Name a "Mainstream BlockBuster" you actually like!

[Motokid]

OK Da Vinci Code haters and doubters...

I want to know which book:
that sold millions, and millions of copy's,
to average, and not so average readers all over the world,
that took the general public by storm,
that you, as an avid, not your regular run of the mill vacation reader,

liked?

If it was made into an major Hollywood motion picture or not, does not matter, but that would be cool too.

What I want to know is can a book that those of you who dis-like Dan Brown's stuff, be good enough for you, and supply the average Joe with enough interest to read it too.

Or is every book that 100's of millions of people like destined to be plagued with the bibliophile's wrath of "not worthy of the pages it's written on" type scorn?

(hope some of you notice this thread is book related)

 

[Robert]

Good question, Motokid. I think the fact that I enjoy Dan Brown, J. K. Rowling and Tim Allen disqualifies me.

 

[Shade]

Or is every book that 100's of millions of people like destined to be plagued with the bibliophile's wrath of "not worthy of the pages it's written on" type scorn?

By and large, yes. If a book really does appeal to hundreds of millions of people - which must be approaching 5-10% of the entire population of the world, men, women and children, of all nationalities - then there must be an element of lowest-common-denominator to it. Beryl Bainbridge pointed out that serious literature has always been a minority interest:

[and] nor should we wish it otherwise. All the arts - music and painting and the written word - are by their very nature elitist, which is why they have such power to enrich our lives.

That's why there's always a difference between literature and entertainment. Blockbusters rarely do anything that film or TV or other media can't do equally well, and so can't cope with the greater subtleties of literature, like use of language, narrative voice, and so on. Blockbusters also tend to be cleaner-cut and rely more on resolution of plot, which loses the ambiguities which are so important in good books. A book should be a conversation between writer and reader; you get out of what you put into it. In a blockbuster where everything is there for you by the time you reach the last page, there's nothing to put in and nothing to get out. It's a monologue, not a dialogue.

I say all this as someone who has never been naturally drawn to blockbusters. Once or twice I have wondered if I was missing something from avoiding all these bestsellers, and dipped my toe in the likes of Michael Crichton and Thomas Harris. Both, I felt, stank to high heaven.

What I want to know is can a book that those of you who dis-like Dan Brown's stuff, be good enough for you, and supply the average Joe with enough interest to read it too.

Doubtful - but then I would say that the stuff I like is for everyone - and yer 'average Joes' just don't make the effort with it!

 

[novella]

Jaws, by Peter Benchley. Everyone in the US read that way before the movie came out. If you haven't, Memorial Day Weekend is the perfect time to start!

 

[novella]

Thought of another: The Hunt for Red October by Tom Clancy. Back then, Clancy was really writing.

 

[Stewart]

My point against Dan Brown is that he can't write - people can point out plotting, pace, etc. all they want but that all means nothing when you can't actually write the story.

There are others (i.e. John Grisham) that fall into this bracket too. Their success confuses me.

Of mainstream blockbusters making it into movies that I can say I liked: Thomas Harris' The Silence of the Lambs.

 

[Geenh]

I agree. The mainstream 'block busters' are formulaic and not of interest to me, by and large. There are certain people I know... when they've read a book and say it's great, I don't bother reeading it as I am sure it isn't interesting to me. Oh and before I get attacked I am saying this as MY OPINION!

To answer the question...

Patricia Cornwell in the beginning. Now she's just plain silly and boring.

 

[Martin]

Sorry, no point to this message. I just wanted to say 'by and large', also, because it seems to be the hip thing to say.

By and large.

's All.

Cheers

 

[mehastings]

I enjoy reading Janet Evanovich's Plum Series, which is lowest common - mainstream blockbusteryness at it's very best. It's like going to McDonalds, not good for every day, but a double cheeseburger sure is good every once in a while.

 

[Motokid]

Jaws definitely came to mind when I wrote this. So did Silence of the Lambs. I did not read Hunt for Red October. But I guess Tom Clancy might fit the mold of Blockbuster. Never heard of Patricia Cornwell, or Janet Evanovich so I would not consider them to be Blockbuster Authors.

I was also thinking Stephen King and maybe Anne Rice. J. K. Rowling certainly wrote/writes blockbuster books that get huge portions of the public reading something.

Would you rather have huge portions of the public reading, or not I guess is the question? Is it better to have them reading Dan Brown type stuff (for those of you like Stewart) or more than likely not reading at all?

Isn't it better for all authors, libraries, book stores, and readers alike to have a few mainstream best sellers that grab a large audience? Doesn't overwhelming success of any book make the entire literary world a better place?

 

[Shade]

Is it better to have them reading Dan Brown type stuff ... or more than likely not reading at all?

Not reading at all. There's nothing magically enriching about the act of reading itself - we do it all the time when we look up a phone number or study the ingredients on a food packet - it's what's being read that matters. In literary terms, reading Dan Brown is about on a par with sitting on a park bench with a dog on your lap.

Doesn't overwhelming success of any book make the entire literary world a better place?

No. The overwhelming success of Dan Brown most certainly makes the entire literary world a worse place. His presence at the summit of the bestseller lists for a year solid now (in the UK anyway), while simultaneously blocking the lower reaches of the top 10 with his other stuff, reduces the opportunities for other, maybe better books to get a wider airing of publicity.

 

[Motokid]

Or....., suppose a few hundred million people find the Dan Brown type stuff so entertaining they decide to go buy another book and read it, and then another, and another. Suppose they discover that reading can be fun and venture off to try another book? Maybe they try a Stephen King book next, and then maybe Clive Barker.

I beg to differ that hundreds of millions of people being entertained by any book is possibly worse than those same people not reading anything at all.

The company that published Dan Brown's book now has the monetary resources to publish so much more than they did 5 years ago. Maybe that's helping 100's of authors get published, and get publicity that otherwise might never get such a thing? A springboard effect.

 

[Martin]

it's what's being read that matters.

That's just downright elitist.

I'd like to point out that I'm one of the people Motokid's refering to - when I got bored on a vacation a number of years ago, I decided to pick up a Grisham novel. I liked it so much that I haven't stopped reading since.

I think the Dan Browns of the world are doing excellent work.

Cheers

 

[Shade]

You could be right about the knock-on effect in both senses, MotoKid, and if that's the case then I'd stand corrected. However even if Dan Brown does spur people to go on and read other authors (and I'm not sure King or Barker would be any more worthwhile), it doesn't make the act of reading his books any more worthwhile in themselves. Also I suspect his publishers are spending the money looking for the next Dan Brown, but I could be wrong about that too.

That's just downright elitist.

It is. But if elitism means accepting that some books are better than others, then so be it. Also refer to Beryl Bainbridge's words on elitism in my first post in this thread.

 

[Stewart]

Also I suspect his publishers are spending the money looking for the next Dan Brown, but I could be wrong about that too.

Currently his publishers are trying to keep him out of court on charges of plagiarism. He won't admit under oath that he wrote The Da Vinci Code.

Technically, he won't sign an affidavit claiming:

• He wrote The Da Vinci Code;
• That he conducted extensive research;
• That he never heard of Lewis Purdue or his books;
• That The Da Vinci Code did NOT rip off Purdue's books.

 

[Motokid]

ok...., forget Dan Brown, this is not an exclusive Dan Brown thread. We have plenty of those already. sheeshhh...

Let's use Stephen King instead.

Is the world of books, and reading, a better place because of Stephen King?
Does the mainstream popularity of a few authors help or hinder the literary world?

Do you think the genre of books you read, and the authors you like, benefit from mainstream acceptance of other author's popularity? Or does it detract from what you like?

Would your favorite author be better off if Stephan King never existed?

 

[Clara]

I've never read any Stephen King so can't comment on that. But I do like to read all different kinds of books. Sometimes, I just want a satisfying read that is quick and in that manner, I enjoyed Mario Puzo's The Godfather, some Jeffrey Deaver books and the Lord of the Rings. Other times, I'll want to spend longer thinking and pondering over the book and will choose something that some might call elitist.

What I can never understand is when 'elitist' type people rave on about a book and then, shock horror, it becomes a best seller and they turn against it because too many people have read it. What's that all about?

 

[Martin]

Same goes for films, really - anything coming from hollywood, with a budget over 50 million dollars, is per definition crap.

That's nonsense.

Anyway, proceed, if you must.

Cheers

 

[novella]

ok...., forget Dan Brown, this is not an exclusive Dan Brown thread. We have plenty of those already. sheeshhh...

Let's use Stephen King instead.

Is the world of books, and reading, a better place because of Stephen King?
Does the mainstream popularity of a few authors help or hinder the literary world?

Do you think the genre of books you read, and the authors you like, benefit from mainstream acceptance of other author's popularity? Or does it detract from what you like?

Would your favorite author be better off if Stephan King never existed?

I think the comparison with McDonald's is very appropriate. While popular, heavily marketed and advertised bestsellers may pique the interests of some inexperienced readers out there, the damping effect and the overcrowdinig of the market, as well as the blockbuster expectations of the major publishers really do adversely affect the prospects for new and literary authors.

For the past two decades the book publishing industry has become more and more centralized, controlled by a few major corporations. In the same way that McDonald's cuts into mom-and-pop luncheonette businesses and Wal-Mart puts the Main St. five-and-dimes out of business, big publishers crowd out other publishers on bookstore shelves and in the major book reviews. A lot of typical downtown bookstore space is also taken up by crappy genre novels that are cheap to produce, sell the way hamburgers do, and reap profits for the big publishers and nameless authors (a lot of these are 'branded' authors names, with other writers doing the actual writing).

So, the upshot is that Stephen King's books or Danielle Steele's books are good for Stephen King and Danielle Steele, for their publishers, their agents, and the big bookstore chains. They're good for advertising venues, they're good for marketing firms, for Hollywood and television producers and all the little industries they support. But are they good for readers and writers? No, I don't believe they are. They homogenize and dumb down what's available in the marketplace. If everyone just wants to eat more hamburgers, then it's fine if McDonald's controls the price of corn and beef and sugar and dominates every fast-food market, but if you would sometimes prefer a take-away vindaloo or a nice homemade bowl of soup, it sucks.

edit: I do have one caveat. I don't think it's fair to pick on Stephen King. He has a lot of talent and is a very good writer. Furthermore, he 'discovered' Ron McLarty, whose book The Memory of Running I just read. King literally pushed that great book out into the public eye, and for that I am grateful.

 

[Shade]

That sums up what I would have said if I'd thought of it, novella.

Same goes for films, really - anything coming from hollywood, with a budget over 50 million dollars, is per definition crap.

That's nonsense.

So why did you say it then, Martin?!