I honestly think some of the great authors that get a lot of praise from the literary community would be sickened by their hardcore fans.
The river does not represent freedom it is just a river.
I honestly think some of the great authors that get a lot of praise from the literary community would be sickened by their hardcore fans.
The river does not represent freedom it is just a river.
I am a fan of Stephen King's writing, not his subject matter usually, but his style. I have enjoyed much of his work (ex, Night Shift, Carrie, Salem’s Lot, The Shining, The Langoliers, The Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile, Dreamcatcher), in addition to his On Writing, he’s a gifted writer, in my opinion.
My only disappointment was IT, and I enjoyed the writing but did not care for the ending. I mean, really? (I don’t want to give any spoiler here so won’t go into why it disappointed me)
By the way, what is non-commercial lit? If it's for sale doesn't that make it commercial?
I'd rather have questions that I can't answer than answers that I can't question.
Regarding that maybe: let's compare the number of writers who belong in the category of literature with the number of writers who belong in the category of popular fiction. How many Kunderas, Kadares, Coetzees, Saramagos, García Márquezes, Roths exist in comparison to Rowlings, Kings, Browns, Meyers?Originally Posted by breathtest
Maybe some literature is intended to make the reader think? I think we should rephrase that: so many books exist to merely provide cheap entertainment, that we should be thankful for the few writers that still invite us to reflect about life. A Rowling and Meyer can and will be replaced by the next franchise-making writer. José Saramago is irreplaceable in 20th century literature.
People complain that the poor popular writers are always under attack, but when we consider that they exist in greater number than great writers and that they make a lot more money, I wonder why there aren't equal efforts to complain about the poor great writers that no one reads and that live in obscurity for ages before being discovered, if they're discovered at all.
I prefer the great entertainers to the average entertainer. The entertainer who gave us a good story that was memorable and still had good characters and plot. Writers like dumas, bradbury, vernes, carrol, and shakespeare.
Shakespeare was a mix of someone who was both an entertainer and someone who gave us a lesson about life.
I like my entertainers to have legimately good. I don't like my stories for entertainment to have poor qualities. I don't demand an entertainment to be just another ordinary distraction , I want something good and memorable.
Last edited by Mr.lucifer; 07-25-2010 at 11:02 PM.
Have you ever read The Stand? It was epic!
I'm pretty sure Philip Roth is not starving or struggling in obscurity. Ditto quite a few of the other authors you named. Ironically enough, the Stephen Kings, J.K. Rowlings, and Stephanie Meyers of the world are indeed rare. Anyone going into writing to become a millionaire is going into the wrong profession. Just ask about any writer who decided to write a YA series for entertainment hoping to repeat Rowling's success and who managed to get their series published--I promise most of them probably didn't come remotely close to Rowling in sales, and most likely didn't come anywhere near Philip Roth in sales either.
One of the reasons no one complains about "the poor great writers that no one reads" is because none of the writers you named are obscure and in need of discovery; not to mention there are plenty of people who actually read them.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
You truly believe that writers like Roth, Kundera and García Márquez are as widely read as Meyer, Rowling and Brown? And you truly believe that the proportion of great writers versus mediocre writers is identical?
It is not the quantity but quality!
Obviously, people who read Roth, Kundera or Marquez, like ourselves, are, like, way superior intellectually to those who read Meyer, Rowling or Brown.
Thousand Marquez readers would be same as one million Meyer readers, I'd say.
Not only we read better stuff but probably understand the harder, more complicated stuff more thoroughly than those underlings.
~
"It is not that I am mad; it is only that my head is different from yours.”
~
What he said !
Seriously this discussion has transformed into a series of personal insults, which are quite saddening, considering this is a literary forum, if you insult someone, have some style at least, don't sound like just another kid.
King is an artist, his books are well written. Is he a great writer however ? In my opinion no, he is just a good writer, nonetheless there is nothing wrong with that and his ability to make millions of of his writing is a remarkable feat. At the end of the day a writer writes what he wants to write, the second a writer changes because he thinks that what he does is not right, is the day he is no longer an artist.
But it is a question of quantity. Many people complain that pop fiction writers are always under attack, that they're treated unfairly. But the truth is, there are lots of them. Truly good writers are so rare that they should be cherished because of that. The pleasure they can give is rarer, whereas the pleasure one gets from reading King is no different than the pleasure of reading twelve other horror writers.
Re-read my previous post, and you'll see that's not what I said.
The specific writers Meyers, Rowling, and King (where did Brown come from?) certainly sell better than Roth, Kundera, and Garcia Marquez for the most part. However, so-called mediocre writers (by which I assume you mean genre fiction writers who write for entertainment) don't usually sell better than Roth and Marquez or other literary heavyweights.
If we're talking specifically about how much money they make, Meyers, Rowling, and King are flukes rather than representational.
Roth and Marqeuz are awful examples to prove your point. Roth's novels consistently make the bestseller list (you know, just like James Patterson, Dan Brown, J. K. Rowling, etc.). Marquez's One Hundred Years of Solitude was selected as an Oprah's Book Club read. They sold/sell in astronomical numbers.
"You understand well enough what slavery is, but freedom you have never experienced, so you do not know if it tastes sweet or bitter. If you ever did come to experience it, you would advise us to fight for it not with spears only, but with axes too." - Herodotus
https://consolationofreading.wordpress.com/ - my book blog!
Feed the Hungry!
Since 95% of writers lose money for their publishers, Stephen King, JK Rowling, Dan Brown, Stephany Meyers, James Patterson, and the like make the rest possible. They are like the rich upper class in America that pays the majority of taxes while the lower half have nothing and pay less than they get back in return. They keep the publishing houses afloat. The divas of literature serve a purpose, and provide opportunities to beginning authors. For every Stephen King worth $400 million, there are a hundred poets that made about $50 this year. Publishing companies would go out of business without their superstars and then nobody would get published.
"So-Crates: The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing." "That's us, dude!"- Bill and Ted
"This ain't over."- Charles Bronson
Feed the Hungry!
That's an interesting point you made, i never thought of that side of it.
'For sale: baby shoes, never worn'. Hemingway
Please show some data to support your theory, I have worked for a few years in the publishing business and I can assure you it doesn't work this way.
Well statistically only 5% of books make a profit, I read this on amazon I believe.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
