Twilight and Fifty Shades of Gray spoke to a lot of people. I've not read either. Just call me an old-fashioned girl, but reading Dracula and The Story of O in my early twenties pretty much satisfied my curiosity about erotic gore and sadomasochism.
i read the Twilight saga in middle school and was at the last book i think before it became this HUGE thing that every one was talking/whining about. it was written for that age range (teen/tween), so to keep bringing it up in this thread is a bit.... idk, annoying? I read a wide range of things at that age from horror, to romance, to literary, but it was the first time I'd read something like that and I enjoyed it. was it the best thing i'd ever read? no, but it was fun lol. So for that reason, i'm not ashamed to say I've read it and liked it have you read her adult books? The Host? The Chemist? (haven't read The Chemist, but I liked The Host. It did follow along the lines of Twilight, but with aliens, but it was interesting. widely frustrating and annoying, but still enjoyable and much better, in my opinion, than Twilight)
Nope, don't believe I have. Probably won't, not because I have any hard and fast moral or literary objections to the subject matter, but just because I'm not very interested in aliens, vampires, zombies, or parasitic beings right now.
There is a substantial irony here that Dunsany paid for the publication of Gods of Pegana taking a commission on sales (What we'd today call self publishing though the term didn't exist back then)... he got a publisher off the back of that 'self published' success So your oft repeated question of "does anyone self publish quality writing?" seems to have answered itself
Ooh! No that wasn't aimed at you Catriona Im not into any of those right now either. I have 36mins left on an audio about books bound with skin, and just picked up a book about a tourist town on the border between North and South Korea where a bored local befriends a French tourist (im on a non fiction and lit fic binge t the moment)
There are a lot of books that have made more money than I will ever make in my entire life out there that i have not read. I'm not interested in reading them. i'm reasonably certain the prose, plot, and characterization choices would disappoint me. But I don't run around bashing them to the skies and then protesting that it's just my opinion when people push back. I simply don't mention them at all, because for one, they're not really important enough to me to spend my time thinking about them, and two, it's a dick move to do that, and if i did that, people would probably think i was a boor. and i don't think that's a good look. and i'm not sure if anyone would think so, if they stopped to consider it. I don't read a lot of self-published books. I have limited time to read, and a lot of the time I have to read is spoken for by a stack of books from editors who would deeply appreciate it if I would read it and, if moved to do so, would offer a brief note of praise they can quote me on for book marketing. It's a caviar problem, but it means that I don't have a lot of time to browse and discover books on my own. And that makes me sad because it means I don't have a lot of time to read romance novels. A lot of romance novels are self-published, and my favorite romance author has published her own books independently for years. She's one of the best in the genre, period. So she writes fantastic stories, and she makes money by the flatbed. good deal.
But traditional publishers DO want to live in mansions on the back of vampire books. That's why they picked up the self-published Fifty Shades series. Yes, they want a few award winners to bolster the reputation, but generally they want the shit that sells. So the likelihood of a venerable masterpiece being published through Trad is probably lower than ever. Because they tend not to sell and publishers now take fewer risks.
Indeed - Self publishing, and more so non conventional means like blogs and social media are perfect for the 'true art' brigade... if you want to write a stream of consciousness with no punctuation and no discernible plot or characterisation because it 'explores the meaning of life beyond its every day paradigms'... pretty much you can forget a trad house ever touching it But you can absolutely drop it instagram or facebook or whatever and get a whole bunch of attention from similiarly minded people
There's a strand of arrogance running through this thread that is fairly common on the Internet from a small number of people, which is, I read "list some authors most folk don't care about or haven't heard of" and therefore anything that isn't this type of writing is garbage. I'm honestly not sure how many of these people genuinely love the works of these type of writers versus love to act superior because they say they like them. To be honest, a few years ago I probably had the same attitude in regards to people enjoying reality TV or using social media. But I've chilled out, realised that it doesn't really matter what most folk consume, and if something is enjoyed by a significant number of people, well, that is the all that really matters isn't it, both to the whoever produces it and in a more general, let folk live their lives philosophy. In the end, you might strongly believe something, but the majority of the planet doesn't care. We're all pretty insignificant so best to make peace with that and focus on whatever it is that brings you joy, regardless of whether that's popular or not.
I doubt that a lot of "classics" would ever get looked at if they showed up in an agent's slush pile today. Absolutely everything is a product of its time. "Timeless" as a concept is nonsense.
The Iliad (/ˈɪliəd/;[1] Ancient Greek: Ἰλιάς, Iliás, Attic Greek: [iː.li.ás]; sometimes referred to as the Song of Ilion or Song of Ilium) is an ancient Greek epic poem in dactylic hexameter, traditionally attributed to Homer. Usually considered to have been written down circa the 8th century BC, the Iliad is among the oldest extant works of Western literature, along with the Odyssey, another epic poem attributed to Homer which tells of Odysseus's experiences after the events of the Iliad.
The Secret Garden (1911) and A Little Princess (1905), both by Frances Hodgson Burnett. Anything Jane Austen ever wrote, from the early 19th century. All still in print and being made into movies as well. Shakespeare (yeah, people really do read Shakespeare). Aristophanes, Euripides, Sophocles: pick a play. I just reread Medea and Lysistrata this winter. The themes and popularity of all these works are unaffected by time, ergo: timeless.
It isn't that timelessness is nonsense, it's that publishing standards change. That's a business thing, not really based on taste. Many of the classics really are classics, even if today's timid publishing industry wouldn't touch them.
i think you've missed Cephus's point... sure theres really old works still in circulation now... we could also mention Shakespeare and Chaucer, however i think the point Cephus was getting at is that if you wrote the Illiad today there would not be a ready market for a novel told as an epic poem written in dactylic hexameter.
That's mainly due to the economics of publishing today, and the perceived risk and reward by the publishers. If the classic authors wanted to get published today, many would adapt to the preferences of today and still produce masterpieces. Some wouldn't, of course.
If that's what he meant, then I missed it, too, probably because that's not what he said, if ya follow what I'm sayin'.
I understand this, however what I was really speaking to there was the concept of timelessness in story itself. That's why I quoted only that specific part of his message. Cephus said the very concept of timelessness was nonsense, which is cleary a broad and generalised assertion. The Iliad is really about love and war of course. Plenty of other examples.
I kind of assumed that he meant in the context of the first two contentions, rather than that timelessness was a meaningless concept in all contexts
