In the endless literary debate of What is Good and What will Sell, James Patterson is arguably the most extreme example of commercialism. While I was shocked at the magnitude that is the multi-million dollar industry of his books, I couldn't help but feel that this type of commodified, mass-produced, average-standard quality product is seen across all industries — so why does it feel so disdainful in publishing in particular? Why do we look down on James Patterson, a man who just bought a $17.4 million dollar "cottage," instead of recognizing him as a successful case study for authors? I started to look at James Patterson as a brand instead of an author.
There are a lot of brands like James Patterson: widely appealing (perhaps because they lack anything of true substance), extremely easy to scale, and comforting in their formula. To a consistent Patterson fan, picking up a new JP novel is probably an experience very akin to stopping in a McDonalds. Whether you're in a McDonalds in Maine or California, you know that a Big Mac will taste exactly the same — and that, to a lot of consumers, is a consistent comfort. I know I'll like this, because they all follow a very similar formula.
But despite the huge successes of brands like these, we — the snobby consumer — turn up our noses, just like a hipster, music connoisseur will likely scoff at most anything on the Top 40 charts. Why do we attribute more value and respect to a music artist that nearly no one has heard of but is "really shaking up the industry, my man," versus Taylor Swift, another very formulaic yet extremely successful brand?
I'm not sure what the answer is here. But I really doubt that James Patterson is bothered by our dorm room snobbery while he's building his multi-million dollar mansion on the ocean.
Names aren't showing up still so not sure who wrote the above post but this is Marisa commenting, anyway:
ReplyDeleteYour post caught my eye as I actually was just having a conversation about what it means and how it affects the respective industries when one is a pretentious snob when consuming literature, film, music, etc.
For the writer/filmmaker/musician/etc. I agree, James Patterson, Taylor Swift, or any-other big name who maybe was formally an indie artist of any sort is probably far from bothered by their success. There are definitely some case studies I could point to who maybe didn't expect success and so didn't know how to handle it but arguably those cases are the exceptions rather than what is expected.
I think it is more the "selling out" part of gaining success and thus gaining fame, that's the problem. Taylor Swift and James Patterson aren't the best examples as they never really were "indie" to begin with but for an artist who begins their career as independent and then enters the mainstream, their original fan-base is faced with the choice of support or snobbery as attached to mainstream media popularity is the stigma around the idea of selling out. Generally going mainstream is "selling out" and is looked down upon as it implies one is changing for mainstream society (the book is always changed to be marketed for a larger public audience when it becomes a movie) and in doing so one is giving up ones integrity or principles in exchange for money. In this sense there is an idea of conformity and fabrication and as you mentioned "formula" to having success in mass media and this just does not sit well. Is your favorite writer or artist the same once they've "conformed"? Is even thinking about that my own pretentious snobbery showing? I don't think Patterson ever had to face the question of changing his work for an audience as if anything he has a reliable audience because he's found a formula that works and just stuck with it. Paterson and Taylor Swift prove that following formula can definitely lead to success but it's success with a price. It's monetary success for sure but at the cost of being the equivalent of being what McDonalds (or any fast food) is to cooking in general. McDonalds is consistent, you can call it a classic, but its simultaneously loved by some and hated by others and not what a nutritionist would call good in terms of food. Taylor Swift is loved and hated by many and has songs that make lists of the best of the year and the worst of the year every year that she releases music. To someone wanting to become successful in the music industry in that they want to become famous, Taylor Swift is someone to admire. But outside the top 40 charts, to the snobby pretentious hipster-y music connoisseur music is art and Taylor Swift is not making art, she's making money, she's sold out. Patterson too is not someone facing much shame for his writing but he's most likely not setting out to win Prizes for his work or trying to write "Literature" with a capital L, he's trying to reach as large an audience possible to sell as many books as possible to make as much money as possible presumably to buy as many multi-million dollar mansions on the ocean as possible. I'm not sure why we draw cut offs of where music becomes art or writing becomes literature or who is in charge of these cutoffs but I am sure they will change. Maybe one day Patterson will be "canon" literature and we'll be taking classes on the Prose of Patterson in place of the Plays of Shakespeare, but I don't want to see that day.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete