Debuts and Hype

[Paddy]

[quote name='Lord of Oop North' post='1372919' date='May 28 2008, 12.06']This is exactly the kind of elitism I was talking about. You are basically calling my generation functionally retarded. Movies and literature have been 'dumbed down', but I can't see that.[/quote]
Of course you can't see it. You and your entire generation are far too dumb to see that things produced in the past are superior.
The culture is dumber because you demand it, because your generation are dumber because of the dumbing down of culture.

Capiche, dumbo?

:P

[salinea]

[quote name='Lord of Oop North' post='1372919' date='May 28 2008, 13.06']I would encourage you to [i]keep your snide responses to yourself next time[/i].[/quote]
I think he was talking to me...

[Lord of Oop North]

[quote]Capiche, dumbo?[/quote]

Huh!?

[quote]I think he was talking to me...[/quote]

Yes, I know.

[Errant Bard]

Why does it seem that "[i]some debut authors are not worth the hype[/i]" is understood "[i]all debut authors are not worth the hype[/i]"? Surely there is a difference between acknowledging that our capitalist system lives off the sales of the latest items and saying that nothing new is good?

Is there really no excess in the promotion of new books (most notably, THE debut of the year), that could be redirected a bit in the promotion of older, little known good works that are both less read than any hyped debut book and at the same time better than a lot of these debuts?

[Larry.]

[quote name='Etrangere' post='1372929' date='May 28 2008, 06.21']It's funny how your clarifications leave me ever more confused about what's your point than previously :lol:[/quote]

I think that's because each time I gather my thoughts together, I've moved the semantic goal posts out a bit further :P

[Lord of Oop North]

[quote]Why does it seem that "some debut authors are not worth the hype" is understood "all debut authors are not worth the hype"? Surely there is a difference between acknowledging that our capitalist system lives off the sales of the latest items and saying that nothing new is good?[/quote]

It seems to be beyond that. The thread has [i]transformed[/i].

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1373037' date='May 28 2008, 07.54']I think that's because each time I gather my thoughts together, I've moved the semantic goal posts out a bit further :P[/quote]

:lol:

[Dinsdale!]

[quote name='Lord of Oop North' post='1372919' date='May 28 2008, 07.06']Forgive me. When I say 'upper-class', I am referring to those who had the ability to read and write, the means to purchase a novel, and the leisure time to read it. These traits were typically confined to the privileged of society rather than the huddled masses.[/quote]

In America literacy in the 1800's was quite high. Ninety percent or so in New England at the time of the Revolution. Lower elsewhere. And I'd suspect generally high in the protestant nations of Europe as well, but I won't speculate further. And though farming was hard work, it had a lot of down time in which one could partake reading, and many did. And people shared books. And it was boring in the winter. Think of Abraham Lincoln.

[Paddy]

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1372982' date='May 28 2008, 12.58']Surely there is a difference between acknowledging that our capitalist system lives off the sales of the latest items and saying that nothing new is good?[/quote]
There is; those two things are nearly mutually exclusive :P
I assume you mean "there can be overlap between" :)

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1372982' date='May 28 2008, 12.58']Is there really no excess in the promotion of new books (most notably, THE debut of the year), that could be redirected a bit in the promotion of older, little known good works that are both less read than any hyped debut book and at the same time better than a lot of these debuts?[/quote]Possibly not. It could well be that by spending that money on promotion new books that the industry generated enough revenue to be able to promote older, lesser known good works.

[etcetera]

I don't think it matters what the literacy rate was in whatever past time you want to look at. It's only been in the last century that we've had this much selection to choose from. I don't think anyone can keep up with the sheer number of books that are churned out these days. Add to that everything people are reading on the internet, and, well...

As for me... I'm just an average Joe Reader, and books aren't my life's work or ambition. I work full-time, and reading is something I do for pleasure, but I have plenty of other demands on my time. I only read a handful of new books each year, not because I'm tyring avoid hype so much as I've got too many older books still left to read and other demands vying for my attention. I can't make time for it all (money and availability add to the complicated mix sometimes, too).

I do lean toward waiting until works have been out for quite a while before I pick them up. The hype, if I've allowed myself to be exposed to it, does create a lot of noise in my head that can otherwise ruin a good (perhaps not great) book. I'd rather pick up a work after I've forgotten what everyone has been saying about it. That's just one of my personal little quirks.

As for how many new releases people read each year, I think it really varies by reader, but I think these types of conversations are more helpful for those who review books so they can determine whether they are actually reviewing what their affinity group wants to read. Isn't that what these best books of X year conversations are really about?

[Zoë Sumra]

[quote name='etcetera' post='1373185' date='May 28 2008, 15.27']I do lean toward waiting until works have been out for quite a while before I pick them up. The hype, if I've allowed myself to be exposed to it, does create a lot of noise in my head that can otherwise ruin a good (perhaps not great) book. I'd rather pick up a work after I've forgotten what everyone has been saying about it. That's just one of my personal little quirks.[/quote]
Not to mention that a standard paperback is cheaper than a trade paperback. ;)

[Shryke]

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1372606' date='May 27 2008, 15.35']<Stuff and Things>[/quote]

<NOTE: I tried to post this yesterday, right around the time the board went down. So here is my very delayed reply>

Language isn't being dumbed down. 'Dumbed Down' language has always existed. It's just that our means of communicating with one another have progressed. The 'Common Man' is a large demographic that can only now be interconnected and catered to and so on.

And talking about Instant Messaging compared to previous forms of communication is ridiculous. It's not a series of quick letters, it's a conversation. It's stream of consciousness style. A letter, on the other hand, is a carefully worded discourse. Why? Because one can be sent off easily and arrives quickly. The other does not. A letter must be long and carefully worded and in depth because your only sending off a few. An IM can be a few PER MINUTE. It's a completely different style of communication.

And human society may be preserved and enhanced in many ways by the arts, but science/technology is how we survive as a species and progress as a society. Humanity's greatest asset is our analytical mind. Abstraction. Tool building. Understanding. Stuff like that.