Criticizing the Published

[stephenspower]

Writing in a lot of ways is irrelevant to whether a book sells. It's often about the breaks.

Both Twilight and The Inheritance Cycle had large audiences the authors built up before traditional publishers took them on, Twilight online (like its redheaded stepchild 50 Shades of Grey) and Inheritance thanks to the author's parents devoting themselves and lots of money to author appearances and getting the self-pubd book in front of readers (his agent told me this is why he courted them, just as Richard Paul Evans and James Redfield had been courted a decade before). They deserve their success, whatever you think of the writing itself. They made their own breaks.

So did Ray Bradbury. After his editor told him how to turn his Mars stories into a novel the editor would call The Martian Chronicles, the book was published to resounding silence. But, as he relates in the intro to the graphic novel version, one day Bradbury happened to meet Christopher Isherwood, whom he gave a copy of his novel. Isherwood was gracious, but Bradbury could tell he couldn't care less. Nonetheless, three days later Isherwood called Bradbury, told him loved the book and said he would review it. And that started it down the road to becoming a classic.

So instead of being jealous of others' success or, worse, trying to figure out how to replicate it as if publishing were a cargo cult, authors should ask, How can I make my own break?

They should also keep writing. Dan Brown's first three books sold nothing. Now they've sold tens of millions thanks to Da Vinci Code selling north of 80 million copies.

 

[Steerpike]

@stephenspower

I don't think that's right re: Twilight. From what I recall, it was written in about three months and the $750K advance at auction came a couple of months after that. There was no online buzz or anything else about it prior to Meyer getting the publishing contract. The auction may even have been sooner. A little online searching shows the novel was begun in June, 2003, then finished in September of that same year. The contracts with the publisher were signed in November, 2003.

With respect to Eragon and 50 Shades, you are correct, however. I'm not sure anyone other than Meyer's family knew anything about her book before she sold it.

I think people also forget how good the initial reviews for Twilight were, from a number of reputable sources.

 

[ThinkerX]

If my hazy memory serves, the abomination that is '50 Shades of Grey' began as an internet fanfic which became so popular mainstream publishers snapped it up.

On the other hand, there are multiple works on Wattpad with 100,000+ reads that appear to have been ignored by the traditional publishing industry.

 

[X Equestris]

If my hazy memory serves, the abomination that is '50 Shades of Grey' began as an internet fanfic which became so popular mainstream publishers snapped it up.

On the other hand, there are multiple works on Wattpad with 100,000+ reads that appear to have been ignored by the traditional publishing industry.

It began life as a Twilight fanfic, yes. The author removed the Twilight elements and then sold it. So it's not like publishers had been combing Fanfiction.net for potential stories.

 

[Micheale]

I'm just wondering, and I'm new here, so I may have NO CLUE what I'm talking about…

But isn't it sort of important to know your reader? I get the debate that "I just write for me and my own happiness"… but if you want to be published, you need to know your market.

Shakespeare wrote "As you Like it" specifically because it was exactly how his audience 'liked it'.

Mayer wrote for 13-17 year old girls who didn't have lit degrees and needed an easy read at a grade five reading level. She did it very well and she sold a lot of copies.

 

[Russ]

I'm just wondering, and I'm new here, so I may have NO CLUE what I'm talking about…

But isn't it sort of important to know your reader? I get the debate that "I just write for me and my own happiness"… but if you want to be published, you need to know your market.

Shakespeare wrote "As you Like it" specifically because it was exactly how his audience 'liked it'.

Mayer wrote for 13-17 year old girls who didn't have lit degrees and needed an easy read at a grade five reading level. She did it very well and she sold a lot of copies.

I agree strongly with this from any perspective, either commercial or artistic. I view writing as a partnership, or potential partnership between the writer and the reader. You have to take your partner into account in any endevour.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

I'm going to disagree to an extent - notbecause I think that writing for the reader is wrong, though it can be. But mostly because I believe writers should write for themselves first. They publish for the reader. My thought is that if you're not writing the books you want to read, then the chances that they'll appeal to others are slim.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[BWFoster78]

Hi,

I'm going to disagree to an extent - notbecause I think that writing for the reader is wrong, though it can be. But mostly because I believe writers should write for themselves first. They publish for the reader. My thought is that if you're not writing the books you want to read, then the chances that they'll appeal to others are slim.

Cheers, Greg.

Greg,

Seems to me like this a major difference between a professional and an amateur. A professional can write anything and have the story be appealing whereas, perhaps, an amateur needs to find internal motivation to be able to produce quality work.

I can't think of any business where the company says, "Produce the product you want, not the product the consumer wants."

If one wants to write for themselves, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If one wants to earn a living from writing, though, I think considering writing a business is a better way to go.

Thanks.

Brian

 

[Butterfly]

See... this write for yourself thing can be translated another way. If you aim to write for the market with a story that is currently on trend you will likely miss out on that trend by the time the book is written, edited, etc.

It can even be thought of this way. As writers we are also readers. We are part of that market. That means we buy books. In writing for ourselves we are also writing for others who are just like us, who have similar tastes. What appeals to us may also appeal to others.

 

[BWFoster78]

See... this write for yourself thing can be translated another way. If you aim to write for the market with a story that is currently on trend you will likely miss out on that trend by the time the book is written, edited, etc.

It can even be thought of this way. As writers we are also readers. We are part of that market. That means we buy books. In writing for ourselves we are also writing for others who are just like us, who have similar tastes. What appeals to us may also appeal to others.

Butterfly,

If this is the thought, then you're still considering what the readers want; you're just approaching it from a different direction.

In which case, you and I are mostly in agreement.

My issue is with those who don't consider the reader at all.

 

[Micheale]

I agree totally with what you are saying, I just mean that how can we criticize writers like Meyers and 50 shades (don't know her name) or the woman who writes the City of Glass books (I haven't seen her name written here yet, she was also a fan fic author) for their writing when there is obviously a market for it? I mean, at the end of the day I think MOST people want to be entertained, and I try to remember this when I'm writing. I come from a very heavy Lit background, and of course my favourite writers are the ones who have stood the test of time and are considered to be of the Literary Fiction genre, however, the books that I read over and over and over again are the ones that are entertaining. I don't always need to have a spiritual awakening. It's nice when it happens, and it is nice when both happen at the same time, but usually I just need to escape from reality.

If I were to really write what I wanted I would be bringing back the old, Princess of Mars pulpy, sexy, stereotypical sic-fi of the 1920's. I love that stuff.

I read a great article once about a TV writer talking about the 'campfire' method. When you are writing, imagine you are sitting around a campfire. You have to keep your audience entertained, enthralled in the story. Those are the ones I like to read, so those are the ones I write.

This is why, as a teenager I didn't read LOTR over and over, I read Sword of Truth (Which I can now admit is TERRIBLE) but I loved it. It was light and fluffy and full of sex and mystery and violence and it was what I wanted at the time. I think most readers are looking for the basics with just enough controversy (50 shades, De Vinci Code, Game of Thrones) to keep it interesting and current.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I agree totally with what you are saying, I just mean that how can we criticize writers like Meyers and 50 shades (don't know her name) or the woman who writes the City of Glass books (I haven't seen her name written here yet, she was also a fan fic author) for their writing when there is obviously a market for it? I mean, at the end of the day I think MOST people want to be entertained, and I try to remember this when I'm writing. I come from a very heavy Lit background, and of course my favourite writers are the ones who have stood the test of time and are considered to be of the Literary Fiction genre, however, the books that I read over and over and over again are the ones that are entertaining. I don't always need to have a spiritual awakening. It's nice when it happens, and it is nice when both happen at the same time, but usually I just need to escape from reality.

If I were to really write what I wanted I would be bringing back the old, Princess of Mars pulpy, sexy, stereotypical sic-fi of the 1920's. I love that stuff.

I read a great article once about a TV writer talking about the 'campfire' method. When you are writing, imagine you are sitting around a campfire. You have to keep your audience entertained, enthralled in the story. Those are the ones I like to read, so those are the ones I write.

This is why, as a teenager I didn't read LOTR over and over, I read Sword of Truth (Which I can now admit is TERRIBLE) but I loved it. It was light and fluffy and full of sex and mystery and violence and it was what I wanted at the time. I think most readers are looking for the basics with just enough controversy (50 shades, De Vinci Code, Game of Thrones) to keep it interesting and current.

I don't think readers generally consciously know what they want, but they know what they want when they read it. This isn't because they're dumb or anything but they just don't consciously think about what they want from a story. They just want to be entertained, and there are some specific tried and true methods of entertaining people. Shades, Da Vinci Code and GoT all have this entertainment value. I think my point stands especially true for GoT. People would see those tomes and balk at their size and complexity. But when the show came out the book sales also spiked in large part because people got the basics from the TV and the nuance from the books. Which is why I think an author who wants to sell and sell well need to read the successful and unsuccessful and discover what made them sell and incorporate it.

 

[Guy]

I agree totally with what you are saying, I just mean that how can we criticize writers like Meyers and 50 shades (don't know her name) or the woman who writes the City of Glass books (I haven't seen her name written here yet, she was also a fan fic author) for their writing when there is obviously a market for it?

Because neither they nor their writing is infallible. Nobody is above criticism.

 

[psychotick]

Hi Brian,

I don't doubt that there are writers out there who can write anything and make it appealing to others. But by and large they are the minority in my view. And they need two abilities. The ability to write extremely well. And the ability to know what will appeal to others. The latter is going to be a problem for almost everyone.

My guess (and I have no stats etc) is that those books that do better are those ones that were written by writers passionate about the story. They wrote the story they wanted to immerse themselves in. They put all their passion and soul into the work. And then once it was finally done they went through the edits, probably reluctantly, to make their work more commercial within the eyes of the professionals. Other writers who don't do this but rather write according to what they think will sell are more likely to produce generic works that won't stand the tests of time and readership. They'll be as they say "phoning it home" and readers will pick up on the fact that their heart and soul wasn't buried in the book.

I suspect that a part of what has made some of the books mentioned in this thread such huge sellers is that the authors were deeply passionate about the books. They invested their hearts and souls in the work. And whether or not their writing skills were stellar, that passion is what comes through to the reader.

Writing is an art and art is about communication. But it's about the communication of what's within the artist, his passion. If that's not there, then readers will surely notice.

Again as I say, I have no stats for this - I doubt there are any. But if anyone wants to go and ask these authors - or read their author bywords - I'll bet not a one of them says "well I thought this was what my audience wanted to read".

Write for yourself, publish for others.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[BWFoster78]

Greg,

I truly don't think that most of us have any control whatsoever about any of our books becoming mega bestsellers like the ones discussed in this thread. If we work hard enough, I think it's likely that any of us can attain some measure of success, but I think reaching the stratosphere is akin to hitting the lottery.

A lot of authors (check the Writer's Cafe over at Kboards) talk about books that they wrote doing well because they followed a trend and wrote exactly what their readers wanted.

I don't think that it's too terribly hard to find out exactly what that is: simply study what is selling.

Nothing wrong with writing for yourself, but I tend to think that writing for readers gives you a better chance to sell to readers.

Thanks.

Brian

 

[Mindfire]

Resurrecting this thread because I just happened across this video and it got me thinking.

Could this be the true secret to the success of 50 Shades? All indications are that the author has constructed Anna as a character that is easy for the target audience to insert themselves into and also has, regardless of intention, portrayed a relationship that includes substantial abuse and manipulation. But is it possible that the author has, unwittingly, accomplished both of these things in a way that, through their strong connection to Anna, the book's target audience is in some sense being indoctrinated by proxy? And might there be a similar dynamic in the Twilight books? This would explain a lot. Especially the near-fanatical devotion shown by fans of both series.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Resurrecting this thread because I just happened across this video and it got me thinking.

Could this be the true secret to the success of 50 Shades? All indications are that the author has constructed Anna as a character that is easy for the target audience to insert themselves into and also has, regardless of intention, portrayed a relationship that includes substantial abuse and manipulation. But is it possible that the author has, unwittingly, accomplished both of these things in a way that, through their strong connection to Anna, the book's target audience is in some sense being indoctrinated by proxy? And might there be a similar dynamic in the Twilight books? This would explain a lot. Especially the near-fanatical devotion shown by fans of both series.

But that's just a theory...a film theory. (Yes shameless ripoff is shameless.) Seriously though it is an interesting thought. I was even tempted to put this same link into a discussion on scribophiles about the new 50 Shades book.

 

[Micheale]

Ok, the only thing I could think of watching this (about how cults lure their unassuming, low self esteem victims) is that the MC who does the luring is named 'Christian'. As an agnostic I find this really funny. (Not meaning to be offensive, but maybe the author was getting at something deeper than we thought she was…)

 

[Trick]

Ok, the only thing I could think of watching this (about how cults lure their unassuming, low self esteem victims) is that the MC who does the luring is named 'Christian'. Not meaning to be offensive, but as an agnostic I find this really funny. (Not meaning to be offensive, but maybe the author was getting at something deeper than we thought she was…)

If you say something offensive and then say that you don't intend to offensive, they don't cancel each other out. And the main character started out as Edward, since it was Twilight fanfiction.

 

[Micheale]

Geez. I just find it an interesting connection is all. I wan't meaning anything by it. I have a Masters Degree in English Lit. I'm pretty much indoctrinated (lol) to find bizarre connections (usually biblical) in everything I read.

I could probably go on to write an Essay on how 50 Shades is really a social commentary on how organized religion uses scare tactics and psychological warfare in order to groom it's unassuming followers into preforming acts of servitude for the church, and how the fact that most of the readers missed this aspect is an example of how indoctrinated our world has become.

This how my mind has been trained to work.