All That I Am I Attribute to My Dislike for Reading Books

Erskine Caldwell

“All that I am I attribute to my dislike for reading books.”. Source

Explore More About Erskine Caldwell

If you’re interested in learning more about Erskine Caldwell and their impact on history, here are some recommended resources:

As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

This statement is a paradox. It seems impossible for a writer to dislike the very medium they create. Yet, a celebrated American novelist uttered these exact words. The man behind this baffling confession was Erskine Caldwell, an author whose work defined a generation. His declaration challenges everything we assume about the relationship between reading and writing. It forces us to reconsider the sources of creative inspiration.

Caldwell was not an obscure writer. He penned landmark novels like “Tobacco Road” in 1932 and “God’s Little Acre” in 1933. These books cemented his place in the American literary canon. Consequently, his professed aversion to books makes his success even more remarkable. People naturally wondered how someone who disliked books could write them so powerfully.

. Erskine Caldwell Papers, 1906-1995

The Full Story Behind the Quote

The famous line first appeared in an autobiographical essay. Caldwell wrote this piece for the May 1933 issue of the “Wilson Bulletin for Librarians.” The context of the full quote reveals a more nuanced view. Caldwell did not hate all forms of reading. Instead, he simply preferred one format over another. Source

Here is his complete thought:. Erskine Caldwell Papers – Dartmouth College Library

“I have no literary preferences; and I do not know what ‘esthetic bias’ means. In other words, the only explanation I wish to make is that all that I am I attribute to my dislike for reading books. I’ll read anything and everything in print that I can get my hands on if the medium is a magazine; but I dislike books as I do steel-traps. Now, at the present time, I force myself to read no less than two, occasionally three, novels a year—thinking that perhaps I ought to: whatever that signifies.”

This longer version clarifies his position significantly. Caldwell devoured magazines but found books confining, even comparing them to “steel-traps.” He felt an obligation to read a few novels annually, yet his true literary diet consisted of periodicals. This preference suggests he drew inspiration from current events, short-form journalism, and popular culture rather than classic literature.

A Career of Contradictions

Caldwell’s output starkly contrasts with his reading habits. Over his lifetime, he published more than 50 books, including novels, short story collections, and non-fiction works. However, he claimed to read only two or three books per year. This incredible imbalance highlights his unique creative process. He was a prolific creator but a reluctant consumer of his own medium.

. Erskine Caldwell Papers – Rauner Special Collections Library

Indeed, this separation from the literary world may have helped him develop his distinct voice. By avoiding the influence of other novelists, he crafted a style that was uniquely his own. His work focused on the raw, unfiltered lives of people in the American South. Perhaps his preference for magazines gave him a more direct connection to the contemporary world he wrote about.

A Shared Literary Aversion

Interestingly, Caldwell was not entirely alone in his sentiment. The same publication that featured his essay also included a confession from Olive Moore, an English writer. Moore, the pseudonym for a novelist of that era, expressed a similar distaste for books. She declared a preference for factual information and real-world experiences over fiction.

Moore wrote, “I loathe books and never read them. Except informative books, giving me facts, any facts and all facts.” She explained that she preferred travel, walking, and observing people. Like Caldwell, she found inspiration outside the traditional literary world. This shows that a dislike for reading books was not an insurmountable barrier to a writing career for some early 20th-century authors.

The Quote’s Lasting Impact

Caldwell’s provocative statement quickly gained attention. In December 1933, both “The Washington Post” and “Newsweek” magazine highlighted the quote, associating it with the author of the bestselling novel “God’s Little Acre.” Its inclusion in these major publications helped spread the paradox to a wider audience. The quote was simply too intriguing to ignore.

Furthermore, the statement has continued to circulate for decades. Dale Warren included a condensed version in his 1935 collection, “What Is a Book?: Thoughts about Writing.” It also appeared in publications as late as 1981, showing its enduring power to fascinate scholars and readers alike. Source

Ultimately, Erskine Caldwell’s famous line serves as a powerful reminder. It tells us that creativity does not follow a set formula. While most writers are avid readers, Caldwell’s success proves it is not the only path. Inspiration can come from anywhere—even from a magazine stand instead of a library shelf.