There is just more of everything. It's as if the attention economy got flooded in the last two years, and everyone is drowning in noise.
Plus reading is competing with all the other ways to spend time. Podcasts are great for nonfiction. Substack and blogs are a much better format for many ideas. Then there's YouTube, and many ways to spend time that aren't ingesting non-fiction.
Besides, a lot of non-fiction just isn't that great. Many books should have been a blog post. These books are rarely a rewarding experience for me, unless it's from a rare combo of historian and good writer.
> the sensibility of nonfiction market is far more catered to men
The book industry is three quarter female. In my experience, book stores visibly cater to a female demographic (featured books, general selection).
Most readers are women, and the largest genre by far is romance novels, so book stores catering to women is a matter of chasing sales.
Otherwise fully agree with your points. The non-fiction market is easier to saturate as there's only so many unique angles on something, and people will look for something that feels authoritative rather than something fresh, while in fiction you're likely to read many similar premises because it's what you like.
If that was the cause, 1) book sales would drop overall, and 2) nonfiction books would perform the same as fiction books. The OP says neither are true:
"What has happened in the last ten years is that the overall industry has grown modestly, but fiction and nonfiction have basically flipped positions. In 2015, 6 of the top 25 bestselling hardcover books—this is a not-perfect but useful proxy for new books published—were fiction. In 2025, 18 of the top 25 hardcover books were fiction, meaning only 7 were nonfiction, almost an exact inversion of ten years ago."
They suggest some explanation:
fiction/nonfiction reading habits are extremely gendered, with 80% of women making up the fiction market, and nonfiction being a more 50-50 proposition.
and
Proportionally we are gaining many more women as readers and losing our few men.
Yeah I think this is pretty easy to explain: YouTube (sure, there’s terrible terrible channels out there, but also great ones and a fair many fine-to-good ones), Nebula/Curiosity Stream, podcasts, substacks (lol), LLMs, Anna’s Archive/LibGen, and even the Internet Archive. It's not 1994, if you want to learn, you don't need a book to do it.
It's not some grand conspiracy, people are going to gravitate to what is more efficient/convenient lol
Most people give away attention tidbits for free via social media: TikToks, YouTube shorts, posts on Reddit.
That means attention can be sated by microdosing on free attention morsels rather than paying for something long-form that requires investment.
People drowning in free attention and dopamine might not have a need to pay for a premium attention sink.
This is happening at an enormous scale. An evening book or prestige movie might be supplemented by doom scrolling sloppy content and memes. Instead of authors being paid for supplying entertainment, ads are being watched.
The companies that empower this are worth trillions.
Absolutely crazy and useless article IMO in that they never mention AI.
They cite readers being interested in learning - well what's the best way to do so nowadays? Ask ChatGPT.
Even worse, you can ask ChatGPT to describe the learnings of any reasonably popular nonfiction book directly. No it's not a perfect substitute, nor will the learnings be as memorable, but it's reasonably good enough. That's why I haven't bought a nonfiction book in a long time.
For the last couple of years I’ve only read non fiction. For me reading about real life events is far more entertaining and also a great learning experience that I can’t get from a fiction book.
I'm in the same boat as you, having only read non-fiction the past few years. It appears quite ironic that the entertainment occurring in the real life events is surpassing the entertainment I hear one usually derives from fiction.
I think there is something deeply wrong with the state of contemporary fiction.
I was on Spotify the other day checking out the fantasy audiobook offerings and the only item that wasn't absolutely repulsive was Jim dale reading Harry Potter. Everything else comes off like cheap asset flips on steam or thinly veiled rants that you'd find on obscure subreddits.
See, because of the learning experience I steer away from non-fiction books. I am deeply afraid of the narrative red string applied to reality - connecting a tiny subset of the observable data points to a simplified interpretation/explanation of the whole. If I want to learn, I look at raw data, reports, white papers, etc.. Because authors always have some bias or other, especially when they decide to write a book-length document. (Except, of course, a data catalog of sorts, like a lexicon or other exhaustive enumeration - those are usually a good starting point) I have enough of my own biases, and rather get a diverse set of inputs on a topic. Fiction though? Sure, let's suspend our disbelief and have some fun.
Edit: to clarify: this is not me accusing authors of non-fiction books to always have some evil agenda to push. One human only has limited capacity and things will always fall through the cracks. Do your own research with the constraints you actually care about, if you can.
Yes, everything outside of personal experience is somewhat fictional - one probably wouldn't agree with the biases, assumptions or assessments of any author/content creator.
I started reading and at about the half-way point, I decided to search for "AI", "LLM", "generative", which all came up blank. At that point I closed the tab and headed back here. #1 reason I would be very skeptical of purchasing a book published in 2026 is AI. Unfortunately, you need to overcome a pretty big hump in convincing me that there was no AI involved in authoring.
I think if you read a little bit further in the article you would find that this attitude is exactly why the author believes there is a collapse in non-fiction book.
> The collapse of nonfiction is [...] a massive breakdown in the social fabric of trusting education, expertise, or any authority
People don't want to read non-fiction because they don't trust the people writing it.
I don't necessarily mind reading AI generated content. But the bar you need to clear is: why would I read (or watch or play) what you generate with AI compared to me just directly asking the AI?
To be clear: this isn't meant as a rhetorical question. There are AI generated works I'm happy to consume. It's meant as a real bar that you can clear. But it's also non-trivial, and the goalposts are moving as AI becomes better and easier to use.
Especially with the current rate of progress, you asking ChatGPT today probably means you'll get a way better answer than whatever the author got using a model from last year.
There is a lot of curation and editing that go into AI generated content. Like if you just use an AI to write from a prompt, you’ll just get slop (vibe writing), but if you plan it, review the bullet points, delete and add points that make the narrative stronger, have it sketch some writing out after you are happy with what it is covering, then rewrite that because LLMs have absolutely no sense for word rhythm.
I agree with you in principle, but I think this ignores the reality. Many nonfiction categories are overrun by self-published AI slop generated at an industrial scale by hustlers in low-CoL countries, never as much as proofread by a human. So yes, in theory, good AI-assisted books may exist. But in practice, they're more or less guaranteed to be drowned out because they take much longer to produce (and are written only if the author has something to say).
I'm not sure the low cost of living of the guy who kicks off the AI generation still makes much of a difference?
This might have been more important when the human still had to invest quite a few hours.
In any case, why do we care about the cost of living of the author? Notionally, my adopted home of Singapore is one of the highest C countries on earth, but I'm not sure that makes me nor my AI slop any better? Especially I don't think my output is any better than before I moved to Singapore.
Yeah, frankly, this doesn't make sense to me. Has the author checked any nonfiction categories on Amazon recently? In many categories, 80-90% of all new releases are obvious AI slop. And even for non-self-published releases, about 20-30% previews get flagged as AI by Pangram, compared to roughly 0% pre-2023.
I don't buy (new) nonfiction because it now feels like playing Minesweeper.
Likewise. I'm only interested in books that were either published before 2024, or are by authors I respect (e.g. Patterson & Hennessy), or by respectable academic publishers (e.g. Cambridge University Press). I used not to be so picky.
It also presents a bit of chicken & egg for new authors: nobody knows them, and now few will risk it, so they stay unknown. They must pursue other avenues to gain traction; far more than was needed a few years ago.
The deluge of AI books on Amazon has really been quite amazing. Between them and the higher risk of poorly-printed books, I don't buy from Amazon anymore. Now it's always direct from publishers.
One thing I've learned listening to Monocle podcasts is that non-fiction writers have to hustle a lot to be successful. Many of their regular guests are non-fiction writers and they are constantly talking about what conference they just came back from, what workshops they've been running, etc. And part of this hustling is appearing in Monocle podcasts and news programs.
Fiction writers also have to hustle a lot to be successful. The average full time writer in the UK would've made more at McDonalds in the UK, and I doubt it's much better elsewhere.
It's both an extremely competitive field, and it's incredibly hard to convince people to read your book even for those near the top of their field in terms of quality.
But non-fiction writers have an additional problem, that I think the article glosses over:
If I like, say, romance novels, I'm not looking for new books to be dramatically different to what I read before. A lot of genre readers - the by far largest genres are romance and thrillers - expect books that stick closely to expected conventions. Romance readers will form a mob with pitchforks if there isn't a happily ever after, for example.
Non-fiction, on the other hand, must set itself apart. Why should I read your How to Win Friends and Influence People look-alike when I can read Dale Carnegie's original?
It needs to be very different or clearly better and I have to find it in between the many hundreds of thousands (not an exaggeration; might even under-estimate the number at this point) of new non-fiction titles every year, where fiction titles are not:
You don't need 50 books on meditation, or 50 books on repairing your washing machine, but you might have 50 books in the same narrow sub-genre of fiction because it's what you like to read, and so the opportunity cost of picking up an unknown name feels very different.
A whole lot of the non-fiction market is also being cannibalised by blogs, tiktok, youtube videos and the like - and LLMs -, whereas a video is more likely to tease the fiction book rather than replace the need for it.
Also when I think of better end of non-fiction. How many books on certain topic I need? Say ornithology or on birds... Maybe a few at best. Unless I am collector or interested in that specific niche. Which already massively cuts down audience. Take history. Huge overall. But if you only go for specific events, periods or areas(town for example) it might cut down audience significantly.
So I think it is fair to say for fiction that some niches could be lot smaller say than generic fantasy, romance and such. And also I can read lot more fantasy books if I get around to it... Some of them are bloody enormous series too.
If non-fiction book market = self help, business help, advice. Good riddance?
I might be wrong but I feel like most of that stuff is the same as YouTube, TikTok. Random person with no qualifications realizes they can maybe make some money by writing about their own random opinions on how things are with no actual data, just feels.
Someone else mentioned history but AFAICT, at least in the YouTube realm, lots of "history" channels are people with alternative hot take ideas about history portrayed as history experts, because it's what gets views. I'm only guessing that same basic fact, controversial ideas get sales, means similar things happen with books. Especially with it being easier than ever to publish.
> Someone else mentioned history but AFAICT, at least in the YouTube realm, lots of "history" channels are people with alternative hot take ideas about history portrayed as history experts, because it's what gets views.
Even worse, it’s shallowly regurgitated ideas of other people’s prior works, with music and visuals and all.
Recently, on my formerly favourite new history channel [0], I noticed editing quirks (that would have never passed the bar if a human read it) and overly consistent vocalization… it's jumped the shark :(
There is just more of everything. It's as if the attention economy got flooded in the last two years, and everyone is drowning in noise.
Plus reading is competing with all the other ways to spend time. Podcasts are great for nonfiction. Substack and blogs are a much better format for many ideas. Then there's YouTube, and many ways to spend time that aren't ingesting non-fiction.
Besides, a lot of non-fiction just isn't that great. Many books should have been a blog post. These books are rarely a rewarding experience for me, unless it's from a rare combo of historian and good writer.
> the sensibility of nonfiction market is far more catered to men
The book industry is three quarter female. In my experience, book stores visibly cater to a female demographic (featured books, general selection).
https://www.leeandlow.com/blog/2019diversitybaselinesurvey/
https://www.wsj.com/business/media/dad-books-are-a-dying-bre...
Most readers are women, and the largest genre by far is romance novels, so book stores catering to women is a matter of chasing sales.
Otherwise fully agree with your points. The non-fiction market is easier to saturate as there's only so many unique angles on something, and people will look for something that feels authoritative rather than something fresh, while in fiction you're likely to read many similar premises because it's what you like.
I'm not surprised, and I don't see it as a problem. Every clothing store is the same.
It just felt odd to blame a small part of your demographic as a matter of course.
> There is just more of everything
If that was the cause, 1) book sales would drop overall, and 2) nonfiction books would perform the same as fiction books. The OP says neither are true:
"What has happened in the last ten years is that the overall industry has grown modestly, but fiction and nonfiction have basically flipped positions. In 2015, 6 of the top 25 bestselling hardcover books—this is a not-perfect but useful proxy for new books published—were fiction. In 2025, 18 of the top 25 hardcover books were fiction, meaning only 7 were nonfiction, almost an exact inversion of ten years ago."
They suggest some explanation:
fiction/nonfiction reading habits are extremely gendered, with 80% of women making up the fiction market, and nonfiction being a more 50-50 proposition.
and
Proportionally we are gaining many more women as readers and losing our few men.
Yeah I think this is pretty easy to explain: YouTube (sure, there’s terrible terrible channels out there, but also great ones and a fair many fine-to-good ones), Nebula/Curiosity Stream, podcasts, substacks (lol), LLMs, Anna’s Archive/LibGen, and even the Internet Archive. It's not 1994, if you want to learn, you don't need a book to do it.
It's not some grand conspiracy, people are going to gravitate to what is more efficient/convenient lol
Most people give away attention tidbits for free via social media: TikToks, YouTube shorts, posts on Reddit.
That means attention can be sated by microdosing on free attention morsels rather than paying for something long-form that requires investment.
People drowning in free attention and dopamine might not have a need to pay for a premium attention sink.
This is happening at an enormous scale. An evening book or prestige movie might be supplemented by doom scrolling sloppy content and memes. Instead of authors being paid for supplying entertainment, ads are being watched.
The companies that empower this are worth trillions.
Absolutely crazy and useless article IMO in that they never mention AI.
They cite readers being interested in learning - well what's the best way to do so nowadays? Ask ChatGPT.
Even worse, you can ask ChatGPT to describe the learnings of any reasonably popular nonfiction book directly. No it's not a perfect substitute, nor will the learnings be as memorable, but it's reasonably good enough. That's why I haven't bought a nonfiction book in a long time.
For the last couple of years I’ve only read non fiction. For me reading about real life events is far more entertaining and also a great learning experience that I can’t get from a fiction book.
I'm in the same boat as you, having only read non-fiction the past few years. It appears quite ironic that the entertainment occurring in the real life events is surpassing the entertainment I hear one usually derives from fiction.
Opposite here. I almost exclusively read fiction now. I learn enough outside reading and use books exclusively as a form of entertainment.
I read both both my fiction is almost exclusively Japanese and my non-fiction Western/Europe science/history-adjacent
I think there is something deeply wrong with the state of contemporary fiction.
I was on Spotify the other day checking out the fantasy audiobook offerings and the only item that wasn't absolutely repulsive was Jim dale reading Harry Potter. Everything else comes off like cheap asset flips on steam or thinly veiled rants that you'd find on obscure subreddits.
See, because of the learning experience I steer away from non-fiction books. I am deeply afraid of the narrative red string applied to reality - connecting a tiny subset of the observable data points to a simplified interpretation/explanation of the whole. If I want to learn, I look at raw data, reports, white papers, etc.. Because authors always have some bias or other, especially when they decide to write a book-length document. (Except, of course, a data catalog of sorts, like a lexicon or other exhaustive enumeration - those are usually a good starting point) I have enough of my own biases, and rather get a diverse set of inputs on a topic. Fiction though? Sure, let's suspend our disbelief and have some fun.
Edit: to clarify: this is not me accusing authors of non-fiction books to always have some evil agenda to push. One human only has limited capacity and things will always fall through the cracks. Do your own research with the constraints you actually care about, if you can.
Yes, everything outside of personal experience is somewhat fictional - one probably wouldn't agree with the biases, assumptions or assessments of any author/content creator.
I started reading and at about the half-way point, I decided to search for "AI", "LLM", "generative", which all came up blank. At that point I closed the tab and headed back here. #1 reason I would be very skeptical of purchasing a book published in 2026 is AI. Unfortunately, you need to overcome a pretty big hump in convincing me that there was no AI involved in authoring.
I think if you read a little bit further in the article you would find that this attitude is exactly why the author believes there is a collapse in non-fiction book.
> The collapse of nonfiction is [...] a massive breakdown in the social fabric of trusting education, expertise, or any authority
People don't want to read non-fiction because they don't trust the people writing it.
I don't necessarily mind reading AI generated content. But the bar you need to clear is: why would I read (or watch or play) what you generate with AI compared to me just directly asking the AI?
To be clear: this isn't meant as a rhetorical question. There are AI generated works I'm happy to consume. It's meant as a real bar that you can clear. But it's also non-trivial, and the goalposts are moving as AI becomes better and easier to use.
This is the bar with other works as well. If you would hire it buy anything that’s just a mindless AI dump, why not use your $5/mo GPT sub?
Especially with the current rate of progress, you asking ChatGPT today probably means you'll get a way better answer than whatever the author got using a model from last year.
There is a lot of curation and editing that go into AI generated content. Like if you just use an AI to write from a prompt, you’ll just get slop (vibe writing), but if you plan it, review the bullet points, delete and add points that make the narrative stronger, have it sketch some writing out after you are happy with what it is covering, then rewrite that because LLMs have absolutely no sense for word rhythm.
I agree with you in principle, but I think this ignores the reality. Many nonfiction categories are overrun by self-published AI slop generated at an industrial scale by hustlers in low-CoL countries, never as much as proofread by a human. So yes, in theory, good AI-assisted books may exist. But in practice, they're more or less guaranteed to be drowned out because they take much longer to produce (and are written only if the author has something to say).
I'm not sure the low cost of living of the guy who kicks off the AI generation still makes much of a difference?
This might have been more important when the human still had to invest quite a few hours.
In any case, why do we care about the cost of living of the author? Notionally, my adopted home of Singapore is one of the highest C countries on earth, but I'm not sure that makes me nor my AI slop any better? Especially I don't think my output is any better than before I moved to Singapore.
Yeah, frankly, this doesn't make sense to me. Has the author checked any nonfiction categories on Amazon recently? In many categories, 80-90% of all new releases are obvious AI slop. And even for non-self-published releases, about 20-30% previews get flagged as AI by Pangram, compared to roughly 0% pre-2023.
I don't buy (new) nonfiction because it now feels like playing Minesweeper.
Likewise. I'm only interested in books that were either published before 2024, or are by authors I respect (e.g. Patterson & Hennessy), or by respectable academic publishers (e.g. Cambridge University Press). I used not to be so picky.
It also presents a bit of chicken & egg for new authors: nobody knows them, and now few will risk it, so they stay unknown. They must pursue other avenues to gain traction; far more than was needed a few years ago.
The deluge of AI books on Amazon has really been quite amazing. Between them and the higher risk of poorly-printed books, I don't buy from Amazon anymore. Now it's always direct from publishers.
One thing I've learned listening to Monocle podcasts is that non-fiction writers have to hustle a lot to be successful. Many of their regular guests are non-fiction writers and they are constantly talking about what conference they just came back from, what workshops they've been running, etc. And part of this hustling is appearing in Monocle podcasts and news programs.
Fiction writers also have to hustle a lot to be successful. The average full time writer in the UK would've made more at McDonalds in the UK, and I doubt it's much better elsewhere.
It's both an extremely competitive field, and it's incredibly hard to convince people to read your book even for those near the top of their field in terms of quality.
But non-fiction writers have an additional problem, that I think the article glosses over:
If I like, say, romance novels, I'm not looking for new books to be dramatically different to what I read before. A lot of genre readers - the by far largest genres are romance and thrillers - expect books that stick closely to expected conventions. Romance readers will form a mob with pitchforks if there isn't a happily ever after, for example.
Non-fiction, on the other hand, must set itself apart. Why should I read your How to Win Friends and Influence People look-alike when I can read Dale Carnegie's original?
It needs to be very different or clearly better and I have to find it in between the many hundreds of thousands (not an exaggeration; might even under-estimate the number at this point) of new non-fiction titles every year, where fiction titles are not:
You don't need 50 books on meditation, or 50 books on repairing your washing machine, but you might have 50 books in the same narrow sub-genre of fiction because it's what you like to read, and so the opportunity cost of picking up an unknown name feels very different.
A whole lot of the non-fiction market is also being cannibalised by blogs, tiktok, youtube videos and the like - and LLMs -, whereas a video is more likely to tease the fiction book rather than replace the need for it.
Also when I think of better end of non-fiction. How many books on certain topic I need? Say ornithology or on birds... Maybe a few at best. Unless I am collector or interested in that specific niche. Which already massively cuts down audience. Take history. Huge overall. But if you only go for specific events, periods or areas(town for example) it might cut down audience significantly.
So I think it is fair to say for fiction that some niches could be lot smaller say than generic fantasy, romance and such. And also I can read lot more fantasy books if I get around to it... Some of them are bloody enormous series too.
If non-fiction book market = self help, business help, advice. Good riddance?
I might be wrong but I feel like most of that stuff is the same as YouTube, TikTok. Random person with no qualifications realizes they can maybe make some money by writing about their own random opinions on how things are with no actual data, just feels.
Someone else mentioned history but AFAICT, at least in the YouTube realm, lots of "history" channels are people with alternative hot take ideas about history portrayed as history experts, because it's what gets views. I'm only guessing that same basic fact, controversial ideas get sales, means similar things happen with books. Especially with it being easier than ever to publish.
> Someone else mentioned history but AFAICT, at least in the YouTube realm, lots of "history" channels are people with alternative hot take ideas about history portrayed as history experts, because it's what gets views.
Even worse, it’s shallowly regurgitated ideas of other people’s prior works, with music and visuals and all.
Recently, on my formerly favourite new history channel [0], I noticed editing quirks (that would have never passed the bar if a human read it) and overly consistent vocalization… it's jumped the shark :(
[0] Fall of Civilisations https://youtube.com/@FallofCivilizations
> overly consistent vocalization
Is this...really an issue? I can't really blame people for automating their own voice.
I doubt it. Trash is collapsing.