The blog of The Top Ten author J. Peder Zane.
Reviewing "Books People Actually Read"
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
In conjunction with the NBCC Awards in New York last week, the organization hosted a panel on "genre fiction." Truth be told I was dismayed by much of the discussion which suggested that newspapers should devote more of their dwindling review space to "books people actually read."
Problem is, readers have little difficulty in finding the works of James Patterson and Danielle Steel , which manage to dominate the bestseller list without critical attention (on the other hand, maybe these authors wouldn't fare so well if reviewers consistently pointed out the limits of their efforts). What readers do need is assistance in locating the less popular "literary" works worth their attention.
At one point, an audience member raised the issue of poetry, which seemed very instructive. Thanks to the web, this is a Golden Age for poetry lovers. Great poems as well as reviews and discussions of new collections are only a click away. However, if you're not looking for poetry, if you don't search it out, these resources may as well not exist for you. That is the great power of newspapers and general circulation magazines: They put casual readers in touch with material that might interest them but which they would not seek out on their own. (In my case, I would never look for a Home & Garden story, but peruse my newspaper's fine Saturday section every week because it's right there in front of me.)
Interest in poetry has declined for many reasons but certainly one of them is its abandonment by most newspapers and magazines. My fear - no, make that prediction - is that literary fiction will be increasingly marginalized as general interest publications focus on "books people actually read."
Ironically, the effort to attract more readers will diminish interest in book pages. Of course there are many fine genre writers who deserve - and receive - critical attention. But one of the main reasons reviewers don't focus on their work is that there is only so much one can say about books that, like sitcoms, are formulaic and predictable. The best effrots of Michael Chabon, Lorrie Moore or Jonathan Lethem provoke far more interesting responses than the works of Patterson or Steel.
Focusing on the latter will force editors to run shorter pieces - how much can you really say - that revolve more heavily on the least interesting aspect of criticism: Thumbs up or thumbs down.
Posted by J. Peder Zane at 9:00 AM
Permalink
Digg this Post
Email this Post
5 Comments:
Previous Posts
- Even More Books!
- Is David Foster Wallace Serious?
- Lorrie Moore's List
- Katharine Weber's Top Ten
- Reading Across the Ages
- Congratulations Judy Budnitz
- New Top Ten Lists
- Allan Gurganus on Reading & Writing
- Top Ten Review - Conversational Reading
- Top Ten Q&A
 |
 |
Peder,
That is a most incisive post. Keep up the good fight.
- peder
Genre books are no more formulaic than literary fiction.
Good crime novelists have memorable characters, wonderful evocative settings, and snappy dialogue.
The last 2 literary fiction books I can actually remember enjoying were Remains of the Day and Lovely Bones.
I also read crime fiction and the ones that really resonate are so much better than the newest crop of writers trying 45 different ways to describe the setting sun.
Case in point:
Done for a Dime, David Corbett
The Power of Three, Laura Lippman
Field of Darkness, Cornelia Read
Silent Joe, T. Jefferson Parker
City of Bones, Michael Connolly
A Dark Adapted Eye, PD James
Yes, they all follow a formula but I think they merit more consideration than some of the overpraised works of American literary giants. Snooze.
This divide between genres is also a peculiarly American phenom.
Peder, if it's any consolation I talk to myself all the time. I'm the only one who really understands me.
(Note from self: ummm, I think "understands" is an overstatement. "Tolerates" is more like it.)
(Note from self TO self: my, aren't we snippy today?)
(Note back to self, from self, re: note to self: You realize, you're saying all this in public.)
(Note from self, to self, re: note to self from self: Have your people call my people. And for god's sake shut up.)
This post has been removed by the author.
Peder,
P.S.: to clarify, I mean literary fiction as a term used in the bookstores. The mega stores lump together literature and fiction in one big category, not distinguishing chick lit from Tolstoy. That's the sort of thing I find irritating.
I don't know what term I'd give to the truly better fiction being written these days, but marketing has blurred the lines between truly literary fiction and middlebrow fiction that's trying to masquerade as literary. That's the problem I have with the term, the blanket glossing-over way the bookstores use it. There still needs to be a distinction between more sophisticated fiction writers and mass market writers, but dang if I know what that is. If we could convince the bookstores to stop trying to confuse things we could use "literary fiction" again, but I've seen them using the term on a lot of really poorly written books. I'd start a campaign if I thought it'd help, but something tells me the $$ they're making speaks a lot louder than I do.