Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer
Ah, I see. I seem to recall him saying something like that now that you mention it. It makes sense that some authors might be jealous of other bestselling authors. I was just trying to figure out how a reader who didn't care for the "like clockwork" output "churned out" by a lot of the perennial bestselling authors might be considered jealous of them.
|
Well, like with almost anything else, I'm sure there are readers who are jealous of an author's success when they imagine they could do it just as well because it looks so easy, requiring no more talent than churning butter.
That's what it sounds like when the negativity speaks to the prolific output, rather than the content of the output. Which is different than being jealous of their talent.
There are people who are jealous of artists because of how well they paint, and there are people jealous of Jackson Pollock's success because they think they could splatter paint just as easily.
But to your point:
Quote:
|
But mostly I was trying to comment on the common mistake that those who vocally oppose the notion that books (especially fiction read for entertainment) actually ARE fairly fungible tend to make: namely that they think it means settling for reading lesser quality books written by "generic" authors, or even that it (fungibility) means any genre could conceivably be interchanged with another.
|
I don't understand.
ApK