[krazydawg005]

One thing I've noticed when reading literature dicussion's online, including the dicussions here at sffworld.com, the word "mainstream" seems to be synonymous with "average" or "meh". I've never really understood this. Some of my favorite novels are from mainstream authors, yet many people seem to dislike any book written by a mainstream author, or even a book that resembles a mainstream book. One example I've noticed is when I was looking up info on Greg Bear's Darwin's Radio . I just bought that book today after seeing a really nice hardcover copy at our local Half-Price Books for only $2. The plot seems very interesting, and I remember seeing that it had won the Nebula award. That along with the fact that Greg Bear seems like a pretty well liked author within sci-fi circles, I decided it was worth a buy. After reading some input by you guys on here, it seems that several times the "mainstream" description was used.

Why is mainstream considered bad? Is it even considered bad?

[Mugwump]

One thing I've noticed when reading literature dicussion's online, including the dicussions here at sffworld.com, the word "mainstream" seems to be synonymous with "average" or "meh". I've never really understood this. Some of my favorite novels are from mainstream authors, yet many people seem to dislike any book written by a mainstream author, or even a book that resembles a mainstream book. One example I've noticed is when I was looking up info on Greg Bear's Darwin's Radio . I just bought that book today after seeing a really nice hardcover copy at our local Half-Price Books for only $2. The plot seems very interesting, and I remember seeing that it had won the Nebula award. That along with the fact that Greg Bear seems like a pretty well liked author within sci-fi circles, I decided it was worth a buy. After reading some input by you guys on here, it seems that several times the "mainstream" description was used.

Why is mainstream considered bad? Is it even considered bad?

To be honest, I’m a bit uncomfortable with the word “mainstream”. The myriad different definitions applied to it over the years have pretty much rendered the word meaningless. If by “mainstream” you mean popular, then I suppose you’re witnessing little more than the usual antipathy people often develop toward ubiquity.

For example, some years ago, a friend of mine was one the biggest Tolkien fans you’ll ever see. There wasn’t a cubic foot in his study that wasn’t crammed with books, artwork and articles relating to Middle Earth. Just prior to the cinematic release of Return of the King he announced, out of the blue, that he was fed up with his recreation and sold the lot (for a good deal of money). He felt that Peter Jackson’s movies had rendered Tolkien ubiquitous, and his esoteric Fantasy escape had become overcrowded. The last time I spoke with him, he was working hard toward building up an art collection.

A less extreme example of this kind of reaction is my aversion from “mainstream” movie/TV tie-ins (Trek, Star Wars, Dr. Who and so forth), which have pretty much usurped “traditional” SF novels (including, I might add – many of Greg Bear’s) in almost every bookstore I visit today. I freely admit that my antipathy is quite irrational. A good number of these books are, in my opinion, substantially “better written” than some Nebula and Hugo Award winners that spring to mind (Ringworld for instance).

In the end, it’s up to you to decide what you like or don’t like. Other people’s opinions, whilst relevant in their frames of reference, really shouldn’t count for too much in yours.

[phil_geo]

Someone said to me a long time ago:

"It's just as bad to NOT do something because it's popular, as it is to DO something because it's popular."

It holds for anything - either way, you are not using your own opinion, you are responding (positively or negatively) to other people's views.

Like the Offspring said, "I am not some trendy a**hole, I do what I want, I do what I feel like. I'm not some trendy a**hole, don't give a f*ck if it's good enough for you.", and I've tried to live my life by those poetic and insightful words.

[DragonReader]

I ahve noticed the same thing on a lot of fantasy forums. If something is popular some people just don't like it for that reason alone. Personally I find people's opinions helpful, but I always try and understand how they come up with there opinions. If they dislike something just because it is popular then I disregard that opinion. Ultimately I have to decide for myself. I often try books that others have disliked because they seem interesting to me. Someimes I like them, sometimes I don't.

[bane_nicxavier]

Ok. I'm new on here, so don't shoot the n00b! :D I don't like "mainstream" (or popular by my def.) books because they're too cookie cutter sff for me. I don't like Star Wars or Trek because of this. I'm not into the whole stay on the ship always mentality of Star Trek (that's just what I got out of it, they're always on the ship), or the new guy gets girl and has evil father thing Star Wars had going.

I much prefer the vampire cookie cutters that Laurell K. Hamilton and Anne Rice do so well in their own ways. Dragon shaped cookies aren't bad either. I love Anne McCaffrey (and Todd, too) for her many books and his extension of the Pern series. I was in awe of Todd's luck at the great honor of being allowed into the Pern world. :eek:

This is probably way off track from what I started out at, but it could be good for a first post on here.

[Andrew J]

I don't get the hate for things just because they're popular, but I know I was once like that too, and there are people like this in every genre. (First it was about fantasy and sci-fi itself, then the Xbox, then the Gamecube, then Dan Brown.)

I found the Star Wars: New Jedi Order series to be very good--they're done by different authors (such as Greg Keyes, Matthew Woodring Stover--of Heroes Die fame--and Michael A. Stackpole), but with one huge central plot. It really felt like there was a war going on, as the authors gave pretty heavy costs of life-even with main characters--and had plenty of their own characters populating the scene.

By the way, I think Greg Bear's "Darwin's Radio" is pretty good, at least for the interesting concept.

[Mugwump]

I think it’s perfectly understandable why many people react with hostility when faced with “mainstream” Science Fiction or Fantasy.

Years ago, when the “Literary Intelligentsia” labeled both genres “purely escapist fiction”, they were accused of snobbishness by defenders. I see no problem with their definition as, in my opinion, it is very close to the truth.

Both genres attract many readers who indeed wish to escape, albeit temporarily, from the drudgery and mundanity of today’s world. Herbert’s Dune with its scorched, sand-swept vistas; Tolkien’s Middle Earth, replete with myth and magic; Ballard’s prismatic forest regressing into the swirling eddies of time – all offer the imaginative, world-weary reader the chance of a private, desert-island paradise vacation from that which suffocates his senses every waking hour.

But what person here can truly say that he would be happy if on arrival at his tranquillity, he found it to be packed with a herd of other paradise-seekers? Even worse: paradise-seekers who are known to him? What person here can truly say that on boarding that luxury ocean liner for the six-week cruise he’s saved years for, he would be ecstatic to find his work colleagues berthed on either side of his cabin for the duration of the trip?

I think this is the feeling many SF and Fantasy fans experience when what was once a delightfully esoteric piece of work suddenly becomes all pervasive, or ubiquitous in society. On the one hand, the myriad fresh perspectives on the issues and premises of the book, and the discussion that flows from them evoke a sense of commonality or euphoria, but this is often, I think, tinged with a sense of loss. A feeling that the private escape from the monotony of life has now become part of that monotony.

[Yobmod]

Think some people are talking slightly cross purposes, simply because as mentioned above, there are to many conflicting ideas about what mainstream means.
I got the impression that the first post meant Mainstream SF as in written by a mainstream author / targeted at a mainstream audience (which happened with Darwin's Radio to an extent). People like Vonnegut, Atwood and even Crichton spring to mind, along with all the 'techno-thriller' writers.
Whereas others are talking about populist books or authors such as the Star trek / wars books.

I don't see people having a great problem with the Mainstream books, it's simply that the authors aren't as well known to SF audiences, and they aren't advertised in the same places, or found on the same shelves at shops / libraries. I think Darwins Radio had an plot that publishers thought could appeal to mainstream audiences, but i think the reason you don't see many rave reviews from SF fans is simply that it wasn't that good.


Populist books however is where the percieved snobbery comes in. However i think calling it snobbery is simply how some people try to deflect criticism. Personaly i'm not a fan of star trek because i find the storylines adolescent and illogical :D I can't count the number of times i've turned the TV off halfway through an eposide because the 'emotionless' Vulcans are crying or angry or annoyed (esp. the female ones :confused:) In fact this is even worse with Data - 'Waaa, i'm upset cos i want to be human'. As a result i don't read the books. :rolleyes:

I've read quite a few of the star wars books, simply to confirm to myself that i wouldn't lke that sort of movie / game / media tie in series of books. I have no problem with their popularity - i'm usually glad to find that a book i've read is popular, and follow most of the awards - but i think the whole premise of an existing world being written about by a load of different authors is flawed. The star wars books weren't bad (not good either) but they varied hugely from one book to the next, and characters seemed to completely vanish / dominate the story depending on the authors preference (esp. the kids, one moment they were saving the galaxy with the adults going crazy looking for them, then being foisted onto a childminder and being ignored). And the settings seem so generic, an authors brilliant idea or character has to take a back seat to a universe that had the important characteristics defined decades ago.
I also don't read books that are based on the books of dead authors, like Conan books or the Amber books ot the Dune prequels etc.
In both cases i honestly think it's all about cashing in on an earlier popularity - not about writing original, challenging or worthwhile books. (which doesn't neccesarily mean that non of them are worthwhile :D )

[intensityxx]

I had a similar response to any work that could be labeled "romance". Having spent a few years on the "lit fic" side of the tracks, I assumed anything of that nature was trash, and I was too embarrassed to take a peek and see for myself (not for prudish reasons, but for snobbish reasons).

FicusFan gave me the courage to try reading some. I was mightily impressed with how Ficus boldly admitted reading and enjoying some things that contained romance elements.

Sometimes it can be cooler to admit to reading fluff or "mainstream" than not reading it at all. :D

[Great Zamfir]

In general, i think science fiction doesn't have much "mainstream" trouble. Most popular books are not bad, and award winning books tend to be good. Of course not every popular book is good, and certainly not every good book is popular, but I'd say that in general there is some relation between quality and popularity. This is absolutely not a obvious: If you look at thrillers for example (not to mention pop music), more popular certainly doesn't mean better.
This might be because sf is a bit of a closed world, since most science fiction books are read by people who have read a lot of other sf books, and can at least somewhat judge their quality. That would also explain the problem with tv-books. These are also read by people who read little other sf, or little books of any kind. So these books can vary a lot quality and still be popular, since many readers wouldn't notice.

Still, there are some reasons to be "against" mainstream, by which I mean books that are aimed at a sort of "average reader" and do not differ too much from existing, popular books.Even if they are good books they usually do not offer something that hasn't been done before. So they use shelf space and attention in fora and reviews that could have been used better for other books. ( this is basically what turned me off from fantasy. I'm sure there is a lot of good, interesting fantasy, but it's so hard to find between the Tolkienesque and general medieval stuff)
Another reason is elitism. People like to read the books other people haven't read yet or don't know anything about, just because it makes them feel smart or avant-garde. That is IMO a good thing, because in doing so they will tell others about interesting stuff you wouldn't have found on your own, and it encourages writers to keep renewing themselves.

But what person here can truly say that he would be happy if on arrival at his tranquillity, he found it to be packed with a herd of other paradise-seekers? Even worse: paradise-seekers who are known to him? What person here can truly say that on boarding that luxury ocean liner for the six-week cruise he’s saved years for, he would be ecstatic to find his work colleagues berthed on either side of his cabin for the duration of the trip?

I doubt this is an explanation of mainstream-adversion. Both Tolkienmania and MMORPG's show that people in fact like to escape to places with a lot of other people. In Spain for example there a lot of campings completely aimed at tourists from one country, because people like to be among countrymen when they are on holiday. In fact I know several persons who always go on holiday together with their neighbours.