quality -- sometimes it's okay to just enjoy things. This isn't to say all YA novels are bad/lower quality, either. But if you think they are, that's still not a reason to judge people who do enjoy them. Once again, the thing that matters the most is that you're actually reading.

I've also seen Book People bothered by people not reading enough classics. Listen, I loved 1984 as much as the next sophomore that lived through the Trump presidency, but I'm not going to pretend I liked the book because of the quality of writing. I have a lot of respect for George Orwell, but it's ignorant to pretend his depiction of women is anything less than misogynistic. One of my favorite authors is Agatha Christie, and I consider her to be the blueprint for mystery novels (which is my favorite genre). But I'm not going to sit here and pretend she wasn't racist. I'll let you google the original title for And Then There Were None -- while you're at it, go ahead and google the name of H.P. Lovecraft's cat. I can look at almost any authors of beloved classics and point out multiple outright prejudices that they held. And I'm sorry, but that's not to mention that a lot of the classics are boring or hard to read. I don't believe that people should force themselves to be miserable by dragging themselves through a book just because it's considered a classic, especially if the author depicts people like them in a negative way. Let Hobby Readers read the books they actually enjoy, and I assure you that the classics will be carried on through people like me who have to read them for a career.

Reading the Right Amount

I am a super fast reader. I tend to start and finish books within the same 24 hour period, unless it's a book club book that I'm forced to read in smaller sections. Therefore, if I was properly motivated, I could probably read over 365 books in a year, and that doesn't even account for what I'd read in school. At the very least I should have no problem crushing my 50 book goal for 2021. However even me, someone who reads really fast, only got through 21 books in the first six months of the year (I don't have a more current update because I'm trying to be surprised). Maybe people are really busy, or they're in a reading slump, or maybe they're just a naturally slow reader. But some people get such a superiority complex over the way they're able to finish X amount of books in a year. It doesn't matter if someone reads 1 book a year or 100. I've said it a million times and I'll say it again, any time spent reading is good. And if you are someone who enjoys reading but doesn't do it often, there's no shame in that either. We all go through reading slumps, and it doesn't make you an inferior reader because of it.

I feel really strongly about the fact that anybody can read (a slogan I'm stealing from the Disney movie Ratatouille). So many people will brag about the fact that they haven't read a book since high school, and that's so disappointing to me. Not everyone is going to have the time to get into reading, but I feel like a lot of people completely disregard the idea of it because of these standards we put on the hobby. There are so many fantastic books out there. Most importantly, there are a lot more diverse books that are hitting mainstream shelves. When I was a teenager, there was absolutely no chance I was going to find a book with an ace main character, and now I have a decent pile of them. There are books to represent almost every demographic and interest, if you're willing to look for them.

If someone is outright refusing to believe reading can be an exciting hobby, it tells me one of two things: your high school teachers failed you, or you've only seen the elitist book groups outside of school. When we're in school, reading becomes a huge chore. You have to read a certain amount of pages/chapters from a book where the main characters are boring and the plot has nothing to do with your life, then you go on to overanalyze and write a million essays about topics that you don't care about. Once you leave school, you're likely to run into the really pretentious Book People who only care about reading to make themselves look smarter to other people. Neither of these environments is going to pull in the average person, and I think that's really upsetting. We need to let reading be a more accessible and casual hobby again, or else it's going to really die out over time.

From yours truly,

Kendall