Criticizing the Published

[Guy]

Good, like beauty, is largely in the eye of the beholder. Books are popular and sell well because readers like them, and readers are going to look at a story from a different perspective from writers. I'm not a musician, so when I listen to music the only thing I'm interested in is how the music makes me feel. When I see musicians criticizing music, they nail it on things I'm completely oblivious to. Same thing with writing. Writers will notice all kinds of problems that never show up on readers' radars. They don't see the issues we do, nor do they care, and since they're the one buying the books, their opinions are the ones that matter. Readers' reviews on Amazon tend to be pretty short, whereas writers' reviews of book tend to be noticeably longer.

Books that sell lots of copies have mass audience appeal and... well, I'm going to say something that's going to sound hopelessly arrogant and elitist and I'll try to put it diplomatically, but things that appeal to the masses usually aren't exactly at the pinnacle of artistic or creative development. There's a reason why more people can name all the Kardashians than can name their congressional representatives.

 

[Miskatonic]

Books that sell lots of copies have mass audience appeal and... well, I'm going to say something that's going to sound hopelessly arrogant and elitist and I'll try to put it diplomatically, but things that appeal to the masses usually aren't exactly at the pinnacle of artistic or creative development. There's a reason why more people can name all the Kardashians than can name their congressional representatives.

It also seems to be why artistic genius often goes unrecognized during its era and only becomes appreciated further down the road when it's "re-discovered".

The majority of modern popular culture is just toxic, rotting garbage.

 

[kennyc]

...

Those are my thoughts. What are yours?

I hate golf.

Stephen King says you can learn as much (or more) from bad books as from good ones.

 

[psychotick]

Hi Russ,

I don't think we're ever going to agree on how much of a role luck plays in having a successful writing career. And you're right, luck favours those prepare for it. Plus I am not and would never belittle those who succeed by calling their success purely a matter of luck.

But reread your own post, and consider your astronaut example. Then ask yourself, yes it is really, really hard to become an astronaut, but is that enough to explain why certain people make it and others don't? I mean yes it's really really hard, but presumably those who try for the program already know that and are motivated. They work really really hard - those who succeed and those who don't both. Is it fair to assume that those who succeeded were those who worked just that little bit harder or had just that little bit greater natural skill?

You're busy admonishing us not to belittle those who succeed by attributing their success to luck. But aren't you then doing exactly the same belittling to all those who don't succeed by attributing their lack of success to a lack of hard work and talent?

There is this paradigm in psychology called the just world hypothesis, which in essence is an idea of a world view that we all share to some extent. We all want to believe that we live in a just world. That if we do things right things will go well. If we work hard we will succeed. That the control of our destiny is essentially in our own hands. The reality is that it's only partly in our hands. Ask any actress who's spent years honing her craft only to be turned over for her dream role for a younger, prettier actress who hasn't worked half as hard and doesn't have her skill. Or the darker skinned people who end up doing time in prison for crimes that other lighter skinned people would simply get a fine for.

The reality is that the world is not fair and it's not pretty, and all the hard work and talent in the world will not guarantee or even come close to guaranteeing success. You can only maximise your chances.

And as for luck, I think your definition is different to mine here. Luck for a writer is about the sum total of all those factors that are outside of the writer's control and how they come together. They would be talent or hard work if he could control them. If he can't then it's all down to luck.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Miskatonic]

I hate golf.

Stephen King says you can learn as much (or more) from bad books as from good ones.

If golf didn't cost so darn much I'd probably be pretty good at it by now.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Luck for a writer is about the sum total of all those factors that are outside of the writer's control and how they come together. They would be talent or hard work if he could control them.

I like your definition of "luck" as not something random, but as beyond one's own control.

As for the just world, that's an excellent point which too many people fail to recognize. I've worked in different schools, some of which had principals or VPs who have no business being in education, management, or around members of the opposite sex. In the case of the VP who face sexual harassment charges for his creepy remarks about the (female) gym teacher's legs, the district covered for him letting him stay home and collect his salary and not mentioning a forced resignation (not fired!) so he could get a six-figure job as a principal.

Think about your own day jobs. Surely you know of some people who achieve high positions but abuse their power or are only where they are because of who they know or because of a hard-working subordinate. Likewise, you may know of someone who works hard for low pay, and the thanks she gets is to be kept in that position or given more responsibility without more compensation—punished instead of rewarded for the results of her work ethic!

I'm sure Stephanie Meyers did plenty of things right—her writing was good enough, her concept was marketable, and I'll be the first to admit I liked the book covers (black, white, one bright red object like an apple) before Twilight books went to film. She did plenty of work and does have a talent, but the luck part is that her MS went to the right gatekeeper.

To expand on that thought—consider the rejections J.K. Rowling received before any of her work was published. The most successful series would never be if Rowling had given up or if that first gatekeeper (agent or publisher) hadn't given her a chance to become a published author.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I'm sure Stephanie Meyers did plenty of things right—her writing was good enough, her concept was marketable, and I'll be the first to admit I liked the book covers (black, white, one bright red object like an apple) before Twilight books went to film. She did plenty of work and does have a talent, but the luck part is that her MS went to the right gatekeeper.

If that were true, there wouldn't have been a bidding war that raised her first time author advance to a whopping $750,000. Fact is, everyone who bid on that book had a pretty strong idea it would sell, and sell well.

Even if the agent is considered the gatekeeper, we'd be talking about an agent with a lot of great contacts, who probably receives hundreds of manuscripts a month. Something dragged her from that slush pile. It can't be pure luck.

I'll agree that there's always some luck involved. For example, the intern who first skimmed the books loved the idea of paranormal romance. She passed it onto her superior, and so on, until it landed in the hands of literature's Ari Gold (Entourage reference). He creates the bidding war, and bam! Meyers is a superstar.

Even if all that were true, in the end, she had a story that resonated. The agent knew it. The bidders knew it. That is the biggest part of this story, and it wasn't luck.

 

[kennyc]

If that were true, there wouldn't have been a bidding war that raised her first time author advance to a whopping $750,000. Fact is, everyone who bid on that book had a pretty strong idea it would sell, and sell well.

Even if the agent is considered the gatekeeper, we'd be talking about an agent with a lot of great contacts, who probably receives hundreds of manuscripts a month. Something dragged her from that slush pile. It can't be pure luck.

I'll agree that there's always some luck involved. For example, the intern who first skimmed the books loved the idea of paranormal romance. She passed it onto her superior, and so on, until it landed in the hands of literature's Ari Gold (Entourage reference). He creates the bidding war, and bam! Meyers is a superstar.

Even if all that were true, in the end, she had a story that resonated. The agent knew it. The bidders knew it. That is the biggest part of this story, and it wasn't luck.

Yep. It certainly wasn't luck alone!

 

[Steerpike]

I think that's true of Meyers. The editors knew they had massive hit on their hands and many publishers wanted it. But authors who sell like Meyers, Rowling, and King are outliers. For most people trying to break into writing I think circumstance plays more of a role than people like to admit. Which doesn't mean the craft isn't important - you can make luck and circumstance more likely to align for you - but chance can play a role. I know an author published with Tor who tried for some time to get a contract and ultimately ended up in a hotel pool with an agent, purely by chance. They hit it off and the agent took her on. The book still had to be salable, but agents get a lot of submissions that are potentially salable. A chance hotel pool encounter ended up being what tipped it in this case.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I bought Stephenie Meyer's books from Goodwill and haven't read them, but Stephen King says she can't write. I admit I was curious about the books after hating the first movie, but bottom line--the readers like it. Perhaps it's the same as low-brow comedy? I mean...there's plenty of movies I enjoy that are anything but refined. I do enjoy refined movies and gripping tales, but sometimes you just want to sit back and not think, and perhaps she hit on something that filled that need more than a "good" book, as in one that was written with more complexity and technical skill? I can't presume to know the answers, but I think luck plays a part, and so does timing (I think Russ mentioned that?). Timing is critical. I hope I can figure out that bit, because I have a load of stories that just haven't been sent out because I'm not sure where to send them.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I think that's true of Meyers. The editors knew they had massive hit on their hands and many publishers wanted it. But authors who sell like Meyers, Rowling, and King are outliers. For most people trying to break into writing I think circumstance plays more of a role than people like to admit. Which doesn't mean the craft isn't important - you can make luck and circumstance more likely to align for you - but chance can play a role. I know an author published with Tor who tried for some time to get a contract and ultimately ended up in a hotel pool with an agent, purely by chance. They hit it off and the agent took her on. The book still had to be salable, but agents get a lot of submissions that are potentially salable. A chance hotel pool encounter ended up being what tipped it in this case.

I can't disagree with any of that. Certainly luck CAN play a role. I just don't believe it ALWAYS does, or at least it's not ALWAYS the predominant reason a book succeeds. Someone believing luck is always the major contributor to success is just as short-sighted as someone who has an unwavering belief in the fair world paradigm.

There are many variables to success. I just refuse to believe that my fate is in luck's hands alone.

Writing is, after all, an act of determination. - Tom Clancy

“There’s a word for a writer who doesn’t give up – published.” - Joe Konrath

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

...perhaps she hit on something that filled that need more than a "good" book, as in one that was written with more complexity and technical skill?

Many adults turn to YA fiction because it is often easier reading...lacking in complexity. The Twilight books (Yes, I read them all) certainly fit in that category.

 

[kennyc]

And as Sir Van Morrison says in verse...."I made my own odds ten thousand to one"

You can certainly shoot yourself in the foot.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

If that were true
…

the intern who first skimmed the books loved the idea of paranormal romance. She passed it onto her superior, and so on, until it landed in the hands of literature's Ari Gold (Entourage reference). He creates the bidding war, and bam! Meyers is a superstar.

This part right here is luck. An intern noticed and passed it up the line, and it kept going up. Without that intern, who can say what would have happened? The other piece that is luck is the same as what R.A. Salvatore says of himself: "I wrote the right book at the right time."

Note that J.K. Rowling was rejected (9 times, according to IMDb).

After spending six years writing the first installment of her "Harry Potter" novels, Rowling was rejected by 9 publishers before London's Bloomsbury Publishing signed her on.

Her luck was that she eventually wasn't rejected. The part that was under her control was that she believed in her work enough to keep pushing it, as opposed to saying, "Well, I was rejected. My work isn't selling, so it's no good. I give up."

That's my take-away from this luck conversation. Not "I'll never be lucky like them so don't try," but "if I believe my work's ready for the world to see, I need to get it out there like they did."

(EDIT - And it's certainly not, "Meyers was just lucky; she sucks." I did say she did the hard work and she is talented. If Stephen King says otherwise, I'll let the two wildly successful authors debate that.)

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

There are many variables to success. I just refuse to believe that my fate is in luck's hands alone.

No, it's not luck alone. And just because you can't control all of the variables, it doesn't mean you give up. It means you control the variables that are under your control.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

This part right here is luck. An intern noticed and passed it up the line, and it kept going up. Without that intern, who can say what would have happened? The other piece that is luck is the same as what R.A. Salvatore says of himself: "I wrote the right book at the right time."

I don't disagree with that. Getting the right intern, and timing is luck. I just think it's a small piece of the puzzle.

Note that J.K. Rowling was rejected (9 times, according to IMDb).

Her luck was that she eventually wasn't rejected. The part that was under her control was that she believed in her work enough to keep pushing it, as opposed to saying, "Well, I was rejected. My work isn't selling, so it's no good. I give up."

In my view that's not called luck. That's determination.

But anyways, I think we're splitting hairs and saying basically the same thing in different ways.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with your approach—and J.K. Rowling's actions are determination, as you say. When I say "luck" I'm going with Psychotick's definition: luck = the factors you can't control.

I think that's part of the reason why some writers prefer self-publishing over traditional. You reduce the luck factor; more of the variables are under the your control.

 

[ThinkerX]

From what I'm seeing, once published, bias sets in.

Six months ago I subscribed to Asimov's and Fantasy & Science Fiction. I noticed something right away: most of the authors appearing in those works had novel length publishing credits elsewhere. That's fine...but a lot of the stories simply are not that good. I have seen better here on Showcase and in the various Challenges. For that matter, some of my stories are probably better than some of the ones in those publications. And again, the bulk of these stories are by authors with a novel or five under their belt.


George RR Martin of Game of Thrones fame has been covering the whole 'Sad Puppy' fiasco. At one point he listed the arguments made by the leader of the Sad Puppies, the reasons behind this...insurgency, and addressed them one by one. At least three of the half dozen or so points raised by the Sad Puppies dealt with authors whom they believed wrote outstanding works deserving of wider recognition. GRRM actually agreed with the Sad Puppies on this point - yes, lots of fine authors out there getting overlooked, then went and moved on to what really interested him - the rules under which the awards are given, and the way the Sad Puppies kind of sort of circumvented those rules. Writing quality interested him far less than the 'established rules,' and the Sad Puppies actions put those rules at risk.

To me, it looks like new works stand a far better chance of being traditionally published by an already traditionally published author. A reliance on name recognition to make the sale, regardless of the works actual quality.

 

[Guy]

From what I'm seeing, once published, bias sets in.

To me, it looks like new works stand a far better chance of being traditionally published by an already traditionally published author. A reliance on name recognition to make the sale, regardless of the works actual quality.

Exactly. A lot of writers don't seem to understand the business aspect of writing. They tend to look at it from a purely artistic/creative standpoint. Every publisher I've ever submitted to said they were looking for "fresh, original voices and stories." It's a complete lie. Publisher's don't particularly care about artistic merit, originality, or any of that stuff. They're a business and their primary interest is profits. They're interested in what will sell. How do they determine what will sell? Look at what's selling right now. A casual perusal of bookstore shelves proves this. Go look and see what those publishers who want "fresh, original" stories are putting out - the same thing everyone else in their genre is. Most publishers aren't willing to take the risk of a new, unknown writer offering something fresh and new because they don't know if it will sell. A good way to generate sales is name recognition. So when Madonna wants to write a book, her writing ability is completely irrelevant. She automatically brings millions of fans (readers) to the table. It will sell because it has her name on it. Who cares if it's good? Contrast that with a writer offering a similar book, a writer who is very talented but completely unknown. The publisher looks at the two options - a talented but unknown writer who may or may not generate sales, or someone who's not even a writer but whose name is known and beloved by millions who will definitely generate sales. For the publisher, it's a pretty easy choice. For the talented but unknown writer, it sucks.

 

[Miskatonic]

Fan fiction in some situations has a better chance of being published than something from an author writing to get published. Rather disheartening to say the least for those with aspirations besides satisfying their own egos by interjecting themselves into another author's work.