Ebook sales are being driven by downmarket genre fiction

[howyoudoin]

I'd rather read another "trashy crime novel" instead of another popular and socially acceptable, but slow paced and in certain instances, mind-numbingly detailed "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" as I sit at the cafe sipping on a coffee, turning the pages on the kindle app on my white Apple iBook 600 with a 25-gig hard drive and 420 megs of RAM, manufactured in January 2002 and equipped with a 14-inch screen, which, at the time I bought it, it was Apple's state-of-the-art laptop.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I can't talk about majority because I didn't read enough of them for that, but they are not directly about religion.

Me neither; my observation's based on the listings at Amazon and the couple I've read because my mother found them amusing. I found them illuminating, but not in a religious sense.
(Actually, I *know* people like the characters in those books. But no mobster parrots.)

Mom's an omnivorous reader like me but with *lots* of free time so when I run into highly-recomended freebies I zap'em to her Kindle and wait for feedback.
She directed me to Eric Flint's highly enjoyable 163x series, for example.
She's also a fan of the Baroness Orczy, Grisham, Weber, Cartland, Steele, Bujold, Goodkind, etc.
Recommendations run both ways in our family.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

And I'm just referring to some mainstream fantasy and sci-fi here (Mercedes Lackey and Isaac Asimov), not more really mind-bending / "literary" stuff like Gene Wolfe, for example.

And then there's the "lyrical" wordsmiths like Sturgeon, Bradbury, or Ellison where form matters as much as function.
Or guys like Dick and Vonnegut who defy easy classification.
Lots of fun to be found among authors willing to, literally, go where none have tread before. And do it well.

SF has enough variation within its borders for a dozen mainstream genres and more.
And, of course, Fantasy has no borders.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by frahse

I repeat:
"But why scorn someone who is interested in reading or writing that genre?"

It is easy to fall into that trap of "arrogant conceit at best, delusion at worst" even as a critic or naysayer.

Why not hope for the best?

Sure, but actions bring reactions and we're reacting to an article that labelled popular genres as "downmarket" and scorned them in favor of "future classics". A bit of scorn as a reaction is not out of line, so long as we don't bring out the torches and pitchforks, is it?

(Some of us have been know to crack the odd Nobel or Pulitzer winner from time to time.)

We're not out to lynch anybody here, just roast'em a bit.

Fair enough?

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by taosaur

making no sweeping statements about "genre" and referring to only one small corner of speculative fiction. Nor was I using "formulaic" pejoratively, but only proposing that those who read a great deal of highly formulaic work do so for different reasons than readers of, say, science fiction or absurdist metafiction.

I don't see what you said about "formulaic genre fiction" wouldn't apply to non-genre fiction.

You cite a distinction without a difference. One, police procedurals and crime fiction are genres. Two, plenty of fantasy plugs-n-plays Tolkien's elves, dwarves, wizards and warriors, often derived third-hand from D&D. The same can be said for Heinlein's Starship Troopers in sci-fi.

I didn't say anything about police procedurals. Only that the standard fiction does not need to fill in these gaps - I find it less original because it leans on so many of the constructs of society. Like a police officer. Substitute "office professional" or "fireman"...or "Toyota" or "city hall" or "Pepsi" for concepts and creations that you don't have to create or describe.

All I'm saying is that standard fiction relies much more heavily on plug-in roles and constructs of society, more so than the sci-fi and fanstasy genres, and I find it less creative and more formulaic as a side effect.

I don't read a lot of mainstream fiction - but for movies, I'll tell you - formulaic is how I would describe a lot of action movies from Hollywood, for example. Having robots, elves, detectives, vampires, etc... doesn't have anything to do with how formulaic something is. I don't understand the correlation at all.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

There's nothing "downmarket" about genre. My car is "downmarket", it is not an expensive car. A BMW or a Mercedes is upmarket, my car, a Toyota Yaris, is downmarket. But literary books do not cost more than the much-derided genre books.

Of course it cost more in term of required concentration and effort to read the book.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

I loved Smart Bitches, Trashy Books' response to this article:

Thanks for the link-n-quote.
Those ladies don't take kindly to muddy thinking, do they.
Fun read.

[toomanybooks]

Nope.
But those who proclaim to the world that that is the *only* thing they read? The only thing worth reading?
Well, now...

Why is it okay to only read romance novels or only read scifi, but not to only read literary fiction?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tompe

Of course it cost more in term of required concentration and effort to read the book.

If you're talking about James Joyce: No kidding!
Still not sure if I actually read the thing through.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by toomanybooks

Why is it okay to only read romance novels or only read scifi, but not to only read literary fiction?

Read again: it's not the reading but rather the proclaiming part.
As in "other genres are beneath me".

That would not be okay in some circles.
Some folks might get their feelings hurt.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by toomanybooks

Nope.
But those who proclaim to the world that that is the *only* thing they read? The only thing worth reading?
Well, now...

Why is it okay to only read romance novels or only read scifi, but not to only read literary fiction?

The end:

Articles like this one infuriate me because they are saying someone should feel bad for loving romance, that readers should feel ashamed that they enjoy books that this writer thinks are dross.

No. No, you should not. Read what you like, then read more of it, and go on with your badass self.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by toomanybooks

Nope.
But those who proclaim to the world that that is the *only* thing they read? The only thing worth reading?
Well, now...

Why is it okay to only read romance novels or only read scifi, but not to only read literary fiction?

Who ever said that it was? People can read whatever they want. People who read the much-maligned "genre" book seldom mock people for reading the so-called "literary" books. But there are a number of people (I know, not true of everyone) who routinely spit in the face of those who like genre books.

MrsJospeh's post about people being made to feel embarrassed about the books they enjoy, not because they aren't good, but because they are tired of being spat in the face for enjoying them makes an excellent point.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

I don't see what you said about "formulaic genre fiction" wouldn't apply to non-genre fiction.

What I said wouldn't apply to non-genre work because I was referring to the most formulaic products of specific genres, and any work that formulaic would be genre* by definition.

*generic is the proper term, but loaded with negative associations

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

All I'm saying is that standard fiction relies much more heavily on plug-in roles and constructs of society, more so than the sci-fi and fanstasy genres, and I find it less creative and more formulaic as a side effect.

...reality is formula? No, no--depiction of reality is more formulaic than using character, plot and setting templates derived from past works in a genre? That point is self-refuting.

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

I don't read a lot of mainstream fiction - but for movies, I'll tell you - formulaic is how I would describe a lot of action movies from Hollywood, for example. Having robots, elves, detectives, vampires, etc... doesn't have anything to do with how formulaic something is. I don't understand the correlation at all.

Again, action-thrillers are a genre, and yes, quite a formulaic one, though not on the order of mystery or romance novels, or "Wizard takes young hero on a journey in the company of elves and dwarves" fantasy.

And yes, using templates from past works ("robots, elves, detectives, vampires, etc) is the definition of formula. The mere presence of an established type, be it "elven archer" or "policeman," is only one piece of the puzzle, but if the plot and character arcs also unfold according to established templates, then yes, you have a quite formulaic work on your hands.

[QuantumIguana]

There is plenty of formula in reality, or at least the continual reappearance of themes.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

I'd rather read another "trashy crime novel" instead of another popular and socially acceptable, but slow paced and in certain instances, mind-numbingly detailed "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" as I sit at the cafe sipping on a coffee, turning the pages on the kindle app on my white Apple iBook 600 with a 25-gig hard drive and 420 megs of RAM, manufactured in January 2002 and equipped with a 14-inch screen, which, at the time I bought it, it was Apple's state-of-the-art laptop.

This. I get in various moods for reading. I like many different types of novels and non fiction, but I admit, I get kind of blushy and stuff when admitting to reaching for certain novels that are not in the 'leet discussion group.

I get in different reading moods. Sometimes I want to tackle the Canada Reads or Prizewinners, other times a bit of Chick Lit where girl starts off engaged to guy obviously all wrong for her, then meets the guy of her dreams 2 hours before the wedding.... Stuff that is so goofy to imagine and fun to read.

And yeah, I admit that the percentage of the latter outweighs the former. My husband and I read together for bedtime "dates", and we're currently reading together "The Drums of Autumn".