WHEN LOSERS CLAIM TO BE WINNERS: THE TERM 'POPULAR FICTION'
Finally, a short word on a term that I really dislike: 'POPULAR FICTION.' In fact, it is one of the few things in the publishing industry that really makes me angry.
The term 'popular fiction' (which is often used in relation to my novels) must have been coined by some really bitter author who wrote some serious book which just didn't sell. The only way to justify this failure was to say that the book was too good, that the masses were just too stupid to appreciate it. And so the term 'popular fiction' was used to describe, in a negative sense, those books that do succeed-to degrade books that have mass appeal, and thus justify the failures of those who write material that, frankly, the greater public doesn't want to read. It is the mediocre asserting some kind of superiority over the successful (by insulting the intelligence of the general public!).
As someone who reads ALL kinds of books (from Grisham to Ondaatje to the noted biographer A. Scott Berg), I find it a terrible shame that this distinction exists.
We have a broadsheet newspaper here in Sydney that has pretensions of literary credibility, and every year it puts out a 'Best Young Australian Novelists' list, and every year they dismiss the so-called 'popular fiction' authors and decry the state of publishing generally. Ultimately, it seems, this newspaper's judges are impressed by authors who use similes ('I am like the raven...') and personification ('the cliffs reach for the sky, yearning, outstretched...'), as if that is the only form of writing worthy of praise. It is okay to have an opinion on what is good-that is everyone's right-it is another thing entirely to say that your opinion is the only correct one.
There is no shame in reading for enjoyment. After all, that's what 90% of the population do.