Dazzle
addict
Reged: 04/02/04
Posts: 484
Loc: UK
|
|
I'll set aside my dislike for Dan Brown's shoddy work for the purpose of this post.
Two authors spring to mind that seem to have the populace reading. When I'm travelling on a train or a bus I can't help but see others around me reading their popular novels. The authors, of course, are Dan Brown and JK Rowling.
I've never read any Harry Potter book and I certainly won't be reading any more Dan Brown. The former because I am not one of the children for whom the book was written; the latter because I find his literacy to be lacking and his prose clumsy.
But the public has spoken in their millions and everyone's reading their books. Some, in the case of Harry Potter fans even "love" the book before it has been released.
There are nay-sayers - such as myself - who rally against the popularity of these books, mostly for similar reasons. Kids reading Harry Potter is fine, adults reading Harry Potter to their kids is fine...but adults reading Harry Potter?
The popular argument for these authors and their wares is that they are getting people reading. Kids read Harry Potter and adults are reading Dan Brown.
Personally, I would disagree with this popular line of thinking. While "getting people reading" is a good thing - and I refer to people who didn't read actively before they'd read their first Harry Potter or Dan Brown - I believe that the statement is, for the greater percentage, incorrect. They are either getting people reading Harry Potter or getting people reading Dan Brown. They are getting people to read brands.
I know there are people who are interested in the contents and go out and buy The Holy Blood & The Holy Grail - I'm not talking about them. I'm referring to a certain type of person - and I've seen a few here - that say they've read all of the Dan Brown books (or on other occasions Harry Potter) and can't wait for the next one to arrive; in the meantime, however, they are going to read them all again.
This, to me, is not "getting people reading" and is, in fact, getting them hooked on a brand - literary cigarettes.
The greatest disappointment is that these people who Brown and Rowling have "got reading" will only read Brown and Rowling. To go further, I'd argue that Brown and Rowling haven't even got people reading at all - the money behind them has got people hooked on their brand.
Stephen King is one of the bestselling authors of all time - nobody sees fit to queue up at midnight in order to get the latest King. And his style of writing, while not perfect, is light years ahead of the quality offered by Brown and Rowling. Sometime King can be close to literary.
Are new readers being branded to certain authors?
|
AAnnAArchy
Gifted Procrastinator
Reged: 10/20/03
Posts: 643
Loc: Las Vegas
|
|
Oh, Dazzle, you should try Harry Potter. They're really not children's books. I haven't read the last one yet (we have it), but they're very entertaining reads.
Also, in general, the people who have been hooked on certain authors, read lots of other books too. I have a private message board with friends. The majority of them read Harry Potter and have read most Dan Brown books. They're well-informed, highly educated and read more books than you can shake a stick at. The other day, my dad asked if Mudpuppy and I really read all of the books that we review on our blogs. I've finished two books in the past couple of days. One about kids in math competitions, the other about post-partum depression. I dislike math and I've never had a child.  That'll give you an idea of the subject range in our household.
By the way, most readers I know have also read a whole lot of Stephen King. And the reason people don't line up for Stephen King - he's prolific. There's no shortage of Stephen King material out there. He also has a column in Entertainment Weekly (a US magazine about tv, movies, books, etc), so if someone is looking for Stephen King, he's accessible.
I think there are very few people who will only read one author. In fact, in my personal life and away from this board, I don't know any. Every person who has read Dan Brown and Harry Potter (you really should give it a shot) is a voracious reader who reads lots of other things.
|
TahoeT
journeyman
Reged: 10/20/03
Posts: 91
Loc: The Main Line
|
|
Dazzle>>>Are new readers being branded to certain authors? <<<
Marketing is marketing. There's no question that there's HUGE media-hype surrounding Harry Potter and Dan Brown, but I don't see it as any more of a negative than I do advertising in general. There's lots of money to be made.
People read books for any number of reasons. Some read only specific types of books. Some read only books by specific authors. Some will only read a specific genre. And some will only read the latest mass-market author. Oh well.
I'm a 53 year old denizen of the other message board AAn mentioned, and have read all of the Harry Potter books - and Dan Brown - and Umberto Eco. Harry Potter is a fun story. Dan Brown books have been entertaining. Foucault's Pendulum was painful to read at times, but I did enjoy the story. I don't pull any of them apart or read between the lines. I'm actually not interested in whether his description of something is historically accurate or not. I'm not reading them for history and fact, I'm reading them for entertainment. I generally don't look for novels of any sort for my daily history lesson.
I love 1930's British murder mysteries and read all of Dorothy L Sayers and Agatha Christie. I've read every one of the Oz books by L Frank Baum. I've read most of Stephen King, Stroub, Cook... I really enjoy Katherine Kurtz' Deryni series. Just finished 44 Scotland Street by Alexander McCall Smith, and Maisie Dobbs by Jaqueline Winspear. Not 'heavy' reading, but it is summertime..... I read a lot. I admit that I shy away from probably most of the more popular mass-market authors, but then, I don't watch much network television, either. Sometimes I read for educational purposes, sometimes pure fluff. But the main thing is that I read for enjoyment.
But back to your statement of "Are new readers being branded to certain authors?" Probably. Just as new readers were branded to Charles Dickens when he wrote his serialized stories, or to Mark Twain - or any other author whose works have bee advertised or otherwise used to boost circulation.
--------------------
Tim...
HB's B
http://www.timandvictor.com
|
sweetsophie13
newbie
Reged: 09/06/05
Posts: 32
|
|
I'm not sure I have as detailed a response - both of these are so well thought-out and say a lot of what I think. But another thing is - are we not only perhaps being branded to authors but perhaps, moreso, genres?
|
TahoeT
journeyman
Reged: 10/20/03
Posts: 91
Loc: The Main Line
|
|
Quote:
sweetsophie13 said:
I'm not sure I have as detailed a response - both of these are so well thought-out and say a lot of what I think. But another thing is - are we not only perhaps being branded to authors but perhaps, moreso, genres?
I dunno... I think that first and foremost, we read what we like. We find a style, an author, a genre that we like - and stick with it for awhile. I've certainly done it! I read a slew of Dashiell Hammett one year - one after the other. I've done the same with other authors. And while I really like a wide variety of styles and genres, I have a penchant for older books, written pre-WWII.
There are certainly those who jump on the newest bestseller just for the sake of letting people know they've read it, but I do think that many more read simply for the enjoyment.
--------------------
Tim...
HB's B
http://www.timandvictor.com
|
Arras
enthusiast
Reged: 05/24/04
Posts: 263
Loc: B.C., Canada
|
|
It's also worth noting that "bestsellers" have so-called "water cooler appeal"--by reading what so many other people are apparently reading, you maintain an important social connection. It gives you a shared experience to talk about with friends, co-workers, and even total strangers on web forums like this one. Books like the Harry Potter series or The DaVinci Code end up becoming cultural "touchstones" with which you can identify a generation of readers--the books, movies, and TV shows that most people of a certain era have been exposed to. The popular culture of the next decade will certainly make use of that, as "in-jokes," satires, and references to these works become more common, safe in the knowledge that the vast majority of the intended audience will "get" the allusions.
Some people turn to the bestseller lists expressly to find out what "the rest of their peers" are reading, so as not to be left out of the social conversation. If they see a book that has been on the list for, say, 10+ weeks, they may well want to read that book just to stay connected to their peers (other readers of that genre), or perhaps their generation. Not doing so risks leaving them feeling "left out," and "out of touch" with their peers. Some may have the more practical worry that they'll have nothing to say or comment on when they get together with friends, or at parties. Shared social experiences are key to feelings of "belonging" to a peer group, and if you don't do your share to keep up with what the culture is reading/watching, you risk feeling marginalized or alienated.
|
sweetsophie13
newbie
Reged: 09/06/05
Posts: 32
|
|
Quote:
Arras said:
It's also worth noting that "bestsellers" have so-called "water cooler appeal"--by reading what so many other people are apparently reading, you maintain an important social connection. It gives you a shared experience to talk about with friends, co-workers, and even total strangers on web forums like this one. Books like the Harry Potter series or The DaVinci Code end up becoming cultural "touchstones" with which you can identify a generation of readers--the books, movies, and TV shows that most people of a certain era have been exposed to. The popular culture of the next decade will certainly make use of that, as "in-jokes," satires, and references to these works become more common, safe in the knowledge that the vast majority of the intended audience will "get" the allusions.
Some people turn to the bestseller lists expressly to find out what "the rest of their peers" are reading, so as not to be left out of the social conversation. If they see a book that has been on the list for, say, 10+ weeks, they may well want to read that book just to stay connected to their peers (other readers of that genre), or perhaps their generation. Not doing so risks leaving them feeling "left out," and "out of touch" with their peers. Some may have the more practical worry that they'll have nothing to say or comment on when they get together with friends, or at parties. Shared social experiences are key to feelings of "belonging" to a peer group, and if you don't do your share to keep up with what the culture is reading/watching, you risk feeling marginalized or alienated.
I this is a great point too - water-cooler appeal. Of course that's part of how people build a brand I guess - make it a hot topic so that when people are talking about tissues -they think kleenex since that's what their peers use and what is popular. But- I still think at the end of the day, the books people choose to read on a regular basis are based simply on what they like and enjoy - that's what will bring them back. They might read something at the watercooler to fit in but that doesn't mean they'll go back to it (or the author, or genre, per se).
|
Remarkable
enthusiast
Reged: 09/30/05
Posts: 326
|
|
Dazzle, I think you're mistaken. Of course, leaving your audience wanting more is something that many artists attempt to do. But there's nothing wrong with that. And if audiences are enthusiastic, there's nothing wrong with that either.
Isn't the truth that, despite your better judgement, you actually quite enjoyed reading Angels and Demons, and The Da Vinci Code? With all their flaws, Dan's books are entertaining reads.
|
MsVetra
enthusiast
Reged: 09/29/05
Posts: 300
Loc: UK
|
|
Ooooohhhhhhh.... I can't think of anything more apropriate at this point than: 'Apriti cielo' - the Italian in me is speaking!
Can't wait to read Dazzle's reply to your post, Rem!
|
Remarkable
enthusiast
Reged: 09/30/05
Posts: 326
|
|
"You open sky"? What does that mean?
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: