Ludicrousness of the Writing Collective Entity known as "Patterson" defending literature aside; the "quality will suffer" argument just doesn't wash with me. It implies that "quality literature" can ONLY come about through traditional, status quo methods. It also implies that readers who are accustomed to a certain level of "quality" are going to suddenly be OK with crappy substitutes. I don't see the reading public at large suddenly embracing crap whole-heartedly. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the idea that the reading public already embraces crap. In which case, if "quality literature" has managed to eke out an existence despite the best-selling, popularity-contest game thus far, then why couldn't it continue to do so?
No, I'm guessing that the real reason behind all the big-name author barking is money, rather than quality. Not the money from their fans--they'll always be able to count on that. But rather the money that comes from the millions who automatically purchase whatever was currently scheduled for the full BPH campaign blitz this month (whether they read them or not).
Quote:
|
An Aside: if I'm being truthful, I'd rather see that sort of thing disappear from the game entirely. As the game's currently being played, debut authors can generate millions of sales (and millions of dollars for publishers) long before any kind of public consensus concerning the quality of the work can be ascertained by the common reader. By the time the blitz is over and readers have spoken with a resounding; "meh," fortunes have been made (since the financial success of the venture was never left to chance).
|
The wrench in the whole works is that the BPH's so rarely hype the "quality" literature that everyone seems to be so concerned about losing (should tradpub fade), in the first place. They hype what they're fairly certain that they can get people to
buy, not what they think will enrich people's lives and encourage enlightenment.