>You want us to ONLY read literature. But guess what, the

>>7235655

That actually isn't far off, but it's actually "The genre fiction of yesterday is the literature of today."

>>7235684
Yeah, but he was talking about The Witcher.

>>7235696
>Implying the Poles have ever done anything worthwhile

There was his mistake

>>7236193
They invented wodka.

Genre writers are delusional. The commercially successful books from the past (Dickens etc) weren't the neatly packaged products they are today. Genre = conventions. Romance is literally paint by the numbers, Mystery is close to paint by the numbers w/ strict form and structure. sci-fi ages poorly + it and fantasy will always be niche things for nerds

>>7236722
>fantasy will always be niche things for nerds
Fantasy is mainstream bullshit. Literature has the small niche readership.

>>7236722
>sci-fi ages poorly

What does this mean? How does it "age"?

>>7235696
how are those books

ive never read fantasy but i like the games

>>7236722
>The commercially successful books from the past (Dickens etc) weren't the neatly packaged products they are today
No, but in the pulp age they certainly were (even more so), and writers like Jack London, Raymond Chandler, etc. got elevated over time.

>>7236782
Especially in the case of Chandler and London. You can tell with London, too. Read The Road and tell me it isn't a great adventure tale.

>>7236768
As yesterday's science fiction becomes today's science fact the old ideas of what the world will be like start to sound stupid rather than innovative and futuristic.

Just look at Star Trek.

>>7236863
Combine this with many of the plots of said old sci-fi novels hinging on long-debunked theories being fact, and you lose what draws many people to hard sci-fi to begin with.

That is, science.