The success of Theo of Golden suggests readers never stopped craving ambitious fiction—and exposes the publishing industry's assumptions about modern audiences.
It’s kind of amazing how backwards traditional publishing is. People naturally gravitate *toward* difficult books because we’re hardwired to find moderate adversity more enjoyable. The pleasure of reading is developing our imagination through effort, not skimming through short sentences.
"Upon its initial release, in fact, Theo of Golden sold three thousand copies—a more than respectable number for a self-published title"
That's the proof! Forget trad. Go indie.
Right now, there's more six-figure indie authors than trad. What does trad still offer? Shelf space at Barnes & Noble and a shot at a medal. Some can call that vanity. I call it obsolescence.
Thank you for this article. Whereas I grasp the pros for simple prose in terms of accessibility, It’s getting harder and harder to find true literature these days (no thanks to Booktok and Goodreads). Pop-lit is saturating the landscape. Let’s give a huge shoutout to the authors who persevere to publish prose to tickle our fancies. I’ve just finished Donna Tartt’s The Secret History and after this article I’ll be hard-pressed to follow-up with Yesteryear for a book club.
This comment is a pretty good demonstration that short sentences can open huge depths of understanding, provided the full implications are contemplated. Which takes time. Christen, I've been sitting with your comment longer than it took to read the article, and it feels to me there's a book waiting to be written on it. On the other hand, if this is just one more comment to consume, scrolling by in our search for the next mentally stimulating tidbit, then the reader might not see the art in the comment itself. That said, I have nothing against long sentences. I think what matters more than the form language takes (whether long sentences or short ones, flowery prose or sparse, metaphorical or "literal" language) is where it comes from. My observation is that personal expressions that emerge from our depths have the power to reach others in theirs. However, readers have to be willing inhabit *their own depths* to really receive them there.
I don't know, Lisa, Golden seems generic and cliched. He doesn't understand focalization. Isn't there room for all degrees of fiction, from minimalist to maximalist? But I suppose in comparison to the examples he seems like a stylist.
This is an amazing post. Also I’m sick of almost every book being written in first person. Usually with a wry, subversive, shamelessly immoral protagonist (see Yesteryear). It’s starting to feel like every book is the same.
Another thing I’ve noticed is that most new books have an extremely ambitious premise and a terrible execution. I see that review all the time on goodreads.
I agree with your critique of the publishing industry—I enjoyed Theo of Golden, but I think it’s clear it’s a debut in some places. I enjoyed it very much, and so did both my book clubs. If one is acquainted with classic literature, it is an easy and diverting read—if one is more familiar with the examples you named, I hope this book leads them to seek more beauty and meaning in their reading.
Theo of Golden is a breath of fresh air. The deeply human narrative and author's story is what the world needs right now. We understand ourselves as humans through story, and guess what? The most human stories are also the highest grossing stories. Trad publishers, wake up.
I felt exactly that way about Evelyn Hugo. Compulsively readable? Yes. Not a single sentence that I would have copied down, and completely devoid of any historical patina beyond what it directly tells us. I mean, a book about gay men and woman passing through the ‘80s with barely a mention of AIDS until it becomes expedient for the plot.
Yes!! I agree with everything you said and everyone should read this. I hate the so many popular books think for me rather than pushing me to think. Thank you... again... for writing this!!!!
Trust me, it was full of empty/ vulgar/bland/edgy drivel too. You just remember the the best while being aware of a lot of games that are released nowadays.
One of the reasons is that there is a lot more information. In the pasy you either heard a friend mention a game, read about it in a magazine or saw the cover in the shop. While nowadays you open youtube or gaming redding and get an avalanche of "this is the worst game ever" or complains of how games suck.
Call of duty is nowadays seen as drivel, but it hasn't changed much (except maybe microtransactions or skins) from how it was in 2000-2010. It is still a militaristic power fantasy. Oh, and do you remember when every game had that yellowish brown filter?
And about indie darlings. People see the 1% indie games, while being blind to the 99% that are shit or chase trends. Hundreds of games are released every day on steam. How many of those are you aware of?
It’s kind of amazing how backwards traditional publishing is. People naturally gravitate *toward* difficult books because we’re hardwired to find moderate adversity more enjoyable. The pleasure of reading is developing our imagination through effort, not skimming through short sentences.
‘The result is a novel that is easy to consume but difficult to contemplate.’
That’s a bar.
"Upon its initial release, in fact, Theo of Golden sold three thousand copies—a more than respectable number for a self-published title"
That's the proof! Forget trad. Go indie.
Right now, there's more six-figure indie authors than trad. What does trad still offer? Shelf space at Barnes & Noble and a shot at a medal. Some can call that vanity. I call it obsolescence.
Thank you for this article. Whereas I grasp the pros for simple prose in terms of accessibility, It’s getting harder and harder to find true literature these days (no thanks to Booktok and Goodreads). Pop-lit is saturating the landscape. Let’s give a huge shoutout to the authors who persevere to publish prose to tickle our fancies. I’ve just finished Donna Tartt’s The Secret History and after this article I’ll be hard-pressed to follow-up with Yesteryear for a book club.
There is a difference between content and art. Content is consumed. Art is experienced.
This comment is a pretty good demonstration that short sentences can open huge depths of understanding, provided the full implications are contemplated. Which takes time. Christen, I've been sitting with your comment longer than it took to read the article, and it feels to me there's a book waiting to be written on it. On the other hand, if this is just one more comment to consume, scrolling by in our search for the next mentally stimulating tidbit, then the reader might not see the art in the comment itself. That said, I have nothing against long sentences. I think what matters more than the form language takes (whether long sentences or short ones, flowery prose or sparse, metaphorical or "literal" language) is where it comes from. My observation is that personal expressions that emerge from our depths have the power to reach others in theirs. However, readers have to be willing inhabit *their own depths* to really receive them there.
I agree.
As someone who grew up reading and loving the classics, which in turn heavily influenced my writing style, this is a welcome bit of encouraging news.
Was the book rejected from traditional publishing? Seems relevant to the argument.
I don't know, Lisa, Golden seems generic and cliched. He doesn't understand focalization. Isn't there room for all degrees of fiction, from minimalist to maximalist? But I suppose in comparison to the examples he seems like a stylist.
This is an amazing post. Also I’m sick of almost every book being written in first person. Usually with a wry, subversive, shamelessly immoral protagonist (see Yesteryear). It’s starting to feel like every book is the same.
Another thing I’ve noticed is that most new books have an extremely ambitious premise and a terrible execution. I see that review all the time on goodreads.
I enjoyed reading your article. The whole time I read Theo of Golden, I felt invited into a different pace of life.
I agree with your critique of the publishing industry—I enjoyed Theo of Golden, but I think it’s clear it’s a debut in some places. I enjoyed it very much, and so did both my book clubs. If one is acquainted with classic literature, it is an easy and diverting read—if one is more familiar with the examples you named, I hope this book leads them to seek more beauty and meaning in their reading.
Theo of Golden is a breath of fresh air. The deeply human narrative and author's story is what the world needs right now. We understand ourselves as humans through story, and guess what? The most human stories are also the highest grossing stories. Trad publishers, wake up.
I felt exactly that way about Evelyn Hugo. Compulsively readable? Yes. Not a single sentence that I would have copied down, and completely devoid of any historical patina beyond what it directly tells us. I mean, a book about gay men and woman passing through the ‘80s with barely a mention of AIDS until it becomes expedient for the plot.
An excellent reflection! Thanks! I just finished reading Joel Halldorf's "Reading Matters" which provides context and perspective.
Yes!! I agree with everything you said and everyone should read this. I hate the so many popular books think for me rather than pushing me to think. Thank you... again... for writing this!!!!
FYI video game industry is doing exactly the same thing
As opposed to the artistic depth of classics like Pac-Man?
Pac man is too old of a game. If you look at games from 1990s up until early 2010s, those are the best time for video games.
Then the industry start to think they’re superior and players knows nothing and not worth catering to, then the industry crashes and burns
Trust me, it was full of empty/ vulgar/bland/edgy drivel too. You just remember the the best while being aware of a lot of games that are released nowadays.
One of the reasons is that there is a lot more information. In the pasy you either heard a friend mention a game, read about it in a magazine or saw the cover in the shop. While nowadays you open youtube or gaming redding and get an avalanche of "this is the worst game ever" or complains of how games suck.
Call of duty is nowadays seen as drivel, but it hasn't changed much (except maybe microtransactions or skins) from how it was in 2000-2010. It is still a militaristic power fantasy. Oh, and do you remember when every game had that yellowish brown filter?
And about indie darlings. People see the 1% indie games, while being blind to the 99% that are shit or chase trends. Hundreds of games are released every day on steam. How many of those are you aware of?