Super Sad True Love Story

Currently underway with my Masters dissertation, my brain is addled with thoughts of publishing houses, imprints and the demon that is Amazon. More a demon because I seem to be writing endlessly about its success and strategic cleverness, but less demonic in the sense that one can buy books at those prices! (Which totally contradicts my ambition to be a publisher).

Anyway enough about me. I do have a few quotes to highlight from Gary Shteyngart's Super Sad True Love Story. A good read, but I did have to work with it to get the job done. Having said that, I did love the imagery and Shteyngart's clever wording:

Quote #1:

p.19 'Fabrizia. Her body conquered by small armies of hair, her curves fixed by carbohydrates, nothing but the Old World and its dying nonelectronic corporeality.'

I would love nothing more than to see a man approach a woman in a bar and use the line 'you are so beautiful, with your long flowing hair and your curves, fixed by complex carbohydrates.'

Throw a bit of Lipase in her drink, get the old Lipolysis going, and we could have that ass broken down in no time! (I have a tendency to associate words with chemical reactions, not sure why that is, but it keeps things interesting. Either that, or it says a lot about me).

Quote #2:

p.242 'A sickening Caucasian fear, mowed grass and temperate sex mixed with a surprising shot of third-world perspiration, crowded the borough's most elegant street.'

'a surprising shot of third-world perspiration' - genius.

Quote #3:

p. 302 '"Blustery." Just one word, a word meaning no more than "a period of time characterised by strong winds," but it caught me unaware, it reminded me of how language was once used, its precision and simplicity, its capacity for recall.'

From the perspective of a jargon-fueled global discourse of texts, tweets and technology, I hope that this will not ring true one day. Innit.

Do we choose our books or do they choose us?

I have been doing some research into the role of the imprint in the publishing industry and am trying to tackle the question: do we choose our books or do they choose us? Of course physically, we pick out the books we want to read - depending on our mood, our frame of mind; creative marketing strategies help too. But ultimately, who is choosing the books that make it to our bookshelves? Or onto Amazon web pages should I say.

Do the publishing imprints generate information based on their audiences in order to produce books that cater for their 'reading needs', or do our reading habits thrive on the titles that are presented to us as a result of the choices made by experienced publishers? Because I sense a slight dilemma in the world of publishing if all books are to be created on a fundamental basis of audience cravings - what do we know about good reading after all? Surely a decline in the quality of books produced is inevitable if editors are forced to dismiss titles which they consider great potential reading, to make room for something that is more commercially viable?

Amazon.com has launched a number of its own imprints, basing chosen titles on audience recommendations, of course catering entirely for its market, generating huge sales as a result. But is this what we really want the future of reading to become? It seems that the influence of online retailers like Amazon will become detrimental to the types of books that we find ourselves reading in the future. I also feel that catering so directly to an audience will cause massive saturation points within the book market, filling up on chicklits and vampire thrillers for example - so we need to maintain a sense of variety to keep these markets flowing and allow for great new writing to develop and flourish, even if it means publishing a title that doesn't quite fit the 'niche'. Reading and the production of books is all about creativity, and innovative thinking, so maybe we let the publishers decide after all?