
Literary fiction in crisis as sales drop dramatically - f_allwein
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/dec/15/literary-fiction-in-crisis-as-sale-drop-dramatically-arts-council-england-reports
======
scandox
The negativity here about Literary fiction is interesting. A lot of people
implying that readers don't enjoy it or that it's elitist or a status symbol
etc...

I think it's important to accept that there is a group of people - perhaps
small - that love reading literary fiction. It's not reasonable to assume bad
faith, just because you can't see the merit in something. There maybe people
that use it as a means of identifying with a group and not out of genuine
passion or interest - but that is true of every group. You always have people
who attach themselves in this way: programming and tech world are a classic
case.

Anyway just because something seems esoteric does not mean the person iis not
enjoying it. We all have radically different needs, experiences and interests.
And it's OK. Anyone who thinks that because they read literary fiction they
are superior in some way is foolish certainly. On the other hand they may
quite reasonably say that they consider one form of fiction to be
aesthetically superior: that is the nature of aesthetics - we all get our say.

~~~
YouAreGreat
> there is a group of people - perhaps small

Right, but this post is not about the vanishing of Literary fiction from the
face of the earth.

A merely shrinking market is obviously consistent with the idea that some (or
much) of it formerly sold to people who weren't _really_ enjoying spending
hours with a genre almost defined by not having much in the way of story or
ideas, which in turn is consistent with the hypothesis that part of the market
was sustained by status signaling.

~~~
scandox
I think again to say "defined by not having much in the way of stories or
ideas" is a level of dismissal that suggests something stronger than mere
indifference. A lot of people have bad early experiences with literary fiction
and I'd agree that when it's bad, it's the worst. But when it's good it can be
exceptional. It also does not preclude strong stories, or idea driven stories.
Of course a great deal of it is about capturing subjective human experience in
a way that - when it fails for a reader - leaves them with nothing. But when
it works it can be incredible.

Generally what I find is that once peoplelike a work of literary fiction they
no longer think of it as "literary" \- they sort see it in a category of its
own.

~~~
watwut
Most of people who dismiss that category of books this way do it out of
prejudice and never read them. It is no different then rejecting SF as stupid
without ever bothering to read much of it.

------
fractallyte
Arts Council England: "we are saying that there is something so unique and
important and necessary and fundamental about literary fiction in particular,
that we need to focus on it and support it."

Yeah, right. Because navel-gazing is the only thing in literature worth
supporting. We'd have fewer problems in the world if more people read (and
appreciated) _science fiction_.

ACE, I make a gesture of contempt in your direction.

~~~
icebraining
Why do you consider literary fiction "navel-gazing" and why is SF that
important?

As a side note, one of the books they give as an example is _The Time
Traveller 's Wife_, which involves "a man with a genetic disorder that causes
him to time travel unpredictably", which certainly sounds like an SF-y
premise.

~~~
kybernetikos
There's a strong status separation between SF and literary fiction. If you get
someone to read SF that has literary merit, they'll try to tell you afterwards
that it wasn't SF.

~~~
galeforcewinds
The lack of vehicles for SF delivery have at times impeded literary acceptance
and broader adoption -- take H.P. Lovecraft for instance,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft#Literary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft#Literary)

Format adaptations have catapulted some great SF into the pop culture stardom:

The War of the Worlds was published in 1898, and though looked upon favorably,
it is rarely mentioned today without also mentioning the 1938 radio broadcast.

The Wizard of Oz (Baum 1900) is more famous for its 1939 film.

In more modern times, Johnny Mnemonic (1995 film from "Burning Chrome", Gibson
1986), Snowpiercer (2013 film from "Le Transperceneige", Lob and Rochette
1982), and The Martian (2015 film from "The Martian", Weir 2011) have all
increased SF visibility through film adaptations.

Without format shift, would general SF readers have pursued these works
independent from the film? Probably. Would these works have entered pop
culture and have been sought by the everyman, even the ones who don't
routinely buy books or enjoy reading? Less likely.

~~~
kybernetikos
Many of the works that have received the most cultural success have been
science fiction.

Of the five top grossing films, Avatar and Jurassic World are very clearly
science fiction, Star Wars and The Avengers are arguably science fiction. It's
only Titanic that couldn't be claimed to be science fiction.

The situation is probably similar for TV Series too.

The status problems of science fiction are arguably related to its extreme
popularity.

------
DrNuke
Point is if we lose humanities and its highest expressions, we lose the
historical and progressive enlightment how it came for societies more and more
complex, in that reverting to simpler, mechanical, narrower, fundamentally
brutal models. Less Facebook, then, more sophisticated novels, even the
opportunity to choose them when we need them would be good enough.

------
galeforcewinds
I have understood some drop in fiction book sales to be caused by the wind-up
of the Harry Potter series in 2007. A 2011 article from The Guardian (Datablog
section, author uncredited) linked to this spreadsheet of Harry Potter book
sales numbers:
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C6QriM1aMBd5Ab6Tn7hn...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1C6QriM1aMBd5Ab6Tn7hn2SzrveVnw0-u4pabuj-
nP80/edit?usp=sharing)

Is Rowling's Potter part of Literary Fiction? The report states "We therefore
leave the definition of what literary fiction is, open. [...] What it
definitely is not, for our purposes, is poetry or plays. We are looking at
fiction." Which causes me to believe it does fall within their definition.

~~~
pessimizer
Literary fiction as opposed to genre fiction. Literary fiction consists of
pointless books about the middle class, by the middle class; genre fiction is
everything else.

~~~
igravious
Here's a quote from a bestselling non-fiction work, “Even a fool, when he
holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed
a man of understanding.”

~~~
ci5er
I'm not sure that the Jubilee Bible was best selling.

------
indescions_2017
"A book must be the axe for the frozen sea inside us." -Kafka

John Le Carre, Salman Rushdie, John Banville, Anthony Horowitz. All had
superlative novels out this year.

Also just started Francis Spufford's Golden Hill. Absolutely sublime way to
spend a snow bound winter night.

The crisis is obviously in readership. Not writing. And the chaotic divergence
of attention.

It may be true that the text no longer acts as Bildungsroman. The primary
method to impart moral and spiritual character to young influence-able minds.

But then the Mountain must come to Muhammad. And the great works rendered as
digital classics.

[http://joycestick.com/](http://joycestick.com/)

------
mark_l_watson
My wife enjoys literary fiction and I enjoy reading scifi (most recently
Chinese scifi). We spend quite a bit of money on new eBooks, books, and
audible books.

Everyone gets to decide what they enjoy and how they spend their time. I
generally enjoy good writing and good movies over spending time with
miscellaneous web browsing and network TV. I have friends and family who love
watching TV or hanging out on Facebook and that is fine because everyone gets
to decide how they spend their time.

It is important to me that producers of great content get paid so even though
I enjoy spending time in my local library, I prefer to purchase entertainment
material.

------
SolaceQuantum
I find it quite strange that literary fiction in particular is sinking when
other kinds of fiction seems to be increasingly in a boom. Romance ebooks are
taking off, for example. I wonder if it isn’t possible that these literary
authors couldn’t move their work to electronic mediums like, well, Medium.

------
mirimir
I don't know what "literary fiction" is, exactly. I suspect that, for the most
part, it's been a status symbol. Back in the day, one needed copies of the
latest stuff on tables and shelves. But on Facebook, one can fake it, based on
Goodreads etc. No dead trees needed.

~~~
Arnt
Around one in five, one in four books were bought with no intention of
reading. On one hand that's a lot of faking, on on other, the other three
fourths is much more and not fake. (Source: Editors I knew, over alcoholic
beverages.)

EDIT: "Were", not "are", because I've lost touch in the past years and don't
know how it is nowadays. Sales have dropped, the audience may have too. (Still
see gorgeous women in the bookshops though.)

~~~
jamesrcole
I have no idea how many books are bought just for show, but why would being an
editor provide you with insight into the numbers? How could they know?

~~~
Arnt
Editors talk at parties, just like everyone else. If you're invited to a
publishing house's christmas party you'll chitchat and learn factoids like
that one. (You may also meet your future wife. I did.)

As to how they'd know: Editors are the people who effectively decide what
books are published. Their income depends on their insight into customer
behaviour. Wouldn't you try to learn why books are bought?

~~~
jamesrcole
I asked how they are supposed to know. Saying that their job depends on
insight into customers isn't explaining how they know. The only explanation
you provide is: from taking to people at parties. I fail to see how that is
supposed to provide insight into how many books purchased by the public at
large are bought with no intention of being read.

Let's consider the problem. Presumably the majority of people who buy books
that they have no intention of ever reading would never admit to that fact.
How do you then figure out the numbers of such purchases? (Remember that the
comment I originally replied to gave specific figures). How does being an
editor somehow give you any meaningful insight into those figures?

~~~
Arnt
I suppose I'd better ask. Look here again in a day or two, please.

