>When John Updike was in his prime, millions of people read him. I read one of Updike's books (Run, Rabbit) and it seemed about one notch up (not a compliment)

>When John Updike was in his prime, millions of people read him. I read one of Updike's books (Run, Rabbit) and it seemed about one notch up (not a compliment) from Jacqueline Susann (3 of her novels once simultaneously topped the NYT bestsellers list). At about the same time, Philip Dick was very productive and being ignored (as he was until after his death, when he was suddenly 'recognized'). Since then, 'millions of people read' 50 Shades of Grey. Topped international lists, translated into 52 languages. Not 'literary'? Neither was Moby Dick, while its author was alive. Looks like the critics were wrong. (Am I suggesting them to be comparable? Hell no.) When I do a search on 'literary culture' not much of consequence turns up. Not surprised; it's hard to get anyone to commit to a definition of 'literature'. Maybe the author means 'Literary fiction'. Maybe 'deconstruction' killed off that whole distinction. Maybe two world wars and a Cold War did. Maybe that lode was mined out - maybe it was a chimera. It maybe that, now, genuine human voices are preferred over mannered, learned voices. Maybe we're waiting for a new voice to appear. Maybe we now see our pretenses too clearly. "We will declare frankly that nothing is clear in this world. Only fools and charlatans know and understand everything." - Chekhov "I am certain of nothing but the holiness of the heart's affections and the truth of imagination." - Keats