Why does bad literature sell so good?

So your telling me that if a writer creates a story with a believable character (of any race) that most readers can relate to and an interesting plot with twists and turns that he executes in a brilliant way and not use any fancy words, wont sell that well?

Personally think the industry is more to blame than the readers, as the industry dictates what's gonna sell, and since its already hard to get published and they have all those rules they make, so why not up the standards in the first place?

 

What gets me is all the comments about "the masses". Good grief, are you folks actually listening to yourselves? Can't wait to see the latest offering of obviously classic literature you've all got on the hard drives - too bad so few people out there in Reader Land will be able to truly appreciate it.

 

Someone above spoke of shared experience, and this might explain a lot in an era where social networks are isolating us. A virtual café will never be a substitute for the one on the street corner with its particular smells, sights, sounds. The world we live in is increasingly one of sensorial deprivation -- what do wine taster descriptions mean to the urban generations who did not encounter the rural tastes and smells they describe? It is through the use of the five senses that we perceive the world and interact with it. And it is through the five senses that the imagination is developed, not through abstract concepts.

Likewise, we are overwhelmed by the abundance made accessible by modern technology that has a numbing effect. Television has become so familiar that would they show a program of artistic value, we might not even recognize it as art. It is there, free, can be turned off at any time. Familiarity breeds contempt.(You can't behave in the same way in a theater.) or think of the older days when we passed photos carefully around trying not to leave finger marks on it: I have seen no one paying that same attention/reverence to an iPhone being passed around. We grew up in an economic system that values scarcity, not availability -- read Galbraith's The Affluent Society. Another product of our economic ideology is wasteful production: isn't economic health an increase of production from the last quarter? That was true two hundred years ago and in under-developed countries today, but otherwise it means a waste of resources. And we care more about this than the environment we live in and sustains our physical life.

Or let's compare theater and cinema. On the movie screen, you do not need the cast of Henry V to tell you they are crossing the sea or that you should see a thousand soldiers where there is one. There is no need to imagine anything. And isn't it the use of imagination that makes the theater an experience unlike any at the cinema? Also, we must consider that absurdism, dada, alienation etc in art and theater might have caused more harm than good... When I read, I want both to be nourished and delighted. I would say entertained, but this word may have lost some of its original value: the roots of entertain mean "to hold together."

Entertain; to hold together. More often than not, while a classic ties me to the whole human race, I feel isolated from my immediate surroundings. Who wants to come sit and have a chat as I am reading the last chapter of Proust' In Remembrance of Things Past? Who has the time needed to fully engage in Tolstoi's War and Peace? These, along with Hugo's Les Miserables are my favorites of all times. Yet I also enjoy reading Bestsellers like James Rollins and Tom Clancey: I can tell when reading them that those guys are having fun and mean to share the fun. It's a different atmosphere from reading Anne Sexton and Sylvia Plath, whom I also like. Stephen King's 11.22.63 offered me fun time travel as if Stephen himself was walking next to me, smiling as he pointed to me the truth he had found there.

And this goes back to the senses, the imagination, and a sense of community. Literature demands awareness. All concepts that are of little if any value where education teaches our young ones to become greedier. And the teachers are by no means the ones that should take all the blame. How often have you taken your children to the theater or a walk in the woods and a picnic or a museum? And if you did, were you allowing them to experience it, or were you trying to be "educative"? I am a teacher and I am not the one who invites first-graders to bring in their latest iPhones for daily show and tell. The principal says "talk to the parents"....yeah, like I haven't tried...

 

Can you clarify this post? I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Are you saying that there's no way we can ever write decent literature, so we should just write crap so that large numbers of people in Reader Land will be able to appreciate it?

I hope you're not saying that, but it kind of looks like you are.

 

I think good and bad are highly subjective. When lots of people buy a book that doesnt say anything about it's quality. The reason so many "bad" books sell is that you just happen to have a different taste and opinion than a bunch of other people.

I really think it is that simple.

 

I believe that's an excuse for being lazy.

It's easier to sit on welfare, get fat and watch Oprah reruns. Working out hurts.

Being a slob isn't a lifestyle choice, it's an excuse. Reading good books hurts sometimes. Expanding ideas make you delve, make you try to see new points based on leaving your comfort zone.

Or you can just read comics and eat someone else's pizza rolls.

 

I was commenting on several posts which talked about "the masses" as if they were dim sheep who would buy crap simply because some publisher put it on the shelves, or as if they hadn't brains enough to buy 'good' books. Statements like those show a disrespect for readers and/or a higher opinion of one's own writing than may be justified.

There are many reasons why books are successful - I doubt very much that "dumb readers" is high on the list.

 

I agree. That sounds like Rush Limbaugh and is just as misguided. It takes brains, education and skill to produce high-quality "light" reading. To appeal to the average-minded you have to be above the average.

I loved Telegraph Avenie and The Old Man And The Sea as well as Harry Potter, Perseus Jackson, Demonata and -- how could I forget -- The Hitchiker's Guide. Somebody here says writing a bestseller has the same odds as winning a lottery. Well, I think, for every bestseller, there is a reason why it's a bestseller.

I could also mention the Russian novelist Maria Semenova and her Wolfhound fantasy series. I am not sure if she'd been translated, but she deserves it. It had all started with her interest in the history of ancient Slavs and Vikings. She is very knowledgeable. Otherwise, her work wouldn't be as convincing.

 

Probably beating a dead horse here, but oh well-

As much as we all are loathe to admit it, writing is a business. And you can make a lot more selling to a broader audience of average readers than you can selling to a niche market. But that's in terms of profit. There are tons of smaller publishers who take on less mainstream novels. You might not make as much, but you can still get your stuff out there.

Sounds like you have really specific tastes, which will make it much harder to find a good book. I'm not saying lower your standards or anything, but if you're that particular about what you read then you aren't making you prospects any larger. *shrug*

I personally dislike most of the 'classics' and 'literary fiction' that I've read, and I have an English degree. But I admit, I read to relax, not study.

 

Just out of interest, if you dislike most classics and literary fiction, why did you study English at university?

I asked my sister the same question - she, too, has a degree in English and classical studies - because when she graduated, she went through a phase where she read nothing but Mickey Spillane. She was basically rinsing the taste of all those classics out of her mouth. But that was a long time ago and she reads high-quality stuff now.

 

Well, do you work out, or complain about your bad back?

Do you think the rich don't pay enough in taxes?

Do you suspect pretty girls manipulate those in power?

If something is "critically acclaimed" do you sneer?

Does a guy on a powerful motorcycle appear to you to have "something to prove"?

I ask these questions because I have been hearing derisive kvetching like this for decades. If a guy writes a better story than yours he must be lucky. If a guy has less body fat than you it's from steroids. One guy gets probation and you do thirty days and it must be because his dad has a better lawyer.

However, what I have witnessed is that the owner of a company actually works 80 hour weeks. The strongest guy in the gym is usually in pain. That pretty girl who got the job instead of you graduated Summa Cum Laude from Vassar. And the successful author really does write better than you.

I signed off for an hour to polish a 1.5 inch knife. A skill learned over 20 years. But at the end of the day, it's a real skill and a real knife. That Halo game is just dancing, glowing pixels.

And someday I will be submitting a book to a publisher. I took English classes. Poetry classes. Literature classes. I took notes in school. I graduated. And yeah, I'm twice as strong as a twenty year old kid.

Good literature is good because guys work at it--like any other skill. The lazy guys just whine.

 

Yeah, it does.

There's an old adage that says a fly thinks the inside of a vinegar bottle is the sweetest place he's been because it's the only place he's been.

If you never read a good book then, of course, that Batman comic book is great. If you smoke two packs a day then walking up one flight of stairs must really be an adventure. If you never do anything then you never fail.

Personally, I have access to the same TV programs, the same greasy foods, the same get rich quick schemes and the same "ten minute work-outs" you see daily. I want more. I want to write better, feel better, do better work, and even tell the truth better. And frankly, I see a lot of stuff crumbling.

We get the world we deserve. But now you're a "celebrity" because you get a reality show. Did you ever see Sir Lawrence Olivier act?

The same mindset applies to our stories.

 

Hi Tourist, you've spurred me on with a few prompts for stories in you post

Simple arithmetic really: I read somewhere that a marketing guru worked out that best viewed TV shows were aimed at 12 year olds. Therefore, from an accountants point of view, it is advisable to create shows that fit that criteria.

Probably someone has worked out the same demographic facts about books - ie. aim your writing at 12 year olds, and you get to sell more books, sell more books, make more profit.

With tongue firmly in cheek, this is where self-publishing comes into play, perhaps authors aiming/writing to post graduate readers would not be able to find a publisher (as the accountant at the publishing house has set the criteria for book contracts) therefore, by self-publishing an ebook, this author could be raising the standards of literature as we speak!

Frankly I want it all... I want virtual cafés as well as real ones (funny how the rise of Costa Coffee houses and the like, have boomed since virtual cafés have been invented)

I want printed books, and I want cheaper ebooks

I want intellectual type books, and sometimes I want soppy books

I want chill-out TV, and I want intelligent documentaries.

I want choice!

 

We aren't discussing high-quality light reading. We're discussing bad literature (it's in the title of the thread). That means low-quality reading, whether light or heavy.

Are all novels equally valuable? Or do you distinguish between good novels and bad novels? That you referred to "high-quality" reading tells me you do. What standards do you use to make this distinction?

 

JennyM, you bring up good points, and the stuff you mention actually happens and is a marketing success.

That said...

Did you ever realize we have lots of substandard stories about super-soldiers and very few actual super-soldiers?

Why do perhaps a dozen stories really get traction per year when tens of millions are published?

Now, we might couch our debates in literature because this is a creative writing forum. But I feel it's part of a bigger vicious circle. We read junk, so lots of junk is sold, publishers need more junk, so they scour the ranks for authors who can write junk (fast) and then all you have to read is junk...so we read it. And around we go again.

You know, finding a mate is hard for some people, but take it from me there are a lot of drunken, shiftless townies in cheap saloons. Why aren't girls flocking there to marry these guys?

Now, laugh if you will, but I don't see the point of buying junk just because it's on the rack or that B&N has a "two for the price of one" junk sale.

You are correct, marketing is a powerful force. But then, Goliath was a powerful force. I'd rather search out the good book, and then, I want to write one, too.

 

But it's only fiction -though there are some really good books on real soldiers my husband just read one, he raved enough about it to give me a 15 minute breakdown (yawn yawn).

I get a little peeved when history is re-written, and written badly - still that is only fiction too I guess.

We live in a world geared for profit, everything comes down to money.

 

That's the dichotomy of my views that might need to be mentioned.

For thirty years I was in finance. I was a credit manager trying to save distressed companies on the brink. I saw the best and worst of both money and people.

In doing that, I saw 'easy riders,' and guys who just showed up for work. It stilts your views on things.

I have come to believe that we don't demand excellence enough. We're afraid to corral our kids, we settle for mediocrity too easily, and we certainly don't know what sharp knife is! LOL.

I feel so strongly about this, that I came home from work one day and told my wife I was retiring. I realized that many facets of business were joyfully steering into the iceberg while everyone joyously ordered more ice. I could not work for lazy, immoral people.

I understand we need to make a living, but it should not be the driving force. If we became the best at anything, then money would never be the issue. And another sloppy book on zombies doesn't help anyone.

JennyM, nice talking to you! Write often.

 

Laziness and a tendency toward comfort are human nature. Your pizza roll comments are wearing thin. I could make disparaging remarks about your generation as well, couldn't I? A bunch of hippies who got high all day long and hugged trees. Yeah, the older generation was so much harder working.

The funny thing is, Tourist, I agree with your overall points (it seems like half this forum does) to a large extent, but I don't agree with your agenda, which is to consistently attack younger people. Don't worry, they'll be your age before you know it.

 

It sounds to me like this whole argument boils down to the end discussion in Brave New World. What's more important? Happiness, comfort, and stability, or beauty, and all the pain and discomfort that comes with it? The answer, at least according to Huxley, was that most people would choose happiness, and those few restless minds who would choose a higher pursuit could do so in their own seclusion (in the book this solution took the form of exile).

It certainly seems that way now. You have hardcore, cult, followings, and you have mass followings. Real rock stars have fans who know all their lyrics by heart. Pop stars get 6 months on the radio.

I think the only question of interest left is, was it always like this? Its important to consider that the voice of "the masses" was not always so strong. Books were not always so cheap, televisions were not so prevalent, and cell phones didn't exist. That doesn't mean most people were any different "back then." Maybe they were. Evidence one way or the other would be very interesting. Though I think psychology would suggest the former.

 

I don't think that's accurate. The Brave New World was basically built on a series of distractions; and everyone made from the sperm up to fit into a certain slot, raised only to appreciate simple quick comforts. And trained to take soma so much. This hardly seems like a conscious choice on anyone's part. Also, the primitive tribes in the 'reservations' did not want to go there either, they where born there. Only the highest class, the Alphas, in the Brave New World could get to even see a savage reservation. While you are basically right in that Brave New World is a sarcastic critique of capitalism, it's slightly more complicated than you are letting on.