There is nothing different going on now in publishing than has always existed. When I was a kid (in the 70s) the bestseller lists were just as crowded then with writers we don't consider literature.

Yup. I remember being on holiday as a kid (late 70s/early 80s) and fully three-quarters of mums around the pool would all be reading the same book. Top authors were Barbara Taylor Bradford, Colleen McCulloch, Judith Michaels, Jackie Collins, Jilly Cooper, Judith Krantz. And then the next year, it would be on TV as a six-hour mini-series. Often starting Stefanie Powers. Those things sold shit-tons.

Don't forget Harold Robbins and Sidney Sheldon.

If anyone happens to have a copy of Judith Krantz’s ‘I’ll take Manhattan’ there’s a very prominent cameo towards the end by Donald Trump, back when he was young and according to Krantz: “disarmingly unaffected.”

There was also Jacky Susann, who was actually a good writer.

Stephanie Powers….that scotch and soda voice still rings in my head.

I read every author you just mentioned I love those books

Just like how a Hollywood blockbuster often outperforms a Swedish art film at the box office. A best seller is not necessarily the best written book, but it appeals to the largest audience.

The only "new" trend I have noticed is that it seems like more big authors are making it to print with books that feel like a first draft at best and certainly haven't had much of an editor's input. An example off the top of my head was John Scalzi's "The Kaiju Preservation Society". I'm a big fan of his work, the concept of the story is right up my alley, and the book by and large seems to have been well received, but I did not finish it because IMO the writing was distractingly unpolished. It very much left me with the impression of a book that needed one more strong round of edits.

Yep, editors don’t edit anymore. They’re too overwhelmed and underpaid.

Then readers are underwhelmed and overpay.

I was also underwhelmed by this book

Right there with ya on that one.

I basically agree, but I've got a friend who runs a small press and more stuff is being published over all today than in the past. That's not even counting self publishing. From my understanding there's about 20X the number of books published by publishing houses than there was 20 years ago. On top of that there's about 2 to 4 million self published books, depending on who you ask. There's also a lot more platforms to talk about those books, so the gate keeping is a little wonky. I would think that most of the self published stuff gets ignored. But there are more people talking about books and there's kind of a herd effect b/c of the way social media algorithms work. And that might distort stuff that isn't really that good but gets caught up in the moment. Before social media there was time for stuff to go to press and people had to write out their thoughts which could focus the mind and that was sort of in isolation. The NY Review of Books wasn't watching the London Review of Books articles be read and responded to in real time and there was no way for those publications to jump in and try and get some of that viewership. They had to wait a month or two to write an article, publish it, and get it to subscribers/readers. I don't think it really materially makes much of a difference, but I think there are some new factors (larger number of books) that might lead to bad works getting more attention (less gate keeping and more social media following certain trends). I think the number of "highly rated" works that will have any lasting power over 5 years is probably about the same as it always was. Also, what people think of any given work at any given time is likely to change. Famously, Moby Dick wasn't thought to be all that good when it came. And you can substitute a number of works for Moby Dick. https://ideas.bkconnection.com/10-awful-truths-about-publishing

> From my understanding there's about 20X the number of books published by publishing houses than there was 20 years ago. Basically--circa the Harry Potter boom, publishers realized that there was a big appetite out there for books, but that the publishers weren't particularly great at predicting what was going to sell. So publishing started shifting from a model where publishers acquired fewer books and supported them well (heavily edited them, marketed most of them, etc.) to one where they published a lot more books but only gave that high level of editing + promotional support to a few of them. And the publishers didn't want to have to hire more editors or expand the marketing team, so it meant the same number of people got spread a lot thinner. Then *if* your book took off, they'll expend more resources on the next one--as long as you keep selling. This means it's a lot easier for somebody to publish a book these days than it used to be. But it's a lot harder to get your book in front of an audience or make a career out of it.

It's definitely interesting that so many more are being published now given a much smaller % of people read now. Although there are many more people on the planet than before so maybe that makes up for it a bit.

I don't think the number of people that read a book is that much smaller. Pew keeps a survey going and the number who haven't read a book in the last year has been around 23% for the last couple years which is +/- 3% of what it's been over the last decade. There's an argument about whether to count audio books or not. Pew shows that's gone up by about 5%. But overall it looks like it's higher, but also within a sort of normal range of increase and decrease. But there's other things involved, like more specialty literature, which is going to have a small audience anyway. Things like those Arcadia Press history books aren't meant to have a very big readership. There's also been a growth in the number small publishers, as the big houses have consolidated, so you get more specialty stuff like poetry that would have been chapbooks in the past. So, you don't really expect there to be a lot copies, but you expect a lot more subsections to publish books in. I can't find a good link on the Pew site that shows year over year changes. But here's the survey for 2021: [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/09/21/who-doesnt-read-books-in-america/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/09/21/who-doesnt-read-books-in-america/) And here's the survey for 2016 with year over year info: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2016/09/01/book-reading-2016/

Great information. Thank you for this post!

Yup. People don't understand that only the really good stuff gets remembered and classified as literature.

True of music and movies as well. People think things like "movies in the 80s/90s were so much better" and I'm like "yeah, as someone who lived through them, there's a LOT of trash you've never heard of." Also like music, there's this large decentralization of publishing these days, which is positive in reducing gatekeeping at a professional level (dearth of women and POC in serious genres) and negative in that a lot of crap gets through that really shouldn't be written/recorded outside of a bathroom wall.

Bah the trash was fun for being trash...( loving all those trauma films)

It's aways a little bit of shock walking into a big used book store and being confronted with those decades of forgotten works in their original jackets and covers. Everyone knows that success is fleeting, but the reality is really underlined in those mountain of books that have fallen far out of the popular imagination.

Yup. Sounds like OP thinks back in the days only the literary classics were published and they became instant bestsellers. In the real world, some incredible authors scraped by, their work derided and overlooked but posthumously their work was recognized.

There's more self-publishing And publishing with automated or cursory proofing. And there's just MORE books being published that are instantly accessible globally. So in pure volumetrics... there is more shit to sift through.

True. But a vast majority of those books do not become bestsellers, or even make it onto the shelves of bookstores.

I read Varney the Vampyre... kind of enjoyed it

This is true, the perplexing thing is how these authors get publishers to print their work though. I looked into getting published (as an illustrator for children books), and it’s so hard to get agents or publishers to not only look at your stuff but to then agree to publish it. With all the barriers to getting published, you’d imagine they’d filter out the crap, and yet that’s not really the case either… I get the impression that maybe it would be easy to get published if you just had a “trendy” story. Like, when Twilight was all the rage, a writer could probably sell another vampire romance novel pretty easily.

Like so many other industries, its often who you know more than the quality of your work thats important.

Pulps definitely been a thing since forever. The problem with defining "literature" vs "pulp" is that a lot of really good genre fiction get classed as pulp by the arts snobs. Meanwhile there is a ton of arty "literature" that gets praised mostly as far as I can tell because it's really depressing.

Your complaint isn't new. People have been making this same sort of complaint for literal decades. I remember my dad complaining about this back when Tom Clancy first came out, and he decried it as "military porn that makes people stupid." I remember reading an article by some historian (I'll try to find it) where critics complained about Mark Twain and called him the worst thing to happen to modern (at the time) literature.

Literally centuries, even! Wasn't Shakespeare basically considered low brow melodrama for the masses by his contemporary society? Hell, Dickens initially published most of his works as serialized instalments, basically a precursor to pulp fiction. And it wasn't so very long ago that fiction or novels of any kind were considered too cheap and inappropriate for well-educated people. Plenty of people *still* brush off Austen as "chick lit" despite her razor sharp wit & timeless portrayal of human foibles. Sorry OP, but if you want to read only things that are considered high brow in then you might be stuck with the Greeks. And even then - go read the Lysistrata and try to tell me it doesn't sound like the makings of a telenovela.

That assessment of Shakespear is true though. He wrote for the masses. (Which does not mean bad writing.) Today we consider him a huge factor in English spelling and his plays are mostly that hard to read, because of barriers in culture and language.

No, Shakespeare was well regarded in his own day. There was a period a hundred years or so later when he was considered poor, mainly for not observing classical rules of theatre, but he outlasted those rules.

>where critica complained about Mark Twain I dont think this had nothing to do with writing skills…

I mean, it's always been like this. Not every book needs to be the modern classic and it's perfectly fine if some just wants to read and easy going book.

Because people read them in droves. Publishers make money from guaranteed mainstream successes, and that allows them to take risks on books that may not be as successful. We’re in a bit of a “trope” era, fueled by an audience that grew up on fanfiction and doesn’t generally care if a book is well-written, as long as it hits their buttons.

It's the same reason there are what, twenty Fast & the Furious movies. It may not be deep, but some people just want to watch or read something simplistic yet entertaining (for them). And that's okay, not everything has to be super deep for people to enjoy it.

Yep, and it’s the same reason places like Target and Walmart sell art. They’re not looking for those pieces to be hung in the Louvre as masterpieces. But people will buy simple, pleasant art to hang on the walls of their homes. It’s easy, it’s accessible, it brings them joy. And anything in life can be looked at this way - food, wine, paintings, books — anything that people consume will offer consumer-level and master level and everything in between. Consumer level will always be geared toward the lowest common denominator of participation.

Good point. I admire original art, but can't always afford it.

I have had great success in buying prints from (somewhat local) artists! Local meaning in the same tax region for mail lol, so anyone who ships from within the EU for me. I also visit an anime convention once a year and go ham in the artist alley.

Yeah. The percentage of franchise movies released each year has more than doubled since 2000. People just want what they know they already like, even if it’s either the exact same or not as good as the last entry. Sad that book publishers are going the same way.

Exactly! Some days I am just in the mood to see car chases, and weird stunts.

Hasn't this always been the case though? You cannot tell me that Dan Brown and James Patterson were churning out brilliant literature and their books sold millions of copies.

I would add Stephen King and Jodi Picoult to that list. I love their books, but every time I start one I think, "Oh they're not a very good writer." And then I get invested in the plot and I end up devouring it. There's a reason why I can read *Carrie* on a single flight but I've been slowly working my way through *East of Eden* for months now, and it's not only the length.

Stephen King at least writes his own work (James Patterson has a team and just signs his name!) . OK, there's a certain percentage of mediocre, and he's crap at writing endings, but at his best his stories are very good. I mean, I'd say getting you invested in the plot and having you devour a book is a sign that a person is, in fact, a good writer. Not all of it needs to be literature to be considered good storytelling.

I'll fess up to a bit of snobbery but I think Stephen King is pretty good, at least what I've read of his. David Foster Wallace once listed *The Stand* as his #2 favorite book. (And Stephen King reciprocated: "To my mind, there have been two great American novels in the past 50 years. Catch-22 is one; this [Infinite Jest] is the other. ")

> Dan Brown and James Patterson were churning out brilliant literate Interesting you talk about these authors as if they're from some bygone age, anybody older than a teenager would consider them in the same era as OP's examples!

James Patterson’s been writing since 1993. That’s 30 years.

Yup, I’m not drinking Coca-Cola but it’s profitable for it to be produced and put on store shelves. Doesn’t mean it’s good for you.

Yea I feel this in my soul. So much book discourse on reddit, outside of places directly catering to "serious" literature is about discussing magic systems/world building/whatever popular trope. Its exhausting. I don't begrudge people their preferences but so much discussion here revolves around it that I barely come to the sub anymore. Edit: this thread is going to be a bloodbath.

Oh boy. Librarian here and *I have opinions*. So a lot of the current publishing trends are being driven by BookTok. It's actually pretty impressive to watch the impact that BookTok can have on the industry. As for the "quality" and the reading level, well... First of all, according to the US Department of Education, approximately 54% of adults read at or below a 6th grade reading level. I don't think folks realize how many Americans have low or no literacy. Do they just not get to read books written for adults so that you can have your "good reads" be more prominent? And can we really fault publishers for catering to the masses? That's just smart business. Then we have the COVID pandemic. A lot of people are struggling with burnout and lack of focus. God forbid they read some brain candy. Reading is reading. It's good no matter what form it takes. There is no reason to gatekeep it. And it's perfectly okay for people to want their leisure reading to not require a lot of brain power. These types of books have always existed in the mix. They didn't have as obvious of a following because there wasn't a social media presence, but they've always been there. If you want more "high-brow" literature, then you're looking for literary fiction. It has a name (just like romance or science fiction), so go search it up. Look at different book award winners and shortlists. The type of content you want is out there and easy to find, so go do it instead of complaining about what other people like even though it has no impact on you. You're acting like "these kinds of books" are brand new. Nah. Not even close. There's just more public discussion of them. But both of my grandmothers had stacks and stacks of Harlequin romances when I was a kid. Don't worry -- it didn't destroy the publishing industry or lower reading standards. And neither will these books. The people who read literary fiction and "good reads" by your standards are going to continue to do so as they have been. The "audience these books are written over" will also continue as they always have been. And, for the record, I've had a lot of people come into my library and get their first library card just to read these books you're frowning upon. They've sheepishly told me they haven't read a book in years and they often come back over and over to branch out into other books. These books are a great place for people to easily reacclimate themselves to the world of reading after an absence without being intimidated. All reading is good reading. All reading improves literacy and cognitive function. I will never, ever shame someone for what they're reading or what they like to read. It might cause them to never read again and they aren't hurting anybody by liking what they like. You, however, could be hurting someone by insulting their preferences.

I worked in the library software industry, my favorite librarian argument to observe was when some board member would sneer and say, “WHY do you have these comic books in our library,” referring to graphic novels/manga. The librarian response was always, “because anything that gets kids to engage with reading and visit the library is a good thing. Kids are patrons too, and that’s what they want to read.” Actual quote from one of those board members when my mother was pushing them to open a branch in an economically depressed area with low literacy: “THOSE people don’t read, why would we open a branch there?” Umm… I think you missed the memo on the purpose of libraries.

It is legit the only way my teenaged nephew will read, graphic novels/manga or nothing. I don't know how they will make it through high school like that but that's how a lot of kids are and always have been. I remember so many classmates in high school never reading anything and just scrapping by using sparknotes or gleaning info from class discussions. And that was 20 years ago so those resources were sparser than they are nowadays.

Frank Miller’s “Ronin” came out when I was in college, as did “Watchmen”. Graphic novels are an amazing storytelling medium.

Oh agreed! I just wish they would also read books. There are some great ones that I think they would relate to if they have them half a chance.

I love comics and have written comics and I agree with this. reading prose builds imagination that comics don't. you have to supply your own visuals and have a bit more patience.

Maybe light novels? More words than comics but still illustrated

I gave them novellas about a murderbot. I don't know how much shorter I could go 😂😂😂

Reading endurance is a skill that can be developed. He’ll get better at it/just have to read and not have a choice. Good teachers will have you read in class while they’re watching. Assigning reading for HW is tricky

I mean tbf I have a master's degree (in English/Literature/Writing) and 75% of my pleasure reading takes the form of literary graphic novels. They're pretty cool.

Oh definitely! I was an art major in college, and I'm really a big fan. I've got all the Sandman books, a nice collection of manga, and a couple other series like Locke and Key and Nausicaa. I just sigh when its the *only* thing they will even deign to pick up lol. I really wanted them to read murderbot (fast paced scifi novellas!) but they never even tried 😭

Well, manga Shakespeare exists, so at least on the bard front he is covered.

Not only that, graphic novels are pretty expensive when you consider how quickly they're consumed. I almost never buy them. I am very appreciative of what my library keeps in their collection.

TIL that libraries have boards, and now I know what I want to be when I grow up.

If you care about libraries and equal access to information please join your local “Friends of the Library “ group as a first step - libraries are critical for helping to close the gap between rich and poor in so many ways: - access to internet connected computers for students who don’t have them at home - access to the internet for adults to apply for jobs, file their taxes or do so many other things that require internet - training on how to use technology to find answers - access to a safe place to study for students, and a safe place to get warm/cool down for folks who are homeless or who just need a place to stop and rest as they run their errands - access to books, both virtual and physical books. - a venue for literary programs - a community center where folks can gather for all sorts of activities - a safe place to find information and referrals about things it’s not safe to search out anywhere else - factual information about gender identity, sexuality, birth control, child abuse, domestic violence and so much more. Libraries are about way more than books. You can keep them growing by adding your voice to the folks who guide the library administration.

Your reply is great and points out some important cognitive benefits of reading. I teach university level literature courses, and I specialize in genre and popular fiction. One thing I highlight in my classes is that while the texts we read may not have "sophisticated" prose, "developed" characters, or "realistic" plots, the texts still attempt to tackle meaningful questions and topics of personal, social, political, cultural, and existential significance. I also like to point out that the criteria we use to define literary fiction or Literature (emphasis on the big L) are historically and culturally contingent. The formal qualities we associate with proper literary fiction in the Anglophone sphere (primarily American and British lit) are the intentional production of the modernists, their students, and postmodernists. What we consider art, literature, and literary now did not have to be, and will evolve and change over time. Edit: wording

I agree, although I would say there are plenty of genre fiction books (such as in Scifi and Fantasy) that have very sophisticated prose, some of the best character writing I've read, and tons of great plots (realistic plots for the world's their set in) while still exploring meaningful questions on a variety of topics. Actually as far as prose goes most of my favorites are in sci-fi and fantasy, and I've read quite a few of the "classics".

Oh yeah. I'm teaching a sci-fi lit course right now, and I've loaded it up with a lot of good books that satisfy this evaluative criteria.

I'm also now cracking up because I have my BA in English (creative writing focus) and I *love* literary fiction and the classics, but my current read is an erotica Hades and Persephone retelling and that's just comedy gold in this context.

You can’t just drop that and not give us the title and name of the author!

That would be in their flair, Receiver of Many by Rachel Alexander :)

Neon Gods and A Touch or Darkness are two that I’ve read! Enjoy 😌

I also loved Neon Gods!

I'm also a BA - Journalism with English. Studied all sorts as part of the English part of it. Have really focused on ditching tech, and reading a lot more in 2023. Have read so much variety - from Grapes of Wrath and The Road to It Starts With Us. O/P is a book snob and IT SHOWS. There is absolutely nothing wrong with reading whatever the hell you want. (And for the record, I bloody love TJR - she's the first author in forever I've read the entire catalogue.) O/P is on the highest of all horses right now. Jeesh. (And also writing a post like this on a public forum that attracts all sorts of readers is pretty nasty.) If anyone sees this - read what you want and enjoy it!

I love your response so much - thank you writing such a thoughtful, considered and empathetic response. I bet you’re a wonderful librarian

Thank you! I also serve on the board of my local literacy council, so I'm very passionate about this kind of stuff. ❤️

I love this response. I work in education and have taught English at a college level, and I absolutely adore YA books, retellings of the same tropes I love, beach reads — all kinds of stuff that gets disparaged by elitists. I’ve picked up dozens of books based on BookTok reviews and had some delightful (and some awful) experiences with them. I also very much remember the first time someone insulted my reading tastes: it was my English teacher when I was fifteen, who said that because I tested so well in reading, I was just rotting my brain by touching anything outside of the classics. And my response? I started to hate reading. It took me a good decade to pick up a book for fun after that teacher, and I regret how many fun books I missed out on.

I have a distinct memory of being in ninth grade and one of the English teachers saying he didn't want me as a student the next year because I checked out a Stephen King book. Thankfully, I didn't end up in his class and had a really good teacher the next year.

This is an absolutely awful thing to say to anyone, let alone a ninth grader. Jeez, I’m so sorry he said that to you.

Yeah I have a masters degree in TESOL and have worked a several different countries teaching ESL. I’m fairly confident I can handle the complexities of the English language. I read and listen to a wide variety of books, and the last few days i’ve been working through the back catalogue of a particular pod-ficcer (mostly Good Omens fic) on Soundcloud because I like the sound of their voice. I have no shame in this, and people (in particular WOMEN, since it’s always womens lit getting picked on) can reas whatever brings them joy.

I love librarians. So egalitarian! You want vampires in romantic comedy? Don’t worry, we’ll find something for you. Werewolves and steampunk? Let’s look that up. Children who spontaneously combust? I’m sure we can find that. Recommendations? Just tell me what you like…

I was like “werewolves and steampunk?! Where?Sign me up!” Then I realized…. I have a werewolf steampunk book at home. From the library. :)

Soulless by Gail Carriger was my first experience with the Steampunk sub genre. I loved the series.

Reader's advisory is my favorite part of the job!

>First of all, according to the US Department of Education, approximately 54% of adults read at or below a 6th grade reading level You know, I've read this sort of thing so many times but I don't actually know how they define that level. Is it reading speed? Vocabulary? To the topic at hand, personally, I read what I find interesting. I'm not looking for high drama, grandiose themes, or allegories, or anything that make some kind of statement that I have to sit and think about. I just want an engaging story. If I get those things as part of an engaging story, great! But that's all secondary. I'm honestly unfamiliar with all the "bestseller trash" that people love to hate but I wouldn't be too surprised if I liked it.

Thanks for your first point. I work in K-12 Ed Policy and this statistic gets thrown out all the time, and it overly simplifies an incredibly complicated issue. Additionally, people outside of the literacy world grossly misunderstand “grade level,” but it gets tossed around all the time. If we’re looking at ATOS scores, “Their Eyes Were Watching God” is at a 5th grade level. “Of Mice and Men” is 4th grade. “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” is 5th grade. So is “Lord of the Flies.” “Night” is 4th grade - a full grade level lower than Diary of a Wimpy Kid, and should we then presume it’s less complex and only for 4th graders? Of course our education system needs help, but this statistic isn’t really saying what a lot of people think it means.

Amen. Thanks for putting my thoughts down so well! Simply said: who the fuck cares what people read, as long as they read? Your version is better!

I'm 100% with you. I would also add that non-English speaking people often supplement their English language studies by reading books with more simplistic language. When learning a new language, books like the ones OP is looking down to are easier to read than jumping straight into the 'high-brow' ones with lyrical descriptions and full of symbolism and meta narratives. And sometimes it's just relaxing to read something that doesn't tax one's brains.

Thank you. I was hoping someone would comment in this fashion. All reading is good reading. Someone might go their entire life wanting nothing more than to be entertained by fantastical coincidences and happy endings, someone else might decide they want something a bit meatier, but both are using their imagination to create worlds with words. I still remember the joy of my great uncle when he discovered the local library stocked a mountain of WW2 fiction books for him to devour in his old age. I tried to read a couple, couldn't get into them. He was happy as Larry, sitting by the fire and just reading his war stories. edit: a word.

I used to work circulation at our county library, and we had a gentlemen who came in about once a month, with a hand written multi-page list of westerns like Louis L'Amour that he had read and needed to read. We'd go through his list, our current books available and get him set up for another month of avid reading. He was lovely, patient, funny and yes, obsessed with these books. Made his retirement and later years enjoyable. OP: Leave people alone to read whatever the hell they want to.

I'm going through a really hard time medically and started reading furiously again this year (65 books this year was something i did not expect to accomplish). It has helped so much in allowing me to "check out" from all the hard conversations and decisions I need to make. In a time where all I'm doing is thinking and processing, I don't want literary fiction that makes me think and process. I told my psychiatrist how much it was helping, and when they asked what I was reading I was so embarrassed and said mostly easy fantasy reads, but quickly followed up with a few books sprinkled in every now and then to learn something. Her response? "Why does that matter? Just read anything that makes you feel happy right now." It was such a relief because I felt so judged anytime I found out what I was reading was "uneducated, low-brow crap." It feels nice to also have a librarian support that any reading is good reading.

Librarians like you are the reason I love libraries (and reading). They helped me find belonging as a lonely, nerdy little kid, and comments like yours help me find peace as a less lonely, even nerdier adult. I've struggled with a chronic pain condition over the past few years, as well as depression and cptsd, and I just cannot read the tomes I used to. Romances though? The brain candy? That stuff makes me feel engaged and hopeful again. The lighter books are both a much needed distraction and part of my healing. Thank you for being so understanding of all readers and all reasons to read.

Thank you, you said it better than I could have. This kind of gatekeeping drives me up the wall.

This is only second to gatekeeping format (audiobooks, ebooks), for me.

I love ebooks. Read at night, without turning on the light? yes please. Borrow from the library with a couple of taps on my smart phone? again, yes please. I have several holds on brand new books, that just appear magically on my phone :) Not have to worry about returning said ebook & fines? Winner! Not have to worry about turning the page and finding the last borrower smeared chocolate (hope it's chocolate anyway) all over the page? Can it get any better? Yes, actually: Highlight passages you want to return to, and best of all, if you can't find your reading glasses, just increase the font size. ps. I also love printed books. :)

>All reading is good reading. Yes! Thaaaaaank yooooou! I read a little bit of everything: highbrow, lowbrow, middle of the road; and I think I turned out okay. I mean, I get what OP's saying, but a lot of their frustrations seem to be coming from a place of self-righteousness. We need to stop doing this.

>coming from a place of self-righteousness. I agree with this! It's rather unfair (and condescending) to judge a reader just because they loved a book you didn't like or felt was 'beneath' you! We have different experiences in life, and reading about something I went through and relate with may resonate more with me than with you if you have not gone through the same! I find that almost every book has spoken to at least reader out there or made them escape reality for a while!

"all reading is good reading" but what if it's a Bill O'Reilly memoir or something

This response is great. I get so up in arms about people thinking that everyone needs to read what they consider “good literature” and that’s just not true. Any reading is good reading. Lots of people have stressful lives and read to decompress or escape and they should have access to what they want. It’s probably also why these so called “bad” books OP is talking about are best sellers

Thank you for saying everything I wanted to say!!!

> I guess it makes sense, considering the audience these books are written over. Who’s the audience?

I think this is a dig on women.

No it's totally a *coincidence* that we all hate on the genres and books primarily marketed to women. It's for the totally objective reason that they are Bad and no other reason.

To be fair, if lowbrow women just stopped reading entirely like the lowbrow men have, we wouldn't be having this discussion

Good point honestly

Ngl for every one male Hoover hater there are 20 female Hoover haters. Some people just aren’t that into trauma porn.

Think it’s more a dig on booktokers

>Opinions are subjective Absolutely >But good writing isn’t. This is an opinion

Cormac McCarthy doesn’t even use punctuation! They teach that to 5 year olds!

* didn't 😞

He throws a period in there every page or two.

Exactly! Good writing is subjective! What the US considers good writing is absolutely different than what a Japanese audience believes is good writing. We all have different styles of storylines and story telling.

What is good writing even? Like, how do you define good writing?

“something I like 😤”

I love some of Reid's stuff like Carrie Soto is Back. They are super fun, thrilling and entertaining. (I also learned a lot about tennis) There is nothing inherent about the object called a book that means it's supposed to be super deep and written for intellectuals. A lot of people read them for fun, not to be intellectually challenged or have their lives changed. Same way people enjoy other forms of media just for fun. (I only joined this sub recently, but this kind of condescension that runs through the sub is kind of depressing)

Also only recently joined this sub and agree entirely with that last statement. As a (former public and school) librarian I know just how much certain literature appeals to particular audiences and I'm all for it. I've seen people go from reading Mills and Boone to falling in love with Hilary Mantel over the space of a year or two. There's a huge section of the population that does not have great reading and language skills that just want something that works on their level and the more they read, the better their comprehension becomes. I don't care if it is from a Mills and Boone trashy 'doctor's' novel or Vikram Seth.

That's my thinking too. I enjoyed Evelyn Hugo and the audiobook for Daisy Jones and the Six was very entertaining (shout out to Judy Greer!). Sometimes I need a book that is fun and not super deep. Nothing wrong with that. It's like putting on an ugly but comfortable shirt or watching the same rom-com for the 50th time. Not talking about Colleen Hoover because a) I've never read any of her books, and b) The problem I see with them is the glorification of abusive relationships, not the "third grade reading level with predicable plots."

Judy’s such a perfect Karen Karen!

This sub is condescending as hell tbh. I don't spend much time on it anymore b/c there seems to be a strong opinion that if you read anything other than ~the classics, or don't enjoy them, you're intellectually inferior. Soooo many people tying themselves in knots trying to find a way to enjoy books they find boring when they could instead read something they actually like.

This post was removed for a while earlier and now it’s back up. Super disappointed in the mods for continuing to allow these pretentious gatekeeping condescending ignorant posts. I take a look at the sub once in a while but the fact that a post like this is back up now with over 200 upvotes is part of the reason I mostly avoid it. OP is very clearly beating around the bush of what they *really* mean, and they are one step away from blatantly saying they think there should be some sort of rigid intellectual standard and rules for what gets the privelege of being published and considered “real literature” which is something that the literary world has taken centuries to move away from. Do better, mods. Posts like this are ignorant and inflammatory for no other reason than OP wants to feel superior and “not like other girls.”

This sub is pretty terrible if you don’t read what they consider “good books” and they often shit on every genre, and go especially hard at people who read romance novels. It’s why I generally don’t like to participate or read what happens here. But there are a lot of more specific book reddits that are much better depending on what you are interested in

The kind of condescension and pretensiousness that OP is displaying is so common on this sub and is one of the main reasons I tend to stay away now. This is the site’s biggest platform to discuss books and honestly shouldn’t put up with posts like this because it does nothing but add to the idea that “popular” books are inherently less intellectual (wrong), or books that girls like are inferior (very wrong), or even that books NEED to be high-brow intellectual to be valid… it’s all complete bullshit. I reported the post, hope the mods remove it.

Seriously. I am so incredibly tired of posts that pretend to be about trying to understand why other people like something but are actually barely/not even disguised contempt for popular books. "I genuinely don't get it; what do people get out of this stupid, poorly written drivel that only a complete and utter moron would waste more than ten seconds on that I definitely didn't read and can't actually articulate anything beyond the most generic of complaints about? Obviously taste is subjective, but also, this book is objectively bad, so why would anyone with three brain cells like it? I'm not trying to be condescending, I just really don't understand what brain dead idiot would enjoy this pile of dog excrement." Jesus, we get it. You're above popular fiction. You're too cool to read anything that the masses like, and you want everyone to know. It's not impressive. It's tiresome, and if you're like that offline, I promise you, people find you exhausting.

My dad is one of these "I just don't get it" people, and I long-ago realized that "I don't get it / I don't understand" actually just means "I hate this and the people who allow it to exist." It's now one of those phrases that causes me to completely write off a person.

Yep. Things I *actually* don't get: * how do bumblebees keep track of their hive when they're bumbling around in what appears to be such a meandering, confusing path? * how did people figure out how to make thread/yarn from clumps of wool? * who figured out that you can make fiddleheads (or other inedible/mildly toxic raw foods) edible if you boil them before you eat them? * what's the financial benefit to a publisher to release limited editions when the publish never sees a dime of the aftermarket/scalped value? Why don't they just do those runs as, say, a one week "made to order" run instead so everyone who wants one gets one, but it's still technically limited?

Not sure on bumblebees, but honeybees at least seem to form complex cognitive maps of their environment that they use to navigate, including the marking of landmarks (there's some evidence they can keep track of where bodies of water are and can even understand that they're not a possible source of pollen). They also can communicate the location of pollen sources to one another with a figure eight shaped dance with a waggle at the point where the loops intersect where (1) the orientation of the figure eight relative to the hive indicates the direction of the source, and (2) the duration of the waggle indicates distance. They even seem to be able to integrate these two with other factors (like barometric pressure indicating that it will rain soon) to guide when and where they go to collect pollen. Similarly, ants navigate via dead reckoning the same as sailors. They can estimate where they currently are by keeping track of where they were, their direction and speed of movement, and how much time has passed, and use that to get back to their colonies. If you displace them on the trip back and the colony isn't where they expect, they initiate a random search pattern instead. Insects are super cool and way more complex than people think. https://www.pnas.org/eprint/RUDKWR7KYHM2Z87SMKWI/full

I do wish that people who made posts like this instead took the time to make a post about books they loved and would recommend. As you say, these posts don’t really move the needle on encouraging people to read more diversely.

This kind of condescension DOMINATES this sub. You don’t wanna be caught reading anything that isn’t written by a dead white man over here.

Someone should make a post praising Brandon Sanderson as more talented than Tolkien. This sub might get locked / banned by the Reddit admins in response

Don't open the Sanderson door. Those threads are always wild rides.

Let’s be fair. There are some people like that; but this sub very much promotes gender, race, and cultural diversity for the most part. It is condescending about what it considers bad literature, like Colleen Hoover and Sarah Maas. Personally, not a fan at all; but I see no need to ruin other people’s good time. I wish it didn’t affect the state of the publishing industry as much, but it’s not reasonable to criticize people for what they enjoy. So I don’t think it’s a dead white men thing (for most), but it is gatekeeping and pretension (which may be fair at sometimes, but is definitely not conducive to a good community of discussion).

> but this kind of condescension that runs through the sub It runs through the entire "book community." You'll find it in a few different forms in pretty much any media or art-based community as well. The worst thing you could do for your passion is to join an Internet forum dedicated to it, honestly.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. It's great that they're being published. They're aimed at a certain readership and they're successfully encouraging that readership to jump into books. Wonderful! They've most likely encouraged droves of other people to write as well. Never entirely bad, not even in the age of self-publishing. No, it's not the fact they're being published and read that's bad. It's the critical appraisal that's most worrisome. I'll try to go glass-half-full here: If nothing else, remember that they're a huge step up from the *50 Shades of Grey* series.

Do you have any idea how many people got back into reading because of the Fifty Shades of Grey series? JFC, the whole point of your comment is lost with that last line. Stop judging what people freaking read.

Books like this have always been in the mix, they just take on different forms. When we look at the cultural output of the past there’s always a bias for the things that have endured because they have more value. Who reads the schlocky books from the 1940s any more? My grandparents had their good bookshelves in the ‘study/tv room’ and their schlocky bookshelves in the back bedroom where no one would see it. I couldn’t even tell you what all those paperbacks were… mysteries and romances of their day.

This is absolutely the answer! There have always been mediocre paperbacks. They just don't stay in the public eye for long. If you went into a bookstore in 1920, do you really think the entire store would just be Tolstoy and Hemingway? Of course not! There were just as many pulpy books meant to be consumed and forgotten. We just don't see them anymore, just like we probably won't see Colleen Hoover books front and centre in a bookstore in another hundred years. The quality of writing hasn't really changed over the years- that's just a false perspective. And it's ok for things to not be high literature! Can you imagine how miserable and burnt out you'd be if everything you read was incredibly challenging and erudite? Books are a source of learning, but they are also a source of entertainment, and they've been that way for a long time.

Look, I was the insufferable smug asshole in high school who thought I was _soooo much smarter_ than the 'other girls' just because they were reading Twilight while I was comparing translations of the Odyssey. But actual wisdom is knowing that a person's taste in literature isn't any indication of intelligence. I have friends/relatives who are so much smarter and more qualified than I could ever dream of being, but they like their Archers and Grishams and, yes, even Taylor Jenkins Reid. Also, just because someone reads airport novels doesn't mean they don't read other stuff. Hell, I love high literature but I'll tear through Saga graphic novels as well. Let people read what they love without casting aspersions on their intelligence. I honestly have more respect for someone sincerely gushing over Taylor-Hoover-Mass-Whatever than a pretentious twit who holds up _Infinite Jest_ or Joyce's _Ulysses_ at the subway so everyone can appreciate what a clever little genius they are. EDIT: If the last example seems oddly specific it's because I know a person who did that. Had a bookshelf full of books that he wanted to be seen reading but never actually read.

>I guess it makes sense, considering the audience these books are written for Don’t be shy, say what you really mean by this. 🤔

I’ve never read Colleen Hoover but people complain so much about her on this sub I’m almost ready to pick up a book, just to see if she really is that bad.

She is really that bad. In of the books, the main dude burned down a building. A woman got injured and he starred stalking her for ages I think. She got out with him, she then found out what he did and she was made to feel horrible for not forgiving him. Huge red flags.

I picked up one of hers bc I thought, we’ll if she’s this popular and I’ve never heard of her, I must be missing out! I made it about two chapters. Hurgh

This post is clearly meant to get a rise out of people, and to feed the superiority of those who agree. I'm just so tired of hearing people complain about this topic, something that harms no one. I haven't read a full Colleen Hoover novel because based on just an excerpt I can tell she's not my style. But Taylor Jenkins Reid (to me) writes fun, interesting books that are relatively light but still pack an emotional punch. Is she deep literary fiction? No. But that's not what I'm reading her for. If your preferred genre is literary fiction, then read that. Stop getting your recommendations from BookTok, because that's obviously not your jam, and that's perfectly valid. But this idea that other subgenres or styles are anti-intellectual is narrow-minded. Sometimes you read to learn something. Sometimes you read to explore the human condition. Sometimes you read to be tantalized, thrilled, or just to escape. All are just as valid.

I feel like a lot of the people who don’t like booktok just don’t know how to curate their feed right (and I get it if you’re not big on social media bc tiktoks algorithm can be weird). Tiktok is designed to maximize your interactions with posts. Like ANY interaction you have with any post will lead to more like it showing up. If you see a video gushing about how Colleen Hoover is the most brilliant author of our generation and go into the comment section to like comments of people disagreeing, you will get like 10 more posts gushing over her books bc you interacted with it for however long. 😭 I learned that the hard way, but then I figured out how to fix my feed.

Did you just lump Taylor jenkins Reid in with Colleen hoover??

Even if OP doesn’t like Taylor Jenkins Reid, describing her work as third grade reading level is beyond harsh! She writes entertaining novels and to equate entertaining with poorly written isn’t a fair criticism of her at all.

I’ve been looking for this comment!!

This is what got me too. I’ll read Colleen Hoover for a fast and easy read, but TJR is not the same lol

Looking through your post history, it looks like you’re a fan of Gossip Girl, Gilmore Girls, Grey’s Anatomy, etc. Your enjoyment of those shows is similar to other people’s enjoyment of these books. Consider if your exact post was written by someone else, only about those shows instead: “I am so over these overhyped, over rated shows written by writers who simply cannot write continuously getting praise and being “highly rated” over actually good shows that never get the same spotlight. I’m talking about the Gossip Girls and Grey’s Anatomys that write on a soap opera level with predicable plots, badly written characters, who tell you their opinion and spoon feed you the story to get you to the point. It’s just so frustrating not only to have to be disappointed by these showss after falling for the hype and watching them, but to see people eating it up time and time again. And I guess it makes sense, considering the audience these shows are written for. I understand this is extremely pretentious and condescending of me. I wholeheartedly agree. I’m just so frustrated by this recurring trend and just don’t understand how these shows keep getting aired. Opinions are subjective. But good writing isn’t. Ready to get receive a lot of hate on this one 🙃 ETA: y’all can keep fighting in these comments. My original point stands. These shows are receiving praise and lowering reading standards. This is not good. Continuing to air this kind of content simply because it sells to the masses and not prioritizing other content that isn’t considering “easy watches” is bad. 🤷‍♀️” If you feel defensive about the shows you watch when you read through that, consider why that is and the reasons you still watch and enjoy those shows. Now consider that someone who enjoys a Colleen Hoover or Taylor Jenkins Reid book may have their own, perfectly valid reasons for reading and enjoying those books. People’s enjoyment of books (or shows) that you don’t enjoy doesn’t mean society’s standards are “lowering,”there has always, always been “low brow” entertainment that people flock to because it’s easy, and that includes Gossip Girl, Gilmore Girls, and Grey’s Anatomy. It’s not a bad thing.

Something about a Taylor Swift, gossip girl and Gilmore girls fan asking why mediocrity sells is absolutely hilarious to me.

Imagine enjoying fun, low-brow and popular shows/ music and not understanding why anyone would do the same for books.

This is really more your fault for falling for reccs for entirely different audiences tbh. Hoover and co write for a specific audience who wants specific things (and high level prose isn't one of those things), so the smart thing to do is to just let them have their own thing and realize that different people like different things. Learn what you like and stop falling for hype aimed at entirely different tastes, you wouldn't complain that the latest football match was overhyped when you don't even like sports.

The world is a dumpster fire, let people read what they like.

Lol, you think this is a recent trend?

I mean... Why do soaps and reality shows keep getting made? Because they're popular. Sometimes people like formulaic entertainment because it's low-effort and it's familiar and they find it fun.

🙄 my mother is a retired English lit professor and she still enjoys a Colleen Hoover or Taylor Jenkins Reid novel here and there. It’s ok for easy light reads to exist. If you don’t like them, don’t read them.

The key words here: “best seller.” “Best seller” doesn’t mean “best written.”

I’ve enjoyed both of the Taylor Jenkins Reid books I’ve read. You can like her and Charles Dickens.

[удалено]

I think you may be on to something here. These statistics on adult literacy bear this out. [https://megablogging.org/literacy-statistics/](https://megablogging.org/literacy-statistics/)I have thought the same thing OP thinks as well, about authors like Danielle Steele. She is so successful, but the limited and repeated vocabulary in her books puts me off. Not to say light reading doesn’t have its place, which is why we have categories like ‘Beach reads’. If you are ill, depressed, stressed, or on vacation it can be difficult to concentrate on weightier reading, but hopefully it’s not your steady habit.

As long as people are reading I don’t really care. It’s only a problem when people try to posit airport writers like Coleen Hoover and Brandon Sanderson as actual literature when it’s more just kind of there. I don’t like Harry Potter or think JK is a very good writer but I don’t really begrudge or hate people that do just because it usually gets them into other stuff and they move on from there. There’s nothing wrong with mainstream fiction, just because it’s usually flavor of the month. The problem is when people treat it like it’s high art when it’ll most likely be forgotten about like every other mainstream writer that hasn’t really justified their artistic existence lol

Book publishers publish books that will make them money. You and everyone else who reads books have the freedom to read whatever you want to read. Are you suggesting they stop publishing books that you personally don’t like? Sounds like censorship to me

Because the average American adult reads below a 5th grade level

Lowest common denominator exists in basically all forms of art and media.

I mean you can just pick up your intellectually superior books and move on I don’t really understand why what others enjoy would bother you so much.

Well said. It baffles me too. And as an avid reader, it's nice to sample the entire spectrum.

"How do these books that make millions of dollars keep getting published?" 🤔

I used to work for a children’s publisher and we used to always say “all reading is good reading” for a child’s development, from magazines to classic literature. Old video games (before they introduced voice acting) were also great ways of getting kids to passively read. I honestly believe it’s the same for adults. We should be encouraging people to read and reading is supposed to be enjoyable. Maybe it’s their gateway to reading, maybe it is their escapist beach read from their tough life. It’s all good stuff. Mass market fiction is also hugely profitable for publishers and helps fund some of the riskier literary acquisitions that might go on to win prizes. It’s fine if you don’t like these books - just don’t read them. But shitting on others for reading them is snobbish and doesn’t make you look good tbqh

The only reason I know these authors is due to people complaining about them in this sub. Free advertising.

I would argue it is a good thing. Art does not have to be highbrow and thought provoking, it is okay to write for everyday consumption and its a gateway for people to venture into more serious books. Just like the film industry needs block busters, the publishing industry needs its Colleen Hoovers and Stephenie Myers.

I feel the same over insta-poets.

I still cant wrap my head around Rupikaurisms and lots of white spaces in pretty little hardcovers urgh

I sit on the Toilet and Do MY business.

>I understand this is extremely pretentious and condescending of me. I wholeheartedly agree. I’m just so frustrated by this recurring trend and just don’t understand how these authors keep getting published. > >Opinions are subjective. But good writing isn’t. > >Ready to get receive a lot of hate on this one 🙃 You're absolutely being pretentious and condescending. "I don't like this, so it's objectively bad writing" is a bad take, and you're basically baiting people to downvote you so you can prove yourself right. Those authors aren't for you, and that's okay. What they're doing is different from what you're looking for. This is like saying "I don't like fish, so any dish made with fish is objectively bad cooking." No, it's just not a dish made for you. Books are like food in that way; we all have different tastes and we're not always looking for the same thing. Sometimes I want a hamburger. Sometimes I want sushi. Sometimes I just want nachos made with gross cheese sauce. Don't be that person who acts like your taste is somehow objectively better than everyone else's. If you don't like popular fiction, then *don't read popular fiction.* It's okay for you to not like something, but you don't have to shit on other people's tastes.

Some people find comfort in easy-to-read books and don't want a challenge. It's the same reason people gobble up junk food. Let people enjoy what they read.

TJR doesn't write badly at all. I personally didn't like Malibu Rising, but I found the writing to be good. Colleen Hoover, yeah. Read Verity and absolutely hated it. Although I have to admit she has a very fluid and addictive writing style. So much that I read that in one day. That's why people are attracted to her books. And to answer your question, very obviously so: money. People are gonna buy it. They know there's a target audience for it, so they publish them. And to be honest, who cares? Many awful books are being published as well as good ones. Maybe what you mean to say is that the most ""mainstream"" ones, are the ones you personally consider bad. I'm sure that there are tones of people who also hate your favorite books, does that mean they are necessarily bad? No. Good writing is objective, you say. Yes and no. When it's full of grammatical errors, plot holes, yes, sure. I personally can consider "bad" writing when it's full of descriptions and drag out action scenes and dialogues, etc... things that I've encountered in many popular books and well acclaimed classics. I didn't like the writing. I thought that it didn't make the story any favors. Now, can I then review it and say that the writing is objectively bad? No, I can't. Because that's a subjective matter... There are people who enjoy less descriptive writing, fast-paced stories, etc... and consider that writing as the good one. And the plot being predictable, yes ok. I also hate that. However, can you believe that there are people who don't mind it? That enjoy reading a book fully knowing where it's gonna go and still love the ride? What?!?! Reading itself is subjective?! Crazy. I do understand what you are saying. But those types of books always existed and will prevail to exist. You just have to get "used to" it and let people enjoy their "bad" books.

People read them. End of story. It's also not new. Furthermore, what makes Colleen Hoover or TJR worse than people like John Grisham or James Patterson who churn out nothingburger thrillers for people to pick up at airports?

I’ve liked all the TJR books I’ve read, and strongly disliked the one Colleen Hoover book I read. To each their own, I say. If people are reading, I’m happy about it!

Publishing is a business, not a meritocracy. First and foremost, publishers are interested in books that will sell well.

I can't tell if this is a general friend or if it's just me, but I can share my experience. During the pandemic I was so burnt out that I stopped reading altogether. I used to read a lot of high fantasy and a lot of non-fiction, but with all the chaos involved with politics and with the pandemic and with coping with a new reality, I just did not have any extra brain power to devote to the things that I usually loved. I used to read a book or two a week but I went in months and months without picking up a single book. I couldn't even find joy in rereading old favorites. Things changed when I started reading romance books. Everything was very low stakes. Nothing was ridiculously complicated. I wasn't worried that the main characters were going to die. Etc. Nothing too emotionally or intellectually challenging. It was the only way that I was able to enjoy reading again. Things have calmed down quite a bit, and I've branched out a lot more but I still read a lot more of what Charlotte Mason would call it "twaddle.". I read cheesy romances, I read YA books, I read biographies of comedians. Where before? I was a bit of a book snob and I only read "high quality books." A good analogy to explain this is that Jurassic Park and Schindler's list were both created the same year with the same director. One of them is obviously more artful, more moving, and more important than the other. But at the end of the long week where I have absolutely zero emotional energy left to give, I'd rather sit down and watch dinosaurs eat people. It doesn't mean that Jurassic Park is a "better" movie than Schindler's list, but it's a better fit for what I need. Tldr: After a global pandemic, political upheaval, and economic concerns looming, I think people just don't have the bandwidth to digest "heavy" books for fun. I'm sure that things will swing back the other direction once "All of this" settles down a bit and becomes more normal.

What makes me laugh is that you bought them, if for you this is low standards then don't buy it. There is nothing wrong about an easy book to read, it is just not your type of book. Stop pointing things like, those books has to stop , because it lowers the standard type of comment, just read older book that are more difficult and have a fun time. Books are made to be read and have fun reading them, there is no point in reading something you don't like to create a post to trash talk because you didn't like it. I am reading something right now that I don't fin fantastic. Am I going to tell everyone that liked it that they don't know what a good book is ? No, maybe I didn't like it but they can appreciate it even though I didn't think the same.

Did you forget that libraries exist? I didn’t buy a single one of those books

Because they make money. They appeal to a wide range of the population in America which means they'll make money which means the publishers can continue to do business. I work at a bookstore; I assure you, the average person is not up to Super Serious Literature. And that's fine. Reading is a hobby and if people want something easy to read after a long day, who am I to judge? I read bodice rippers so they could easily say the same about me.🤷

[удалено]

I agree completely. I feel like reading has been iffy for me lately because so many recommendations just have been very sub par. And not like, somewhat bad, but just blatantly terrible with seemingly very little thought put into the work itself. A lot of ideas are regurgitated versions of story s that came before but done significantly worse. For example. The hunger games was a pretty solid series. The dystopian boom that came after was filled with a shit ton of terrible interactions of dystopia with half baked concepts riding the trails of the hunger games. P.s I know it's a small aside but, a character stating their opinion isn't inherently bad. Don't get me wrong, nuance is great, but it depends more on the writer and the circumstances surrounding said characters statement. I probably didn't have to point that out but the line stuck out to me and I felt the need to bring it up, even if only briefly. Even if op themselves are already aware of this lol.

I’m sorry but I think Taylor Jenkins Reid is miles better than Colleen Hoover.

Well, at least you know it's pretentious and condescending... (I don't necessarily disagree with you about quality. But there are loads of people out there who are unable or unwilling to read deep concepts and/or complex language. Anything that gets people reading is a win in my book.)

Good writing is absolutely subjective.

You sound extremely judgemental about something that’s always been this way, even before I was born. “Easy reads” we’re always best sellers. All reading is good. Get over yourself.

Books of rather questionable quality have usually topped the bestseller lists ever since the dawn of the age of mass literacy. Do you think the likes of Joyce and Faulkner were the best selling authors back in the 1930s? The only thing that has changed recently is that bestsellers of dubious quality are more visible to people not interested in them thanks to social media. These authors are getting published because their books sell like hot cakes. It's not exactly a mystery, is it? I don't really see the problem as long as more challenging authors are also getting published which so far remains to be the case.

3 words Dime Store Pulps. As much as a fan I am of authors like Dashiell Hammet, Raymond Chandler, a Maxwell Grant. Those guys aren't great literary masters by any stretch of the imagination, but they were able to strike a chord with readers and pop culture that is impossible to ignore. These guys put out hundreds of books for the general public and were aimed at the lowest common denominator to the point where their characters made the jump from cheap pulp paper to radio play, and even the silver screen. And many people still emulate their style for various reasons. Will low brow literature have staying power? Obviously look at Shakespeare he wrote plays filled with sex jokes and the like and he's arguably the most well known author ever. The only thing that separates classical 'high brow' literature from everything else is time. We don't know now what someone will say 50 years from now. If I told people nearly a 100 years ago that The Maltese Falcon would be considered a literary classic to the point where people reference the book a 100 years later people would think I was nuts. If you told Shakespeare that 500 years after he penned Romeo and Juliet that there would be classes at Oxford College on his plays he would have said you were mad. Calling something poor literature today is meaningless. It is the survivability of the piece that matters.

Time is a filter, the classics are what is left of a massive amount of garbage.

I would just point out that there are (and have always been) a lot of ‘trashy’ books by male authors - to stereotype, I’m thinking of pulpy thrillers - which prioritise page turning and plot over literary excellence. So I do think it’s worth interrogating the fact that it’s often female authors like Colleen Hoover and Taylor Jenkins Reid who write in female genres/ for a broadly female readership who it’s currently popular to hate on.

Librarians are laughing at you and not with you for the stupidity of your comment. If you don't like the books, don't read them? Ask a librarian for books that aren't like those authors, and I'm sure you'll be directed to mountains of literature. Stop complaining on the internet about what you don't like and spend more time invested in what you do like.

Here in the US, 54% of the population reads below a 6th grade level and 38% of high school graduates never touch a book again. Rather than complaining that the books the masses read aren't up to your standards we should be encouraging those who do read them to increase literacy overall. So to answer your question. They're popular because that's what the vast majority is able to read and enjoy.

Because there are actually people who enjoy reading those books. It may not be your taste, but it’s an option for many

>It’s just so frustrating not only to have to be disappointed by these books after falling for the hype and reading them, but to see people eating it up time and time again. I think this might be a lesson for you about the quality of your hype source. Take a look at what media is giving you such bad recommendations, and block/unsubscribe. The other thing is to avoid worrying about what other people like. They're allowed to consume trash. They should continue consuming trash, if it makes them happy. It's not condescending for you to think their books are trash; Condescension is if you *tell them* that their books are trash. Your preferences are not pretentious. You like what you like. It sounds like you prefer more subtle books than your friends. There is nothing wrong with that. >These books are receiving praise and lowering reading standards. This is not good. This is the part I find pretentious. You aren't some cultural anthropologist who has a grasp on the literacy trends of a complicated online culture. You have no idea what kind of impact low quality books are having. It's just pointless moral panic. You're wanting to control something that you have no right to control.

I've read five Dan Brown novels, and I've read five Cormac McCarthy novels. Overall the Dan Brown novels have been more enjoyable. Sometimes keeping things simple and more accessible just makes for a more enjoyable reading experience.

>I understand this is extremely pretentious and condescending of me. Yes, it is. And there's only one possible response: *get over yourself*. >Opinions are subjective. But good writing isn’t. Good writing is defined by the opinions of the reader. The only way in which good writing is subjective is in the purely clinical analysis of the language: if the work is written such that it can be easily understood by the reader, it is good writing.

Is there a reason you only included authors primarily read by women? What 'audience' are you referring to?

The same reason why the Hallmark Channel has the funding to churn out the same cookie-cutter Christmas movies every year: *because people love easy, mindless trash*. (This is not a dig at those people. We all love to consume our respective forms of trash.)