But from those excerpts it still seems like he's drawing a line between the good (or expensive) stuff and the bad.

He is. But it seems like the line between good and bad, for him, isn't between serious SF and, say, novelizations of bad straight-to-video movies -- it's between trade and mass-market.

Plei, do you have a link? I went to Salon and couldn't find the review you were talking about.

Plei, do you have a link? I went to Salon and couldn't find the review you were talking about.

It's page 4 of the book reviews/what to read article. I don't have a direct link.

it's between trade and mass-market.

What's the official difference between the two? Because to my unlettered naivete he's saying "this sounds like it should be on the crap-ass side of the line, but it's not." Of course, from the first quote I couldn't tell he meant cheap literally.

here 'tis (membership or day pass required, natch.)

Ah, found it.

"Max Tivoli" is, at its essence, a love story, not fantasy or science fiction.

Errrgh. Can't it be both?

Can't it be both?

I'm not speaking for the reviewer, but wondering -- even if it can be both at its essence (though one might argue the essence is going to be one thing), does it have to be? Can that statement be true without being a trashing of the genre?

He is. But it seems like the line between good and bad, for him, isn't between serious SF and, say, novelizations of bad straight-to-video movies -- it's between trade and mass-market.

To be clearer, this isn't a novel sold or marketed as sci-fi or fantasy; it's a literary novel, albeit one with a fantastical premise. (And, having looked at the Publisher's Weekly review, I wonder if the reviewer was using it as notes for his own, though the PW review is without value judgements when it compares the premise to sci-fi.)

What's the official difference between the two?

Trim size, price point, and the fact that it's designed to be thrown away after it's read (although there are other differences like paper quality and typography that come with the package). Basically, the publishers decide, to the point of publishing them under different names, which things they're going to sell to a Wal-mart audience and which are going to get pushed to "serious" bookstores and reviewers.

The majority of genre stuff is originally published in mass-market format, with the biggest sellers having a short run in hardcover first. (Usually six months, as opposed to a year in hardcover for the trade lines).

It used to be impossible for any paperback to get reviewed outside of specialist genre publications. Now, it's sometimes possible for trades, but never, ever for mass.

In the book biz, mass-market strongly correlates with genre, and in the snootier parts of said biz, it's assumed to mean junk.

The majority of genre stuff is originally published in mass-market format

I think I'm a snot too, then. Because the great majority of the SF&F that I read I get in HC, as originally offered.

eta:

the publishers decide, to the point of publishing them under different names, which things they're going to sell to a Wal-mart audience

And I can't remember the last time I saw genre in Walmart that I'd read. Maybe if I were into Stephen King, but it's been a while.