Puma
07-04-2006, 04:23 PM
06-21-2006, 03:47 PM zeprosnepsid (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=626) vbmenu_register("postmenu_660317", true);
Board fanatic
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/customavatars/avatar626_0.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=626)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LA, unfortunately.
Posts: 477
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puma
Never one to step away from a challenge - I'm going to disagree on the literacy in the early 1900's. Have you ever looked at the Boxwell exam, read a fourth grade reader published in 1930 - they make the requirements for high school graduation today look pretty pale. And I know - some of you are going to protest that education is better today and I will agree that there is a lot more emphasis on math and science - but I don't see the equivalent in the humanities. There's also the influence of the "feel good" generation/society in which kids are told not to worry about grammatical rules and spelling so they can express themselves.
I agree with you. I think people may be fooled by the fact that there are simply more people now. But percentage wise I don't think the amount of literate v. illiterate has changed all that drastically.
The whoel US, like the publishing industry, is based on business not literacy. My brother-in-law is maybe barely literate but he makes half a million dollars a year as an entrepeneur. I am extremely literate and am practically poverty level.
__________________
I am the terror that flaps in the night.
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif zeprosnepsidView Public Profile (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=626)Send a private message to zeprosnepsid (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/private.php?do=newpm&u=626)Find More Posts by zeprosnepsid (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/search.php?do=finduser&u=626)
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 06-21-2006, 05:49 PM nevada (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=6819) vbmenu_register("postmenu_660491", true);
Esteemed New Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 18
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif
Don Quixote is by most people considered to be the first true novel and it was published in 1605. However, since you insist on only English novels, try Pamely by Richardson, published in 1740, which was immensely popular as was his second novel, Clarissa. That's 266 years of novel writing. You cant change history just to make a point.
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif nevadaView Public Profile (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=6819)Send a private message to nevada (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/private.php?do=newpm&u=6819)Send email to nevada (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/sendmessage.php?do=mailmember&u=6819)Find More Posts by nevada (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/search.php?do=finduser&u=6819)
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 06-21-2006, 06:44 PM CaroGirl (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=6435) vbmenu_register("postmenu_660564", true);
Puissant
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/customavatars/avatar6435_0.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=6435)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ontariariarioooo
Posts: 579
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevada
Don Quixote is by most people considered to be the first true novel and it was published in 1605. However, since you insist on only English novels, try Pamela by Richardson, published in 1740, which was immensely popular as was his second novel, Clarissa. That's 266 years of novel writing. You cant change history just to make a point.
Oh, Pamela Shamela (LOL, I crack myself up).
Indeed, but please note that the novel I, myself, mentioned was published even earlier that those that you're citing.
The person I responded to said that a novel had to be around for possibly centuries to be considered a classic. I just wanted to point out that that statement was slightly ludicrous.
__________________
Caro
~The two most engaging powers of an author are to make new things familiar, and familiar things new.
I took The 2006 Rejection Pledge (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=444354#post444354): 4/20
Accepted: 1 (2nd place win in a short story contest)
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif CaroGirlView Public Profile (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=6435)Send a private message to CaroGirl (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/private.php?do=newpm&u=6435)Find More Posts by CaroGirl (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/search.php?do=finduser&u=6435)
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 06-22-2006, 02:41 AM gp101 (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=386) vbmenu_register("postmenu_661265", true);
Board fanatic
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 232
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesaritchie
But I'm not sure what your point is? Publishers don't make bestseller lists, readers do. I don't see how any of this could possibly mean publishers are missing the boat?
My point is that publishers wet themselves when their favorite authors send in their latest manuscripts, but don't (generally) go too far out of their way for an author who has no, or little, track record. I can understand this, as pub'ing is big business, and if I were in charge of the House, I'd want King and Clancy to give me more of their material so I could make boatloads of money too. Nothing ground-breaking about that.
But I wonder how many books are "made big" because of huge publicity. Commercials sell stuff to people that they don't really want or need all the time. The pub'ing industry isn't any different. In this case, the pub'ing world does determine a great number of the titles that make the top ten, despite those great nuggets that crack the list mostly on word-of-mouth. And I ask if it was like that in the early 20th century as well. If so, why weren't there more repeat names on year-end lists for that period?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesaritchie
Publishers give the reading public whatever the reading public asks for. Always, have, always will. The reading public votes with money, and it's always the reading public that decides what is or isn't on teh bestseller list, and how long it will stay there.
Really? They passed on Harry Potter in droves until Scholastic (I think) took it on. Did they fail to see terrific writing? Or were they not aware of the market's taste? Whatever the reason, Rowling's epic was shut out by most of the major houses. They wanted to take the easy route in my opinion, and give the public more of the same. More of the proven commodity. Which is fine from a business-model POV. But it seems by the data in the lists I posted that this was not always the case. That, just maybe, publishing houses at one point were more likely to take a chance on either a writer with great skills, or a story with a lot of potential.
Or is it that writers in those times took longer to produce novels because they did not have the advantage of the word processor or PC, and therefore took longer to produce their manuscripts, and were possibly forgotten by luke-warm fans by the time their next book came out? Today, luke-warm fans of one book usually don't have to wait longer than twelve months (or shorter) before the author's next offering is available. Not many writers forty or more years ago could accomplish that kind of turn-around. So if readers enjoyed their first book, I bet most didn't remember the author's name by the time his second book came out. So you really couldn't survive as a new author on reputation alone. You had to make each book stand alone as if you were a new writer each time, and slowly build up a fan base. Doesn't seem like that's the case today for top-selling authors.
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif gp101View Public Profile (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=386)Send a private message to gp101 (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/private.php?do=newpm&u=386)Find More Posts by gp101 (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/search.php?do=finduser&u=386)
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 06-22-2006, 02:59 AM Inkdaub (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=7909) vbmenu_register("postmenu_661271", true);
One of the Locals
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 43
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif
There will always be an unfair advantage toward the moneymakers in any industry. Publishing is no different. So I guess it is a conspiracy in a way.
That's why we must support McSweeney's and the like in addition to the huge publishing houses.
Danielle Steel...I think it's Danielle Steel...reportedly owns something like a hundred parking spaces around San Francisco. Now, reading those best seller lists, I see how she pays for them.
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif InkdaubView Public Profile (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=7909)Send a private message to Inkdaub (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/private.php?do=newpm&u=7909)Send email to Inkdaub (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/sendmessage.php?do=mailmember&u=7909)Find More Posts by Inkdaub (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/search.php?do=finduser&u=7909)
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 06-22-2006, 05:00 AM Puma (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=7222) vbmenu_register("postmenu_661323", true);
Board fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: near Columbus Ohio
Posts: 191
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif
Little different perspective but in the same vein - why is it that (at least in my frame of reference) as people mature they stop reading fiction and shift to non fiction? Is this because they have grown out of the romantic offerings of youth (historical fiction, romance type, sci-fi), moved past the mainstream offerings and find that there is little available that appeals to a mature individual? Demographically, the mature population is a large one - are they being taken into the equation in what's being offered by the big houses? Puma
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif
Board fanatic
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/customavatars/avatar626_0.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=626)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LA, unfortunately.
Posts: 477
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puma
Never one to step away from a challenge - I'm going to disagree on the literacy in the early 1900's. Have you ever looked at the Boxwell exam, read a fourth grade reader published in 1930 - they make the requirements for high school graduation today look pretty pale. And I know - some of you are going to protest that education is better today and I will agree that there is a lot more emphasis on math and science - but I don't see the equivalent in the humanities. There's also the influence of the "feel good" generation/society in which kids are told not to worry about grammatical rules and spelling so they can express themselves.
I agree with you. I think people may be fooled by the fact that there are simply more people now. But percentage wise I don't think the amount of literate v. illiterate has changed all that drastically.
The whoel US, like the publishing industry, is based on business not literacy. My brother-in-law is maybe barely literate but he makes half a million dollars a year as an entrepeneur. I am extremely literate and am practically poverty level.
__________________
I am the terror that flaps in the night.
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif zeprosnepsidView Public Profile (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=626)Send a private message to zeprosnepsid (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/private.php?do=newpm&u=626)Find More Posts by zeprosnepsid (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/search.php?do=finduser&u=626)
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 06-21-2006, 05:49 PM nevada (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=6819) vbmenu_register("postmenu_660491", true);
Esteemed New Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 18
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif
Don Quixote is by most people considered to be the first true novel and it was published in 1605. However, since you insist on only English novels, try Pamely by Richardson, published in 1740, which was immensely popular as was his second novel, Clarissa. That's 266 years of novel writing. You cant change history just to make a point.
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif nevadaView Public Profile (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=6819)Send a private message to nevada (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/private.php?do=newpm&u=6819)Send email to nevada (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/sendmessage.php?do=mailmember&u=6819)Find More Posts by nevada (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/search.php?do=finduser&u=6819)
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 06-21-2006, 06:44 PM CaroGirl (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=6435) vbmenu_register("postmenu_660564", true);
Puissant
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/customavatars/avatar6435_0.gif (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=6435)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Ontariariarioooo
Posts: 579
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gifhttp://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevada
Don Quixote is by most people considered to be the first true novel and it was published in 1605. However, since you insist on only English novels, try Pamela by Richardson, published in 1740, which was immensely popular as was his second novel, Clarissa. That's 266 years of novel writing. You cant change history just to make a point.
Oh, Pamela Shamela (LOL, I crack myself up).
Indeed, but please note that the novel I, myself, mentioned was published even earlier that those that you're citing.
The person I responded to said that a novel had to be around for possibly centuries to be considered a classic. I just wanted to point out that that statement was slightly ludicrous.
__________________
Caro
~The two most engaging powers of an author are to make new things familiar, and familiar things new.
I took The 2006 Rejection Pledge (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=444354#post444354): 4/20
Accepted: 1 (2nd place win in a short story contest)
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif CaroGirlView Public Profile (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=6435)Send a private message to CaroGirl (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/private.php?do=newpm&u=6435)Find More Posts by CaroGirl (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/search.php?do=finduser&u=6435)
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 06-22-2006, 02:41 AM gp101 (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=386) vbmenu_register("postmenu_661265", true);
Board fanatic
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 232
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesaritchie
But I'm not sure what your point is? Publishers don't make bestseller lists, readers do. I don't see how any of this could possibly mean publishers are missing the boat?
My point is that publishers wet themselves when their favorite authors send in their latest manuscripts, but don't (generally) go too far out of their way for an author who has no, or little, track record. I can understand this, as pub'ing is big business, and if I were in charge of the House, I'd want King and Clancy to give me more of their material so I could make boatloads of money too. Nothing ground-breaking about that.
But I wonder how many books are "made big" because of huge publicity. Commercials sell stuff to people that they don't really want or need all the time. The pub'ing industry isn't any different. In this case, the pub'ing world does determine a great number of the titles that make the top ten, despite those great nuggets that crack the list mostly on word-of-mouth. And I ask if it was like that in the early 20th century as well. If so, why weren't there more repeat names on year-end lists for that period?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesaritchie
Publishers give the reading public whatever the reading public asks for. Always, have, always will. The reading public votes with money, and it's always the reading public that decides what is or isn't on teh bestseller list, and how long it will stay there.
Really? They passed on Harry Potter in droves until Scholastic (I think) took it on. Did they fail to see terrific writing? Or were they not aware of the market's taste? Whatever the reason, Rowling's epic was shut out by most of the major houses. They wanted to take the easy route in my opinion, and give the public more of the same. More of the proven commodity. Which is fine from a business-model POV. But it seems by the data in the lists I posted that this was not always the case. That, just maybe, publishing houses at one point were more likely to take a chance on either a writer with great skills, or a story with a lot of potential.
Or is it that writers in those times took longer to produce novels because they did not have the advantage of the word processor or PC, and therefore took longer to produce their manuscripts, and were possibly forgotten by luke-warm fans by the time their next book came out? Today, luke-warm fans of one book usually don't have to wait longer than twelve months (or shorter) before the author's next offering is available. Not many writers forty or more years ago could accomplish that kind of turn-around. So if readers enjoyed their first book, I bet most didn't remember the author's name by the time his second book came out. So you really couldn't survive as a new author on reputation alone. You had to make each book stand alone as if you were a new writer each time, and slowly build up a fan base. Doesn't seem like that's the case today for top-selling authors.
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif gp101View Public Profile (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=386)Send a private message to gp101 (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/private.php?do=newpm&u=386)Find More Posts by gp101 (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/search.php?do=finduser&u=386)
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 06-22-2006, 02:59 AM Inkdaub (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=7909) vbmenu_register("postmenu_661271", true);
One of the Locals
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 43
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif
There will always be an unfair advantage toward the moneymakers in any industry. Publishing is no different. So I guess it is a conspiracy in a way.
That's why we must support McSweeney's and the like in addition to the huge publishing houses.
Danielle Steel...I think it's Danielle Steel...reportedly owns something like a hundred parking spaces around San Francisco. Now, reading those best seller lists, I see how she pays for them.
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif InkdaubView Public Profile (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=7909)Send a private message to Inkdaub (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/private.php?do=newpm&u=7909)Send email to Inkdaub (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/sendmessage.php?do=mailmember&u=7909)Find More Posts by Inkdaub (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/search.php?do=finduser&u=7909)
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/post_old.gif 06-22-2006, 05:00 AM Puma (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/member.php?u=7222) vbmenu_register("postmenu_661323", true);
Board fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: near Columbus Ohio
Posts: 191
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif
Little different perspective but in the same vein - why is it that (at least in my frame of reference) as people mature they stop reading fiction and shift to non fiction? Is this because they have grown out of the romantic offerings of youth (historical fiction, romance type, sci-fi), moved past the mainstream offerings and find that there is little available that appeals to a mature individual? Demographically, the mature population is a large one - are they being taken into the equation in what's being offered by the big houses? Puma
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif