Surely it's academics, literary journalists and editors who decide, somewhat
questionably, what is "literature", not readers per se. As Raymond Williams
pointed out many years ago, there were many more popular writers than
Dickens in his period - and, if sheer numbers aren't your criteria, there
are plenty of writers who don't qualify as "literature" by genteel standards
of one sort or another whom some readers think good - who laboured in
relative obscurity, in what were considered sub-literary genres. I'm
thinking of great science fiction writers like Philip K. Dick. I'm
interested in your idea that what is literature is decided by readers - do
you mean long term quality? - but not sure I have grasped it. Commercial
publishing always had a certain "throwing shit at a wall" principle -
cheaper printing seems to mean that small poetry publishers can do the same.
I'm not talking about quality, but about what sticks.
all best
John
|