So, why does crap literature sell/get published?

I am not talking about my own literature, of course, cause that is AWSAM, but it is true that most of the literature in bookstores is garbage. How can that even sell at all?

Sadly there are cliques indeed, and people in charge of publishing houses which are having more ties to toilet-cleaning than reading books, but even that by itself does not explain how so many horrible books get sold here and in other places of the so-called 'West'. Not sure if anything like this exists in countries of the former eastern block (at least the main ones, eg Russia) (?).

Moreover i read that more than half of yearly sales here are from 'romance novels', by some utterly talentless hack/hag writers (most of them local too).

I read almost all of that post almost all of the way through. Does that answer your question . . ?

No, cause as noted my own writing is AWSAM, little poster

Besides, you didn't give him a tithe of two euros, as it is intended.

You have this disconnect because you're a cultural elitist.

To answer the OP question...

It is rather simple: It is what people read. Publishing houses do not care about critical reviews, rather, about €/$.

And to be fair, they shouldn't be expected to be; they're commercial companies. If you want "good" literature, you might as well lock yourself in the library of Alexandria.

The number of authors seeking commercial success outstrips the number of authors seeking to perfect their craft and explore their genius.

Leoreth said:

You have this disconnect because you're a cultural elitist.

Click to expand...

YUNO in the holiday spirit?

Besides, i am not an elitist, i am past that. I am just my own planetary system/star system/galaxy/etc by now

You're outta this world.

This is why the CIA is probably going to a vacation in Thessaloniki.

To kidnap you.

For science.

Kyriakos said:

YUNO in the holiday spirit?

Click to expand...

It's not meant as an insult or anything, it's just what you come across as.

Culture is what people do, not what some circle of "true" artists imparts on them.

Gawd!

I've just waded through A Dance with Dragons, 1: Dreams and Dust, and I'm beginning to wonder about why this stuff sells.

Not that George R.R. Martin is as crap as they come, of course. Not by a long way. And to be honest this last one wasn't quite as bad as its predecessors (or maybe it was just the mood I read it in).

But I shall be very glad when I've read the rest of this series. I'd really been on the verge of not reading any more after the first book. And I've not changed my opinion.

Just too many characters without much to distinguish one from another. And not enough of an idea behind the whole thing to carry it forward.

Still... who knows? I'm no judge of these things. And if anyone truly enjoys reading Martin's work, that's surely a good thing.

The simple answer is that this is what people are buying. If people weren't buying it, it wouldn't be published. Publishers look at a new work or a new author and ask themselves if they think it will sell.

Because the vast majority of people don't read books/watch films/watch TV series/whatever culture stuff you can think of for their quality, but based on how much it can manipulate their simplest desires. There is a reason why things like sex, violence and romance is winning in the sales charts. People just want a dose of simple emotional manipulation.

Isnt that what makes art good? How it makes you feel?

The number of authors seeking commercial success outstrips the number of authors seeking to perfect their craft and explore their genius.

Click to expand...

What's the point of genius, if you can't share it with others? And what's the point of sharing something nobody cares to have?

Ultimately, literature (and indeed, all art) is a form of communication. If your approach to communication fail to find an audience, or find only a limited audience because it puts off most people...then you have a failure to communicate and, therefore, a failure at literature.

Unless you're one of the very very very very very very very few whose work get to suddenly become popular after their death (the once-in-a-generation Van Gogh-esque case), odds are if you can't find an audience the fault lies with your work (and it falls so very far short of being "true genius"), not with the audience.

Well, i have an audience (sort of).
Or at least i know that my work gets accepted (roughly 40 printed short stories in 3 years, and it's been a year or so since i don't particularly send much stuff to magazines anyway).

I don't think that most people are repelled by more intricate/well-though of, literature. I surely think/know that they are repelled by things which don't make sense to them (as they should be) and also of way too difficult to follow prose (again that is reasonable). But a good balance of having a front of the story, and then the abyss where readers may unknowingly sink into, is key for my kind of literature

That said, it is true that most publishers have little to absolutely none relation to "art". Going by experience the publishers here are (even more than the writers) quite hipster/bizarre/burnouts/nobodies. I doubt this is only happening here either. Imo i know of maybe 5 publishers who i have a positive view of, and i have co-operated with over 13 periodicals by now. :\

The notion of art as something distinct from "What the audience want" is a very recent (and excessively romantic) vision of art, mostly fostered by the nineteenth century poets ad others.

For the overwhelming part of human history, artists worked for cusotmers and patrons ; or to attract theater-goers, created what their audience wanted, and that was that. They weren't worrying about genius and deep meaning.

There is certainly room for literature with deeper meanings that is still approachable, as you describe. Many great writers past and present fall into that. But there is also a room for authors who undertand the public mood, who understand what kind of stories the public want to hear, and who are able to write a story that these people can relate to. That, too, is art and literature, and that, too, should commend respect as literary achievements. After all, Shakespeare himself was firmly in that second camp.

A story - any work of art, really - that can capture the imagination of a generation and become a worldwide phenomenon as a result is true art in and of itself ; just as much an expression of artistic and literary genius as the most beautifully crafted prose carrying the deepest meanings.

Esperr said:

Isnt that what makes art good? How it makes you feel?

Click to expand...

It depends on your perspective on aesthetics. Some don't think so, and for good reasons.

Oda Nobunaga said:

Ultimately, literature (and indeed, all art) is a form of communication. If your approach to communication fail to find an audience, or find only a limited audience because it puts off most people...then you have a failure to communicate and, therefore, a failure at literature.

Click to expand...

There's not only one way to communicate, and making people 'like' something is not necessarily the way. Otherwise, stuff like Dadaism and a lot of modern art would have had a very difficult time gaining traction.

Oda Nobunaga said:

The notion of art as something distinct from "What the audience want" is a very recent (and excessively romantic) vision of art, mostly fostered by the nineteenth century poets ad others.

Click to expand...

Then how do you explain much of medieval art, which was highly symbolic and often dedicated to hagiography? And do you also count dead people as part of the audience for a piece of artwork?

Art has served other purposes besides "what the audience wants" since before the 19th century.

Then how do you explain much of medieval art, which was highly symbolic and often dedicated to hagiography? And do you also count dead people as part of the audience for a piece of artwork?

Art has served other purposes besides "what the audience wants" since before the 19th century.

Click to expand...

"The audience in the Medieval era largely consisted of the nobility and the religious communities (the Church itself, but also individual parishes, etc). And most art from that era indeed consist of what these groups wanted.

There's not only one way to communicate, and making people 'like' something is not necessarily the way. Otherwise, stuff like Dadaism and a lot of modern art would have had a very difficult time gaining traction.

Click to expand...

Liking is not essential in and of itself, but interest is. People can be interested in something without liking it (it can be intriguing, provoking, etc), but communication that cannot get and hold someone's interest, someone's attention, is a failure.

As the old french saying goes: I don't care if you say nice things about me or horrible things about me. But for pity's sake, say things about me.

"Put off" wasn't the best word choice on my part.