I've not dug into this too deep (work commitments) but I think it's worthy of discussion. So just putting it out there (here). https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/20/hard-books-literary-experimentaion-popularity-shrinking-market?CMP=share_btn_tw
This was the paragraph that jumped out at me: "As the introduction of photography affected the role of painting, or as film altered the place of novels in the 20th century, new narrative forms are inevitably affecting the place and purpose of the novel. As the basic need for storytelling is catered for to a large extent by TV dramas, it MAY be that readers turn to the novel for something else, something new." I'm not sure about the "may" part at the end. I mean, I can see a bit of a return to more literary fiction or something that differentiates itself from the "simpler" storytelling begot by the television attention span, but I'm not sure what that would look like. Personally, I would welcome it, whatever it is.
Yes, whenever I read 'may' in that kind of context my default setting is cynical. Also, I see some overlap with what's said as a proportion of those TV dramatisations mentioned, with their 'narrative form', are actually adaptations of novels, chosen specifically for their literary uniqueness. I'm thinking of American Gods of late as a case in point, how well it was written, how difficult it was to pin down its genre and its prophetic indictment. I'm heartened by the news in general though of the revitalised demand both by publishers and readers for works that break ground for being abstract with prose and their non-linear innovative plot/character devices. Given it's a real slog now to make a living as an author, there's solace to be had by those who don't usually get a sniff at being taken on—in that they 'may' witness a little more openness to new ideas.
Problem is it is hard to find anything modern (past 10-15yrs) that is worth reading. Not to mention those who just write book after book on the same thing over and over again, with out ever really changing things all that much. When you read some big pop book, and it is written so dully or simply, that it makes you want to bash your head on the desk repeatedly going: "Who thought this shit was good?" You have to take into account that people like the same familiar things within a genres, and don't like deviation from that familiarity. Which means in turn the readers are just as cliche as the drivel they read. Also the article does not take into account that it all has been done before, so what groundbreaking thing are they talking about? Photography does not compare to painting, a few seconds vs. hours/days/weeks of work. One takes pure chance, the other takes years to master. Anyone can take a bloody picture.
