The novel is a highly corrupt medium, after all - in the end the vast majority of them simply aren't that great, and are destined to be forgotten.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It seems that the fiction writer has a revolting attachment to the poor, for even when he writes about the rich, he is more concerned with what they lack than with what they have.
You have plausible deniability, as they say in politics, as an author with movies. Because if the movie is terrible, you simply say they failed to catch the genius of the book.
It seems to me that the novel as a medium has a very low signal-to-noise ratio. By which I mean: there are a lot of novels published, but the vast majority of them don't represent major contributions to the medium.
That is sad until one recalls how many bad books the world may yet be spared because of the busyness of writers.
I think that novels are tools of thought. They are moral philosophy with the theory left out, with just the examples of the moral situations left standing.
It's with bad sentiments that one makes good novels.
Writers who want to interfere with adaptations of their work are basically undemocratic. The book still stands as an entity on its own.
I think that there are empty ecological niches in the literary landscape crying to be filled and when a book more or less fills a niche it's seized on, even when it's a far from perfect fit.
The dark book has been terribly popular. Dark characters, dysfunction, and all sorts of things from reality that are true in our world.
The novel is resilient, and so are novelists.