• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

'Commercial' Books?

direstraits

direstraits

Well-Known Member
Now this has been bothering me for a while. A friend of mine once said of Bon Jovi, "I don't listen to them, they are too commercial for me."

My immediate thoughts were: What the heck does that mean? Are 'commercial' works somehow inferior? When does something get labelled as being commercial, anyway? When it is successful and appeals to more people than your favourite band?

Like music, I see there's a line drawn between 'commercial' books and less known but critical works.

I question the implication that commercialism automatically equals crap. Sure, I understand Bon Jovi may not be everybody's cup of tea. Not everybody likes J. K. Rowling or Stephen King or Crichton or whoever, but is it a rational dislike? Do readers spend precious time reading, evaluating and finding out for themselves, or is it a reactionary feeling based on highbrow views? Are less mainstream works more deserved of critical praise?

In other words, in your opinion:
1. Are bestsellers automatically crap, or just said to be crap by people who profess to a higher sense of taste?
2. Why does the word 'commercial' carry such negative connotations?

I know there a lot to be said of works that are really poor but does very well on the bestseller lists (i.e. Stewart's alter-ego Abu's very lucid arguments against Dan Brown's facts). But what of works that are genuinely good, *and* sell very well?

This subject can also (maybe even more so) be applied to music, but I'll keep it to books.

What are your thoughts?

ds
 
I just saw something written by Halo over in Monstrous Regiment thread that talks a little something about this...

ds
 
I guess before we can have any meaningful discussion of this then we need to define exactly what "commercial" means. That, as you have touched on, would be quite difficult to do. Is commercial something that's just popular? Is commercial something that's popular AND panders and changes itself to suit the market?

I don't know. I say just like what you like and to hell with it all :)
 
i think it should be label as comercial when its obviously aimed to sell and not to reflect the author's capability.

when you can notice that somebody said, never been to asia or cared about natural disasters, but this is a great oportunity, have to write a book about this
 
direstraits said:
I just saw something written by Halo over in Monstrous Regiment thread that talks a little something about this...

ds
Click to expand...

Yep, this is a personal bugbear of mine: the assumption by the literary "highbrows" that because an author is popular, eg Stephen King, and their books sell by the shed load, they are automatically crap writers. I think it is a kind of snobbery and a huge generalisation. Of course, there probably are some authors who sell well who are poor writers, and I'm sure people can think of some (best keep quiet here, Wabbit! ;) ), but they say there are exceptions to every rule.
 
Halo said:
some authors who sell well who are poor writers, and I'm sure people can think of some (best keep quiet here, Wabbit! ;) ), but they say there are exceptions to every rule
Click to expand...

My lips are sealed :D

Actually, I don't think you have to worry about any comments from you. You do know what dangerous ground you are on, right? It ends in Brown! :D

But yeah, I agree with you. It's pretty silly to judge something just because it's popular. Sure there is a lot of junk out there that's popular but it doesn't mean to say it's ALL junk. I think you can only judge it when you have read it for yourself. And yes, I do think there is an element of intellectual snobbery about the whole thing.
 
Y'know, I am thinking of trying this D** B***n person - I should really see what all the fuss is about and why he has so many books in the Top 10. :)
 
At the risk of being struck down dead by a bolt of lighting... I actually liked Da Vinci Code. It was a simple fun read. Nothing more. Nothing less. :)
 
I agree with ya'll. Just because some junk is popular, doesn't mean all popular books are junk. Mr_michel hit on it, though. You want to see "commercial" , just wait a while and see how many books will be out about the tragedy in SE Asia written by idiots who have never been there and previously couldn't have given a rat's behind about tectonic plates.
 
Halo said:
Y'know, I am thinking of trying this D** B***n person - I should really see what all the fuss is about and why he has so many books in the Top 10. :)
Click to expand...
Don't do it. It's not worth it. I read The Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons and Digital Fortress.
The Da Vinci Code was fairly good (3 out of 5) but the others were just crap. His books are inhabited by highly intelligent people who act like morons!

@ Silly Wabbit
I just made myself a blog and it's driving me kind of nuts. Does there exist a manual for that somewhere? (I'm at blogger.com too) :eek:
 
Yeah, the "help" info for it is totally rubbish. I had to do a lot of reading around and guessing to figure out stuff. PM me any questions you have and I'll be happy to try and help you where I can :)

Good luck with your blog! I wanna see it when it's ready! :)
 
Hi Guys/I'm Back

Hi guys -- been gone for a few days. Thought I'd pop by and look what I saw!!

I love to read. I love to read almost ANYTHING. But I tend to divide my reading into:

"beach books" which are the written equivalent of junk food or action movies. They're meant to be read just for fun to take your mind off of real life for a couple of hours, but don't expect them to be deep.

"regular books" Which fall in between beach books and serious literature. Most of what I read is here. It's stuff that can be fun, but does require a certain amount of thought.

"The Hard Stuff" This is the kind of reading that deals with real science, biographies of serious folks, historical fact, etc. You learn stuff from this kind of reading and from the kind of really serious literature that gets into this category. IT takes time to read and really digest these works. Since my life is frantic at best I have to admit that like "eating my vegetables" I don't do this as often as I probably should.
 
cajunmama said:
written by idiots who have never been there and previously couldn't have given a rat's behind about tectonic plates.
Click to expand...

oh thats ok they dont need to know about tectonic plates, they can just fill the empty spaces with pics of dead people (wait would that imply actually going there to take the pics... na no need to worry, there will be lots of pics to "borow" in the net)
 
It seems to me that the level of "commercialism" (the bad kind) in a book is usually directly related to the cynicism of the author and/or publisher. The extent to which an author sets out to write a best-seller, is usually the extent to which the book is poorly written. But, as has been said, popularity and quality are not mutually exclusive. Even formulaic fiction can be well written provided that the story draws the reader in and makes the characters seem "real" or "believable" - even if those characters are "types" rather than "three-dimensional people". After all, all of literature has its roots in spoken tales meant primarily to educate and entertain.
 
Pulp fiction

Am I wrong or pulp fiction is the phrase used for less highbrow literature, commercial literature, books printed in paperback editions, for reading on the train and throwing away when you get to your destination?
Well I think commercial literature is to be blamed for using recipes that will sell the book, recipes that are known to sell. That s why they lose originality and quality, the same with music. Compare The Spice Girls and U2, the former were just a product to make money, the latter make both real art, music, and money. So there s nothing wrong about being a bestseller as long as the artist keeps its true voice and doesn t let himself or herself choked by commercial needs. My ideas.
 
I go with SillyWabbit's question/definition that the definition of commercialism is something that sells because it panders. Whatever way the wind is blowing, it just follows along. Maybe the truly great books are the ones that make the wind change course. That sounds way too over-the-top.

Sorry, guys I like D*n B***n's books for the same reason that I liked M*****l C******n's books when I was younger. They write books that have a quick moving storyline and some juicy pseudo-facts thrown in. I'm not sure that they are pandering though. I think that's what they like. I think Gizmo's assessment of the book is correct for the most part, so if you can't handle some shallow characters, don't read it.

I'm a huge music fan, and for me, U2 seems "commercial" even though it doesn't to Thelma. Maybe it's because they built a huge fan base with their first albums, and those fans have been loyal, so anything they put out gets eaten up. Anyway, people who use the word "commercial", which I try not to use, often use it to mean that something is popular, and they don't like it. However, I just came back from a tourist town, and there are times when "commercial" applies. Ugh! My parents love that stuff though.

Music is definitely formulaic and is ripe for abuse by MTV and Clear Channel. Rather than try to put a label on it. I think we should just say we don't like it and leave it at that.
 
I was about to say to Thelma that U2 is considered commercial by others, then I read your post, RitalinKid. This illustrates one of my points - where the heck does the line gets drawn?

ds

p.s. Why did you *** out Crichton's name, RK? He's an intelligent writer, and you'll always learn a thing or two with his books. Whether you agree with him or not is another matter...
 
direstraits, I like Crichton and Brown, but the names Brown and Crichton seem to me to be mentioned with some of the same connotation (maybe not but somehow I got that impression). Since Brown's name was *ed out, I gave Crichton the same treatment just to be funny and conformal. :)

Back to the topic. If we look at the word commercial, we can reduce it to the root commerce. Commerce is just exchanging money for goods or services, so any book that sells is commercial. I think the word is getting abused by people who love art, whether it's literature, music or other forms of expression. I think we would do better to look for a new term for art made in a "cookie cutter" fashion rather than debate what commercial art is. What do you guys think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top