People like to label best sellers
as inferior and inane compared to their own par of literary work. It’s an elitist and cynical attitude that
stems from the stereotype that the best seller lists are fraught with only
Twilight-esque novels. A best seller, in my opinion, is nothing more than what
that achievement implies; it sold well. Simply because something is popular
doesn’t make it inferior to other pieces of work, but it makes it superior
either. As subjective as the two terms are, there’s still distinct
characteristics that can define whether a book is “good” or not, but none of
those are how well it’s sold.
You’ll find pieces that are
commonly accepted as genius on best seller lists, and you’ll also find novels
that are regarded as garbage by many. The only common quality in best sellers
is that they’ve sold well and were popular at one point—this is a neutral thing
in relevance to the actual quality of the novel, because popularity and quality
are only occasionally related. This is
why not every book to appear on a best seller list will receive an award,
because it doesn’t hint at the actual quality of the novel.
I really liked your point about how a best seller doesn't mean anything about the quality of the book--only about how it sells, and I completely agree with you! I don't think it's fair to label all best sellers as inferior to all the books in the world because the types of books, like you said, varies from genius to not-so-great.
ReplyDeleteI liked your comparison between bestselling and quality novels and how they are not always hand in hand. It is so important not to judge a book just because it is a best seller. Since it sold so many copies, then there must be a reason people like it!
ReplyDeleteI think you wrote this well and sold your point very well. I also like how you said just because a book sells well doesnt mean its high quality.
ReplyDelete