Mark wrote: Damn, a little elitist, eh? I refuse to believe
that modern readers of escapist literature are not
"discerning readers." And many of the classics in our genre
are the escapist literature of their day -- Gold Medal,
anyone? Regardless of the level of
"discernment, " no readers seek out books they expect to
dislike.
**********
I'm just being realistic. Most readers DO judge a book by
it's cover. It's impossible to know how many readers, like
myself, bought The Davinci Code and were horribly
disappointed by it. I was familiar with the subject and heard
great things about that book, and I came away thinking this
was a nothing plot, completely unbelieveable. I'd spent the
money, though, and that's what they're counting. That I doubt
I'll ever buy another Dan Brown book is not taken into the
equasion. I spent the money and the book is a best seller
however stupid the text actually is. So, while I expected to
enjoy the book, I didn't but I don't get my money back. This
is the same for everyone. You can't tell before you read it
whether a book will float your boat or not. Still, and I've
met some of them, millions did read that book and loved it. I
try to discuss the points of the book which made no sense to
me with them, but those elements are not important to that
type of reader. They just get off on the short chapters and
the danger and violence elements. It doesn't have to make
sense to them. They don't care about realism or metaphor or
meaning. It's visceral for them and nothing else. I'm sorry
if I seem judgemental, but I am in this regard. I don't
consider readers who think like this very discearning or
intelligent. Jim Thompson had a very succinct and rustic
writing style, short and straight-from-the-shoulder. No story
he ever wrote was as poorly plotted or thought out as The
Davinci Code, and yet he never sold a million copies of
anything in his life time. I doubt that all the book he
wrote, collectively sold a million copies in his life time.
But by comparison to Dan Brown, Jim Thompson was on par with
Tolstoy.
Patrick King
---
DJ-Anonyme@webtv.net wrote:
> Patrick wrote:
>
> "I'm speaking, for the most part, about
so-called
> escapist
> entertainment. . . . 'We' may be discerning
reader,
> able to analyze and
> examine the bigger picture behind stories
designed
> for entertainment.
> But the people who make these books and films
the
> huge successes they
> become tend not to think beyond their own
sloping
> roofs."
>
> Damn, a little elitist, eh? I refuse to
believe
> that modern readers of
> escapist literature are not "discerning
readers."
> And many of the
> classics in our genre are the escapist literature
of
> their day -- Gold
> Medal, anyone? Regardless of the level of
> "discernment," no readers
> seek out books they expect to dislike. Readers
of
> bestsellers may not
> discern in regard to the same elements niche
readers
> do, but they are
> just as picky and sure of their reasoning as
anyone
> else. And if it
> were so easy to satisfy that audience, why
don't
> more writers do it?
> And why do so many who try to "sell out," as it
is
> so often dismissed,
> fail?
>
> On top of that, I refuse to believe that I
get
> something qualitatively
> different out of a crime thriller than a
less
> "discerning reader."
>
> "If you want to sell millions of copies, it's
better
> to let the reader
> fill in the more controversial aspects of
a
> protagonist's life."
>
> Where does this presumption of religion's
being
> controversial come from?
> US culture is so steeped in religion, not just
the
> morals, but the
> stories and symbolism of the Bible, that I can't
see
> how an author could
> avoid it, either in the positive (as Jim has
noted)
> or negative (as in
> one of John Evans's "Halo" books -- being cryptic
to
> avoid a spoiler --
> among many others).
>
> And there's a huge difference between saying
an
> author didn't care
> enough about his/her character's religion to
focus
> on it and saying that
> that author actively avoided focusing on
religion.
> I'd even go so far
> as to say that one reason a character's religion
was
> not often
> underlined in crime novels of the first
two-thirds
> of the century was
> because it was so assumed by authors and
audience
> that "everyone" was
> Christian that it didn't require mentioning.
Not
> mentioning the heroes
> were white during that period certaining didn't
mean
> authors were
> avoiding race, just that it never occured to
them
> that readers would
> think otherwise.
>
> You're right that the influence of the
Catholic
> Church on our popular
> culture, particularly film (from the Legion
of
> Decency to Joe Breen's
> enforcement of the Production Code), but
it
> certainly didn't influence
> against religion. In fact, it insisted upon a
moral
> outcome based on
> Judeo-Christian precepts. As for the visibility
of
> religion, not just
> its morals, Jim has already pointed out the
huge
> population of priests
> and nuns in movies.
>
> Mark
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo!
Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10 Dec 2006 EST