trenchkamen (
trenchkamen) wrote2012-02-14 12:01 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
The more things change
Checking out the little bookstore at the Seattle airport. Apparently Nicholas Sparks has a new book out. I wouldn't have known it was new but for the sign over it saying "NEW"; the cover looks exactly like every other cover of his books, and while the title itself isn't familiar it seemed enough like all of his other titles in content, cadence, and connotation. I especially love the quotes selected for cover review: "Sparks knows how to tug at a reader's heartstrings" (which is not necessarily praise, and is taken out of context; could be an accusation of cheap, maudlin tricks) and "All of Sparks’s trademark elements—love, loss, and small-town life—are present in this terrific read." Granted, a "terrific read" doesn't necessarily mean the book is any good. I'd call at lot of the trashy fanfic smut I read a "terrific read", but that doesn't necessarily mean it's any good.
Wait, it's not new. It was just under the "new" header at the bookstore. Fuck me blind, it wouldn't have made any difference. They're all the same anyway.
Also note that Amazon put it under "literary" and not "trashy-ass, talentless romance rags"; apparently they got the memo about how he's absolutely not a romance author, but on par with Hemingway and Shakespeare.
Also, every young adult fantasy cover is desperately trying to look like Twilight (even books that aren't urban fantasy), down to the serif-gothic fonts, color palates, and hyper-saturated photos of pretty people with color-enhanced eyes. I almost miss the days when every book was desperately trying to look like Harry Potter, because, as obnoxious as that marketing ploy was, and as destructive to the individuality of each book as it was (oh, fuck it; so many publishers were trying to publish books that WERE just like Harry Potter, even in content, and few books that deviated from that formula were making it out), Harry Potter was actually a good series.
---------------------
Do I find it ironic I am writing about Sparks on Valentine's Day? Hand to God I forgot it was until I just looked at my clock.
Wait, it's not new. It was just under the "new" header at the bookstore. Fuck me blind, it wouldn't have made any difference. They're all the same anyway.
Also note that Amazon put it under "literary" and not "trashy-ass, talentless romance rags"; apparently they got the memo about how he's absolutely not a romance author, but on par with Hemingway and Shakespeare.
Also, every young adult fantasy cover is desperately trying to look like Twilight (even books that aren't urban fantasy), down to the serif-gothic fonts, color palates, and hyper-saturated photos of pretty people with color-enhanced eyes. I almost miss the days when every book was desperately trying to look like Harry Potter, because, as obnoxious as that marketing ploy was, and as destructive to the individuality of each book as it was (oh, fuck it; so many publishers were trying to publish books that WERE just like Harry Potter, even in content, and few books that deviated from that formula were making it out), Harry Potter was actually a good series.
---------------------
Do I find it ironic I am writing about Sparks on Valentine's Day? Hand to God I forgot it was until I just looked at my clock.
no subject
no subject
I've never seen anybody use them, ever.