"book I, personally, don't like" =/= "book only critics will like"
which is completely true and legitimate.
However, the underlying concept, that there are books which appeal primarily to critics but not to the larger public, is also sound. This doesn't invalidate those books as works or art or as worthy to have been written and to read. Nor does it negate the pleasure enjoyed by both critics and the relatively small segment of the population who enjoy those books. ("Relatively small" is an unproven quantity, I admit. But I'm speaking specifically of that population of books which are critical successes but don't sell many copies.)
I live pretty well with the idea that there are books that aren't my thing, but that the world consists of 7 billion people who aren't me, and they're entitled to books they like, too. Like you, I get annoyed by people who forget that they're not the only arbiters of what is good or worthy.
But I do get annoyed by two other, related phenomena:
1. when some writers bitch that their book was a critical darling, but isn't selling, and they blame it on lack of publisher support. It might be lack of publisher support, or it might be that the book really does only appeal to the narrow segment of readers that includes most critics but few "typical readers."
2. the increasing distance between certain highly regarded reviewers and actual mass audience tastes.
As long as there are many reviewers, with different tastes, I'm good. Most people were either "Siskel" people or "Ebert" people, and would select what movies to see based on the comparison of the reviews. But it seems to me that the most prestigious book review venues (hello NY Times) are only reviewing a limited segment of the book population.
That's not a big problem--I turn to other sources for book reviews; they are myriad--but I do resent the superiority complex that afflicts the prestigious venues. I don't think it would damage the NYTBR's reputation to expand their mass market section, or to hire some more downmarket reviewers. There's a distinction between good and bad mass market genre novels, too.
no subject
"book I, personally, don't like" =/= "book only critics will like"
which is completely true and legitimate.
However, the underlying concept, that there are books which appeal primarily to critics but not to the larger public, is also sound. This doesn't invalidate those books as works or art or as worthy to have been written and to read. Nor does it negate the pleasure enjoyed by both critics and the relatively small segment of the population who enjoy those books. ("Relatively small" is an unproven quantity, I admit. But I'm speaking specifically of that population of books which are critical successes but don't sell many copies.)
I live pretty well with the idea that there are books that aren't my thing, but that the world consists of 7 billion people who aren't me, and they're entitled to books they like, too. Like you, I get annoyed by people who forget that they're not the only arbiters of what is good or worthy.
But I do get annoyed by two other, related phenomena:
1. when some writers bitch that their book was a critical darling, but isn't selling, and they blame it on lack of publisher support. It might be lack of publisher support, or it might be that the book really does only appeal to the narrow segment of readers that includes most critics but few "typical readers."
2. the increasing distance between certain highly regarded reviewers and actual mass audience tastes.
As long as there are many reviewers, with different tastes, I'm good. Most people were either "Siskel" people or "Ebert" people, and would select what movies to see based on the comparison of the reviews. But it seems to me that the most prestigious book review venues (hello NY Times) are only reviewing a limited segment of the book population.
That's not a big problem--I turn to other sources for book reviews; they are myriad--but I do resent the superiority complex that afflicts the prestigious venues. I don't think it would damage the NYTBR's reputation to expand their mass market section, or to hire some more downmarket reviewers. There's a distinction between good and bad mass market genre novels, too.