Reading bestsellers

[Doug Johnson]

Sorry to mislead, Doug. I don't actually think that (or not in that blanket way)

No problem. All books have strengths and weaknesses. (If you've read the perfect book I'd like to hear about it.) The idea that one genre is inherently better than another always gets me going. It's just false. (I like 80's head banging metal better than reggae, but Bob Marley is obviously better than let's say Warrant.)

 

[Doug Johnson]

Indeed I don't think I would tolerate a book where nothing happened, unless it was done tremendously well, eg Heller's ironically titled Something Happened.

It was a long time ago, but I didn't like that one. I waited the entire book to find out what happened and then didn't believe it when it was finally revealed.

 

[Doug Johnson]

you can acknowledge that something is good writing without liking it

Actually, you agree with me. That's my point. I also believe, however, that you should be able to acknowledge that a plot is good, or the characters are unique, or that the sacred feminine is an interesting theme, without liking something.

 

[Dogmatix]

Nonsense - or should I say Crap? It does imply that many people have undeveloped taste, brought on by an unwillingness or lack of desire to seek out more interesting stuff. Even The Shadow of the Wind, pure schlock, is more interesting than most of the bestseller lists, and I found it interesting and entertaining. For the most part though, if I'm honest, I think there's something slightly childish about reading books purely for plot, but I'm not going to deny anyone's (like many of my friends, for instance) right to do so.

Perhaps I'm a bit of a sympathizer to the plight of the average working Joe or Jane. Although I have been fortunate enough to have the blessings of a good, albeit hard fought for, education (and by the way neither of my parents graduated high school), not all people are as fortunate. Yes, some are lazy, some are inept, but some are facing odds that many of us can't even comprehend. I have a large support staff here in my hospital that work very hard to support their families and keep food on their tables. They all know I'm a voracious reader and if one of them came to me and said Dr. Wheeler I just read that new Davinci Code book (or any other best seller for Pete's sake) and I loved it! Even if they said it was Soooo kewllll!! as somebody recently quipped I would rather stick myself in the eye with a hot poker than slap their enthusiasm down with a snide remark about how crappy that book was. If an individual best seller is crap so be it. If many people are idiots then so be it. It is blanket statements which pi$$$ me off and yank forth from my lungs the word elitest.

 

[Doug Johnson]

As another aside, I submit that Shakespeare's plots are secondary (and not just because he nicked all but two of them). My belief is that he's survived 400 years because of his use of language - which is why so much of his writing has passed into common speech. The plots, although they have much that continues to be relevant about how people behave, would not be famous without the language, without the writing.

I can't agree with you there. The archaic terms are the one thing that prevents me from liking Shakespeare. I see a lot of similarities between Shakespeare and 24: a very personal story, with very high stakes that affect lots of people. People root for Jack Bauer, but millions will die if he fails. Hamlet is tormented, but his decisions determine who gets to be the king of millions of people. Most best sellers follow that formula too.

Literary tales are different, but not that much different. A good literary story is an intensely personal story that millions can relate to on a symbolical level. Very few people want to read about gay cowboys. The reason that Brokeback Mountain reaches out to a wider audience is because it is symbolically relevant: everyone can relate to a love that isn’t socially acceptable. (Even though a cynic could claim socially unacceptable love was “nicked” from Romeo and Juliet.)

 

[Shade]

Perhaps I'm a bit of a sympathizer to the plight of the average working Joe or Jane.

At the risk of bandying labels about, isn't it a bit patronising to gather together all the 'average working' folk and assume they don't or can't read interesting or challenging stuff? And for that matter, I consider myself an average working Joe.

They all know I'm a voracious reader and if one of them came to me and said Dr. Wheeler I just read that new Davinci Code book ... and I loved it! ... I would rather stick myself in the eye with a hot poker than slap their enthusiasm down with a snide remark about how crappy that book was.

I agree absolutely. In fact I had this precise experience with my mother - a staunch non-reader - when she returned from a holiday to rave about TDVC. Who am I to rain on her parade? I loved the fact that she got a lot of enjoyment from it. However: perhaps it's different on book forums because we presume everyone here to be voracious readers. That, and it's easier to dismiss someone when you're not face to face with them. (I say that generally speaking, I personally haven't intended to dismiss anyone here.)

 

[Doug Johnson]

I don't. Except in the specific sense, eg "The Da Vinci Code, a story where something actually happens, is crap."

When I get a minute I shall return to the Dan Brown thread where I will repeat my argument that many things in The DaVinci Code are excellent: others, not so much.

I will repeat here, however, my belief that I can think of no other reason why someone would make a statement like "There's no research in the DaVinci Code" other than jealousy of Dan Brown's multi million dollar fortune.

After all, it's blatantly obvious that he's researched the paintings he describes. The publisher even released an illustrated version so people can see that Brown has researched the paintings and some people still insist "he did no research."

 

[Shade]

I used The Da Vinci Code purely as an example up there; I don't have a grudge against it personally though I didn't like what I read and did think it was 'bad writing.'

some people still insist "he did no research."

I haven't seen this argument myself but for me this sort of thing and the claims that the book is anti-Catholicism/disrespectful/factually misleading miss the point. To me it seemed to be very badly written, lots of clichés and formulaic stuff (I gather if you've read Angels and Demons you'll think TDVC even more formulaic), no real sense for language and how it can be used effectively other than as a basic tool of plot-description and cliffhangers.

 

[Doug Johnson]

At the risk of bandying labels about, isn't it a bit patronising to gather together all the 'average working' folk and assume they don't or can't read interesting or challenging stuff?

I'd say its patronizing to say that something millions of people find interesting, isn't interesting.

It is, however, OK to peel the onion, ("Interesting, but not well written") or to disagree ("I wasn't interested.")

I don't understand how anyone can say there's something wrong with wondering, "What kind of relationship did Jesus have with Mary Madeleine?"

 

[Shade]

Well, TDVC is certainly interesting. In the sense that Alan Partridge was described by one of his guests as 'fascinating... clinically fascinating." It's also extremely interesting that so many people like it.

I don't think there's anything wrong with wondering etc. etc. and once again I haven't seen anyone here saying there is. But if it's in the context of a badly written thriller, then it's not worth getting your speculation from there, not worth reading the book for that purpose, when the subject has been treated in many books before, as Brown himself acknowledges.

Ah dear me. Once again a thread on TBF has followed the rule that once The Da Vinci Code is mentioned, a discussion, like a family argument, will rarely stick to the point.

 

[Doug Johnson]

To me it seemed to be very badly written, lots of clichés and formulaic stuff

The writing is the weakest part of the DVC. To me, the lesson out of all this discussion is that it's better for a writer to do one thing extraordinarily well - like make 25 million people believe Jesus was married, or make kids feel like a school for wizards is so much more interesting than their school - than to do everything well.

Read any newspaper. The writing is OK. The research acceptable (most of the time, though it does seem to be getting worse.) The characters well defined. People still toss it in the recycling bin every day.
But the idea that best selling writers don't do anything well is just flat out wrong. Literary writers who figure out what best selling writers do well just might find themselves on best seller lists. And commercial fiction writers who figure out what literary writers do well just might find themselves selling more.

 

[Doug Johnson]

I haven't seen anyone here saying there is.

I have. Not you, but others.

 

[Shade]

Read any newspaper. The writing is OK. The research acceptable (most of the time, though it does seem to be getting worse.) The characters well defined. People still toss it in the recycling bin every day.

Here we perhaps see the nub of our differences. To me this comparison is not valid: newspapers are for the provision of information. For me fiction is not about providing information. The subject matter is always secondary.

But the idea that best selling writers don't do anything well is just flat out wrong. Literary writers who figure out what best selling writers do well just might find themselves on best seller lists. And commercial fiction writers who figure out what literary writers do well just might find themselves selling more.

I also think this argument contains a fundamental difficulty: the notion that writers set themselves into particular categories. Human nature suggests that most bestsellers would like more critical acclaim (eg Ken Follett or Matthew Reilly, who have been heard to moan about missing out on awards) and that most literary writers would like bigger sales, either for the money or just to get more people enjoying their books. If they could categorise it, and learn from it, most of them would do it. It would however detract from any honesty, integrity or authenticity in their books. And although I have no taste for most popular fiction, I do think its authors are doing the best they can and with the best intentions.

I have. Not you, but others.

I ask this not in a gauntlet-throwing sense or to doubt you, but for my own interest: can you point out examples?

 

[Dogmatix]

At the risk of bandying labels about, isn't it a bit patronising to gather together all the 'average working' folk and assume they don't or can't read interesting or challenging stuff? And for that matter, I consider myself an average working Joe.

I never classified the average working Joe/Jane as anything but working class. Average only means that most people work for a living. I also never said they only read "average stuff" My concern was with the comment you made:

Nonsense - or should I say Crap? It does imply that many people have undeveloped taste, brought on by an unwillingness or lack of desire to seek out more interesting stuff.

I argue that it may not simply be an unwillingness or lack of desire but instead a lack of exposure, or simply getting along with the business of keeping the children fed and the car full of gas.


You went on to explain that you did not mean to classify and I appreciate your comment. Thanks.

Finally I am so sorry I mentioned TDVC. I wish I had said the Historian or really ANY other best seller. Please don't shoot me guys I didn't mean to stir that pot. If I could go back and edit those four little letters out of my post I swear I would.

 

[bluecaffeine]

I haven't read the Da Vinci Code

As for bestsellers, I'm pretty laid back. Some are great, some good, some bad, whatever. For me, it's pretty much the same as anything else.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

I'd say its patronizing to say that something millions of people find interesting, isn't interesting. It is, however, OK ... to disagree ("I wasn't interested.")

Isn't disagreeing /exactly/ what you labelled as "patronizing" further up in your post? How is saying that something millions of people found interesting, not interesting not disagreeing? When did it become unacceptable, or "patronizing", to voice an opinion contradictory to those of other people?

 

[venusunfolding]

What I think is patronizing is when someone goes out of their way to call people who do don't like something elitist, or call them patronizing because they don't like something that everyone else likes.

 

[kalouk]

I cannot really see the downside of having a bestseller list. The idea that all they do is hype up books such as tdvc is fair comment but this goes both ways as where would JK.Rowling be without the staggering amount of hype surrounding Harry Potter and that is being hailed as the book that got children reading again couldn't the same be said for tdvc with adults. As has already been said the odds are that by being on this forum you are an avid reader but I have lost count of the amount of people I have heard saying they don't normally bother with books but they had to read it to see what the fuss was about. I think of the list as a starting point an author from the list may be the one to grab your attention but the more you read the more you branch off in your own direction. I love James Patterson and he is always on the list so what is crap to you is a few hours escapism for me. One other thing if you hold the opinion that most of the books on the lists are crap does that mean that you have read the majority of the top ten for example.

p.s. currently reading Rebecca and loving it.

 

[kd2005]

I don't really buy into the "all bestsellers are crap" idea. I took American Lit II (Civil War to Present) last year, and my prof said the same thing on multiple occasions.

I personally believe its all about why you read. Some people read to really dive into a book and find out the deeper meaning. To them, what is on the page isn't as important as the deeper meanings and themes throughout the book. In that case, reading a standard Clancy or Grisham thriller is a waste of time. Other people read for entertainment. These people are looking for a interesting story and characters in which they can join for 5-10 hours (or however long it takes to read the book).

I really see nothing wrong with reading bestsellers. There are some solid authors in my opinion that write best selling books. On the other hand, if somebody only reads something that is a best seller, then they are really missing out. My reading list is based on a variety of sources. Personal recommendations from friends, book reviews, book forums on the web, and just walking around B&N and seeing what all catches my eye.

 

[Stewart]

Other people read for entertainment.

Since we are in a fiction forum and talking about reading, surely all people reading on a voluntary basis are reading for entertainment?