Life on Mars was back on this week after an FA Cup-enforced absence. I get quite excited about this, because apart from American-made stuff like the Sopranos and The West Wing (which I don't watch even though it appears to be obligatory), there is not a lot of drama on tv for men to watch. This may seem a bit of a provocative thing to say but I think it's true: most tv drama is made for women - classic serials; gritty Northern dramas like Playing the Field, Clocking Off; all soaps; anything on ITV on a Sunday night. There's a lot of clothes and scenery and shouting and snogging but not many car chases or guns or fighting. Obviously this is not really down to a lack of imagination on the part of the programme-makes but on the part of men.
Most men, when they get past 30, seem to stop liking stuff that is made up. I don't know any 30 plus man who reads novels. Older men will read popular science, conspiracy stuff, Jeremy Clarkson, Does Any Wasp Eat Shit list-type books, biography - anything but cleverly woven star-crossed wartime romances; tales of kite flying in Afghanistan; deprived childhoods in London-based immigrant communities or Jane Austen. Book clubs don't appear to have men in them and Richard and Judy's selections appear to be aimed purely at people who want something else to do while topping up a tan.
Why is this? The other night I asked some mates why men don't read fiction and one of them quoted a stand-up comic, whose name I forget: "I don't read novels because the acting in my head is shit."
Funny but not really representative. Another said: "It's an emotional investment, 300 pages in the company of strangers." So is the cliche about men being incapable of emotional equipment true? I think it may well be quite the reverse. Most men when they approach forty tend to be in some kind of permanent relationship. This must be true, as single women of the same age are always complaining about it. So what is happening is the potential for emotional commitment in these men is being soaked up by a real-life relationship, so they don't have the time for getting know new people in real life, never mind characters in a novel. This is evidenced by the fact that most men in this age group don't go out much; are very poor at making new friends and if they do have hobbies or interests, they are ones which don't involve talking to anyone else.
So to lure men back into fiction, people who make stuff up should remember the short-story format, which, like the really good tv ad, is both rewarding and not too long so that you forget what happens. Maupassant, Somerset-Maughn, Raymond Carver, Ernest Hemingway, William Faulkner, Scott Fitzgerald, Patricia Highsmith, Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett - these are all pretty good, and would make good tv adaptations, too. Some of them even have guns and car-chases in them.
I read novels all the time. I'm even sort of in a book club. Just finished The Night Watch by Sarah Waters. Now, that definitely was a book for women. Also Restless by William Boyd. Not one of his best. On the other hand, City of Your Final Destination by Peter Cameron was brilliant. Also brilliant - John Cheever - The Wapshot Chronicle. So there are middle aged men who read novels. What else are you going to do on the bus, read Metro?
Posted by: neil | March 16, 2007 at 11:04 PM
And there's Malcolm of course, but that's only two out of 30 million.
Posted by: Rich | March 19, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Malcolm buys books but not novels. And he only buys them; he doesn't actually read them.
Posted by: neil | March 21, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Malcolm buys books but not novels. And he only buys them; he doesn't actually read them.
Posted by: neil | March 21, 2007 at 12:17 PM