|
|
Post by ropardoe on Jul 30, 2017 17:49:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Jul 30, 2017 18:15:08 GMT
The striking thing is how much more fiction there is than any other type of reading material. Today, of course, fiction magazines are practically nonexistent. What happened? Television, you will say. But there is very little (overt) fiction on television either these days.
I have a theory about this, however. What most people really want to know about is what other people are doing. Back in the old days, before telephones, television, and the Internet, they had limited opportunity to observe other people directly, in particular people who lived far away, so they resorted to making up stories about what they might be up to. Today, when everyone broadcasts their lives live on Facebook and whatnot, that is no longer necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by dem bones on Jul 30, 2017 20:46:20 GMT
East London newsagents, 1952. Originally posted by Old London @greatestcapital, 30 May 2016. Note this issue of Flirt just next to the Cola sign. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Brough on Jul 30, 2017 21:27:55 GMT
Well spotted, dem. It's amazing how you become attuned to these things. I can spot a Pan cover at 100 paces these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by andydecker on Jul 31, 2017 9:32:55 GMT
Great picture.
The advertising of American comics is interesting.
Only yesterday I read about the creation of the comic The Eagle, which had the intention to be a wholesome counterpart to American comics, which "brings Horror into the Nursery", as the Reverend Morris put it so nicely. I wondered if they were so widely avaiable. Seems they were.
|
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Jul 31, 2017 10:51:37 GMT
I think that's a very good theory, Jojo - admittedly because I agree with it. Social Media and the growth of papparazi press has enabled people to have a good nose at the lives of the famous, and then the people next door, who are actually more fascinating. There's nowt so queer as folk, etc.
Once upon a time, fiction had loads of extraneous detail about location, atmosphere, etc to explain to people about places they had never seen, and this was probably as much the appeal of the story as the people within it. Then we could travel more, there was film, etc, and so prose became generally leaner when it came to such matters. But still we had fiction as it topped and tailed 'reality' into manageable chunks, and gave it satisfactory beginnings and ends so that we could understand ourselves somehow through making it more manageable.
And now we can nose on everyone else, see any exotic location, and know that real life doesn't really top and tail like that.
I wonder if that's why there's a growth in the market for historical fiction, particularly when it comes to crime: it gives a writer a chance to get stuck into atmosphere and location and descriptive prose as it's a world that we can't nose on social media as it's just not there anymore, so it needs to be recreated? And readers of such books like it for that reason, also? Certainly I would say so in my case.
So it's not really the end of fiction - it's just that it's become more niche, and of necessity a smaller market.
Besides which, if you want to talk about TV specifically, reality shows are so much cheaper to make in blocks than any fictional show, which is what makes them attractive to networks and producers. Cheaper to buy as well, which broadcasters love. People lap them up for one reason, TV pro's for another. And as there's more channels and airtime to fill, and only a finite amount of ad revenue to pay for it all, the conclusion is obvious... (we're on to one of my hobby-horses now, so I'll shut up)
|
|
|
|
Post by Jojo Lapin X on Aug 1, 2017 10:41:20 GMT
I think that's a very good theory, Jojo - admittedly because I agree with it. Social Media and the growth of papparazi press has enabled people to have a good nose at the lives of the famous, and then the people next door, who are actually more fascinating. There's nowt so queer as folk, etc. Once upon a time, fiction had loads of extraneous detail about location, atmosphere, etc to explain to people about places they had never seen, and this was probably as much the appeal of the story as the people within it. Then we could travel more, there was film, etc, and so prose became generally leaner when it came to such matters. But still we had fiction as it topped and tailed 'reality' into manageable chunks, and gave it satisfactory beginnings and ends so that we could understand ourselves somehow through making it more manageable. And now we can nose on everyone else, see any exotic location, and know that real life doesn't really top and tail like that. I wonder if that's why there's a growth in the market for historical fiction, particularly when it comes to crime: it gives a writer a chance to get stuck into atmosphere and location and descriptive prose as it's a world that we can't nose on social media as it's just not there anymore, so it needs to be recreated? And readers of such books like it for that reason, also? Certainly I would say so in my case. So it's not really the end of fiction - it's just that it's become more niche, and of necessity a smaller market. Besides which, if you want to talk about TV specifically, reality shows are so much cheaper to make in blocks than any fictional show, which is what makes them attractive to networks and producers. Cheaper to buy as well, which broadcasters love. People lap them up for one reason, TV pro's for another. And as there's more channels and airtime to fill, and only a finite amount of ad revenue to pay for it all, the conclusion is obvious... (we're on to one of my hobby-horses now, so I'll shut up) Yes, exactly. |
|
