People who read mysteries are more socially acceptable than people who read SF/Fantasy.

That's definitely true. As a mystery reader, I may be sheepish to pull the book out of my bag, but no one thinks I'm a freak when they see it.

I'll just say there's a reason that bookstores specializing in romance books sell ornamental book covers at the register. (Because nobody likes being seen in public with the covers the publishers pick.)

Yup. How comfortable I am reading any genre book in public (and I read romance, fantasy, mystery, and occasional science fiction) has a lot to do with how classy the cover is.

People who read mysteries are more socially acceptable than people who read SF/Fantasy.

Wow. That's scary.

I think San Francisco may be slanted a bit differently, though, because when I'm using public transport, I see quite a sizeable percentage of adult readers reading William Gibson, or books with what seem to be fantasy genre covers (there are very few Regency romances out there with dragons on the cover).

Gibson is by definition more socially acceptable than anything with dragons on the cover.

I think fantasy readers rank lower than SF readers (please disregard the overlap for purposes of this discussion), and not necessarily higher than romance readers, just different.

Let me just say that popularity with people on public transportation does not equal literary respect.

I remember a funny story about Marion Zimmer Bradley, preparing to publish her first "Sword and Sorceress" collection. She threatened the publisher (was it Don Wollheim? Dunno. Book at home) with mayhem if he put a naked Amazon on the cover of her book. Too bad not all authors have that type of clout, for I'm sure we'd then have prettier covers to enjoy.

I think fantasy readers rank lower than SF readers (please disregard the overlap for purposes of this discussion), and not necessarily higher than romance readers, just different.

But who's doing the ranking? That's what I don't understand.

I don't read most litcrit, in any genre, because I have no reason to assume that some yutz at the NY Times knows any better than the nine year old next door. So I have no problem at all in picking up any book that appeals to me on whatever level, and reading it anywhere; the only cover I've ever been embarrassed about was the cover of one of my own, which had damn-all to do with the book.

So, who is it that's looking at the cover of my Simenon or Chandler or Zelazny short story collection and rating me? I don't get it. Is it the reviewer community?

So, who is it that's looking at the cover of my Simenon or Chandler or Zelazny short story collection and rating me? I don't get it. Is it the reviewer community?

I believe we are talking about People In General. Especially People Like Us, who presumably only read Good Books that don't come in series.

I read the article, and I can't recall a reviewer more determined to dislike what he read. He also appeared to be reading mostly in what one might call the neo-noir authors, which is not where I think today's best work is. I tend to judge a series by the body of work, as if it's a really long novel, rather than by individual books, although generally the first couple of books have to be good enough to catch my attention. In the best series, the characters grow and change over the years. Often the first or second book in a series can be a little ragged around the edges but show potential. Some series run out of steam. The first 10 or so Spenser novels were excellent, but since have become repetitious, although I keep picking them up hoping that Susan Silberman will be killed horribly. On the other hand, James Lee Burke is still writing some of the most gorgeous prose out there.

Science fiction and mystery books still usually end up in ghetto of the NY Times book reviews -- the listings of one or two paragraph reviews. Occasionally they'll do longer pieces on people such as P.D. James, William Gibson and Neal Stephenson, but that's about it.