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.

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.

Nah. It is likely you're going for the stuff that the publishers have tagged as higher-quality stuff within the genre -- and I do the same when I buy SF/F. I really don't see any snobbism there.

But the big difference on the publisher end (and what all those bookselling years make me see being very uncritically voiced in the Salon attitude) is between, say, Knopf and Delacorte. Both are divisions of the same publishing house, but even a hardcover from Delacorte isn't going to get the same attention as one from Knopf. The sales reps won't treat it the same way (in some regions, they won't even be repped by the same person - and the Delacorte sales call will be combined with impulse items to be sold at the cash register), the New York Times will put the top title on the list in the once-a-year twenty-books-on-a-page genre wrapup while ignoring the rest of the catalog, they'll be sold prepackaged by the case quantity rather than in individual units, and much of the time the paperbacks will be stripped of their covers before they even reach the sales floor because the space is worth more at that price point. (The publishers still count the sales, so they don't care).

Readers sometimes resist the term "mass-market", and understandably so, but for the publishers, that's exactly what it is. And the attitude comes down to a lot of people involved in selling the stuff, whether it's sales reps or booksellers or reviewers.

It is likely you're going for the stuff that the publishers have tagged as higher-quality stuff within the genre

Then I'm confused. Because it sounds like I'm making the same distinction the writer is. Not that I knew the terms, but statistically, it turns out I've not considered the mass-market stuff worth my time.