Ebook sales are being driven by downmarket genre fiction

[arkietech]

Here is my list of future classics:

Lord of the Rings; Tolkien
The Harry Potter series; JKK Rowling
all his books; John Grisham

Why these and not others? I don't know.

[DrNefario]

I like to read outside my favoured genres pretty regularly. I probably read about 80% SF & F, but the other 20% is still more than most people read altogether.

I am happy to read a good book in any genre. I am happy to read a bad book in my genres.

[Sydney's Mom]

I didn't agree with the judgements of the author. Instead of bemoaning the dumbing down of the reading public, how about comparing it to the majority of the public, who haven't read a book since high school?

The main reason these self-published works are doing so well is simple economics. If I don't like what I read (and I probably only like 50% of it, and never reread anything), I would rather have spent $2 than $14.99.

I read the new Stephen King book in a weekend. If I am going to consume books that fast, they are more like junk food, and junk food is popular because it is cheap! I can knit with $3 of yarn for an entire day. But it would cost a lot more than $3 to buy the number of best sellers I might read. Given the availability of streaming movies, I have changed behavior from primarily being a reader who knits to a knitter who reads. (But I have to stop late night knitting - I screwed up an entire sweater last night at 1 am. Cutting the bad part out with a sissor seemed to make sense).

[stonetools]

This article unfortunately contains no news, since a look at the NYT ebook bestseller list would have shown what the article says: namely the that the tastes of ebook buyers do not vary significantly from the tastes of the pbook buying general public. Unfortunately, the columnist uses this unoriginal observation to then sneer at the low tastes of the hoi polloi instead of thinking through the implications of this fact.

IMO, the implications are as follows:
1. The tastes of the ebook buying public will not be driving innovation, either literary or technological , in the ebook industry. If anything its the contrary: innovation is occurring in the ebook industry IN SPITE of the literary tastes of the ebook buying public, who simply want the same old same old in digital form (but cheaper).

2. The idea that eboooks would dethrone the publishing industry's focus on the bestseller has been refuted by events. The ebook buying public craves bestsellers just as much as the pbook buying public, with only change being that ebook buyers feel that they are entitled to pay non bestseller prices.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I'm kind of skeptical of some of these. AFAICT, Asimov, Heinlein, and Clarke are already not nearly as popular as they were when I started reading SF in the 70's. Bradbury might still be read, though - we read Fahrenheit 451 in school. I can see Vonnegut, too.

I think we should keep in mind that even the most popular books tend to be read less after the author has died than while he is still alive. Think about it, when an author is alive, they can get books on the best seller list, which likely gets some readers who never picked up a work of that author to give it a go... if they like it, then they will be more likely to pick up works from the author's back list.

Once the author is dead, there is generally far fewer sales, but the classics tend to keep selling at a slow but steady rate (not counting sales to college lit classes ).

That being said, I think a lot of science fiction (and I am a fan of it) does not necessarily age very well. Only 70 years after the Foundation Stories, set tens of thousands of years into the future, and we have computers that make much of the wonders that Asimov wrote about look positively pedestrian.

I imagine that some of the stories will find a place similar to what the stories of H.G. Wells or Jules Verne have... but they probably won't attract the main stream S.F. reader like they did when the authors were still alive.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by taosaur

People who hang a significant chunk of their identity on being genre readers are predisposed to read any non-glowing mention of genre as pejorative, and judging by the frequency of these threads they spend a significant amount of time seeking out such mentions.

Or perhaps, it is an indication of how often articles attacking genre fiction get posted on the internet. Lord knows the one that got this thread started has been circulated widely enough.

--
Bill

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

I don't think anyone reads Barbara Cartland any more, and I'm not sure she's even still in print. And it's sacrilege to put her name next to Georgette Heyer, whom Cartland gleefully ripped off. You could put Nora Roberts' name in the list though.

Barbara Cartland ebooks at Amazon are generally $3.80-$5.00 each. I'm sure they sell as well or better as any other backlist romance books.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

SNIP

I was at a random website (to me) reading a random article pointed out to me by a random person....

...and there you were! Small world.

[BeccaPrice]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Hmmm... a quick search on amazon.co.uk came up with nearly three and a half thousand hits with many of the recent ones being kindle editions (2011 release) so I guess someone, somewhere still reads her...

I'm a romance fan, but even I draw the line at Barbara Cartland. fully half the text of her books are ellipsis - that is, her heroines can't talk a complete sentence.

And she gleefully stole plots and sometimes everything except the names from Georgette Heyer.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I was at a random website (to me) reading a random article pointed out to me by a random person....

...and there you were! Small world.

Reason #452 why I'm not on G+: I *have* an online identity. It's consistent, and I have more than 10 years' history with it. I don't need to confuse people by sometimes using my legal name for my online activities.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Or perhaps, it is an indication of how often articles attacking genre fiction get posted on the internet. Lord knows the one that got this thread started has been circulated widely enough.

--
Bill

And it has generated some interesting commentary.
Like the Smart/Trashy Ladies article linked above or the comments at Teleread:
http://www.teleread.com/chris-meadow...round/#comment

Some of the side issues are fun to follow up.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I imagine that some of the stories will find a place similar to what the stories of H.G. Wells or Jules Verne have... but they probably won't attract the main stream S.F. reader like they did when the authors were still alive.

--
Bill

Mainstream SF readers? Maybe not.
But HARDCORE SF readers who are interested in the history and evolution of the genre? There's more of us than most people would realize.

Also, don't underestimate the appeal of even "dated" SF. Especially now that alternate histories are a sub-genre of their own.

And there's no telling what the future will bring in terms of genres and sub-genres. After all, by current standards one could conceivably (retroactively) label Verne as Steampunk.

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

unless you consider someone like cormac mccarthy literary fiction, you will never find it in my home.

Mccarthy did win the Pullitzer prize. There is also this from his wikipedia entry

Blood Meridian (1985) was among Time magazine's list of 100 best English-language books published between 1923 and 2005[2] and placed joint runner-up in a poll taken in 2006 by The New York Times of the best American fiction published in the last 25 years.[3] Literary critic Harold Bloom named him as one of the four major American novelists of his time, alongside Don DeLillo, Thomas Pynchon and Philip Roth,[4] and called Blood Meridian "the greatest single book since Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying".[5] In 2010 The Times ranked The Road first on its list of the 100 best fiction and non-fiction books of the past 10 years. He is frequently compared by modern reviewers to William Faulkner. McCarthy has been increasingly mentioned as a candidate for the Nobel Prize in Literature.[6]

Continuing on...

Originally Posted by fjtorres

One of the traditional put-downs of Edgar Rice Burroughs is that he wrote in the vernacular of the times.

Mark Twain wrote in the vernacular and he was one of the most celebrated writers of his time and our time.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Really? He wrote popular adventure fiction set in his times and had characters talk like the common people of the times? How dare he!
Never mind that he invented half the narrative conventions of modern action and adventure stories, both print and in video.

Really? I thought it was H. Rider Haggard and Robert Louis Stevenson that established most of the narrative conventions for adventure stories.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Dickens was considered lowbrow in his time, it is only in retrospect that he is considered "literary". The highbrow stuff of his day is forgotten.

Dickens was not considered lowbrow. He published in literary journals, reviewed by prominent literary critics, and read by the upper middle class.

Additionally, Dickens (and most of the other canonical writers people say were genre writers) used their fiction primarily for social criticism. Dickens was one of the most fierce social critics of his day, and we still use the term "Dickensian" to describe poor economic or social conditions.

I don't think the same could be said about most so-called genre writers (except scifi). For the vast majority of these writers, the goal is pure escapism, pure entertainment, which is usually the desire of their readers. This line you see repeatedly in these kinds of threads

"If I wanted something that makes me think, I would read a nonfiction book/essay..."

There is nothing wrong with this, nor does this intent make these books inferior. But it does mean that comparisons between Dickens and modern "genre" writers are facile.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

History is too often seen as nothing but dry facts and dates. History is too often seen as inevitable, that it couldn't possibly have happened any other way. You can understand history better if you have some idea of what History could have been like if something had gone differently.

Well, a start to having some idea of history is to actually read history. Except for the crappy textbooks you probably had to read in primary school, history is not about dry facts and dates, nor is it depicted (by everyone) as inevitable. Many historians employ counterfactuals in their narratives and believe history is contingent, not deterministic.

Originally Posted by xg4bx

here are my suggestions to those with the sci-fi, fantasy, horror genres are crap opinion-

http://www.amazon.com/Dune-40th-Anni...8599635&sr=1-1


http://www.amazon.com/Game-Thrones-S...8599659&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-ebook...8600281&sr=1-1

The Road won the pullitzer prize. Additionally, I've had many sci-fi novels assigned in my lit classes, such as The Road, the Dispossessed, and Snow Crash. Maybe there are some literary critics that dismiss scifi outright, but in general writers such as Vonnegut, Bradbury, Mccarthy, Herbert, and Le Guinn are highly respected.

Originally Posted by xg4bx

for sake of argument, whats wrong with "life-filling" junk? whether you read about zombie pandas, enjoy studying history or read novels about the deep personal interplay between an older married couple it all amounts to nothing when you're 6 feet under and worms are eating your eyes. why not enjoy your limited time with whatever you may be into?

sorry to be such a fatalist but we're all equal in the end. "important" books aren't going to help you live longer or be a better person. *shrug*

For the most part I agree with your last assessment, but I'd be careful with the "in the end it doesn't matter because we all die anyways" rationalization. With that sentiment, you could easily justify rapists and child molesters.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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?

Both were fairly acclaimed in their time, as were most of the nineteenth century writers that we still read today.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Jane Austen wrote romance novels. They fit solidly in the genre. If some people want to say that somehow they don't count as romance novels, fine, but it changes nothing.

Actually, Jane Austen's novels did not fit firmly into any genre, because there was no Romance Genre in her time. She pretty much created the genre (well, the precursor was Richardson).

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I wonder if there even will be future classics. Don't today's English professors tend to teach, say, Dickens, as an exemplar of a time and place rather than as someone who gives us superior insight into human nature?

In order to have classics, you have to believe that human nature is real and permanent. Trollope's novels are all about the differing nature of men and women. If you think sex differences are all socially constructed, there is nothing timeless in the books and they can't be classics.

That would only be true if you believe that society is in no way similar to society in the nineteenth century. And though they are very different, there are remarkable and persistent continuities between societies over time.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Dickens and Doyle weren't contemporaries. But at the time Dickens wrote, all novels were "downmarket." There were no highbrow novels at all. The more intellectually inclined read poetry, or read the classics (the actual Greek or Latin classics).

That started to become less true in the mid-19th century. In Russia, France, and England the novel was the primary vessel for the communication and exploration of ideas; in Russia especially the novel was the primary tool of the intelligentsia(mainly because they had to get their works past the censors).

Originally Posted by L.J. Sellers

I find it odd that literary types refer to genre fiction as "downmarket..."

This is the first time I've ever heard of the term.

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

I didn't agree with the judgements of the author. Instead of bemoaning the dumbing down of the reading public, how about comparing it to the majority of the public, who haven't read a book since high school?

The "reading public" could only be dumbed down if there was ever a golden age where the reading public was "smart." I guess that was true before the emergence of the middle class, when only aristocrats read, because anything they read was deemed "smart" by the arbiters of taste, the aristocrats.

Still, I find it funny when people who complain about snobbery then turn around and look down their nose at people who don't read. If the quality of any personal activity is entirely subjective, then what makes reading bestsellers in your spare time any more worthwhile an activity than watching popular tv shows and blockbuster movies in your spare time?

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by teh603

Anyone who wants to write a "future classic" needs to have their head examined. That's the kind of boring tripe that gets recycled endlessly though middle and high school English classes. I'd rather write someone's guilty pleasure or cult classic.

Does anyone think Dickens was trying to write a 'future classic'? Or Mark Twain? Or Harper Lee? No, they were not only trying to write the story they needed to tell, they were trying to write it in the most marketable manner possible.

Artists don't determine what is great art, everybody else does. All the artist does is cash the check (either from sales or unemployment insurance, or that loan from their brother-in-law, a check is a check)

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Mainstream SF readers? Maybe not.
But HARDCORE SF readers who are interested in the history and evolution of the genre? There's more of us than most people would realize.

Also, don't underestimate the appeal of even "dated" SF. Especially now that alternate histories are a sub-genre of their own.

And there's no telling what the future will bring in terms of genres and sub-genres. After all, by current standards one could conceivably (retroactively) label Verne as Steampunk.

dated technology? dates all wrong? its an alternate universe.

steampunk probably owes its entire existence to verne lol