Proof of the dumbing down of America

[LBJDemocrat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bestselling_novels_in_the_United_States_in_the_1960s

Compare with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bestselling_novels_in_the_United_States_in_the_2000s

I don't have anything to add.

[flvegan]

1. Further proof: in the 60's, there was no reality television.

[Orsino]

17. Or nothing more than quiz shows, anyway...

...which didn't blatantly seek to humiliate contestants over weeks and expect us to enjoy it.

[MrScorpio]

2. The 60's had much better theme music in movies and TV

Most of that stuff is still iconic today

[RagAss]

3. Franny and Zooey 1961....read it in college in the 80's. It stood the test of time !

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. In the 1960s, most adults had grown up without television

The lists of bestsellers from the 2000's is pretty appalling in comparison.

There were some lightweights on the 1960s lists, such as Mary Stewart, who wrote romantic suspense. but the way James Patterson owns the bestseller lists these days is sad. I like mysteries as much as the next person, but his are mediocre.

[Aristus]

5. James Patterson's stuff is what Truman Capote used to call 'creative typing'.

B-)

[Auggie]

10. I'm told Patterson doesn't write most of his own books

He conceives the idea and hands it off to ghostwriters.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. Mary Stewart is masterful compared to James Patterson

not saying much, I know but, still...

[JCMach1]

8. Mary Stewart's Arthurian books were good

Couldn't stomach the rest...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. Yes, I liked those as well...offhand, I can't remember what else she

wrote.

[ScreamingMeemie]

6. I disagree...

There are quite a few books on the 2000s list that will be looked at as classics, in time. And also quite a bit of crap on the 60's list. Let's not be snobs.

[JCMach1]

9. I remember finding "I'm OK, You're OK" when I was about 10

First I was confused and then I laughed my ass off... i.e speaking of BAD

[hobbit709]

13. There was a parody: "I'm OK, you're So-so"

[Dr. Strange]

15. I think you're right.

And the 2000's lists don't include the Harry Potter books--were kids reading anything of that sort in the 60s?

[madrchsod]

11. i noticed that a lot 60`s novels were made into great movies

the 2000 novels are.....

[PVnRT]

12. Blah blah blah

More agist bullshit. You boomers really need to get hobbies.

[Crazy Dave]

14. Hey you!

Don't you know we all had to walk to school tens miles in the snow uphill both ways :sarcasm:

Now get out of my yard! :hi:

[SCantiGOP]

21. that's nothing

I had to walk ten miles in the snow, and we were so poor I couldn't afford shoes so they would put tacks in the bottom of my feet so I could get traction walking up hill (yes, it was uphill the entire way going and coming).

[Jamastiene]

26. Ooooooh, barefooted AND tacks.

:popcorn:

[Crazy Dave]

30. You were fortunate your family could afford the tacks

Some kids were not so lucky but it still made us better people than what's out there today I tell you.

Let's go get our guns my friend and get these damn kids out of our yards!

[Jamastiene]

24. You forgot barefooted.

:hide:

[Crazy Dave]

29. We were a little more fortunate

We were lucky enough to have our old brown paper grocery sacks to wear on our feet but it still made me a better person I tell you.

Now get the hell out of my yard!

[Rabrrrrrr]

28. I'm not a Boomer - I don't think this is agist bullshit, I think it's true.

American has dumbed down into a celebration of - almost an addiction to - mediocrity.

[Fire Walk With Me]

35. Theordore Sturgeon's Law:

“Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

[LBJDemocrat]

32. I'm not a boomer.

I'm 23.

Geez.

[baldguy]

16. Everything on network television.

[LSdemocrat]

18. I guess I don't want to know how much money John Grisham makes

[old mark]

20. Palin. No more need be said. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Meh, I really don't see the complaint.

Michener was the Grisham/Clancy of his day.

That hack Crichton made lists in both decades.

Fleming is as bad as Brown, IMO.

[LBJDemocrat]

33. Philip Roth, John Updike, William Faulkner, John Steinbeck...? nt

[JitterbugPerfume]

23. I think TV and video games

have shortened the attention span . Young people want instant gratification,

but I also remember some pretty crappy stuff from the 50's and 60's.

We used to read newspapers, now we listen to sound bites.

We used to read books , but now we watch sitcoms and Soap Operas


times change, and so do we

[texas1928]

25. no the proof is, having to have "this is hot" on the lid of hot coffee.

Because you ordered hot coffee and spilled it on yourself and sued because the lid did not warn you it was hot. :shrug:

[hippywife]

34. You might want to read the details

of the McDonald's coffee case before sticking with that as your answer. Unfortunately so many people don't know the details. The suit was very justified. :hi:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

37. Yes. They should know the details of that lawsuit. It was NOT frivolous.

The magic word is "foreseeability".

[hippywife]

39. It really ruffles my feathers

to hear people who are supposed to be liberal throw that out there without knowing the details. All they are doing is reinforcing the wrong notion about what happened to that poor woman.

[Rabrrrrrr]

27. It's sad how many times Crichton, Grisham, Lehaye, Steele, and Brown show up

in the 200s.

Sometimes they're showing up twice in the same year!

It's really too bad, because there are a lot of good literate wonderful books being written.

But, Americans are getting fucking dumber and dumber, and so instead of the good books going to the top, they go to the bottom then the remainders, while the Browns, Steels, Crichtons, Grishams, and Lehayes go to the top.

[mvd]

31. Grisham is one of my favorite authors, so at least he shows up

The Da Vinci Code is the only non-Grisham book that I know in the 2000's lists, though.

[LBJDemocrat]

36. Listen everyone

My point is that, even though the 60s had its share of commercial literature, there was some respectable stuff that actually sold shitloads. William Faulkner on the bestseller list? Would that ever happen today? No. In this decade, out of 90 books, only about two of them weren't genre fiction.

[jobycom]

38. Quite the reverse. It means more people are reading for leisure.

The high-fallutin' nature of the 60s list just proves that books were more often read by snobs than nowadays. Now even normal people read for fun, so the books selling are less snobby--in as much as they are. There were some clunkers on both lists.

In 1960 John F Kennedy was asked about his favorite novel, and he named Ian Flemming's "From Russia With Love." In 2008 Obama was asked, and he mentioned John le Carre (not sure if he mentioned a specific novel). Now, if you are going to tell me that JFK's pick was a smarter writer than Obama's, I'm going to question your intellect. Both candidates were noted for their intelligence, so their books can be seen not just as reflections of their taste, but also reflections of what people expected intelligent, worldly men to read.

[Rabrrrrrr]

40. Doesn't prove that at all, unless there were shitloads more snobs in the 60s.

Remember, these are BEST SELLER lists, not lists of the best books.

BEST SELLER.

Which means good literature USED to be something that sold a lot of books, unlike today.


No, back in the day, even the casual readers were - along with the genre fiction I'm sure they enjoyed - reading stuff of quality. It wasn't just the snobs reading them; otherwise, those books would never have made best SELLER lists.