Ebook sales are being driven by downmarket genre fiction

[Andrew H.]

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?

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).

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.

That's probably a good bet. (Although I don't really blame the Nobel committee - they like to reward people for a lifetime of work... and around the time Tolkien started getting attention, he died.)

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

This is probably true, although I don't know anyone who would claim the opposite. I can't think of any classic that wasn't popular in its day. But to be read in 100 years, you will also need some sort of timelessness to give people some sort of real connection with the otherwise dated work, and it's kind of hard to know how that will play out. [/QUOTE]

[L.J. Sellers]

I find it odd that literary types refer to genre fiction as "downmarket" when in fact it generates "upmarket" revenue. But I don't lose any sleep...or money...over it.

[promotion deleted - MODERATOR]

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I don't quite understand your point, but I will say that Anthony Trollope is one of my favorites.

Sorry, my bad, I didn't explain well myself. I wasn't asking if you read romance or not, that's not my point. What I was asking is: "Do you tell people you read romance?". Because, if you say it (not what you have said, but "I read romance novels"), in a lot of cases you receive some "witty comment", more that if you say you don't read (that's my experience).

[Sil_liS]

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.

When the other side fires back you can't say that it is one sided.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Insecurity.
Everybody wants their clique to be the cool kids.

Both sides read so both sides are cool.

[hidari]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Whatever. Be a snob if you want. Just don't be mad when you're called on it.

Calling someone a snob seems a bit strong...... seems like everyone in this thread has a "correct" opinion...

[LuvReadin]

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.

Sales of her books did drop off a lot in the last years of her life, but that was compared with the very high sales in their heyday in the 70s and 80s. Could never see the attraction of them myself (couldn't hack the breathy... sighing... of the... heroines, who always seemed to be very constrained by their corsets, or else must have had serious lung disorders!). They're still in print, though, and even available as ebooks!

[b0ned0me]

Originally Posted by taosaur

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.

Really? There's something MORE formulaic than e.g. Clive Cussler and his 20-some Dirk Pitt novels? How is that possible without resorting to assistance from something like http://www.theyfightcrime.org/ ?

[Blue Tyson]

Easy.

Law and Order tv show.

etc.

[QuantumIguana]

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.

I've never met these people who "hand a significant chink of their identity on being genre readers". And I can tell what is pejorative without your help.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

When the other side fires back you can't say that it is one sided.

Since when? If someone throws a punch at me, and I defend myself, the assault was one sided.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by hidari

Calling someone a snob seems a bit strong...... seems like everyone in this thread has a "correct" opinion...

I don't know...telling me that I'm whining when I say that I dislike being treated with and talked to with disdain because I don't enjoy "literary" novels is more than a bit snobbish to me.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

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 did say you have to *start* with long-term popularity.

What I listed are *possibilities* that 100 years from *now* might be classics.
Popularity ebbs and flows; Austen is red hot these recent decades but earlier in the 20th she wasn't quite that highly rated. Some of the appeal might dim in future times, but her status is probably safe for the next few decades at least.

The SF trio?
I see long-term potential for specific works of all three. Doesn't mean I expect to see entire semester courses of the works of any of the three--Shakespeare they aren't--but I can see works like CHILDHOOD'S END, THE MOON IS A HARSH MISTRESS, STARSHIP TROOPERS, NIGHTFALL, GREEN HILLS OF EARTH, NAKED SUN, THE END OF ETERNITY, THE GODS THEMSELVES, THE CITY AND THE STARS, etc, being read and pondered for quite a while. There's meat behind those stories, beyond their historical significance.

It'll be a long time before the works of the 20th find their proper place in the human legacy but any full discussion of the era has to include, if not *start* with the genres as the case can be made that what defines 20th century publishing *are* the genres. The rest is leftovers.

(There. That ought to stir up a few hearts.)

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Since when? If someone throws a punch at me, and I defend myself, the assault was one sided.

If you defend your self by punching back it's two sided.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

If you defend your self by punching back it's two sided.

That's not the law where I live...

[kacir]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Fiction genres are those book categories that generate enough revenue and visibility to be considered separate markets in their own right.
Whatever is left over after this pigeon-holing is considered general fiction until the "right critics" bless them; then they become literature.

Thank you for the explanation. I was baffled by those categories as well.
All I knew was that the higher the book is regarded by literary critics, the less chance I will like the book.

Your use of the word Literature evokes a quote from my favourite writer Sir Terry Pratchett - a genere writer that was knighted for his acomplishments ;-)

“In theory it was, around now, Literature. Susan hated Literature. She'd much prefer to read a good book.”