So, why does crap literature sell/get published?

[Valka D'Ur]

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).

If your literature is like your posts, I have to say that I doubt I would find it "AWSAM."

Leoreth is correct in his assessment. How about you let us read some of your "AWSAM" literature - in English - and let us decide if it's good or not? So far all we have is your word for it. And one of the cardinal rules for good storywriting is "show, not tell." Plotinus is a published author, but doesn't brag about his writing; he just says, "This is the title, and this is where to find it." He's said that constructive feedback would be appreciated, which is a perfectly fair and civil way to go about asking if people like his writing.


People have different standards of what makes good literature. It's no secret around here that I consider Frank Herbert's Dune novels to be not only good literature, but great literature, while the Dune books written by Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert are (in my opinion) worse than a lot of the Dune fanfic I've read. So why does Kevin J. Anderson get published?

'Cause he works fast, and to the lowest common denominator. To hear him tell it, he spends his time hiking up and down mountains while simultaneously dictating perfect prose into a tape recorder so his secretary can later transcribe it into written form (he hasn't claimed Everest yet, but give him time...). Naturally, any mistakes are considered her fault, not his.

So since KJA loves to hike and is apparently a dictaholic even when on cruise vacations (with all that gorgeous scenery to look at, he shuts himself away and dictawrites), he works fast. And the editors love him for that, since there are always Deadlines To Meet and they don't really care about the quality of the story since the words "Dune" and "Star Wars" are what actually prompt people to buy the books.

The more discerning readers pick up on the fact that the novels are often padded to the point where a quarter of it could easily be cut and the story wouldn't suffer at all - in fact it would be improved, since the repetitious crap would be gone. Sometimes I think KJA should write soap operas, because there is always an element of plot recapping in soaps that work in that medium that just doesn't work in science fiction novels. It's a situation where on page 82 something will be mentioned, and 5 pages later in a new chapter, it gets mentioned again. And later on again, on page 100.

Dear KJA: Your audience is not stupid. Please stop treating us like morons who are too dumb to turn back a few pages if we've forgotten a detail.


As for romance novels... I've read a lot of them over the years and they sell because they are safe and uncomplicated. The reader knows pretty much what to expect because they follow a formula of plot points and stock characters, and only minor details tend to be different. That said, there are a few I remember specifically, one in particular because it takes place not in Europe or Africa or Asia or the Middle East... but in Banff National Park. That's pretty much next door, as geography goes in terms of Harlequin Romance novels. There's even a mention of Red Deer in this book, which is why I kept it instead of getting rid of it years ago, with the others. The story itself isn't any great literary effort, but it is different in the details.


I've become a lot more picky in recent years as to what science fiction comes into my home. I have to be, since books are a lot more expensive these days, and shelf space is rapidly dwindling. So I don't even bother keeping up with Star Trek anymore, and I used to be able to say I owned every Star Trek novel ever published. I haven't been able to say that for nearly 20 years now. But judging by what I read in the TrekLit forum at TrekBBS, there are still people who'd buy a piece of scrap paper if it had the words "Star Trek" on it. Right now over there, there's an ongoing discussion of the quality of various ST novels and how good the authors are. One of the contenders for Worst ST Author Ever is Diane Carey... who admitted in an interview that she wrote one of her Next Gen novels in FOUR DAYS, in between her duties as a cook on a ship. She's a prime example of someone who got published because she works fast, and people bought her books because they were nominally about Star Trek (along with a hefty dose of stuff she's really interested in, including RL politics) and at first the editors didn't quite realize how contemptuous Ms. Carey really is toward Star Trek; when they finally did, they quit buying her manuscripts.

 

[Darkflight]

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

I thought art was about provoking thoughts about the universe, morality, humanity, culture, customs, nature and other such fundamental aspects of existence.

But I guess its easier to watch some tits followed by a man beeing torn apart by horses.

 

[Zkribbler]

Sir Terry Prachett, who on numerous occasions has been accused of committing literature, is the most shoplifted author in the world. I'm just saying...

 

[Evie]

I thought art was about provoking thoughts about the universe, morality, humanity, culture, customs, nature and other such fundamental aspects of existence.

Largely pretentious nonsense meant to make "art" appear "useful" to society in the mind of people who define "usefulness" in a way that make beauty and entertainment in and of themselves "useless".

Art, while it CAN certainly be used in these ways, is not limited to them. Art is simply a way of communicating something. Whether that something provoke thoughts isn't relevant.

 

[Darkflight]

Largely pretentious nonsense meant to make "art" appear "useful" to society in the mind of people who define "usefulness" in a way that make beauty and entertainment in and of themselves "useless".

Art, while it CAN certainly be used in these ways, is not limited to them. Art is simply a way of communicating something. Whether that something provoke thoughts isn't relevant.

That makes the word art a synonym of communication.

Sounds like a whole lot of useless to me.

 

[Esperr]

I thought art was about provoking thoughts about the universe, morality, humanity, culture, customs, nature and other such fundamental aspects of existence.

But I guess its easier to watch some tits followed by a man beeing torn apart by horses.

Yeah but the good stuff actually evokes something useful from people. And by evoke I mean money.

 

[Leoreth]

That said, it is true that most publishers have little to absolutely none relation to "art".

Does that come with the sneaky assumption that literature is supposed to be "art"? Because there comes another reason, most literature isn't. Most people read books to be entertained, and while art can be entertaining, non-art can be entertaining too.

That's not even going into the question of what "art" is (there is no objective answer to this question).

 

[Evie]

That makes the word art a synonym of communication.

Sounds like a whole lot of useless to me.

Your alternative dismiss people who favor telling good stories and entertaining over deep messages and provoking ; people who create what they deem beautiful over what they deem meaningful as "not art".

That's worse than useless ; it's actively harmful by creating an artificial wall between "Common" entertainment which is beneath the dignity of self-respecting "elites", and "intellectual" art, which is "not entertaining enough" for "commoners".

 

[luiz]

I'm torn between Oda Nobunaga's position and my own snobbish upbringing. I understand and agree with what he's saying, but surely Dan Brown cannot be art? Harry Potter? Those effeminate teenage vampires?

Fine, we can't objectively define other ways to judge the merit of a work of art other than the audience, but all my instincts say several little-appreciated works have millions of times more artistic merit than the latest book about a teenage wizard / vampire / mutant ninja turtle.

 

[Evie]

As a matter of fact, Harry Potter was exactly the example I had in mind when I said:

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.

Remember: Shakespeare wrote for the sake of entertaining the masses, not for the sake of beauty. If what he did is art, then certainly JK Rowling has a claim to being called an artist.

 

[luiz]

Yeah calling Harry Potter "an expression of artistic and literary genius" is a bit too much for me.

Maybe you're right, but it reads like cheap garbage to me. I have seen better texts at pulp magazines.

 

[Evie]

The characters are not especially original. The prose is average at best. The plot is fairly standard. But none of that define the quality of a work of art. They can all contribute to it ; but they are just aspects of the work. Ultimately, it's th eway you weave all these elements (and dozens of others) together that define a work.

And Rowling wove all those otherwise individually average elements to create a universe that managed to capture imaginations across the planet for a decade or more? THAT, I have no hesitation to call artistic genius.

 

[jackelgull]

If Harry Potter is genius, then why isn't it taught at schools?

For one simple reason- it may be art, but it is simple art, entertainment, which I'm not dissing, but it isn't genius. Genius requires writing skills and complexity. When it comes down to it, Harry Potter is a fairly straightforward story of good versus evil with competent writing and imaginative world building. It isn't weak by any means but it isn't genius. Gone with the Wind, is genius and popular and accessible. I would consider it high art, though I hate the racism in it.

I do tend to agree that calling what is popular "trash" sounds like the reaction of a but hurt snob mad that what is popular doesn't appeal to him. Twilight for example, I dislike the book, but it isn't trash either. It may have a weak plot, a childlike simplicity and an unlikeable lead, but it is also unconventional in its awfulness, and that can be entertaining. People also tend to overexeggerate how bad the writing is, especially compared to its spinoffs ( well more like rip offs) which do way worse.

 

[Zelig]

[...] Harry Potter [...] why isn't it taught at schools?

Too new.

 

[Evie]

If Harry Potter is genius, then why isn't it taught at schools?

Primarily because literazis with a narrow and dumb definition of art insist it's not, which means any attempt to teach it in school would be met by those snobs howling that we're bringing our youth down to what they could call the lowest common denominator, etc, etc.

 

[jackelgull]

Because literazis with a narrow and dumb definition of art insist it's not, which means any attempt to teach it in school would be met by those snobs howling that we're bringing our youth down to what they could call the lowest common denominator, etc, etc.

I disagree. I actually had this conversation with my AP lit teacher about why something like Shakespeare is taught in our class versus something like Harry Potter. And the answer I got, because Harry Potter does not have as much literary merit. I already mentioned this, but Harry Poter is not particularly complex or ambiguous. There aren't multiple meanings that can be derived from it. In the Awakening though, there are multiple ways to view Edna's suicide alone. Still, after thinking about it, there isn't really a reason why Harry Potter shouldn't be taught at a middle school level, but I'd keep it out of high school, or at least AP lit.

 

[Evie]

I question a definition of literature that makes ambiguity and multiple interpretations into must-have to be considered great. They can have their place, but must-haves?

Beyond that, again, you're going back to the tired old turkey that literature must be "meaningful" to be true worthy art.

Beyond that, ambiguity and multiple interpretations tend to be as much if not more in the reader's eyes as they are the author's own work. I wonder how much ambiguity and multiple meaning in Shakespeare's work Shakespeare would agree he has put there, and how many would he be "What? No, I made that perfectly clear and you literature scholars are dumber than a piece of dead wood."

The only reason there's so much ambiguity in his work is because people have spent the past two centuries or so scouring the plays to find it

 

[downtown]

If Harry Potter is genius, then why isn't it taught at schools?

I'm sure it is, although it isn't widespread because the book is still pretty new. I used passages from Harry Potter to teach certain literary themes when I taught 4th grade, and I have teacher friends who use the text as well. If you evaluate it as children's or young adult literature, I think it's great.

Also, what the heck is "AWSAM"?

 

[jackelgull]

The message is there; the author might be just saying, this issue is complicated, and I'm going to leave it to you, the reader to come to your own conclusion and present my evidence, but I have my ideas. The point of ambiguity is not to cloud the issues presented in the book, but to show a balanced view. Native Son for example, tries to create a balanced picture of the racial climate of America in the 30's. Does Cartwright's straight up refusal to paint an overwhelmingly positive picture of African Americans with the main character of Bigger and instead opt for a negative selfish character obscure his message that racial injustice is wrong?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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.

The purpose art serves is very often that of political propaganda. Why do you think there were so many statues of various people in Rome? It wasn't because they had a love of sculpture (granted some did, but their tastes didn't usually run to generals and members of the Imperial family). The statues of a lot of these people were that era's version of billboards, proclaiming the importance of some prominent person.

I binge-watched one of the Borgia TV series earlier this year. There's a scene where Lucrezia serves as the model for a painting of one of the female saints. It's not done for the sake of art, but for the sake of raising Lucrezia's profile and nudging people to think of her as a wise, saintly woman who happens to be a member of the powerful Borgia family. It's another form of a "trust me, I'm one of the 'good guys'" billboard.

Remember: Shakespeare wrote for the sake of entertaining the masses, not for the sake of beauty. If what he did is art, then certainly JK Rowling has a claim to being called an artist.

There is certainly a lot of fan art and commercial tie-in stuff that was inspired by Harry Potter.

And the Space Channel is running a Harry Potter marathon this weekend. I haven't ever heard of any channel having a Shakespeare marathon.

Guess I'll have to do that myself, since I've got several on DVD.

Yeah calling Harry Potter "an expression of artistic and literary genius" is a bit too much for me.

Maybe you're right, but it reads like cheap garbage to me. I have seen better texts at pulp magazines.

This "cheap garbage" made J.K. Rowling a very wealthy woman.

If Harry Potter is genius, then why isn't it taught at schools?

I wouldn't be surprised if Harry Potter isn't part of the Children's Literature courses taught in colleges and universities. I took one of those courses; it's part of the curriculum for English teachers.

It wouldn't be taught in elementary schools for two reasons: First, it's too long. Unless the teacher intends to read part of it to the class every day, I can't fathom any of these novels being useful in an elementary reading class. But as extracurricular reading material? Sure - that's how it got to be popular in the first place. Second, there are still some school boards that think it's evil and satanic. Or the parents do. Some people still try to have these books banned.

Too new.

They're not that new. The kids who were in the first movie are adults now.