Ebook sales are being driven by downmarket genre fiction

[JDK1962]

Just wanted to throw out there...some in this thread mention the New York Times bestseller list, like that's where all the snob books go to hang out.

The NYT bestseller list is statistics from booksellers. That's it. And you can tell that, because (especially recently) snobs wouldn't go near 90% of what's on the list: "bestselling author X's latest gripping 342nd entry of their series about stock character Y." Or, in non-fiction, the latest political/celebrity bio, or pundit screed.

The snobs hang out in the NYT Book Review, where they're looking at what's considered significant fiction/non-fiction, and their definition of significant is pretty broad.

While I enjoy my guilty pleasures, I'm definitely on the elitist side of the spectrum, and I think they happen to do a pretty good job of pointing out what's new and worth putting on hold at the library. But hey, what do I know?

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I don't see why people would have a problem with formulaic stories. Most TV shows are formulaic and there are plenty of people watching them. How many versions of CSI are there?

There are plenty of people not watching any of them, too It's more a matter of different people preferring different levels of formula vs. novelty (in genre theory you hear a lot about convention vs. invention). It's the readers who prefer very high levels of invention and those who prefer very high levels of convention who have the most trouble communicating.

Also, while I would propose that formula is at the crux of the OP article and the phenomenon it analyzes, we're seeing some people respond to "genre" as a reference to speculative fiction, as opposed to realist fiction, when in fact genres like romance and mystery belong to the latter category.

My hypothesis is that people who respond strongly to formula also tend to read a higher volume of material. In other words, a romance enthusiast is more likely to always be reading a romance, and to move through them quickly. A general reader is unlikely to match the pace of the romance (or mystery, or thriller) enthusiast, and even if they do, their impact on sales is not as focused. The performance of genres that include highly formulaic sub-genres is driven to a large degree by outlier enthusiasts.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

You don't think Marcel Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu will stand the test of time?

Main reason I'm skeptical of the lot of them (though I'm sure a few *will* stand the test of time) is the selection process and the participants in them. Their focus is generally too... establishment, too timebound...
They look for relevance and significance for *them*.
So those lists are more reflective of the moment than of the long term potential of the work itself. My gut feeling is that literary historians will be thrilled to read their way through those lists to study the literary climate of the times but the timeless mass appeal that defines actual classics is more likely to be found elsewhere, among books deemed offensive, crude, or trivial by the establishment.

I mean; which writers were lionized by the establishment when Dickens and Doyle were selling their serials in the popular magazines of the day? Or further back, what did the cultured people who decried Shakespeare and his ilk read?

If there is *one* 20th century work that is a surefire bet as a long-time popular read, it has to be Lord of the Rings. And the Nobel committee refused to even consider him in his day because his writing style didn't meet their standards. Doesn't speak well of them, I'm afraid.

The same is true of the genre writers; I'm pretty sure the likes of Cartland and Heyer, Asimov, Heinlein, Clarke, Vonnegut, Bradbury, Chandler, and yes, King will be read by more people in a hundred years than other more literarily acclaimed writers. Patterson and Clancy, Roberts, Steele, Meyer... I wouldn't be so sure but I wouldn't write them off either.

I'm thinking enduring popular appeal is bound to be a better predictor of future classics than establishment awards.

But I'll listen to alternative models that can explain Doyle, Verne, both Dumas, and Austen, as well as Shakepeare and Cervantes, Ibsen and Dostoyevski.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Looking down on people for reading genre fiction is, in my experience, uncommon. Looking down on people for not reading at all is much more prevalent.

You don't say a lot you read romance, do you?

[QuantumIguana]

There are books survive because people still read them. Others aren't read much, and survive only because people have to study them. Jane Austen is still widely read, and movie and TV adaptations never seem to stop coming.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

If there is *one* 20th century work that is a surefire bet as a long-time popular read, it has to be Lord of the Rings. And the Nobel committee refused to even consider him in his day because his writing style didn't meet their standards. Doesn't speak well of them, I'm afraid.

Not to be nitpicking but the Nobel committee (actually a trust for his will) doesn't pick out any of the laureates. The Academy of Science pick the science recipients and the Swedish Academy pick the literature recipient.

[QuantumIguana]

There's no committee that decides what is a great book. It's those pesky readers that do. People still read Treasure Island after 130 years. People still read Jane Austen 200 years later. People still read Robinson Crusoe 293 years later. People are going to be reading Lord Of the Rings for a very long time. And it won't be because someone had to force them to read it.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by taosaur

There are plenty of people not watching any of them, too It's more a matter of different people preferring different levels of formula vs. novelty (in genre theory you hear a lot about convention vs. invention). It's the readers who prefer very high levels of invention and those who prefer very high levels of convention who have the most trouble communicating.

Personally, I like to have both. What I don't understand is why would the two extremes sneer at each other, and to a lesser extent at those in the middle.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Personally, I like to have both. What I don't understand is why would the two extremes sneer at each other, and to a lesser extent at those in the middle.

It really is one sided, there basically is a constant tsunami of sneering at those who read the so-called genre books. Most people are content to let the readers of the so-called literary books read their books in peace, but will fire back.

[speakingtohe]

At one time I read romances with explicit sex and found them delightful. Now I am older and my hormones have been killed of by a thyroid condition so I can't be bothered. Can't say I envy those that enjoy them, but I would be one of if hormones still survived.

Still I have read books that I feel shouldn't have been written. I am not talking horror or romance or explicit sex of any persuasion. There are books written that the sole purpose seems to be taking pleasure in the degradation, exploitation, physical or mental torture of persons (sometimes animals).

I am not talking about thrillers where this is done by the 'bad guy' who may or may not be caught, but books where this is promoted as a valid,even desireable lifestyle choice.

Recently read part of one which I cannot completely get out of my head. Echhh !

Oh well

Helen

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

It really is one sided, there basically is a constant tsunami of sneering at those who read the so-called genre books. Most people are content to let the readers of the so-called literary books read their books in peace, but will fire back.

It really isn't. There's a "constant tsunami" of defensive whinging on the part of genre readers, but it is more often at the mere mention of the word "genre" than any actual criticism, much less "sneering." Meanwhile, one sees at least as many allegations of pretension slung at anyone whose reading is less easily categorized.

[sbroome]

Don't almost all books fit into a genre? Lol I'm always confused at that term.

[hidari]

Part of what it comes down to is why people like to read. Just as in flim or another form of entertainment, some like to just be entertained, while others prefer something more thought provoking or challenging to the mind. Granted you can get both at the same time, but often it is an either or situation. I prefer to read literature,history, philosophy, and science but I grew up reading sci/fi, mysteries, biographies, and classics.... so love to read genre fic from time to time. Seems to me that many people like to read a bit of everything... such as Zombie Pandas,G is for Gumshoe, The Tempest, Waiting for the Barbarians.....Why can't we all just READ along.......

[Chi Cygni]

Aaah. I was recently pondering on all this. I am currently plowing through a "whodunnit" book, plowing, while grinding teeth. I'm not far from discontinuing it which I do not like to do. What a waste of money. I prefer to read in my native tribal language, English is a second option. But many of the books I want to read are not available yet. I would love to read Kristin Lavransdottir by Sigrid Undset or Agony and Extasy by Irving Stone but it is only on paper. So for an easy escape I bought this mind numbing "gem" of crime genre. Many more of those in all flavours available everywhere but c'mon I want a decent book once in a while too! We are fed this, by whose design? Because they sell well? They sell well because there is not much else? I do not read romances except Jane Austen once in a blue moon.
whinge whinge...

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by taosaur

It really isn't. There's a "constant tsunami" of defensive whinging on the part of genre readers, but it is more often at the mere mention of the word "genre" than any actual criticism, much less "sneering." Meanwhile, one sees at least as many allegations of pretension slung at anyone whose reading is less easily categorized.

I have never seen anyone whinging at the mention of the word genre. I've only seen people getting defensive when the word genre has been used as a pejorative. I haven't seen allegations of pretension based on what someone reads, but on their attitudes toward those who read genre.