It's been a long time since I wrote a discussion post. I'm also not as up-to-date with trends and discussions on social media ever since I stopped being active on social media platforms. (It is one of the reasons I hesitate to write discussion posts, actually. I don't know what others are saying to comment on them.)
I have a lot of thoughts in general, though. Social media is not the only way to consume content and discuss, after all. I talk about literacy and critical thinking with my friends and colleagues. When I saw this prompt on 24hryabookblog's Literary Inbox, I decided to give it a shot.
I don't know how much I'll say or which direction this will go in. I'm just going to wing it. Grab a drink and settle down, let's discuss.
Do you read from genres that others call “easy reads” or “quick to read”? When it comes to primarily women-led genres like Romance, Romantasy, YA or with visual literature like Graphic Novels can those labels be seen as reductive or insulting? Inspired by a recent #booktok, a creator mentioned certain books can be seen as “junk food” reads. Do you find that this “negative” connotation skews the opinion of a genre or category of books?
Firstly, let's talk about what it means. The term can mean different things for different people, which can lead to wildly different ideas about this topic.
To me, an "easy read" is a book that doesn't require much thinking or effort. It's a book with fairly simple vocabulary i.e. even if I don't know the words, I can understand the meaning by the context it's used in and doesn't require me to look it up. An easy read is a book that doesn't make me pause and think about what's going on in the story, why it is happening, and what it subtly references to. An easy read is a book that says everything and doesn't ask you to find out anything by yourself.
The prompt mentions that a creator called certain books as "junk food" reads. I'm assuming they refer to books that are easy and fun to read—not necessarily "healthy" (intellectual) but satisfying. I understand the comparison. Honestly, even I classify some books similarly. I call them no-brain books. Reading them is like giving my brain a break without resorting to watching something on a screen like TV shows or movies.
However, easy reads =/= junk. I will always stand by this. It may be, but it may also not be. Just like "hard" books can be junk too. The generalisation is not right. Books can be easy to read while teaching and being incredibly informative. Just because a book is easy to read doesn't mean that it doesn't have anything of value to say.
Exhibit 1: Fumbled by Alexa Martin. This is a book that I consider an easy read and I'm sure that most people would too. Especially those who love to diss on romance books. I read it for fun and really enjoyed it. I also came away from the book with new information. I learnt about Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE) in football without having to research it while reading. The book taught me about it by showing me an experience. And honestly, that's the best way to learn about a health condition. Reading a Wikipedia page about symptoms and history is one thing. Learning about how it affects people, how it can go undiagnosed for a long time, and how it affects the person and their family is a whole other thing. I believe that the latter is more important than the former.
Romance is actually my favourite genre. It took me a long time to admit it because of the negative connotations attached to it. I am still sometimes ashamed when people call me a romance reader because it's with the assumption that I don't read anything "important" or "serious". When I talk to new people I don't usually say that it's my favourite genre, instead preferring to say that I read everything. I technically do, I just read a lot of romance too.
The funny thing is that the people who lowkey make fun of romance are also the ones who ask me how I read so much. They think it's mutually exclusive. It's not. The reason why I'm able to read so much is because I read romance too.
If you only hard books, you're going to struggle with reading. This is a simple rule that is understood in other aspects of life. The worst way to maintain a habit is to constantly do it the hard way.
If you think about it, you can find so many parallels between reading and running. (I'm using running as an example since I know it best, I'm sure you can come up with other similar activities.) Runners are coached to mix up their runs by doing easy runs in between the hard ones. In fact, in the Nike Running Club 10k plan, it is recommended to do more easy runs in a week than hard runs. The point is to keep running, not keep running hard. You won't continue running if you end every day feeling like you're dying. You also won't continue running if it's the same thing every day. Monotony doesn't help maintain a habit.
Everything is a balance, so why is it expected to be any different with reading? I understand that some of it comes from the way reading is introduced to us in school—as something "smart" and "intellectual". That's a whole different can of worms that I can write a whole post about so I'll just say that we all know academics is flawed.
"Easy reads" can be the thing that keeps you reading. I always read something easy between hard books. Firstly, because I want to still think about the hard book I already read for longer before picking up another one. And secondly, to give myself a break while still maintaining the flow/habit. Easy reads can help you get into and keep up with reading, especially when hard book give you a hard time.
Exhibit 2: Fourth Wing by Rebecca Yarros. This could be classified as an easy read because it's romantasy. It has a whole new world and everything is explained on the page. The reader isn't asked to decode relationships or think about why something happened. The story tells you everything and just asks that you stay along for the ride. When a new reader asked for a recommendation, I suggested Fourth Wing even though it's not the best book. It's easier to read and is easier to complete. Finishing a book, even a "bad" one, is a better motivation to read more than to read 30 pages of Fahrenheit 451 and give up because it requires a lot of thinking. And you know what, that person is still reading.
If reading is always hard, we are not going to be a well-read society. Most discussions say it the other way and I disagree. You can't throw only hard books at people and expect them to be avid readers. Very few become avid readers that way. Most of the readers who read only classics or "intelligent" books are the worst snobs and aren't nice to be around.
Obviously, one shouldn't read only "easy reads" either. That's how we lose critical thinking skills and become the best receptacle for propaganda. It leads to a blissfully ignorant society that believes everything told to them by the few people who know how to wield the avenues of information. We're already seeing this in so many different ways with the rise of misinformation and AI. I won't go deeper into this here because that's another huge topic.
Instead of calling out the amount of easy reads and dismissing the people that read them, we should be asking "why aren't more people reading the hard books"? Romance, romantasy, YA, and graphic novels are easy gates to get into reading. Why are people stopping there instead of going further?
Everything is a balance. The solution should not be to ridicule and cut off one side of things, because that also cuts off the value that this side brings. The solution should be to uplift the other side too.
There is value in these easy books more than them being easy to read. Some of the books are nonsense and don't bring anything to the table just like in any genre, but it's not most or all of them. I have noticed that the easy books are the ones teaching you how to be a good person. They're the ones teaching you to listen, to be empathetic, to understand how to react to bad news, and how to support the people around you.
Middle grade and YA books are doing an amazing job of depicting emotions and flaws and how to move forward. The fantasy and romantasy are the best books, in my opinion, to encourage ambition and grit. The romance books show an infinite number of ways to be a partner through happiness, despair, and challenges.
Exhibit 3: I Hope This Doesn't Find You by Ann Liang. It's a simple and easy-to-read story about a girl in high school. Most people would not classify this as a hard or "smart" book. But it's such an important story that deserves to be out in the world, especially for the girls in high school that are doing too much. It's also for the teenagers to learn that even if something so monumental and embarrassing happens, they will get through it. Teenagers should be reading the classics in school, yes. But they should also be reading books like this.
Exhibit 4: Percy Jackson and The Olympians by Rick Riordan. Will anyone classify this as an intellectual book? No. But you can't deny that it has raised a generation of smart, knowledgeable, empathetic, and friendly people. You can't deny that most people who read Percy Jackson when they were younger are still readers who read "hard" books. This story has value because it shows that flaws like dyslexia do not define you and that you can still go on to be a hero who saves the world. It shows characters going through tough trials and coming out champions by working together.
Let me reiterate the point: if a book is easy to read, that doesn't mean it doesn't have value. This negative perspective definitely skews opinions and actually hinders readers. If you're dismissing all of these amazing books, you're not getting the value they uniquely have and you're discouraging others around you from getting it too.
The prompt asks, "When it comes to primarily women-led genres like Romance, Romantasy, YA or with visual literature like Graphic Novels can those labels be seen as reductive or insulting?" Yes. And it is usually meant to be insulting.
It's not a new conclusion that anything that is primarily driven by women is the subject of ridicule or dismissed entirely. Be it careers, labour, art, ideas, or whatever else. Men in areas that are primarily occupied by women are respected more than women. As soon as more men join the area, it's value goes up. This is not new information. At least, I hope that it's not a new fact for everyone? If it is then people need to read more books—many easy reads can teach this too 🙂
Instead, let's flip the question. Why are these genres women-led? Why are there so few men in them?
Men usually write in the "serious" genres such as non-fiction, literary fiction, and mystery. These genres are expected to be brilliant at the topic they address and don't have to do well at anything else. In fiction, they usually have characters that one should not be inspired by. In non-fiction, people aren't usually a subject of consideration at all. It's only a subject.
In my opinion, this is due to the way people are raised. Just like how raising women to constantly think about serving the people around her led her to be good at writing books centred around people, men are raised to think about specific things like careers and money and hence they occupy those spaces more. Men aren't usually raised to consider emotions (theirs or those of the people around them) and hence they write about factual things and not on emotional things.
Obviously, this is a super high-level perspective. There are exceptions on both sides. There are brilliant women who write in male-dominated areas and brilliant men who write in female-dominated areas. The lines are blurring more because we're more aware and trying to change the status quo.
The best way to win is to strive for more balance. Empower more women in the "serious" genres. Encourage men to pick up "easy reads". It is only by reading widely ACROSS BOTH will we be well-read and good people.
It isn't a good thing to be well-read across things like politics and history if the person isn't a good partner, friend, and neighbour. It isn't a good thing to know how to support others if you don't know how your world works.
We must read books that show us things to learn from and books that make us question the way things are. It is just that the former is usually in a certain format considered easy and the latter is in a format considered hard. The ridicule is simply because of the gender that leads those spaces.
chat with me!
I definitely went on a tangent that deviated from the main prompts. There are so many ways to look at a topic and so many ways to answer a prompt. I'm glad I wrote my version. Discussion, whether it stems from a dissertation or a casual blog post, is important. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
What do you consider "easy reads"? What makes it an easy read? How do you think easy and hard books contribute to literacy and knowledge in the big picture? Do you have any examples or counter points to what I said?
Sumedha spends her days reading books, bingeing Kdramas, drawing illustrations, and blogging while listening to Lo-Fi music. Read more ➔
Be wordy with me!
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
thank you for joining in the topic Sumedha and adding your commentary on the subject. There's a lot of nuance and I liked what you said about how "easy" reads keep someone interested in reading and how because something is "easier" that doesn't mean there isn't value, that's the opinion I've always had. for instance kids books, they have a lot of messages and topics they talk about but just because they are for younger kids there's still a lot of depth there. Your thoughts also had me reflecting on more too, loved this post!
it was such a fun topic! exarch, kids books are easy to read but contain such profound topics and emotions. there’s much more to each book than the first judgement we pass. i’m glad you enjoyed reading my take on the topic 🙂
All good points! I also think that what counts as an "easy read" if we're using the term to literally mean books that are easier to read rather than as a derogatory term to put down some books as less important or valid than other books can mean different things to different people. As someone who grew up reading a lot of sci-fi and fantasy, I don't find new worlds or magic systems or completely new forms of physics "difficult" to read - I'm used to them and they give me a lot of motivation to keep reading. Equally, as someone with a degree in Korean studies (and doing my masters in East Asian Studies now), I don't find literary fiction from East Asia nearly as intimidating or "difficult" to read as I do when it's from somewhere else e.g. South America, Africa or even the UK/US. For someone who has only ever read classics or mystery or nonfiction, I think there's a bit of a learning curve with every genre. It's also, of course, perfectly fine to have personal preferences. We just need to not have a hierarchy of books in our mind - compare like with like, not chalk with cheese! Chalk is good for writing, cheese is good for eating. No need to compare the two. Equally, I don't judge a romance book by the same standards as a nonfiction book and vice versa!
You are so right! Taking the literal meaning of "easy read", it changes person to person too. It really depends on what people grew up with and languages that they're comfortable with. Each genre is its own landscape. The chalk and cheese comparison is apt, haha.
I love your take on this and how you go beyond the prompts! A lot of people look down on "easy" books but it's true that these books help a lot of people read and stay reading. This is such an important and overlooked point in the conversation (and one I might use in real life when someone being a bookish snob!)
Thank you! It’s a good argument haha, definitely use it
I've only ever seen one other person say this, so maybe it's a hot take, but it's a belief I've held for many years now (basically since I started my blog): I don't think it's the content that makes a book an "intellectual" read, rather it's how a reader engages with that content, and that's why literally any and every book can be considered "intellectual." While, yes, some books are more "easy to read" in terms of the vocabulary, grammar, and/or literary technique that is utilized, that doesn't mean that one can't learn something from it by viewing the text through a critical lens. I think it's hard for people to admit this in large part due to elitism (with a heavy helping of misogyny and other forms of bigotry as well). Like they (consciously or subconsciously) think, "if a poor person---or even an *average* layman---can pick up any old book, no matter how 'trashy' society deems it to be, and can come away from reading it having learned an infinite amount more than society thinks they would/should, then what do *I*, an *educated* person, have to distinguish me anymore?" The answer to that question is another question: why is academia/education/literacy something that should only be granted to a certain class and type of people when as a society we'd *all* benefit from everyone gaining that kind of knowledge? I think a lot of people hold this kind of belief really tightly, but don't want to admit it, because they feel like deconstructing that kind of belief would somehow tear down their identity. But eff them! I'll stand ten toes down that all books are equally "nutritious" because, again, it's not the content but how the reader engages with it---which is a skill that can be learned with relative ease! They can have their Dostoevsky and their Yuval Noah Hariri and I'll still learn just as much (if not more) from reading A Dance with the Demon King, or whatever romantasy novel people are reading these days, lol!
I get what you mean. I agree that any book can be read critically. It’s upto the person. There is always an attempt to be “distinguished” by drawing arbitrary unnecessary lines too. Reading critically is a skill that anyone can learn. However, coming from an point of view where in today’s world people don’t think critically or deeply even when they should (not only in literature), cultivating that skill has to be a conscious decision and practice. At least until we have the awareness to take away things from the book beyond it being pure escapism. Personally, I read a ton for escapism alone. I don’t want to think after a whole day of using my brain at work, and so I pick up easy books that don’t require it. But if I always read that way, it is to my detriment, you know? I believe that people should strive to read books that invite the user to think beyond accepting what’s being shown. It’s not only the classics that ask for it, after all. I’m talking about books like Jasmine Days by Benyamin or The Last Queen by Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni. Even Poonachi by Perumal Murugan, a tiny fairytale-like book about a goat living a simple life. I’m classifying anything that doesn’t give all the answers, shows a new perspective that makes the reader pause and ruminate, or questions a belief as “not an easy read”. Literature is a spectrum and I believe it’s important to not always read similar books. It is by reading books that explicitly ask us to read critically that we learn to read critically. The reading I did in school did not teach me how to read critically at all, we never touched those classics that everyone online talks about. With the rise of AI and abundance of material to fake our way through academics, how will people know what even “engaging well” with a book means? My take is that reading should span across genres, even if it is 1 “not easy” book for every 50 “easy” books.
Oh, absolutely! I think it's so important to challenge yourself with reading, just like you would with any other kind of hobby or activity you're invested in, and that definitely entails reading outside of your comfort zone every once in a while. For myself, I'm lucky enough that I had high school IB English HL teachers who really focused on critical analysis and metacognition (thinking about *why* you think something) and even in middle and elementary school I had teachers who laid the groundwork for that. I think their pushing us students to challenge ourselves is why I read classics like all of Austen's works, Jane Eyre, Wilkie Collins, and others of my own volition when I was really young (I read these books when I was around 11 and 12). I read a lot of "easy," fun reads outside of the classics as well, but by college I was kind of burnt out of reading really "heavy" literature solely for the purpose of critical analysis, so I started reading a lot of YA fantasy "fluff"---think Throne of Glass and The Dark Artifices and all those series that were popular around 2014-2015 era. I think those "easier" reads provided a relief from the heavier books, which allowed me to later return to reading more critically. I also think that I learned how to critically analyze ANY and ALL books from many different perspectives by engaging with the diverse voices of the online book community as a book blogger. I saw how other people analyzed modern literature and I thought "Okay, what if *I* try looking at [X, Y, & Z book] through that lens too, what will I see?" And so in that way, I think individuals learning to read critically can often be a community effort. I've also grown a lot as a reader because reading the "easy" reads critically has naturally made me want to read "harder" books to see what they offer as well. For example, I moved from mainly reading YA fantasy to mainly reading Adult fantasy in recent years, which felt like a big jump for me given how much more complex Adult fantasy can be. I also started reading my first literary fiction---Martyr! by Kaveh Akbar---last year, which was a MASSIVE change for me because I'd always assumed lit fic would be boring and I found that, at least in the case of Martyr!, that wasn't true (it's actually a pretty witty novel). One of the changes I made with reading that book was/is the decision to push myself read the physical text rather than the audiobook, because I wanted to really slow down and challenge myself to see how Akbar uses literary technique to get his point across. I'm reading it slowly---I'm only about a third into the book and, admittedly, I temporarily set it down to read some "lighter"/"easier" books because I just needed to give my brain a break. But I really love it and I'm proud that the last 12 years of being in this community has laid the groundwork for me to start branching out again into reading "more difficult" reads. Anyhoo, I've left another essay here *facepalm* but TL;DR is: yes, absolutely we should be branching out and challenging ourselves!
I love these essays, they’re the dialogue that we need be having, so feel free to write more of them haha. It’s amazing to hear that you had great teachers who pushed you to read better. Even if you read the “easy”
books more now, that foundation is already laid and it will always be there for you to build upon. It’s one of my disappointments that my academics did not prioritise critical thinking enough and that we were pushed towards sciences. It’s important to be doctors and cure diseases, but it’s also important to know what we are building with our skills, you know? It’s important to think for ourselves and not just be in a bubble. Those foundations set in school make so much difference in a person’s life. There’s much yet that we need to do to raise the next generation well.
It’s interesting that you mention community as a driver for reading critically. Maybe I don’t appreciate it enough because I stepped away from social media. Blogs have a lot of thoughtful discourse (like your posts!) but I do miss a lot of the quick discussions on social media. I don’t keep up with the pulse of the online book community, and it’s a good and a bad thing. I do remember really internalising the message about reading diversely and being conscious of what I pick to read. Unfortunately, I started becoming dispassionate about the community because it felt like specific books and themes were pushed on everyone instead of the general idea of reading broadly. Something would happen in the world and there’d be a flurry of “you should be reading this” for a while and soon it would be something else. It also made me feel small because I never ended up reading the books centred on my history and my culture because I ended up picking up other books constantly. I eventually felt like I was betraying myself by not picking up books to challenge what I learnt in history class because I know for a fact that we don’t learn the whole history, or even both sides of it. That’s part of the reason I stepped back and don’t really participate in online discourse because it’s usually from a specific lens that doesn’t necessarily reflect what’s happening around me day to day. Although there are plenty of Indian book influencers and books, the popular ones are always set in other countries and deal with the Indian-American identity. It took me a while to realise that I wasn’t reading about the Indian identity and what we went through and what we’re still fighting for/against. India is not as ahead in liberalism and individual freedom as other countries and I felt ridiculous that I knew more about things in America than in India.
Anyway, long winded way of saying that community did help but I ended up stepping back from it because I want to read more about what’s around me and where I can make change rather than only participating with what’s going on across the world. I’m glad to hear that the community helped you!
Brain ain't braining enough to address everything I want to address right now. My opinion, I think even finding a balance (whatever is the personal definition of it for each individual) is not necessary. Like, books aren't the only source - I imagine people are way more complex and there's probably people out there who may even just read easy books cause they get their fix of intellectually demanding critical thinking inspiring things through some other format. Or vice versa. I'm definitely not either person tbf, I'm probably the median reader who mostly reads easy books and aspires to read more challenging things - sometimes failing at the goal, sometimes not. This year specifically I had a goal of reading more critically but 2 months in I've fallen sick and my brains a mush and the first intellectually challenging book I come across I ended up DNFing cause I was not enjoying it. So idk, I'm still figuring it out - with the hope I'll get better at it cause I'm scared about the rise of anti intellectualism etc in the age of AI as well.
agreed, its different for everyone. i guess in my mind, books that make one think and not just consume is kind of the only place it’s self paced (outside of school), so i would still say it’s important to try. whenever i “think” at work it’s always for someone else, you know. and worryingly it’s encouraged to be done with AI and not on my own already 🫠
tbf “more critically” could be for easy books too if we wants to read that way, it just doesn’t push us to do it you know so we’d end up breezing through them as only a story
Love, love your discussion on this! I think for me an easy read is one where I don't have to do too much thinking, which means I classify romance, contemporary, dystopian, urban fantasy (not all of them but a high proportion of them) and some romantasy as easy reads for me personally. I'm not having to follow a new magic system and world politics or if I am in a romantasy/urban fantasy it's not difficult to follow. Do I think that means they're junk? No. I think easy reads still have a purpose, even if it is just a palette cleanser from a denser book that burned my brain. I think easy reads are a good gateway into reading for people who struggle with it - there's a sense of satisfaction that comes from finishing a book. If they can finish a book and have enjoyed the experience they're more likely to continue. Harder reads are unlikely to give them that same sense of satisfaction, to be honest I don't really read 'hard' books. A lot of the fantasy books I consume I wouldn't call them hard, they're just not as easy as the ones I group there.
An example of a hard book would be Priory of the Orange Tree by Samantha Shannon - it's one I intend to tackle at some point but I'm also reading the roots of chaos series in accessibility order. When I went to the author event she mentioned that Among The Burning Flowers is where you should start if you're not used to epic fantasy, so that is where I'm starting. I'm not going to bite off more than I can chew when I know diving straight into Priory will only end up with me quitting half way through. The bit I did read of it years ago, was enough to send my brain spinning because there's so many POV's, politics and so much to keep track of. By contrast I'm currently reading The Bone Season by the same author, which is more of a dystopian/fantasy and whilst there's still a lot to keep up with to me it's easier. Yes I'm still thinking, I'm still trying to work out what's going to happen but I'm enjoying the experience.
Romances and contemporaries are often genres that get tainted with the brush of being easy/junk, which isn't true at all, they both offer a way of tackling a multitude of themes, topics in a way that the reader may have never thought about before. Like you said, you can also learn about new things through them if a character is struggling with something. Spicy books I think also get a lot of flak for it and whilst I am not really a big spice reader at the moment (I go through phases of reading the spicy scenes and skimming/skipping them altogether) they still offer enjoyment to the reader. Reading for pleasure is first and foremost an escape, what you learn along the way is a bonus and up to the reader. Is it good to branch out of your normal reading genre? Yes. Should you suddenly pick up classics and more 'intellectual' books to try and be smarter? No. Not unless that's what you want to do. Read what you want, try some other things but also even with the 'easy' reads there's likely something to be learned within the story. Whether it's a character is relatable, it helps them with their grief, it gives them an escape from life, allows them to consider another person's perspective and feelings.
I do think only reading one genre and never dipping your toes into anything else isn't the best way to go. If only so you know you don't like that genre. There's knowledge to be gained from all the things we read, even if it is just enhancing our empathetic capabilities.
thank you! and I agree with what you said! spicy and pure romance books definitely get a lot of flak because they’re books read for enjoyment and we all have a sense of importance for “struggling” through something so the harder books automatically get more “respect”. it’s all very rooted in the perspectives we grow up with. interestingly reading is the way to branch out and break perspectives but it usually also requires some breaking from the reader’s part first to get there. it’s a dilemma haha. there is definitely knowledge to be gained from all the things we read.