Each week I write a library column for the local paper that includes notes on books that the library has acquired. Since I can't read all those books myself--and am not that interested in bestselling fiction anyway--what I essentially do is summarize the book jacket copy of each book.

They all end up sounding alike! It's all NYC or LA or occasionally other city cops hunting serial killers, lawyers getting caught up in life-threatening cases, members of government agencies getting involved in high-level skullduggery, quirky detectives and bounty hunters trying to find crooks, women whose "perfect" lives suddenly fall apart (or did a while back and they're still dealing with it), or men and women who have nothing in common meeting and discovering they can't live without each other. And occasionally some full-fledged science fiction or fantasy, although more and more the genres above often include some of those elements.

Is all that bestselling fiction really as much alike as the advertising seems to suggest it is? Because if it is, it's kind of depressing to think that 90% of our readers read just that stuff and miss out on all the other variety that's out there.

That sounds fairly diverse

My grandfather in law has not read a book in over 60 yrs

No need

all the same


"boy meets girl, boy falls for girl, boy loses girl, boy and girl get back together"

Someone told me once there were five (or so) stories that all tales are a variation of. I can certainly see that being the case.

I don't go much for mainstream fiction, for just that reason. Add in 'not well written' and what you get is a novel that can be read in the bathroom for 5 minutes at a time. And your life will not be changed or challenged when you are done.

A lot of the acclaimed fiction I also avoid, unless I familiar with the writer. It seems like they are trying too hard to observe and challenge and be off beat.

I guess I am just hard to please.

I understand that not everyone likes to read the same thing. And I'm certainly not trying to suggest that I think the reading public are stupid. I know enough of our readers to know better than that. What I don't understand is how so many readers can be content with so little variety. One of my former employees spent years reading murder mysteries and more murder mysteries. Eventually she got tired of them and started reading a variety of different things. Why doesn't that seem to happen more often?

The formulas I listed above aren't even whole genres. They're narrow subgenres! For instance I understand how some people really like cop novels. Do they ALL have to be about serial killers? Cops do deal with other kinds of crime too.

Another thing I wonder is how many times can one writer write the same book? The finale of the latest Danielle Steele novel was pure Hollywood cliche that's been around for decades. And she's still a bestseller!?

At least after four or five hundred books Nora Roberts is trying something different. Her latest novel under the name "J.D. Robb" has a future sci-fi setting. Seems to have some of her fans baffled.

I'm that way too, I guess. For a long time now I've preferred nonfiction. Nonfiction literally opens you up to a whole world of interesting and thought-provoking reality (And much of it can still serve an escapest purpose as well, if that's what the reader wants). I don't understand why there is so very little interest in it around here. It's frustrating, because limited patron demand means I don't have an excuse to order all that much of it.

Your description sounds accurate to me, D.L. I hate that kind of stuff. There's plenty of excellent literature being published, but not most of that bestseller stuff.

If it's about crime -- usually crap.

I've wondered about Jodi Piccoult though. Her stuff sells like crazy, and each one seems to have a totally different type of story. (Usually some Kleenex tale of a woman and a challenge. Maybe a priest or a handicap in there). I've hinted about her to my wife to check one out, but no.

My wife is reading Edgar Sawtelle right now. Bestseller about a deaf boy who retreats to the woods with dogs. Not a formula.

People like quick reads they can read before bed, on the toilet, while travelling.

Fun stuff. Stuff they are interested in.

Not heavy duty stuff, not stuff that is slow to read, not complicated stuff.

they like familiar characters and situations. thats why sequels at movies do well, and people can read the same comic character for 20 yrs.

People aren't really looking for "literature" as a whole. Nothing that's going to bore them like high school reading did. They arent looking to think as much as be entertained.

heck, my uncle wont read a book unless the chapters are very short. Long chapters mean he will get bored. Short chapters he keeps going. Same length but the chapter size matters

I like Elmore Leonard.

Hmmm. Maybe that's why they're so overwhelmingly popular. Thanks, Steinbrenner.

Next time: Rob explains why "not books" is more popular generally than "books."

Shucks, I understand that readers read mostly for fun. That's the main reason I read! But what's fun about reading the same story over and over again? To me reading is like eating--there's lots of different good stuff out there. No need to make a meal on the same dish or two all the time.

Yeah, but lots of people eat the same 6 or 7 meals, you know?

there's a reason almost all the dramas are Cop shows (CSI or Law and Order mostly) or medical shows

or the comedies are doofy dude who means well, with pretty wife who treats him badly

People seem to find comfort in the familiar.

Which I can understand. I've read Spidey comics for 20 yrs. THere all kinda the same, you know?

My wife's grandfather-every time i we go with a movie, when it's over he says "Can we watch a Tarzan movie now?" There are 12 Johnny weismullers and he's being watching them for 60 yrs and they are all the same more or less.

My grandmother reads mysteries-like Murder She Wrote ones-and romance novels.

It's just how people are.

There's only 39 Honeymooners episodes, but people still watch em.