On December 30th, 2024, several men gathered with copies of their favorite fiction books for The Fiction Revival, a book club organized by Yahdon Israel, a Senior Editor at Simon & Schuster recently elected to the Center for Fiction Board of Directors. For nearly 10 years, Israel has also been running the Literaryswag Book Club.

Israel, who has become known for his openness about all aspects of book publishing on social media, recorded a video the previous July discussing the relationship between heterosexual men and fiction. He had recently read the essay “Why Are Americans Afraid of Dragons?” by renowned science fiction author Ursula K. LeGuin, originally published in 1974 and collected in her book The Language of the Night: Essays on Writing, Science Fiction, and Fantasy, re-released last year by Scribner. In the essay, LeGuin tries to understand why certain works of fiction hadn’t quite caught on in the U.S., and one of the conclusions she arrives at is that many men aren’t taught to read fiction. Broadly speaking, she believes, they’re not taught to embrace their imaginations, lest they be dismissed as “womanish” or “childish.” They are hardly taught to read for pleasure, she believes, but often taught to read for productivity.

books, book club, classics, novels, reading, fiction
Books at the first meeting of the Fiction Revival book club Yahdon Israel

And while there are many exceptions, LeGuin’s ideas landed for Israel, who had felt this way himself. He remembered being amongst men as a young person, where a way you proved your worth was by what you knew, not what you could imagine. He saw this carry into adulthood, where as an editor he had more heterosexual men asking him for advice about nonfiction and self-help books than he did works of fiction. Indeed, the relationship between heterosexual men and fiction has been long-discussed, though often as a diagnosis rather than as a symptom. “Something that was coming up often in our meetings with marketing and publicity was how hard it was to break through to men [with fiction works], but specifically heterosexual men. When they would show demographics about what books were resonating with audiences, it was the most glaring disparity,” Israel says of surveys where people could self-identify. Based on the data he was seeing at work and in his own life, he wondered, how can straight men engage their imaginations through works of fiction, and then talk and think about what they feel? How would that affect the way they moved through the world?

By his own description, Israel doesn’t use fiction to escape, he uses it to question, to imagine different worlds. “What I love, and what I realized could be of use to heterosexual men, is reading books that challenged us to implore the muscle of curiosity as an entry point into compassion, into empathy and into a reimagining and a restructuring and a challenging of the assumptions of what it means for us to be men in a society that expects us to exist in one way,” he says. “There’s a necessary critique about how heterosexual men need to shift and reimagine the ways we inhabit our masculinity…There’s not a lot of compassion, and what that looks like is more of a hard critique of, well, patriarchy benefits men, and there’s this underlying assumption that men want to protect it.” Israel wanted to make the club in part to provide a way to not attack and critique and pathologize and blame, he says, but to answer the question, “What are we going to do to try to reverse harmful patriarchal thinking that hurts everyone, men included?” The Fiction Revival became a way in to reimagining what the future can look like for men. “Revival means to bring back to life. Men are dead inside, okay?” Israel says. “The imagination is going to bring us back to life. We’re going to bring ourselves back to life.”

men, men's club, book club, reading, community, fiction
Attendees at the first Fiction Revival meeting. Yahdon Israel

At that first Fiction Revival meeting on December 30th, Israel asked everyone to bring their favorite work of fiction as a means of introduction. One man realized he didn’t have any fiction at his house, but wanted to contribute just the same. Throughout the first meeting, they discussed why they loved the works they brought, including books like Toni Morrison’s A Mercy, Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God, Charles Portis’s True Grit, and more. They read their favorite sections and discussed the nature of men’s imaginations particularly, as Israel wrote on Instagram, “what we’ve lost, and continue to lose living in a society that makes us, as men, suspicious of our imaginations; and ultimately, what we stand to (re)gain in disciplining them. Not as punishment, but as practice.”

The second meeting took place on March 10th, and book club members read the short story collection A Lucky Man by Jamel Brinkley. At each meeting, Israel offers a prompt to start the meeting off. This time it was, “Which story resonated for you the most, and why?” Israel marveled at how eager participants seemed to be to connect with each other, to give each other space, and to respect the silence of a thoughtful moment.

book club, men's book club, men, fiction, books, reading
Attendees at the second Fiction Revival meeting. Yahdon Israel

The meeting arrived at what soon became a different point in Israel’s life. When we spoke for a second interview after the second meeting took place, he shared that in the days after it he experienced a mental breakdown and was diagnosed with severe depression. He wants me to run this in the piece about the book club, he says, because for him it’s an important part of why the club exists at all. He remembers a James Baldwin quote from the author’s essay collection Nobody Knows My Name: More Notes of a Native Son, published in 1961: “Though we do not wholly believe it yet, the interior life is a real life, and the intangible dreams of people have a tangible effect on the world.” For him, this is the role that fiction plays. “It reminds me, it helps me recognize the importance of my interior life, because so much of fiction is about the interiority of character,” he says, and for him, reading fiction can help men recognize this as well, to know that “those feelings are real. They matter. They have names, but they also have ramifications.” Down the line, Israel also sees the book club as potentially part of a larger network that offers mental health and career counseling. For now, the book club meets once a month, and interested parties can learn more about attending in New York on the club’s Instagram.

So yes, The Fiction Revival is about getting heterosexual men to read fiction, but it’s really about so much more than that. Instead of continually telling men that they’re broken, it instead offers them a place to try to begin to heal. “Fiction teaches you how to empathize with other people,” he says. “In the frame of the book club I’m doing, it’s going to help us recognize what’s in us.”

  • Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes
    Photo credit: LisaStrachan/iStock via Getty Images Fear not: There isn’t anything that needs saving.

    As a linguistics professor, I’m often asked why English is decaying before our eyes, whether it’s “like” being used promiscuouslyt’s being dropped deleteriously or “literally” being deployed nonliterally.

    While these common gripes point to eccentric speech patterns, they don’t point to grammatical annihilation. English has weathered far worse.

    Let’s start with something we can all agree on: Old English, spoken from approximately A.D. 450 to 1100, is pretty unintelligible to us today. Anyone who’s had the pleasure of reading “Beowulf” in high school knows how different English back then used to sound. Word endings did a lot more grammatical work, and verbs followed more complicated patterns. Remnants of those rules fuel lingering debates today, such as when to use “whom” over “who,” and whether the past tense of “sneak” is “snuck” or “sneaked.”

    The language went on to experience centuries of tumult: Viking invasions, which introduced Old Norse influence; Anglo-Norman French rule, which shifted the language of the elite to French; and 18th-Century grammarians, who dictated norms with their elocution and grammar guides.

    In that time, English has lost almost all of the more complex linguistic trappings it was born with to become the language we know and – at least, sometimes – love today. And as I explain in my new book, “Why We Talk Funny: The Real Story Behind Our Accents,” it was all thanks to the way that language naturally evolves to meet the social needs of its speakers.

    From dropping the ‘l’ to dropping the ‘g’

    The things we tend to label as “bad” or sloppy English – for instance, the “g” that gets lost from our -ing endings or the deletion of a “t” when we say a word like “innernet” – actually reflect speech habits that are centuries old.

    Take, for example, “often.” Originally spoken with the “t,” that pronunciation gradually became less favored around the 15th century, alongside that “l” in “talk” and the “k” in know. Meanwhile, the “s” now stuck on the back of verbs like “does” and “makes” began as a dialectal variant that only became popular in 16th-century London. It gradually replaced “th” whenever third persons were involved, as in “The lady doth protest too much.”

    While dropping the “l” in talk may have been initially frowned upon, today it would be strange if you pronounced the letter. And the shift makes sense: It smoothed out some linguistic awkwardness for the sake of efficiency.

    If people learned to look at language more like linguists, they might come around to seeing that there is more than one perspective on what good speech consists of.

    And yes, that absolutely is a sentence ending with a preposition – something many modern grammar guides discourage, even though the idea only took hold after 18th-century grammarian Robert Lowth intimated it was a less elegant choice based on the model of Latin.

    Though Lowth voiced no hard and fast rule against it, many a grammar maven later misconstrued his advice as an admonition. Just like that, a mere suggestion became grammatical law.

    The rise of the grammar sticklers

    Many of today’s ideas about what constitutes correct English are based on a singular – often mistaken – 19th-century view of the forces that govern our language.

    In the late 18th century, the English-speaking world began experiencing class restructuring and higher literacy rates. As greater class mobility became possible, accent differences became class markers that separated new money from old money.

    Emulation of upper-crust speech norms became popular among the nouveau riche. With literacy also on the rise, grammarians and elocutionists raced to dictate the terms of “proper” English on and off the page, which led to the rise of usage guides and dictionaries that were eager to sell a certain brand of speech.

    Another example of grammarian angst reconfiguring the view of an otherwise perfectly fine form is the droppin’ of the “g.” It became so tied to slovenly speech that it was branded with an apostrophe in the 19th century to make sure no one missed its lackadaisical and nonstandard nature.

    Up until the 19th century, however, no one seemed to care whether one pronounced it as “-in” or “-ing.”

    Evidence suggests that -ing wasn’t even heard as the correct form. Many elocution guides from the 18th century provide rhyming word pairs like “herring/heron,” “coughing/coffin” and “jerking/jerkin,” which suggest that “-in” may have been the preferred pronunciation of words ending with “-ing.” Even writer and satirist Jonathan Swift – a frequent lobbyist for “proper” English – rhymes “brewing” with “ruin” in his 1731 poem “Verses on the Death of Dr. Swift, D.S.P.D..”

    Embrace the change

    Language has always shifted and evolved. People often bristle at changes from what they’ve known to what is new. And maybe that’s because this process often begins with speakers that society usually looks less favorably on: the young, the female, the poor, the nonwhite.

    But it’s important to remember that being disliked and bad are not the same thing – that today’s speech pariahs are driven by the same linguistic and social needs as the Londoners who started going with “does” instead of “doth” or dropped the “t” in often.

    So if you think the speech that comes from your lips is the “correct” version, think again. Thou, like every other English speaker, art literally the product of centuries of linguistic reinvention.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

  • 10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild
    Photo credit: Canva(L) Kids wrestling in the yard; (R) young children playing chess

    It sounds like the plot of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. However, in the mid-2000s, it was a very real and very controversial reality television experiment.

    Footage from the UK Channel 4 documentary Boys and Girls Alone is captivating audiences all over again. It offers a fascinating and chaotic look at what happens when you remove parents from the equation.

    The premise was simple but high stakes. Twenty children, aged 11 and 12, were split into two groups by gender. Ten boys and ten girls were placed in separate houses and told to live without adult supervision for five days.

    The Setup

    While there were safety nets in place, the day-to-day living was entirely up to the kids. A camera crew was present but instructed not to intervene unless safety was at risk. The children could also ring a bell to speak to a nurse or psychiatrist.

    The houses were fully stocked with food, cleaning supplies, toys, and paints. Everything they needed to survive was there. They just had to figure out how to use it.

    The Boys: Instant Chaos

    In the boys’ house, the unraveling was almost immediate. The newfound freedom triggered a rapid descent into high-energy anarchy.

    They engaged in water pistol fights and threw cushions. In one memorable instance, a boy named Michael covered the carpet in sticky popcorn kernels just because he could.

    The destruction eventually escalated to the walls. The boys covered the house in writing, drawing, and paint. But the euphoria of freedom eventually crashed into the reality of consequences.

    “We never expected to be like this, but I’m really upset that we trashed it so badly,” one boy admitted in the footage. “We were trying to explore everything at once and got too carried away in ourselves.”

    Their attempts to clean up were frantic and largely ineffective. Nutrition also took a hit. Despite having completed a cooking course, the boys survived mostly on cereal, sugar, and the occasional frozen pizza. By the end of the week, the house was trashed, and the group had fractured into opposing factions.

    The Girls: Organized Society

    The girls’ house looked like a different planet.

    In stark contrast to the mayhem next door, the girls immediately established a functioning society. They organized a cooking roster, with a girl named Sherry preparing their first meal. They baked cakes. They put on a fashion show. They even drew up a scrupulous chores list to ensure the house stayed livable.

    While their stay wasn’t devoid of interpersonal drama, the experiment highlighted a fascinating divergence in socialization. Left to their own devices, the girls prioritized community and maintenance. The boys tested the absolute limits of their environment until it broke.

    The documentary was controversial when it aired, with critics questioning the ethics of placing children in unsupervised situations for entertainment. But what made it so enduring, and why footage keeps resurfacing years later, is what it reveals about how kids are socialized long before anyone puts them in a house together. The boys weren’t born anarchists and the girls weren’t born organizers. They arrived at those houses already shaped by years of being told, implicitly and explicitly, what boys do and what girls do. Whether that’s a nature story or a nurture story is the question the documentary keeps asking without quite answering, which is probably why people are still watching and arguing about it nearly two decades later.

    This article originally appeared two years ago. It has been updated.

  • 9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.
    Photo credit: Wikicommons(L) A young girl's letter to Steph Curry asking about women's shoe sizes; (R) Steph Curry.
    ,

    9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.

    “… it seems unfair that the shoes are only in the boys,” Riley Morrison wrote, starting a chain reaction of positive change.

    Nine-year-old Riley Morrison from Napa, California is a huge basketball fan. She roots for the Golden State Warriors and her favorite player is four-time NBA champion Steph Curry. Morrison loves to play basketball so she went online to pick up a pair of Curry’s Under Armour Curry 5 shoes, but there weren’t any available in the girls’ section of the site.

    But instead of resigning herself to the fact she wouldn’t be able to drive the lane in a sweet pair of Curry 5’s, she wrote a letter to the man himself. Her father posted it on social media:

    “My name is Riley (just like your daughter), I’m 9 years old from Napa, California. I am a big fan of yours. I enjoy going to Warriors games with my dad. I asked my dad to buy me the new Curry 5’s because I’m starting a new basketball season. My dad and I visited the Under Armour website and were disappointed to see that there were no Curry 5’s for sale under the girls section. However, they did have them for sale under the boy’s section, even to customize. I know you support girl athletes because you have two daughters and you host an all girls basketball camp. I hope you can work with Under Armour to change this because girls want to rock the Curry 5’s too.”

    “I wanted to write the letter because it seems unfair that the shoes are only in the boys’ section and not in the girls’ section,” Riley told Teen Vogue. “I wanted to help make things equal for all girls, because girls play basketball, too.”

    The letter got to Curry and he gave an amazing response on X (formerly Twitter).

    Many might be surprised that a megastar like Curry took a nine-year-old’s letter seriously, but he’s long been a vocal supporter of women’s issues.

    That August, Curry wrote an empowering letter that was published in The Player’s Tribune where he discussed closing the gender pay gap, hosting his first all-girls basketball camp, and what he’s learned from raising two daughters.

    In the essay he shared a powerful lesson his mother taught him. “Always stay listening to women to always stay believing in women, and — when it comes to anyone’s expectations for women — to always stay challenging the idea of what’s right,” he wrote.

    Curry clearly practices what he preaches because when a nine-year-old girl spoke up, he was all ears.

    Steph Curry and Under Armour didn’t just fix the girls’ sizing issue, they launched a special edition Curry 6 “United We Win” co-designed by Riley, created a $30K annual scholarship for girls, and shifted to unisex sizing across Curry Brand shoes.

    Since then, Curry has stayed active in promoting gender equity: he’s hosted girls’ camps, added girls to his elite training programs, mentored players like Azzi Fudd, and launched the Curry Family Women’s Athletics Initiative to fund 200+ scholarships at Davidson College.

    Riley and Steph bumped into each other at an event where they caught up and took photos. She is now a high school athlete at Vintage High School in Napa, still playing basketball. And yes, still rocking Currys.

    This article originally appeared seven years ago. It has been updated.

Explore More Culture Stories

Culture

Despite all the likes, literallys and dropped g’s, English isn’t decaying before our eyes

Culture

10 boys and 10 girls were left alone in separate houses and the different results are just wild

Media

9-year-old girl asks Steph Curry why his shoes aren’t in girls’ sizes. The response was perfect.

Art

Why Michelangelo’s ‘Last Judgment’ endures