but that was always the case
digital books haven't changed that, they've just made it much harder to get a deal in the first place because the publishers are much more under the cosh. and the author gets paid a lot less.

anyone who loves literature would have been nearly weeping after the lectures we sat through. eg: the future of publishing lies mainly in chick-lit and vampire fiction, with pet biographies coming up unexpectedly on the rear. the best way to make money is... to be picked up by tesco, who take on about 10 books a month. since when did tesco dictate great literature? and if your first book sells brilliantly but the second doesn't, you most likely won't get a shot at a third. it's a very harsh business.

the whole thing sucks.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Thu 13 Oct 2011, 11:13, 1 reply, 13 years ago)

I think you're wrong in believing that there was once some great "golden age of literature"
When you look back at "Classics" such as Dickens, Bronte, Tolstoy etc. They were all writing over a period of a century, or more, and there will have been loads of other books published during that time that nobody remembers, probably because they were shit.

And it's the same now, there are still some fantastic books being published, but there is also a lot of shit. But nobody in 150 years is going to remember the shit.

In twenty years time I bet Harry Potter isn't all that popular at all, because with the benefit of hindsight people will notice that after the 4th book the quality declined massively as no editor appeared to have the balls to stand up to JK Rowling.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 13 Oct 2011, 11:21, Reply)