Why You Shouldn't Assume That People Who Reads Exclusively History, Classics, or Nonfiction Are Snobs

For clarification: under the umbrella genre of "history," I am including the sub-genres of historical nonfiction and historical fiction.

Here's the long and short of why history is my preferred genre for reading: I love history, and I'm a history major.

There is always that small percentage of people that gives me a stink eye when I say I enjoy the history genre. I seemingly always need to explain to them that, "No, I'm not a genre snob. I just like reading within my genre of choice." I want to say that you will never see nor hear me bringing down another literary genre just because it's not my taste.

We all, as individuals, have our own unique tastes when it comes to what we do and don't read. This is something I respect.

I do understand why people who read only nonfiction, classics, or history came to be seen as snobs. Most of the time, they were bringing down other genres for not being as "sophisticated" (whatever that means).

In today's literary climate, I don't think it's fair to think people are snobs when they only read nonfiction, classics, or history. Most of the people I've encountered who read exclusively in these 3 particular genres are not snobs in any way, shape, or form. Granted, some of them are snobs, but it isn't fair to generalize an entire group of readers by just a small percentage of that group.

Here's my request for those of you who don't read history or historical nonfiction books. If someone tells you that history is their preferred genre, don't just assume that they're snobs. Instead, ask them why it's their preferred genre.

It is okay to have genres you don't like or simply don't want to read. All bookworms have one to two genres that they aren't interested in. Just don't judge someone else if they like a genre or two that you don't.