What about Sanderson? Isn't he among the top in current sales?What do you think of this list?
What about Sanderson? Isn't he among the top in current sales?What do you think of this list?
I don't think anyone will argue for Paolini's success coming from his writing, and I think he is a world-builder first and foremost, but I don't think he's particularly good at that either. It seems his success comes from novelty more than anything in my opinion (he was really young, so no one held him to a standard).Christopher Paolini (12 million)
His Eragon Trilogy (now in four parts) may have been ripped into by the critics with a vengeance, but his popularity is clear. In fact, his sales are all the more impressive considering they are largely based on just two books, with his third only released in the last few weeks.
George RR Martin (c. 3-4 million, but probably more after the HBO show)
Again, another guesstimate based on discussions from various forums and the recent revelation that the Song of Ice and Fire series has sold 2.2 million copies (at least in the USA). GRRM is one of the highest-profile authors in the genre and A Dance with Dragons must be one of the most-discussed unreleased books in genre history. Much to the discontent of those who'd prefer he spent his time on Song of Ice and Fire and nothing else, his recent Wild Cards books have been strong sellers for Tor, and his Dreamsongs retrospective was a significant success as well. I suspect this figure is leaning to the conservative side of things, especially given how big Wild Cards was back in the 1980s.
Hm, so I guess I don't think of this stuff as science fiction. I can't find a genre describing what I want to express. Space science fiction? I know, I know, requiring off-world-ness (or a future so drastically different as to be unrecognizable) in science fiction and saying that requires world building is kinda' circular!Does it? Maybe to an extent, just as fantasy does. A lot of good science fiction is set in the modern world, so the world is already created for you. Even if you look at a classic like Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land...OK, you've got a guy from Mars. But he comes to earth and that's where the book takes place. How much world-building is there? Jurassic Park, OK Crichton creates the amusement park, but how much world-building does he do, exactly? Does researching dinosaur behavior count? Or his earlier work, The Andromeda Strain - how much world-building is going on there? Are we confusing world-building and plotting? Just some thoughts.
The whole reason that Tolkein's book wouldn't be published if he we alive today and submitted them, is because now the market is flooded with fantasy writers. In tolkein's day not nearly as many fantasy novels were written, not nearly as many of them were built with good worldbuilding and good writing. Tolkein was a genius- he essentially created the fantasy genre. Since the time of tolkein heaps of writers have basically been writing rip-offs of the lord of the rings by using elves, dwarves and having the 'dark lord' thing which is now cliche but in Tolkein's day was unheard of. Basically the reason Tolkein did well is because his ideas were new and fresh, and they were something completely different to what's been done before.
The same applies with harry potter, JK Rowling did so well because it was a fresh, new idea that had never been done before, yes it has a 'dark lord' but the whole idea of Quiddich, horcruxes, a school of magic, tri-wizard tournaments had never been done before, it was unique and it was a story that really stuck.
Other writers of the fantasy genre such as George RR Martin have created unique works with captivating stories that have intrigued millions of people and are fresh and new.
So I guess success doesn't necessarily come from writing skill alone- but if you are a great world builder but a terrible writer your book will be just as terrible. I believe that you need to have a certain amount of skill, but at the end of the day it is the story that wins over the reader- if they don't care about the characters or the plot why would they continue reading? Think of what a story is- a story is about literally what the word means- it is about telling an epic tale of adventure or of love or a story of friendship or greed, it is not about writing skill.
I mean if you were a reader and an author was the best writer in the world, but the ideas were terrible would you continue reading? At the end of the day good writing skill helps to tell the story better, but if the story is terrible to begin with you can't dress it up by writing well. So to answer your question; ideas, world building, characters and plot are very important- if not vital to the success of a novel.
Eoin Colfer (18 million)
The author of the Artemis Fowl series, which has proven a massive hit amongst YA circles. Colfer was recently picked to write the sixth Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy novel.
Raymond E. Feist (15 million)
The author of the extremely long-running Riftwar Cycle of novels, which when complete will comprise approximately thirty books. Mixed reviews for his books published over the last decade or so do not seem to have influenced his legions of loyal fans.
Christopher Paolini (12 million)
His Eragon Trilogy (now in four parts) may have been ripped into by the critics with a vengeance, but his popularity is clear. In fact, his sales are all the more impressive considering they are largely based on just two books, with his third only released in the last few weeks.
George RR Martin (c. 3-4 million, but probably more after the HBO show)
Again, another guesstimate based on discussions from various forums and the recent revelation that the Song of Ice and Fire series has sold 2.2 million copies (at least in the USA). GRRM is one of the highest-profile authors in the genre and A Dance with Dragons must be one of the most-discussed unreleased books in genre history. Much to the discontent of those who'd prefer he spent his time on Song of Ice and Fire and nothing else, his recent Wild Cards books have been strong sellers for Tor, and his Dreamsongs retrospective was a significant success as well. I suspect this figure is leaning to the conservative side of things, especially given how big Wild Cards was back in the 1980s.
Neil Gaiman (2 million)
If GRRM's figure is conservative, this is even moreso, and based solely on the figures I could find for sales of the Sandman graphic novels. Add in his other, highly successful novels and his real sales and position should be much higher.
I threw in the last two because they are so current. What do you think of this list?
I don't object to most of what you have to say, but a horcrux is just a lich's phylactery. It's not new at all.
Codex Alera is a fantasy book series by Jim Butcher. The series chronicles the coming-of-age of a young man named Tavi in the realm of Alera, an empire similar to Rome, on the world of Carna. Every Aleran has some degree of command over elemental forces or spirits called furies, save for Tavi, who is considered unusual for his lack of one. As the aging First Lord struggles to maintain his hold on a realm on the brink of civil war, Tavi must use all of his intelligence to save Alera.
Alera inhabits most of a large continent that is inhabited by the Icemen to the north. They are connected to another large continent held by the Marat via a land bridge, which is the location of the Calderon Valley. The Canim reside across the ocean to the west, staging regular, bloody raids on coastal settlements. A map of the realm, illustrated by fan Priscilla Spencer, was published in First Lord's Fury.
The inspiration for the series came from a bet Jim was challenged to by a member of the Delray Online Writer’s Workshop. The challenger bet that Jim could not write a good story based on a lame idea, and Jim countered that he could do it using two lame ideas of the challenger’s choosing. The “lame” ideas given were “Lost Roman Legion", and “Pokémon”.
I would have to say that mediocre writing + excellent world building trumps great writing skills but little imagination. Good writing can be learned but imagination can't be learned.
With all due respect, I utterly reject that idea. Creativity is a skill that can be learned. Everyone's brain has the same creative potential, you can learn how to unlock it.
You can begin one day to feed it images, ideas, and new experiences. You learn how to be curious about ideas. You can learn methods to extract from your brain new ideas. You can learn how to mind map, to free write, to start a cauldron of ideas simmering. It's a skill. It's learning how to use your brain, how to use experience, media, words, images, music, and your natural human pattern-seeking abilities to make new connections between previously unrelated things.
I work in a creative industry, making video games. I have seen testers become great game designers, project managers become creative leads. Creativity is a muscle you can develop and grow.
No offence, but I get irritated when I see this idea being spread. It holds people back from developing their creativity and finding a way to express themselves. They think that they "can't do it". The idea that it is somehow "inborn" is a pile of ocelot droppings.
Great point! I encounter this all the time with people that think mathematics is somehow an innate skill as well, and when you think about problem solving / creativity / art and everything else, most people assume it's an innate skill. Same thing with writing. Some people think it's a "knack" you have to have already. We can keep getting better at everything.
Talent is a myth, in my opinion.
Yes and no.
I believe there is such a thing as talent. However, just talent won't get you that far. You need to have a passion for and enjoyment of what you're doing. If you hadn't been interested in coding or computers you probably wouldn't have gone for those extra textbooks and you wouldn't have scored as well as you did.
I guess in that sense maybe talent isn't the best word? Talent probably isn't the near magical ability to perfectly perform whatever specialty your talent falls within, but I do believe that some things come easier to some people than to others. Just like people have different personalities we have different way of relating to things and to me it seems reasonable that different people can be better than others at different things.
That doesn't mean that hard work isn't important, or even most important.
When observing the world (as I see it) I get a feeling that the "work" and "effort" parts are being hidden away and forgotten. What's celebrated is being smart, talented and beautiful - Americans seem to love to compliment others by how intelligent they are. Sure, being smart and intelligent and beautiful can get you far, especially when it comes to pop culture, but is it enough to make you stay at the top once you get there. I don't think so.