<p>Most professors (especially those in liberal arts) write monographs throughout the course of their career.</p>
<p>Such books, however, usually enjoy little commercial success and typically sell a few hundred copies–mostly to university libraries. Even those that are moderately priced sell few copies.</p>
<p>Why is that? </p>
<p>In my opinion, academic books are some of the best books available. They are well-written, highbrow, analytical, challenging, and thoroughly researched; in short, they are the creme de la creme of scholarship. Reading them has greatly improved my writing and analysis skills. </p>
<p>Why are they so unpopular, and does it say anything about our current culture?</p>
<p>The immortal life of Henrietta Lacks was on the NYT best seller list for over two years,
Hardly an easy read, on a difficult subject.
How do you explain it’s popularity?</p>
<p>In order to advance the state of scholarship in a field, you must focus on a very specific, narrow area of scholarship. By definition, this won’t interest more than a handful of people.</p>
<p>Popular books are essentially the opposite - as general as possible, in order to maximize their appeal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a highly accessible book written for the general population. In no way is it an “academic monograph.”</p>
<p>Few academic monographs have the appeal that the Henrietta Lacks book has for a general audience…</p>
<p>And most are written by specialists – unlike the Lacks book, which was written by a journalist, who was in a better position than most specialists to appreciate what a general reader probably would not know.</p>
<p>Most academics are in the habit of writing for others who work in their own or closely related fields. They and their readers share common knowledge, assumptions, and jargon. For them to switch to writing for a non-specialized audience is very difficult. Most don’t have this skill or any interest in developing it.</p>
<p>I get that non fiction books aren’t monographs no matter how meticulously researched.
What I don’t get is why OP feels that their lack of mainstream interest is an indication of the coming fall. </p>
<p>I’m not sure the issue is the lack of skill. However, you are correct about the conflicting expectations of each audience.</p>
<p>If academics write monographs that are so generalized that they’re geared for a general audience, there’s a common tendency to regard that work as suspect and a “superficial” contribution to scholarship at best. That can cause the rest of their CV to be regarded dimly by TPTB in their field. </p>
<p>And that’s assuming the work in question hasn’t been completely written off as a “trade book” and thus, not a contribution to genuine scholarship and thus…not counted as a contribution period among those who will be evaluating the scholar for tenure or academic career advancement. </p>
<p>Did I also mention that calling a scholar’s academic monograph or journal article a “piece of journalism” is one of the worst insults a fellow academic…especially the departmental chair and movers & shakers within the field with the power to determine tenure/academic career advancement can lob at the academic author in question? </p>
<p>In the tone of voice I’ve often overheard among Profs at some academic conferences…they may as well have said the monograph/journal article was complete garbage.</p>
<p>Academic monographs just aren’t interesting reads. To say that their authors have amazing writing skills seems disingenuous. I love reading certain types of monographs, but it’s an acquired taste.</p>
<p>You just answered your own question. Look at the best seller lists. Do you see much of anything there that could be described as “highbrow, analytical, challenging, and thoroughly researched?” A book having those qualities is almost certainly doomed to low sales. Cheap thrillers, formulaic mysteries, trashy romances, and of course sex, are what sells big with the general public. </p>
<p>You see the same thing in television. The ratings for most PBS shows are minuscule compared to low-brow junk the networks peddle.</p>
</p>