Writing well vs. Writing popular (retrieved)

[Shweta]

I'm not sure how much of this thread exists.
Let's see.

Lenle:
Everyone(?) wants to have that next big hit - that book that's talked about by people everywhere and the one people rush online to pre-order and to the stores to buy. Whether its a series or a stand alone, am I wrong in assuming that it is the aspiration of many writers?

That said, what do people here find the difference is between a book that's written well and one that's written to be popular? In your personal opinions, how does a book become The Book everyone is talking about/reading/buying?

In general, I'm trying to understand what seperates books in the literary world; what makes one popular over another, what makes one skyrocket to the top of the charts (controversy, the whole forbiden fruit, etc).

I know this is a hard thing to judge, but I'd really like to just see what everyone else thinks, so all opinions are appreciated.
__________________________________________________ _______

MadScientistMatt:
Make the reader want to know what's on the next page. Every page.
__________________________________________________ _______

Zonk:
I should have said it was luck, mostly.

I mean, sometimes an author has a genius for finding a niche (for instance, ch's and YA authors the world over kicked themselves for not writing 'The Princess Diaries' first) and filling it well, and that almost guarantees good sales and some measure of fame. But the rest of the time it is a mystery.

Before the Harry Potter books came out, no one was standing in their local bookshop demanding 'When is the first Harry Potter book coming out!? I can't wait for Harry Potter!' Before 'The Da Vinci Code' no one was wandering around saying 'There are just not enough Bible conspiracy books involving Renaissance artists - when, oh when will there be a Bible conspiracy book involving Renaissance art for me to read?' An author writes the right story in the right way at the right time, the right people hear about it and it gets the right publicity, and suddenly - WHOMPH! It takes on a life of its own.

I don't think these 'Break-Out' books really have much in common. The one thing I can pinpoint is that they are usually great page-turners, and perhaps, written in such a way that they are understandable to those who do not normally read much (the lowest common denominator?) but everyone wants to write a book which is a page turner and I don't know many people who would willfully write something obscure (if they do, they deserve bad sales). So why do these books make such a huge splash, stand out from all the rest?

Luck. Oh, well.
__________________________________________________ _______

clara bow:
To the luck factor, I would add that writing a high concept book helps, too, i.e., a story that can be distilled into a succinct pitch. This aspect probably helps sell a book by word of mouth. I still remember hearing about Harry Potter simply as a story about a wizard school and that it was good. It was enough to make me want to read it.

Regarding one's book being the next big hit, well IMHO even if one aspires to that, I'm not sure one can ever know that one's book will reach that status. You may know you have something entertaining, but whether it spreads like wildfire goes back to the luck factor. This is also why I'm suspicious of books that try and tell writers how to write a bestseller. I'm sure some of the books contain good writing instruction, but I doubt there's any one formula.
__________________________________________________ _______

Jamesaritchie:
Everyone(?) wants to have that next big hit - that book that's talked about by people everywhere and the one people rush online to pre-order and to the stores to buy. Whether its a series or a stand alone, am I wrong in assuming that it is the aspiration of many writers?

That said, what do people here find the difference is between a book that's written well and one that's written to be popular? In your personal opinions, how does a book become The Book everyone is talking about/reading/buying?

In general, I'm trying to understand what seperates books in the literary world; what makes one popular over another, what makes one skyrocket to the top of the charts (controversy, the whole forbiden fruit, etc).

I know this is a hard thing to judge, but I'd really like to just see what everyone else thinks, so all opinions are appreciated.


First, I don't think any writer in the world makes a choice between writing well and writing something that's popular. I think every writer out there, whatever they write, and whoever they're writing for, writes as well as they can possibly write, and to the limit of whatever talent and skill they possess. No write who's in his right mind writes less well because he wants his novel to be popular. You don't write to be popular, you get b popular because of the way you write.

But what makes popular is a good story that huge number of readers enjoy, and good characters huge numbers of readers find appealing. Too many books that are supposedly "well-written" may have good words and pretty sentences, but who the heck cares if the story and the characters and the dialogue is lacking?

And I dont think well-written and popular have to mean differences. Some of the most popular books I've ever read were also the best written. The lack of quality in popular novels is usually only in the eyes of wannabe writers who can't write as well as whoever they're criticizing.

When you get right down to it, the real question is probably what constitutes good writing? A great turn of phrase, good rhythm, mood, tone, word choice, and syntax are all wonderful things, but if they're connected to a story no one wants to read, or with characters no one finds appealing, what difference does it make how well-written something is?

Now, I do think they are some highly popular writers who don't write very well at all where good sentences, suntax, word choice, etc., are concerned. But this is not because they were writing to be popular, it's because that's as well as they can possibly write, no matter what they're goal is. And even these writers are usually far better than pretty much anything you can find in the average slush pile.

In short, a book becomes the one everyone is talking about because the writer did his job. He wrote the book at least well enough, and he gave huge numbers of readers a great story, usually filled with characters readers find appealing. There no mystery about why a novel is popular. The mystery is in how can we do the same thing.
__________________________________________________ _______

KTC:
To me, there should be no difference. If I pick up a popular book and find that it is not well written, I return it. Popular is not an excuse for bad writing.
__________________________________________________ _______

maestrowork:
If you find a definitive answer, let me know.

To me, though, you need to know your audience. Obviously, if you want a popular book (that many, many, many people would want to read it), you have to target a board audience and that means it can't be too difficult, too high-brow, etc. You have to find a common ground. An English PhD. and someone with a high school education are probably not going to read the same thing -- so the question is, how do you write something that both would want to read.

However, good writing and popularity are not mutually exclusive. OK, someone can say, "But look at Da Vinci Code. It wasn't particularly well written but it's one of the most popular books on Earth." But the Da Vinci is a "good" book if you consider these factors: controversial premise, story idea, page-turner, etc. etc. that make people want to read it. So Dan Brown must be doing something right. And to compare it with a Michael Chabon book would be pointless. Different genres, different expectations.

Write the best book you can. The rest, really, is kind of just luck. If your book happens to strike a chord with readers, it will become a hit. But that's really not something you could control.
__________________________________________________ _______

Zolah:

To the luck factor, I would add that writing a high concept book helps, too, i.e., a story that can be distilled into a succinct pitch. This aspect probably helps sell a book by word of mouth. I still remember hearing about Harry Potter simply as a story about a wizard school and that it was good. It was enough to make me want to read it.

You're right - good point. Books like that become a topic of conversation because it's so easy to sum them up when talking to work-mates or friends who don't necessarily read as much as you do. Try describing most books at the water cooler and you realise you've lost their interest after a sentence or two, and who can blame them? How interesting is: 'Well, it's sort of about this group of people and they're all a family, except you don't realise it at first, and what happens is...well, there's this big event in their lives and it makes them all individually question their relationships with each other in sort-of flashbacks to their earlier lives and you see everyone from everyone else's point of view...So basically it's about families and about how the truth can be harmful...er...except that in the end when they DO all tell the truth it brings them all back together. Ahem.'

When you think about it, most of the great classics can be summed up in a single line. Romeo and Juliet = star-crossed lovers. Oliver Twist = Penniless orphan finds real family and makes good. Life of Pi = A kid and a tiger set adrift in a boat.

It's not just good for the readers, it's good for YOU, as an author. When people ask about my book, it's so easy to say: it's a re-telling of the Hans Christian Andersen fairytale 'The Wild Swans', for teenagers. They get it straight away and you're spared quite a lot of stupid or unanswerable questions. I wish everything could be summed up as easily as that. Why did I decided to write my second novel about nebulous, fancy-pants concepts like faith, love and war, eh? I need to find another fairytale to revamp...
__________________________________________________ _______

MidnightMuse:
I have to agree with KTC - too many times lately I've picked up a book just because "everyone" is reading it, so I figured if it's THIS popular, it has to be fantasticly good. And it wasn't. So I'd move on to the next best thing - only to put it down after chapter 1 and feel no compunction to pick it up again.

There's no logic in why a large group of people will flock to a certain book all at a certain time, pushing that book into the stratosphere of popularity. But in my humble opinion, the stamina of that book to remain in the stratosphere over the years, as others come to take its place -- that's the real test. Some books are destined to be like actors - hugely popular for years, then working Reality shows for a buck, or selling shirts to pay the rent. But others - the books that are written very well, compelling, not following a trend or fad - they're the ones we'll still read and recommend another ten, twenty, even thirty years down the line. They're the Gregory Peck's and Jimmy Stewart's of the written world.

I think, what seperates those books, is the fact that the writer wasn't concerned with what trends were on the shelves, or what was "selling" at the time - the writer concerned his or herself to nothing other than telling the best story possible, in the best way he or she could.
__________________________________________________ _______

Lenle:
To clarify rather quickly: I in no way meant that writing popular/to be popular meant dumbing down your book or anything of that sort. It was just a way of coining the sentiment that many of the books considered 'popular' by todays standards (Harry Potter/DaVinci Code, etc) have been consistently slammed/criticized for being poorly written -- which then begged the question: Why /are/ they so popular.

Sorry for any misunderstandings.
__________________________________________________ _______

zornhau:
My theory - good writing is more than just Style, there's also Plot and Vision. If the Style is only passible, but the plot and vision rock, the book rocks.
__________________________________________________ _______

TWK:
For an example of good popular fiction, see the Harry Potter series.
For an example of bad popular fiction, see The Da Vinci Code.

From Miss Snark's blog:
Miss Snark,
Is it just me, or is Dan Brown an average-poor writer?

I don't know ... maybe it IS just me, but hearing so many people use the term "the next Dan Brown" as a compliment really befuddles me. That's not a complemet. To me, it means that someone writes with obvious ploys and a laziness for providing information in innovative ways. It could also mean that the main reason a person will sell anything is because he or she is writing something "very" controversial ... or that maybe his or her wife/husband is doing all the research (as I've heard is true for him). I guess it much just be my writer-brain going on alert, or maybe it isn't ... I need the Wise One's opinion!! Would you have bought THE DA VINCI CODE?

Miss Snark's answer:

When people compliment you by saying "the next Dan Brown" they mean your sales numbers not the quality of your writing. When they want to compliment the quality of your writing they say "Colson Whitehead would like this" or "Has the Pulitzer Committee read this?".

Every year or two there's a big book that does really well and frequently it's a book that people think isn't well written. Bridges of Madison County leaps to mind; everything by Nicholas Sparks; Tom Clancy.

When someone tells me he's the next Tom Clancy, it's an automatic pass. I don't like that kind of book, and I wouldn't recognize a well written one even if printed with explanations and footnotes..oh wait...he does that already. Never mind.

If someone says he's the next Dan Brown, same thing. I like mysteries that hold together and plots that make sense. I'll probably never have "the next Dan Brown" on my list, and I'm ok with that.

And no, I haven't ever bought a copy of the DaVinci Code.

*************************

The DaVinci Code was poorly written because (it seems) D.B. was only in it for the money. He did something worse than looking into a mirror (or POOL OF WATER) and describing the main character: He had the MC remember another person reading an article from a magazine that held a description of him. That is terrible. Plus, Brown has -- to me -- an annoying style. His sentences are all very short, and he begins almost every sentence with 'And,' 'But,' etc.

(and, I admit, I just don't like Dan Brown. He annoys the hell outta me. )
__________________________________________________ _______

maestrowork:
Maybe it's jealousy, or maybe it's not. Then again, I am not jealous of JK Rowling's success -- not at all. I think the HP books are well written (for its target audience -- I mean, obviously, I am not going to suggest Ms. Rowling get a Pulitzer Prize).
__________________________________________________ _______

NeuroFizz:
Here's my take. When choosing the topic, genre, and direction of a story, that's a good time to consider the potential market. For example, an agent in the know says ChicLit is withering. Not a good idea to go there. Once the writer decides on the general nature of the story, the writer's attention should be primarily on the reader--the quality of prose, the maintenance of tension and suspense, the attention to the reader's emotional involvement in the story, getting the reader to keep turning pages. In other words, once pen hits paper, the best way to make the readers remember your name and want to buy your next book is to make this book as good as possible for those readers. Once the book hits the stores, who knows. There are plenty of stories of mega sellers that were turned down by agents and editors before they found a home, and fame. Does this tell you anything about how well the business predicts readers' reactions?
__________________________________________________ _______

MidnightMuse:
Lenle - I believe you're simply asking WHY - when something is so bad - does it become so popular?

There can be many reasons - and no reason at all. Frankly I think things like that defy all reason - much like other fads and crazes that leave me fuddled.

From simple exposure and press - to peer pressure that forces people to buy or talk about things that other people seem to be buying or talking about - to sheer stupid fluke - some people are able to find that lowest common demonitator that appeals to a wide spread, then get lucky. But press and controversy often pump up the volume, so to speak.
__________________________________________________ _______

drevil915:
Personally, I'm out to write something that is well-written but also very high-concept. I want to write something that can be interpreted and pondered (as corny as that all sounds) but also highly enjoyed. And I'll spend the rest of my life finding a common ground for these two, but eventually I'll get it.

I read Angels and Demons and I found that I liked it, but only in the same way you enjoy one of those mindless popcorn movies.

However, I read Jarhead and I was blown away by it. It was written in such a way that only I wish I could do. It was filled with so much substance and depth but it wasn't at all boring. Anyone who hasn't read it I highly suggest it.

So I guess I want to write things that are like Jarhead. Entertaining, but thought-provoking.
__________________________________________________ _______

Inkdaub:
I agree with most of the things said in this thread.

I would like to add, though, that it wouldn't bother me a bit if Rowling received a Pulitzer for Potter. This series has made reading a must for millions of kids in th world. A Potter book hitting the stands is an event. Kids lined up around the block at midnight to get a book. A book! These kids are choosing to put down the video game for a short time and read a book. That makes me happy beyond words. Something about the Potter books is very special and any success Rowling finds is more than alright with me.
__________________________________________________ _______

veinglory:
I guess it comes down to who you are trying to impress. Popluar books (marketing aside) are those that many people think are good. Is that the most important thing? perhaps? Other writers might be aiming be a specific readership, the critics, themselves or the ghost of their English-teaching mother instead ...
__________________________________________________ _______

Silverhand:
What I find really odd about Dan Brown is that the only people that think he sucks are people that are actually IN the literary world. I.E. others authors, some agents, and even some publishers.

There has to be a certain connect for his books, or Clancy's books, or any of the other poor authors with vastly popular books, to be successfull. A million people dont just buy books from poor authors over and over and over if the work is bad. Even if it lacks keys elements that people percieve to be [I]key for good writing. It really makes me wonder if those key components are not just a "guide" to good writing and not actually necessary. /shrug

Good writing has to include the ability to make people turn the pages. I mean I have read countless textbooks that are spectacularly written, but they just don't make people want to read. Thus, is the book really THAT good? I say no. Of course that's just my opinion.
__________________________________________________ _______

[Shweta]

COOLORANGEFREEZE:
The term "good writing" is a subjective term. Obviously some people think a particular book is good, some think it's bad, and some don't care.

The only formula that I know of for "popular" success is writing on a subject that hits home with the masses. Add in good PR, the ability to lecture on the subject, and if it can be converted into a screenplay (I'm not a huge fan of Hollywood these days. But they can help book sales.). Still there are no guarantees of success.

As far as writing for the sake of "good writing" vs. "popular writing"... in the end its all about getting a story out. It's about sharing ideas. It's about infecting others with a message. After all, the pen is mightier than the sword. And writers have many different career goals, but they all want to turn out a book that is informative, entertaining, and strikes a chord with many. Having it turn "popular" is icing on the cake.
__________________________________________________ _______

maestrowork:
Silverhand, I think good books will stand the test of time. I am not sure if the Da Vinci Code would be remembered 50 years from now. But To Kill a Mocking Bird would always be popular.
__________________________________________________ _______

HConn:
Most readers don't care about "good writing."
__________________________________________________ _______

NeuroFizz:
Most readers don't care about "good writing."

I one defines good writing as the maintenance of tension and suspense, the attention to the reader's emotional involvement in the story, and getting the reader to keep turning pages, then I would disagree. If you are considering the quality of prose in isolation, then I agree.
__________________________________________________ _______

Tracy:
IMHO you need to hit, or create, the next zeitgeist.

But nobody knows ahead of time what that's going to be! Which brings us back to luck.

I'm reminded of what the screenwriter William Goldman said (repeatedly) in Adventures in the Screen Trade, he said: Nobody knows anything. He meant that despite their huge salaries the top guns in the film companies didn't know what would make a hit film, which was extremely stressful for them, and meant they were second-guessing themselves and everybody else all over the place.

I think the same thing probably applies to books.

And you can't even judge the current market and start writing something similar - it'll be 2 years before your book is out probably, and the market will have moved on. I remember one agent telling me sadly, after Ireland's Cecelia Ahern had a huge breakthrough novel about a young widow, that she was getting tons of books about young widows!! But that train had gone. You need to know now what's going to be the zeitgeist in 2 years. And if you figure it out, you will remember who gave you this advice and send me a quiet pm about it, won't you??
__________________________________________________ _______

Jamesaritchie:
[quote=Lenle]To clarify rather quickly: I in no way meant that writing popular/to be popular meant dumbing down your book or anything of that sort. It was just a way of coining the sentiment that many of the books considered 'popular' by todays standards (Harry Potter/DaVinci Code, etc) have been consistently slammed/criticized for being poorly written -- which then begged the question: Why /are/ they so popular.

Sorry for any misunderstandings.

Have you looked back through history? Many of the novels almost everyone now considers classics were slammed mercilessly when they were first published.

But as I said, or meant to say, "poorly written" is a relatiove term. I think Da Vinci is poorly written, but only when compared to the work of many other published writers. Compared to what you find in the slush pile, it's wonderfully written.

And, really, I think "poorly written" is a concern to writers, reviewers, and critics. And as often as not, maybe more often, "poorly written" just means someone didn't like it.

I think the problem many wannabe writers, critics, and reviewers can't seem to get past is confusing the writing and the story/characters.

When the reading public thinks "poorly written," they mean bad story and bad characters. When they think "well-written," they mean good story and good characters.

Da Vinci is poorly written from the standpoint of many other writers, critics, and reviewers. But from teh standpoint of the pubic, who are concerned not with the writing, but with the story and the characters, it's very well-written.

I love good writing, and I strive to write as well as possible, but to me, any novel without a storng story and good characters is poorly written.

Wait a hundred years and see how many people are still reading Da Vinci for pleasure. This is the only test that really holds much water.
__________________________________________________ _______

Jamesaritchie:
The DaVinci Code was poorly written because (it seems) D.B. was only in it for the money. He did something worse than looking into a mirror (or POOL OF WATER) and describing the main character: He had the MC remember another person reading an article from a magazine that held a description of him. That is terrible. Plus, Brown has -- to me -- an annoying style. His sentences are all very short, and he begins almost every sentence with 'And,' 'But,' etc.

(and, I admit, I just don't like Dan Brown. He annoys the hell outta me. [I'm the farthest thing from jealous of him, for anyone looking to defend him.])

I don't like Dan Brown, either, but I don't think you're being fair to him. Or maybe it's just that I believe money really has nothing to do with it. A book is no better and no worse because it's written only for the money.

I think Dan Brown's problem is that he simply isn't very talented. But he picked the right story at the right time, and if you can do this, you need pretty much no talent to be highly successful.
__________________________________________________ _______

Jamesaritchie:


What I find really odd about Dan Brown is that the only people that think he sucks are people that are actually IN the literary world. I.E. others authors, some agents, and even some publishers.

Well, no. I've heard more complaints from average readers about how poorly Da Vinci is written than any other book. Ever. Not even Bridges of Madison County registered so many complaints with average readers.

I just haven't talked to many redaers anywhere who thought Da Vinci was well-written, and I've sat in on some book clubs where not a single person liked the writing at all. But they all liked the story.
__________________________________________________ _______

Gillhoughly:
I've been at this long enough to ignore trends.

Soon as the Exorcist made big the racks were loaded with black covers.

When Clan of the Cave Bear hit big we suddenly had stone age chicks making good.

Then it's cloned dinosaurs, super lawyers, and this year's flavor has to do with codes and secret societies.

It's pointless to ask anyone in publishing what's going to hit next, because they are the last to know. The reading taste of the public is fickle and unpredictable.

By the time one has written a book for a trend, the trend is over, so just write well about something that presses your enthusiam buttons.

If yours ends up being the Next Big Thing, then let it be frosting for the cake. If you make it your goal from the start, the odds favor (considering how many books are published) that you will be disappointed.

Heck, I'm just glad I've been published, gotten to edit, and am looking forward to more of both and getting better at my craft.

I had an agent who tried to talk me into doing a "breakthrough high concept" kind of book. I was open to the idea, but it became clear he wasn't paying attention to my kind of writing. I'm the literary version of a character actor but he wanted to "cast" me as the big lead in a summer blockbuster.

Forget that--at least for me.

On the other hand...

We love Clint Eastwood in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but I thought Eli Wallach stole the picture.

There's hope--but I'll continue to write what I love. If I get a break on that then I'll hold one heck of an ice cream party! http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
__________________________________________________ _______

Silverhand:

Well, no. I've heard more complaints from average readers about how poorly Da Vinci is written than any other book. Ever. Not even Bridges of Madison County registered so many complaints with average readers.

I just haven't talked to many redaers anywhere who thought Da Vinci was well-written, and I've sat in on some book clubs where not a single person liked the writing at all. But they all liked the story.

James I quoted the wrong post here, but several posts back you stated exactly what I am trying to say. I agree with 100% of that entire post. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

I have also heard D.B. crticized by normal non-lit people. However, I truly believe the amount of people who dislike his talent, reduces significantly the further away a reader gets from literary types.

I am serious when I say your post summed up exactly how I feel about the subject. I think I just said mine the wrong way. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/frown.gif
__________________________________________________ _______

mesh138:
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon11.gif negativity up the butt
All of the major book houses sold out to corporations who now only care about the bottom line. Literature is dead, and no one wants to read it because no one's printing very many good, literary titles anymore. It's all airport books. The serial killer or chick flick stuff. If you're writing literary fiction, it's better to look into a different career. Even if you do attract attention, they'll ask you to change it so as not to offend soccer moms and vegetarians.
__________________________________________________ _______

Jamesaritchie:

All of the major book houses sold out to corporations who now only care about the bottom line. Literature is dead, and no one wants to read it because no one's printing very many good, literary titles anymore. It's all airport books. The serial killer or chick flick stuff. If you're writing literary fiction, it's better to look into a different career. Even if you do attract attention, they'll ask you to change it so as not to offend soccer moms and vegetarians.

If you're writing, bad, pseudo-literary fiction, you need to look into a different career. Good real literary fiction is being published all over the place, and it's doing extremely well. Maybe you think only airport novels are out there (And airport novels are as good as any) because you're only looking in airports.

In bookstores, and on the bestseller lists, real literary fiction is doing very, very well.

Of course, I really don't see the connection between offending soccer moms/vegetarians and good literature? I guess Imisse dthat class in college. Litertaure isn't any good because it offends soccer moms and vegetarians. Literature is good because it says something honest about the human condition, and says it in a way that makes people, including soccer moms and vegetarians, want to read it.

Real literature, real litrary fiction, is all over the place, and doing very well. Very well indeed. Bad, pseudo-literary fiction isn't. Never did, never will. Thank goodness.

You haven't, by any chance, had a novel rejected, have you?


__________________________________________________ _______

Jamesaritchie:
[quote=Silverhand]James I quoted the wrong post here, but several posts back you stated exactly what I am trying to say. I agree with 100% of that entire post. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

I have also heard D.B. crticized by normal non-lit people. However, I truly believe the amount of people who dislike his talent, reduces significantly the further away a reader gets from literary types.

I am serious when I say your post summed up exactly how I feel about the subject. I think I just said mine the wrong way. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/frown.gif

Don't get me wrong. I know many people who hate the writing in Da Vinci, but still love the book.
__________________________________________________ _______

Zolah:

All of the major book houses sold out to corporations who now only care about the bottom line. Literature is dead, and no one wants to read it because no one's printing very many good, literary titles anymore. It's all airport books. The serial killer or chick flick stuff. If you're writing literary fiction, it's better to look into a different career. Even if you do attract attention, they'll ask you to change it so as not to offend soccer moms and vegetarians.

But there are still quite a lot of independent publishers who are successfully making their way in the marketplace - and plenty of imprints belonging to larger coporations have editors who are passionate about finding books that they love and believe in (though their definition of literature might differ from yours). They do, of course, have to worry about making some money - otherwise their business would go under and they would never have the chance to publish more books. That wouldn't help anyone. Plus, what's the point of publishing a book that no one wants to read? The publisher's job is to try and find something which lots of people will enjoy and read, not to act as the guardian of modern people's reading taste, or be a literary vetting service so that only 'correct' or 'worthy' books get to see the light of day.

Book sales are, in general, on the increase, so quite a lot of people do still want to read literature, though, again, their definition of literature might well differ from yours. Genre books (such as romance, children's or SF) have historically always been more popular in terms of sales than literary books. However, good literary books still recieve a great deal of attention and reviews (more than most genre books).

Chick LIT, is dead, as most people in the industry will tell you. 'The Da Vinci Code' offended quite a lot of people but as far as I'm aware the publisher never asked the author to remove the references to Opus Dei or take back the bit where he suggested that Jesus Christ got his end away...and as far as I'm aware there hasn't been a huge increase in books where the characters don't eat meat or wear leather, but maybe it's some kind of vegetarian conspiracy that I'm not privy to. Do tell.
__________________________________________________ _______

BardSkye:
This is actually a serious question so please don't laugh at me...

What separates literary fiction from mainstream? I asked this once before and someone (sorry, don't remember who) replied that it was the quality of the writing.

I'm having a bit of difficulty with this. I don't write either genre and don't usually read it. A brief look at something by Margaret Atwood was about as close as I got and I found her work just didn't hold my interest.

So, by quality, do you mean holds your interest? Choice of words? Syntax as rigid as a haiku's number of syllables?

It's probably just as well I have no plans to become the next Atwood.
__________________________________________________ _______

Siddow:
BardSkye, it's my understanding that literary fiction is fiction that is prized for the beauty of its language and emotional effect. Mainstream fiction is akin to 'bestselling' fiction, in that the story doesn't require a large emotional investment to be enjoyed. A good story, told succinctly.

I think all fiction turns to literary when the reader goes back to read a paragraph because they're just stunned at the accuracy of the emotions portrayed. Literary fiction has that, "I know this! Why hasn't anybody ever said it this eloquently before?" quality to it.
__________________________________________________ _______

maestrowork:
Literature is dead, and no one wants to read it because no one's printing very many good, literary titles anymore. It's all airport books. The serial killer or chick flick stuff. If you're writing literary fiction, it's better to look into a different career.

There are plenty of good literary fiction. One doesn't have to look too far but the local book stores. The death of literature is a myth, perpetuated by writers who write quasi-literary work but couldn't get anywhere in the publishing world. Commercialism is an easy scapegoat.
__________________________________________________ _______

maestrowork:
What separates literary fiction from mainstream?

I've heard this definition: once your literary fiction sells more than 10,000 copies, it's mainstream.
__________________________________________________ _______

emeraldcite:
I know many people who hate the writing in Da Vinci, but still love the book.

That's me. I felt dirty reading it, the writing was so...blah, but the concept and execution were excellent.
__________________________________________________ _______

[Shweta]

HConn:

This is actually a serious question so please don't laugh at me...

What separates literary fiction from mainstream?

It's marketing. The publisher tries to figure out what segment of the readership will buy the book and labels it accordingly.
_______________________________________________

Jamesaritchie:

This is actually a serious question so please don't laugh at me...

What separates literary fiction from mainstream? I asked this once before and someone (sorry, don't remember who) replied that it was the quality of the writing.

I'm having a bit of difficulty with this. I don't write either genre and don't usually read it. A brief look at something by Margaret Atwood was about as close as I got and I found her work just didn't hold my interest.

So, by quality, do you mean holds your interest? Choice of words? Syntax as rigid as a haiku's number of syllables?

It's probably just as well I have no plans to become the next Atwood.


This is really a tough question. Writing from any genre can be classified as "mainstream." To a publisher, "mainstream" primarily means writing that appeals to the boradest possible spectrum of readers. Some readers want only mystery, or only sf, or only fantasy, but mainstreams readers will read anything that has decent writing and a good story.

I suppose you could classify both Joyce Carol Oates and John Updike, among others, as literary writers who are also mainstream writers. In a sense, it really is about market share, about broad appeal. But mainstream can be almost any type of writing. The question is whether or not a given writer from a given genre, including literary, has broad enough appeal to to be classified as mainstream.

I'm not big on Atwood, either, but there are other literary writers I love, and many mainstream writers I love. It's not all of a piece. Literary writers are all different, and so are mainstream writers.

I guess you could better classify mainstream fiction as crossover fiction. It may have the trapping of any genre, but it's written with broad enough appeal that it crosses over the genre lines.
_______________________________________________

PeeDee:

All of the major book houses sold out to corporations who now only care about the bottom line. Literature is dead, and no one wants to read it because no one's printing very many good, literary titles anymore. It's all airport books. The serial killer or chick flick stuff. If you're writing literary fiction, it's better to look into a different career. Even if you do attract attention, they'll ask you to change it so as not to offend soccer moms and vegetarians.

Good lord, what? Really? Damn.

So, I'm going to have to go get rid of Alan Moore's stuff, and probably burn my Harlan Ellison books, huh? The recent stuff, I mean, which came out after the corporations bought out everyone.

That's hardly true. Of course, they care about the bottom line, and they're trying to produce a work that's salable and will be purchased by the largest possible number of people...but that said, there are still really interesting and very deep books that get published. Look at Gene Wolfe, at Roger Zelazny's stuff, just brought back into print. Stephen King is hardly prettied up for soccer moms.
_______________________________________________

Quiller:

I think first and foremost, the story has to be a story people want to read. That is easily said, but the underlying reality is much, much deeper. People read romance novels (or at least a certain segment) to get a better understanding on how to deal with a difficult partner, adventure novels to learn how to look like a hero and get laid, SciFi novels to buttress their religious feelings, etc. The underlying reason DaVinci Code is so popular is because (among cliff hanging chapter endings and exotic places) it diefies women (an emotion half the population can identify with).

As a former advertising writer and a career salesman, I feel I can state no product is ever sold to anyone anywhere without addressing strong emotion needs of the buyer, novels included. Same as Cadilacs, microwave popcorn, silk blouses, life insurance and outboard motors. Those that do it well add a veneer of logic for the sake of buyer's feelings of righteous thinking.

I read not 20 pages of Harry Potter, not 4 pages of Ann Rice, forced myself through _Sex In The City_, pitched out one of Evan Hunter's last disgusted, and also a Sara Peretsky, each because I didn't like the message they wrote. However, lots of other people most certainly did and do like their messages.

Would a story of a moderately good looking young woman who wanted adoration and wealth sell? Maybe. Probably if she were driven by ghosts past. Almost certainly if the novel of her story included enough information to make it appear subliminally to be a training manual in seduction.
_______________________________________________

Bardskye:
Thanks to everyone for the explanation on literary/mainstream. Now it makes a whole lot more sense.

In regards to the original question posed in the thread, my dad bought the DaVinci Code to see what the fuss was about and brought it over to me when he was finished. I thought it was okay but I wouldn't rush out to buy anything else by the same author. Same holds true for most of the highly-touted books with the exception of Harry Potter. (I like that series.) Dean Koontz, Michael Crichton, Clive Cussler... rather like McDonalds hamburgers. They're okay for lunch but hardly gourmet dining.
_______________________________________________

Jamesaritchie:
I think first and foremost, the story has to be a story people want to read. That is easily said, but the underlying reality is much, much deeper. People read romance novels (or at least a certain segment) to get a better understanding on how to deal with a difficult partner, adventure novels to learn how to look like a hero and get laid, SciFi novels to buttress their religious feelings, etc..

Well, this certainly has nothing even remotely to do with why I read romance novels, or adventure stories, or science fiction stories. But I suppose people are different.
_______________________________________________

PeeDee:

I think first and foremost, the story has to be a story people want to read. That is easily said, but the underlying reality is much, much deeper. People read romance novels (or at least a certain segment) to get a better understanding on how to deal with a difficult partner, adventure novels to learn how to look like a hero and get laid, SciFi novels to buttress their religious feelings, etc. The underlying reason DaVinci Code is so popular is because (among cliff hanging chapter endings and exotic places) it diefies women (an emotion half the population can identify with).

No, I first and foremost read because a book makes me happy, and I'm enjoying myself. Everything else is secondary. Also, arbitrary to every individual person. If I had to pull a message from science fiction, it would be the sheer optimism that humanity is, though slowly, doing something right, and we're getting somewhere.

I'm sorry, and no offense meant, but this sounds like the justification someone would use who was embarassed to be reading fiction. It's the sort of thing you'd say while coughing nervously, adjusting your tie, and saying, "Er, well, yes, I do read fiction...but I've learned a great deal about technical and world politics from Tom Clancy, and Romance Novels to improve my sex life. And I only, you know, read fiction when I haven't got CNN."

It's like playing a first person shooter video game specifically because you want to improve hand-eye coordination.
_______________________________________________

blackbird:
Much of the writing in so-called bestsellers actually makes me cringe. What tends to stick out to me are things like flat character descriptions, awkwardly constructed sentences and formulaic dialogue. Yet, these are the books that sell. Why? Well, in spite of the flaws, they tell a good story that keeps the average reader (and keep in mind these flaws probably aren't even noticeable to the average reader) turning the page. It's all in the hooks, the drama, the action, the suspense. Whatever qualities that keep a reader engaged. As long as the prose flows smoothly for the most part, and doesn't confuse the reader, it seems that most everything we literary writers have been taught in workshops and MFA programs can literally be tossed out the window.

And to a certain degree I can see why this is. As an MFA student and reader for the university literary journal, I read a lot of boring and mediocre fiction. I made the remark, more than once, that I would be delighted to receive a submission from some little backwoods Appalachian woman who'd never received a degree in her life, but knew how to tell A GOOD STORY. I would have killed for such a submission, but alas, it never came.

Occasionally, however, a book will come along that manages to bridge the gap between literary quality and popular acceptance. To me, Charles Frazier's Cold Mountain was such a book. (Although even it occasionally has its awkward moments). But here was a beautiful story beautifully told, and it struck a chord with the masses. And its books like these that keep my faith in the industry and the reading public. And the same faith that keeps me plugging away.
_______________________________________________

Quiller:

Motivations
As a young man writing advertising I learned of the then Bible of advertising, _Motivations In Advertising_ (if I remember the title correctly) by Pierre Martineau (a college professor, if I remember correctly). I understand it is out of print now, replaced by more thorough books.

Let me charactize the work. People buy for emotional reasons; people justify buying for logical reasons. Therefore, effective persuasive advertising (also direct, face-to-face selling) is seriously emotional at root, with a heavy layer of "logic" to justify the purchase to buyer and buyer's friends.

Trust me, college-educated Westerners believe in the supremecy of logic. (Eastern college-educated believe in the supremecy of Zen. Read a Russian or Chinese "spy" novel 20 or 30 years ago to see the difference.)

Trust me, all buyers buy with the heart. All.

Trust me, a lot of salespeople don't know that, and their customers are unhappy OR exactly like them.

Trust me, novels are bought by buyers.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to learn to get along with a difficult partner, or to look like a hero to get laid, or buttress one's religious beliefs, or justice prevails, or poor people can enjoy productive lives, or a beautiful young women can conquer the business world.

A friend of mine writes stories of exquisite prose about bad dates. Nobody cares, for a bad date is a bad date. No great shakes. I told her a better story is a bad date with a knife, for everyone (single, and many married) would like to take greater risks in their dating habits (for greater enhancement) AND to know they can handle a situation that -- on a very long shot -- turns dicey (or dating is damned dangerous stay away from it, take your choice). Greater risk, greater reward (or penalty), and it can be handled (or not). That is an emotional impact for a buyer of printed words.

Emotion in writing certainly can be crying and laughing and sexual excitement, but reading a story where the emotional impact comes from greater potential (or "avoiding bad things", as we said in the sales trade) is a buyer's read.

In my experience, all lasting novels tell the root story the buyer-reader wants to read. Look how many dumb things John D MacDonald did in his Travis McGee novels (one had McGee freshly showed and dressed in white pants and blue blazer change the plugs and points on the engine in Busted Flush, and then change the (piston) rings as well because he had time before his evening meet with damsel in distress) and the novels were *still* a good read for the buyer-reader wanting to look a hero and get laid. BTW, McGee --always-- got laid. I also seem to remember MacDonald/McGee was awarded (by some writers group) the honor of "Most Dead Girlfriends In A Series". Not sure the dead girlfriends was a good idea, but it did give McGee a chance to a couple more girlfriends in the next book.

Emotional impact lingers when we get the root emotional impact we want from the novels we buy.
_______________________________________________

veinglory:
Well, this certainly has nothing even remotely to do with why I read romance novels, or adventure stories, or science fiction stories. But I suppose people are different.

Indeed. And having read some of the very extensive analysis of why people seem to read romance... that is almost certainly not it. There is a lot of debate but generally it is in the realms of wish fulfillment fantasy--not the hope that one's hubby will suddenly become a sapphire eyed highlander (or more seriously an alpha male who is never inconsiderate) not matter what one does. If you did try and use romance as a guide it's advice would be of very dubious value indeed (get kidnapped? Have absolute and irrational faith that underneath he loves you very much and so will do the right thing? Become a vampire to share eternity with him?)
_______________________________________________

cwfgal:

Trust me,...


I think not.

Beth
_______________________________________________

[Shweta]

PeeDee:

[SNIP]

Trust me, all buyers buy with the heart. All.

Trust me, novels are bought by buyers.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to learn to get along with a difficult partner, or to look like a hero to get laid, or buttress one's religious beliefs, or justice prevails, or poor people can enjoy productive lives, or a beautiful young women can conquer the business world.

Emotional impact lingers when we get the root emotional impact we want from the novels we buy.

All of these are true things, perhaps. THe thing is, they aren't absolute truths. Some people have to justify what they buy. Some people buy books, because it wouldn't occur to them to do otherwise.

There isn't anything wrong with learning from a novel. I think there's probably something amiss with buying a novel solely to learn something from it. Were I to murder someone, I would not purchase a Stephen King novel for the purpose of learning how to get away with it (nor would I be likely to use a wood chipper).
___________________________________________

James D. Macdonald:
The difference between literary fiction and any other literature is the logo on the spine.


I don't think that Dan Brown (or anyone) woke up each morning saying "Today I'm going to write as badly as I can."
___________________________________________

gp101:
NOT INTENDED FOR MINORS:

To me, writing good genre fiction can be like raunchy sex with the new girlfriend, fun, uninhibited, while writing sub-par genre fiction is a one-night stand, probably too short, clumsy, not fullfilling to most, but maybe exciting for the moment and regrettable in the long run.

Writing good literary fiction can be like making slow, sweet love to the same partner for years, the rose petals, the candles, the wine, the soft touches, and all the other sweet-nothings. Boring for some, but spiritual for others. While writing poor literary fiction is masturbation... the writer falls in love with his own words, uses prose for his own amusement, and feels no one can do it better than him/her.

Further, literary fiction whispers "make love to me". Genre fiction screams two words.
___________________________________________

BardSkye:
Were I to murder someone, I would not purchase a Stephen King novel for the purpose of learning how to get away with it (nor would I be likely to use a wood chipper).

Go with Alistair MacLean and grind aconite into the horseradish.
___________________________________________

Quiller:
THe thing is, they aren't absolute truths.

Oh, but they are. And well know for 50 years as absolute truths in the world of advertising.

This discussion I have had many times in the past with various people who graduated a Western Europe or American college, where the be-all, end-all of the college process is logic. Western educated often claim their "logical" approach separates them from the unwashed masses. It doesn't. Their *claim* of logic separates them from the unwashed masses.

The most logical of all sciences taught at the college level is mathematics. If one studies math deeply enough it first meets, then crosses deeply into, philosophy. There are entire classes of mathematical problems which can not be solved logically, but can easily using the non-linear process of what some call Zen.

No one is forcing anyone to consider the root emotional impact of a novel in progress, but I have never seen a well selling novel that did not have it. It is always there. (Just as hard liquor ads always have a skull or such in the ice cubes, or cigarette ads always had a mushroom cloud or grim reaper or skull somewhere on the page, or just as beer ads always show a jerk of a guy drinking beer, often with nubile young ladies just out of his reach.)

Not surprising, for "logical" novels don't work. Novels that do work touch the sub-cortex, not with the shimmering of their words, but rather the root story they are telling. The sub-cortex can't understand words, only emotions. btw, the sub-cortex reacts FAR quicker than the thought processing part of the brain.

Shimmering words are great, but the emotional impact of the story sells the novel.
___________________________________________

Jamesaritchie:
Much of the writing in so-called bestsellers actually makes me cringe. What tends to stick out to me are things like flat character descriptions, awkwardly constructed sentences and formulaic dialogue. Yet, these are the books that sell. Why? Well, in spite of the flaws, they tell a good story that keeps the average reader (and keep in mind these flaws probably aren't even noticeable to the average reader) turning the page. It's all in the hooks, the drama, the action, the suspense. Whatever qualities that keep a reader engaged. As long as the prose flows smoothly for the most part, and doesn't confuse the reader, it seems that most everything we literary writers have been taught in workshops and MFA programs can literally be tossed out the window.

And to a certain degree I can see why this is. As an MFA student and reader for the university literary journal, I read a lot of boring and mediocre fiction. I made the remark, more than once, that I would be delighted to receive a submission from some little backwoods Appalachian woman who'd never received a degree in her life, but knew how to tell A GOOD STORY. I would have killed for such a submission, but alas, it never came.

Occasionally, however, a book will come along that manages to bridge the gap between literary quality and popular acceptance. To me, Charles Frazier's Cold Mountain was such a book. (Although even it occasionally has its awkward moments). But here was a bautiful story beautifully told, and it struck a chord with the masses. And its books like these that keep my faith in the industry and the reading public. And the same faith that keeps me plugging away.

When you reach the level of published writers, so much is a matter who the reader is. I think most published writers do a pretty good job of writing, and a great many do an excellent job. This does not mean I'll like it. I didn't like anything at all about Cold Mountain, but many others loved it.

And generally speaking, I don't like character descriptions, no matter how they're done.

On the other side, I often hear people complain about Stephen King's writing, but I think he's one of the best writers out there, anywhere, in any genre, in every way there is.

I do think most redaers are far mor econcerned with the quality of the story and the characters than with the quality of the writing itself, and I also think this is as it should be.

I tend to agree with the writing in MFA programs, though I believe this is most often because of the age and inexperience of the writers. At that age, it's learning how to write well that matters. Give them a few years of real life experience after graduation, and many of them will learn how to combine good writing with good story and good character. From my experience, an MFA program is a great place to learn how to write well, and a lousy place to learn how to tell a story well. Though this is certainly changing with a handful of new MFA programs here and there.
___________________________________________

Jamesaritchie:
Oh, but they are. And well know for 50 years as absolute truths in the world of advertising.

This discussion I have had many times in the past with various people who graduated a Western Europe or American college, where the be-all, end-all of the college process is logic. Western educated often claim their "logical" approach separates them from the unwashed masses. It doesn't. Their *claim* of logic separates them from the unwashed masses.

The most logical of all sciences taught at the college level is mathematics. If one studies math deeply enough it first meets, then crosses deeply into, philosophy. There are entire classes of mathematical problems which can not be solved logically, but can easily using the non-linear process of what some call Zen.

No one is forcing anyone to consider the root emotional impact of a novel in progress, but I have never seen a well selling novel that did not have it. It is always there. (Just as hard liquor ads always have a skull or such in the ice cubes, or cigarette ads always had a mushroom cloud or grim reaper or skull somewhere on the page, or just as beer ads always show a jerk of a guy drinking beer, often with nubile young ladies just out of his reach.)

Not surprising, for "logical" novels don't work. Novels that do work touch the sub-cortex, not with the shimmering of their words, but rather the root story they are telling. The sub-cortex can't understand words, only emotions. btw, the sub-cortex reacts FAR quicker than the thought processing part of the brain.

Shimmering words are great, but the emotional impact of the story sells the novel.

Emotional impact in a novel is very important, but to equate this with reading romance novels to get a better understanding on how to deal with a difficult partner, or adventure novels to learn how to look like a hero and get laid, or SciFi novels to buttress their religious feelings doesn't even make sense on the surface, is just dumb, and absolutely is not something taught in either philosophy or psychology, though psychology is a voodoo science, at best.

I mean, do you actually know any readers?

And the reason some liquor ads, not all, but some, had a skull and crossbones, or some cigarette ads, not all, had a mushroom cloud is because some dummy at an ad agency thought this was a good idea, even though the impact of such nonsense has been disproved a thousand times over.

Of course a novel usually needs emotional implact, though more than a few have zero, and rely on logic alone. Many mysteries do just this. But that ain't how the brain works, folks. Unprocessed emotion is meaningless, and it's only real life exprience and the logic center of the brains that makes most emotion mean anything. Only fight or flight really bypasses this process.

Now, if you wanted to make reading novels a simple case of wish fulfillment, you'd have at least a bit of science on your side, though not much.

And if those at ad agencies know so much, why is it that no one I know likes ads?
___________________________________________

gp101:
I do think most redaers are far mor econcerned with the quality of the story and the characters than with the quality of the writing itself, and I also think this is as it should be.

Very true.

From my experience, an MFA program is a great place to learn how to write well, and a lousy place to learn how to tell a story well. Though this is certainly changing with a handful of new MFA programs here and there.

Ditto.
___________________________________________

gp101:
And if those at ad agencies know so much, why is it that no one I know likes ads?

Except during the Superbowl, in which case, they often end up being more entertaining than the game itself.
___________________________________________

PeeDee:

I think that there are indeed certain absolute truths in the world, and I think that this concept of reading for gain is certainly not one of them. The advice and wisdom of a great many college professors who excell at logic matter nothing at all when it comes to matters of the heart. Matters of the heart are, when you boil it down to essences, what a great deal of fiction is about. You read to love, to hate, live, die, laugh, or to hold your breath and tense up. We read for the same reason we watch movies with good stories and love them, we read because we are creatures of story.

We do not do it for gain. A work of fiction, a story, is not How to Start and Run a Small Business With Tips From An Expert which, in fact, you would read in order to gain something.

A novel is a novel. It is a story. It makes you feel, it makes you live like someone else for a brief moment, and it is all-important for that.

The people I've seen who read novels to gain something are generally people who only pick up a book when CNN is on the blink, and they're out of copies of Time Magazine to look through. Even then, they would go for The Enquirer before a novel.

Does this mean we don't learn things from fiction? Perish the thought. So much of my moral code comes out of comic books, out of good novels I've read since I was old enough to figure out which way to hold the books.

If every book sought just to teach something, then the world of fiction would be a very seedy place, if it even existed at all.
___________________________________________

PeeDee:
Except during the Superbowl, in which case, they often end up being more entertaining than the game itself.

(I haven't been impressed the past few years, though...)
___________________________________________

writeorwrong:
Wait a hundred years and see how many people are still reading Da Vinci for pleasure. This is the only test that really holds much water.


Oh, I suspect that I, or Dan Brown for that matter, won't care what people think of The DaVinci Code a hundred years from now.http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

Like others have said in a bunch of different ways, success is relative. Everyone has their own measuring stick. Personally, if I could have 1/10th of the sales and commercial clout of a Dan Brown I'd consider myself a raging success. Though it would be nice to have my writing thought of as clever, literary, and smart, I'll be happy if it just makes folks turn the page.

Brown hit on a winning formula for sales. He could employ a team of 100 monkeys to write his next novel, put his name to it, and it would be on every best seller list in the world.

At least for the first week.
___________________________________________

PeeDee:
Oh, I suspect that I, or Dan Brown for that matter, won't care what people think of The DaVinci Code a hundred years from now.http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

Like others have said in a bunch of different ways, success is relative. Everyone has their own measuring stick. Personally, if I could have 1/10th of the sales and commercial clout of a Dan Brown I'd consider myself a raging success. Though it would be nice to have my writing thought of as clever, literary, and smart, I'll be happy if it just makes folks turn the page.

Brown hit on a winning formula for sales. He could employ a team of 100 monkeys to write his next novel, put his name to it, and it would be on every best seller list in the world.

At least for the first week.

You know, I thought about that a moment, and I think that, when all is said and done...as very nice as the huge salary would be, I would rather write something that a few people would cherish and pass on for love of the read, rather than write something that everyone buys simply because everyone buys it.
___________________________________________

[Shweta]

rhymegirl:
Well, I'll tell you what I think, but it may not be the popular opinion.

When I went to college and majored in English, I had to read MANY books. Some of them were classics by well-known authors. As such, they were considered very well-written. But that doesn't mean that I actually LIKED these novels. I read them because I had to. Some I found extremely boring.

So let's say at the time I picked up a popular novel to read simply because it interested me. Something that was new on the market that "everybody" was reading. A book like this was not necessarily well-written or destined to be a classic (because of its style), but it was just simply a good read. If I had a choice, I'd prefer to read the book that interested me, the page turner. It doesn't mean the one I chose was superior in quality, just more interesting.

The same is true of movies. The general public doesn't always flock to the movies that have the best themes/quality/style/messages. They might find them boring.

In terms of my own writing, I'm trying to do both. If my message novel doesn't sell, maybe my erotica novel will. I'm not saying the latter won't be well-written, but it won't have a message to it. It's really just for fun.
___________________________________________

PeeDee:
In school I read both William Faulkner's works, and Ernest Hemmingway. I didn't enjoy either of them one bit. I read George Orwell's 1984, and I really didn't enjoy it at all. I understood what they were talking about, each author and their own work, I just didn't enjoy it.

I think that's fine. I still like reading, even books that I don't agree with.
___________________________________________

Quiller:

And the reason some liquor ads, not all, but some, had a skull and crossbones, or some cigarette ads, not all, had a mushroom cloud ...

And if those at ad agencies know so much, why is it that no one I know likes ads?

All. Stand back from a liquor ad, any liquor ad, and compare its emotional impact with a soda ad, any soda ad. Notice the ice cubes in each.

Oh, but you do like ads. Or at least the ads for the products you buy.

"Emotion" is a dirty word to western educated people, while "logic" is everything. I never met a long term salesperson didn't sell the sizzle over selling the steak.
___________________________________________

HConn:
"Emotion" is a dirty word to western educated people...

Ridiculous.

I suggest you go out and meet some "western educated people" right away.
___________________________________________

PeeDee:
"Emotion" is a dirty word to western educated people, while "logic" is everything. I never met a long term salesperson didn't sell the sizzle over selling the steak.


I know very, very few logical people. Even extremely educated people are not particularly logical. I am personally a huge fan of logic, but even I am not terribly logical.

Also, I'm not sure comparing a salesman to an author is quite fair. In some regards, yes, perhaps. Not with what you're arguing, though. A salesman would sell you the sizzle and you would buy the steak.

An author would give you the sizzle, the smell, the texture, the experience of eating, the conversation you have, the feeling the steak gives you...and ultimately, you have to provide your own steak, if you follow me.
___________________________________________

Quiller:
emotion
But that ain't how the brain works, folks. Unprocessed emotion is meaningless, and it's only real life exprience and the logic center of the brains that makes most emotion mean anything.

Emotion is processed to a large extent in the sub-cortex (which is extremely quick AND unable to process words in or out), with none of emotion processed in the "logic center" of the brain.

Have you ever seen a very beautiful woman smile at you and you didn't want her? Or an equally or less beautiful woman, with or without the smile, you most definitely did want? That's the difference between reading a story you want to "hear" compared to a story you don't care about. It is not the cup size of the bra that makes a difference, but rather some emotion you probably can't name.
___________________________________________

PeeDee:
Emotion is processed to a large extent in the sub-cortex (which is extremely quick AND unable to process words in or out), with none of emotion processed in the "logic center" of the brain.

Have you ever seen a very beautiful woman smile at you and you didn't want her? Or an equally or less beautiful woman, with or without the smile, you most definitely did want? That's the difference between reading a story you want to "hear" compared to a story you don't care about. It is not the cup size of the bra that makes a difference, but rather some emotion you probably can't name.


The point of being an author is naming that emotion.

I confess, I'm a bit unclear. What exactly is it that you're arguing here. How does any of this relate to the "reading for gain" concept?
___________________________________________

Quiller:
Ridiculous.

I suggest you go out and meet some "western educated people" right away.

Oh? Have you read this thread? It started with the valid question of what is the difference between "good" writing and "popular" writing. It is now the point posters are stating they would rather be a "fine" (i.e. highly crafted) writer than a writer of a so-so written commercially successful novel read by millions (of unwashed) people (who wouldn't know cheap beer from 5 star cognac).

I made an excellent living selling "the sizzle, not the steak" for a long time. I long ago noticed the "sizzle" of best-selling novels was ALWAYS there. Now I am trying to build my fifth career taking advantage of the "sizzle" the buyers of novels want.
___________________________________________

PeeDee:
Now now, folks. There's no reason to get heated over this. I would very much prefer this thread didn't turn into a flame war and need to be locked up, because I was rather enjoying the debate.
___________________________________________

[Shweta]

MadScientistMatt:
All. Stand back from a liquor ad, any liquor ad, and compare its emotional impact with a soda ad, any soda ad. Notice the ice cubes in each.

You'll also notice glasses in each.

And it's extremely rare to see ice cubes in a beer ad.

I'd say this is more because people use ice cubes in soda, mixed drinks, and hard liquor, and not in beer, rather than that someone has chosen ice cubes for emotional impact. Or subliminal messages.

Oh, but you do like ads. Or at least the ads for the products you buy.


It's entirely possible to buy a product even if you think the ad you've seen for it is a stupid ad. If, for example, I hear an obnoxious and stupid Gatorade ad and then walk into a supermarket and buy Gatorade, why would you be certain that it was the commercial? It would be more likely in my case that I anticipated hard outdoor work and the grocery store was having a special on Gatorade.
____________________________________________

Peggy:
This discussion I have had many times in the past with various people who graduated a Western Europe or American college, where the be-all, end-all of the college process is logic. Western educated often claim their "logical" approach separates them from the unwashed masses. It doesn't. Their *claim* of logic separates them from the unwashed masses.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. People go to college to learn a subject. That usually involves analysis and, I guess what you would call "logic", unless the degree is in one in the creative arts. Would you really want a historian or a physicist or a nurse who based their conclusions on emotion, rather than logic?

The most logical of all sciences taught at the college level is mathematics. If one studies math deeply enough it first meets, then crosses deeply into, philosophy. There are entire classes of mathematical problems which can not be solved logically, but can easily using the non-linear process of what some call Zen.

I would agree that it at least appears that many mathematicians use intuitive, rather than deductive, processes. However, in the end, they do need to provide proofs for their reasoning. (I would also argue that mathematics is not a science, but that's a whole different discussion.)

No one is forcing anyone to consider the root emotional impact of a novel in progress, but I have never seen a well selling novel that did not have it. It is always there.

Not surprising, for "logical" novels don't work.

I personally think that good novelists are able to create an emotional impact without analyzing it. That is part of the art of good writing. On the other hand, most novels also are "logical" in the sense that they have a storyline that people can follow. You don't see a huge market for stream-of-conciousness pure emotion stories.

Shimmering words are great, but the emotional impact of the story sells the novel.

But you are missing the key: the shimmering words create the emotional impact.
____________________________________________

Quiller:
gain
I confess, I'm a bit unclear. What exactly is it that you're arguing here. How does any of this relate to the "reading for gain" concept?

The gain is the learning how to deal with a difficult partner (he had a terrible childhood he never told you about) ... or learning how to look a hero (in case you someday NEED to be a hero to save your butt or someone else's) so you can get laid ... or learning how to achieve the Holy Grail (so the world is saved from Communism or an overturned cruiseboat or a burning skyscraper) ... or learning how high society operates (in case you, young lady, get invited to high tea) ... or learning how banking systems work (so you can feel comfortable with your 401k's) ... or how Grand Prix racecar drivers stay aggressive at 260 mph, their butts 1-1/2" off the asphault ... or that justice always finds the killer ... or that those who live Christian lives are rewarded in Heaven ... or unethical men rule the business world ... or whatever emotion drives one's inner churnings.

People tend to read the same story over and over and over again.

Several years ago I set about learning what separated commercially successful fiction from the B-list and the lesser. --Nearly-- every commercially successful author told a seriously emotional tale (nearly always the same tale for any one author). To this end I purposely set about reading Times Best Sellers of the types I would never otherwise read (people were buying those books, and I wanted to know why). The very few exceptions (Lawrence Saunders is the only one I remember) were notable for singular reasons. (Saunders did fantastic work with made-up words to very humorous effect.)

I read J. Kellerman's books for their psychological insight (I learned much of Borderline Personality Disorder in one) and won't read another F. Kellerman (she is a serious religious bigot) even though she writes far better crafted novels than hubby. I read Cornwall, Turow, Patterson, Steele, and a whole bunch others I can't even remember how to spell their names (it is easy for me to spell Ludlum, Deighton, Le Carre, Higgins). Nearly every one told a story with a root emotional impact (notice the four authors I mentioned in the immediate prior sentence told stories of Cruisader sent out to a Foreign Land to bring back The Holy Grail and thus save Civilization As We Know It).
____________________________________________

Peggy:
Oh? Have you read this thread? It started with the valid question of what is the difference between "good" writing and "popular" writing. It is now the point posters are stating they would rather be a "fine" (i.e. highly crafted) writer than a writer of a so-so written commercially successful novel read by millions (of unwashed) people (who wouldn't know cheap beer from 5 star cognac).

I didn't get the sense that people in this thread were looking down on the average reader (as you imply with the term "unwashed"). I get the sense (and it's certainly true for me), that most authors want to both be good at their craft and write a book read by millions.

Now I am trying to build my fifth career taking advantage of the "sizzle" the buyers of novels want.

The trouble with that approach, I think, is that it's hard to predict what "sizzle" is going to catch on with the public. In advertising you can create test campaigns to see what will work. It isn't really practical to write several different novels to see what "sizzle" will sell. What will be the next "Gone with the Wind" or "Valley of the Dolls" or "Da Vinci Code' ? There is no way to predict, so all we can do as authors is focus on writing a good story.
____________________________________________

Zolah:
Further, literary fiction whispers "make love to me". Genre fiction screams two words.

I'd say that depends on what kind of genre fiction you're reading/writing. I've read many, many genre books (fantasy, SF, historical, children's, crime/mystery) which are just as beautifully written and moving as any piece of mainstream literary work. To say that simply because a book fits into a genre the quality of the writing must be inferior, or that a book about people fighting for freedom in the slave mines of Planet Orbe cannot be as 'literary' as a book about adultery and divorce set in Mayfair is short-sighted (and insulting to writers of genre fiction).
____________________________________________

Peggy:
Several years ago I set about learning what separated commercially successful fiction from the B-list and the lesser. --Nearly-- every commercially successful author told a seriously emotional tale (nearly always the same tale for any one author).

I think you are using the term "emotional" differently than I understand it. The authors you mention all have a lot of what I would call "action" or "drama" in their books. When you say emotional, I associate that with an exploration of a characters inner life and feelings. While I enjoy reading Ludlum and Cornwell et al. because they are good storytellers, I simply don't consider the stories they tell to be particularly "emotional".
____________________________________________

[Shweta]

Quiller:
But you are missing the key: the shimmering words create the emotional impact.

If I may suggest, it is my opinion (please note the word) that "shimmering words" are like a Blue Coral wax job on a car. If the car has an inline six hooked up to a PowerGlide it ain't going anywhere. _Out Of Africa_ is a novel that comes to mind. Some people like Blue Coral, some people like 7 liter hemi's. More hemi's were sold than were waxed with Blue Coral. I thought that was what I was trying to say.
__________________________________________________ ___

Sassenach:
T
I read J. Kellerman's books for their psychological insight (I learned much of Borderline Personality Disorder in one) and won't read another F. Kellerman (she is a serious religious bigot)

Excuse me?

Faye Kellerman is an Orthodox Jew. That doesn't make her a bigot.
__________________________________________________ ___

Quiller:
Holy Grail



It seems we are using the term differently. Ludlum et al are telling probably the oldest, most widely told, most emotionally gripping tale ever told. Namely the Quest for The Holy Grail. The hero always prevails, and Civilization is now safe again. It's a warm, fuzzy blanket on a cold night.
__________________________________________________ ___

Peggy:

If I may suggest, it is my opinion (please note the word) that "shimmering words" are like a Blue Coral wax job on a car. If the car has an inline six hooked up to a PowerGlide it ain't going anywhere. _Out Of Africa_ is a novel that comes to mind. Some people like Blue Coral, some people like 7 liter hemi's. More hemi's were sold than were waxed with Blue Coral. I thought that was what I was trying to say.

Your analogy doesn't work for me because I have no idea what Blue Coral wax or PowerGlides are http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I think you are saying that pretty words aren't enough; you need a gripping story too*.

* My analogy was going to be that "shimmering words" are like truffles: an acquired taste and best when used sparingly and only when absolutely needed to enhance the dish. Then I realized that some people would think I meant chocolate truffles**, and that would just confuse things.

** You can never have too many chocolate truffles.
__________________________________________________ ___

Quiller:
huh?

Excuse me?

Faye Kellerman is an Orthodox Jew. That doesn't make her a bigot.

I am not sure where I said being an Orthodox anything makes one a bigot. I know for sure I don't think that.

However, I did get the opinion from reading one of Faye Kellerman's finely craft novels that *she* is a religious bigot. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...

Perhaps if I met her I might find her to be a fine human being. Until that happens I will continue to expect of her novels what I felt in the single novel of hers I did read. Hey, I know, I'm making a judgement on one novel.
__________________________________________________ ___

Peggy:
It seems we are using the term differently. Ludlum et al are telling probably the oldest, most widely told, most emotionally gripping tale ever told. Namely the Quest for The Holy Grail. The hero always prevails, and Civilization is now safe again. It's a warm, fuzzy blanket on a cold night.

That is why I enjoy Ludlum - action packed storytelling. But it's not just the action (or "emotional impact") that makes a book a bestseller. There are lots of action-filled novels that don't make a splash at all. What makes a difference is how the story is told - and that boils down to the choice of words.
__________________________________________________ ___

Quiller:
yup
[quote=Peggy]Your analogy doesn't work for me because I have no idea what Blue Coral wax or PowerGlides are http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif Correct me if I'm wrong, though. I think you are saying that pretty words aren't enough; you need a gripping story too.

Yup. Da Vinci Code isn't selling because it has pretty words. It deifies women, and that is gripping story for a sizable percentage of the reading population.
__________________________________________________ ___

Peggy:
Yup. Da Vinci Code isn't selling because it has pretty words. It deifies women, and that is gripping story for a sizable percentage of the reading population.

That's true. Da Vinci Code doesn't have brilliant prose, but does present some interesting (and controversial) ideas. However, that's what is unpredictable - there have been other novels that touch on the same subject that haven't been bestsellers. It's totally unpredictable what is going to catch the public's fancy. That's why I think that all we can do as authors is do our best to tell a good story - it's impossible to predict the market.
__________________________________________________ ___

Quiller:
That is why I enjoy Ludlum - action packed storytelling. But it's not just the action (or "emotional impact") that makes a book a bestseller. There are lots of action-filled novels that don't make a splash at all. What makes a difference is how the story is told - and that boils down to the choice of words.

Ludlum's books were more than action, far more than action, though they certainly did have action. They're about a single man saving Civilization from The Evil Conspirers (Washington variety). Ludlum also always has brilliant, highly likeable women in his books. I sometimes wondered if that was deliberate or if he was enthralled by brilliant, highly likeable women. I have heard Ludlum was clinically paranoid, though functionable. Some of his later books could have used some more editing.
__________________________________________________ ___

HConn:
Oh? Have you read this thread?

Not only have I read it, I understand it.

Good luck.
__________________________________________________ ___

Sassenach:
I am not sure where I said being an Orthodox anything makes one a bigot. I know for sure I don't think that.

However, I did get the opinion from reading one of Faye Kellerman's finely craft novels that *she* is a religious bigot. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...

Perhaps if I met her I might find her to be a fine human being. Until that happens I will continue to expect of her novels what I felt in the single novel of hers I did read. Hey, I know, I'm making a judgement on one novel.

Your response, combined with a recent one about DaVinci Code "deifying women" makes me wonder if you know what you're talking about.

Is your opinion about Kellerman's alleged "bigotry" based on anything in particular?
__________________________________________________ ___

Quiller:
Your response, combined with a recent one about DaVinci Code "deifying women" makes me wonder if you know what you're talking about.

Is your opinion about Kellerman's alleged "bigotry" based on anything in particular?

Of course I don't know what I'm talking about. 30,000,00 copies of the Da Vinci Code have been sold to women (and another 10,000,000 to men) because it is about old Italian art stolen long ago by the French. Women like old Italian art.

As far as F. Kellerman goes, I thought I mentioned my opinion was based on reading one of her novels, and because of what I read in that novel I have no desire to read more of her novels. Maybe I forgot to mention that. So let me mention it now. Does it make a difference my professional career was built on sizing up people accurately in a matter three or four seconds? Do it a few thousand times (actually, a few dozen times is more than enough, but let's not sound like bragging here) and it is easy.

BTW, I seem to also have mentioned hearing Ludlum was clinically paranoid. Maybe I don't know anything about that either.
__________________________________________________ ___

Sassenach:

Now I'm certain [you don't know what you're talking about.]
__________________________________________________ ___

Peedee:

Of course I don't know what I'm talking about. 30,000,00 copies of the Da Vinci Code have been sold to women (and another 10,000,000 to men) because it is about old Italian art stolen long ago by the French. Women like old Italian art.

... ... People bought the Da Vinci Code because it was about old Italian art???

*begins to pen The Sistine Chapel Codex straight away*

Seriously, just because women like old Italian art does not mean they rushed out to buy the book. I like Strogonaff. Shall I buy any book that mentions it?
__________________________________________________ ___

janetbellinger:

When you reach the level of published writers, so much is a matter who the reader is. I think most published writers do a pretty good job of writing, and a great many do an excellent job. This does not mean I'll like it. I didn't like anything at all about Cold Mountain, but many others loved it.

And generally speaking, I don't like character descriptions, no matter how they're done.

On the other side, I often hear people complain about Stephen King's writing, but I think he's one of the best writers out there, anywhere, in any genre, in every way there is.

I do think most redaers are far mor econcerned with the quality of the story and the characters than with the quality of the writing itself, and I also think this is as it should be.

I tend to agree with the writing in MFA programs, though I believe this is most often because of the age and inexperience of the writers. At that age, it's learning how to write well that matters. Give them a few years of real life experience after graduation, and many of them will learn how to combine good writing with good story and good character. From my experience, an MFA program is a great place to learn how to write well, and a lousy place to learn how to tell a story well. Though this is certainly changing with a handful of new MFA programs here and there.

I agree. I prefer literary fiction but it still has to have a good plot otherwise it will not maintain my interest. In my mind, Alice Munro is a good example of a literary writer who weaves the most subtle but electric plots.
__________________________________________________ ___

[Shweta]

HConn:
NOT INTENDED FOR MINORS:

To me, writing good genre fiction can be like raunchy sex with the new girlfriend, fun, uninhibited, while writing sub-par genre fiction is a one-night stand, probably too short, clumsy, not fullfilling to most, but maybe exciting for the moment and regrettable in the long run.

Writing good literary fiction can be like making slow, sweet love to the same partner for years, the rose petals, the candles, the wine, the soft touches, and all the other sweet-nothings. Boring for some, but spiritual for others. While writing poor literary fiction is masturbation... the writer falls in love with his own words, uses prose for his own amusement, and feels no one can do it better than him/her.

Two big problems with this:

First, I love to watch women masturbate.

Second, this conflates taste with quality. It's great that you love litfic and all, but don't tell us good genre fiction is less than spiritual.

Further, literary fiction whispers "make love to me". Genre fiction screams two words.

There's plenty of literary fiction that screams two words. And there's plenty of whispery, seductive genre fiction.
______________________________________________

Shweta:
Emotion is processed to a large extent in the sub-cortex (which is extremely quick AND unable to process words in or out), with none of emotion processed in the "logic center" of the brain.

Have you ever seen a very beautiful woman smile at you and you didn't want her? Or an equally or less beautiful woman, with or without the smile, you most definitely did want? That's the difference between reading a story you want to "hear" compared to a story you don't care about. It is not the cup size of the bra that makes a difference, but rather some emotion you probably can't name.

Oof.
Just to let you know, your neuroscience is about 20 years out of date.
This often happens when information from one field wanders over into another, and it's certainly no less so for advertising. So please don't act like you have the knowledge on how the brain works, because you really. Don't.

I can't correct you because -- while my neuroscience is only 10 years out of date... it's still that, and I know it.

But please, read up on the mirror neuron system at least before making claims about where the emotion module is. That's crazy talk. Yes, of course subcortical areas are involved, but that in no way explains why cortically processed stimuli have emotional affect.

Also (this might have been addressed, I could read no further) -- nobody here is talking about logic, except for you. The notion of humans as logical creatures might still exist in political science, and in a broken way in economics, and in the hard sciences. It's changing in every field that studies the mind; there's just too much counterevidence. But -- and this is important -- I don't think writers and literary folks ever bought that idea in the first place.

Mark Turner's The Literary Mind argues quite convincingly that the reason we read and write stories is that people think in stories. Everywhere. That we're not at all basically rational critters, we're basically storytelling critters. And that's why we tell and read stories for fun. Yes, we learn from them, whether the story is "Once there was a King who married a girl each day and beheaded her the next", or "When a pendulum is allowed to swing freely, here's what it does", we learn from them. Children learn from pretend play too. That's not why they do it, and it's not why we read. And even if we read to learn, we don't read the Arabian Nights to figure out how not to be killed by our husbands.

Basically, nobody's objecting to the notion that we learn when we read. We're objecting to the notion that we read only to learn. And the notion that we only learn the most superficial, obvious things thereby.

EDIT: I want to add this, just for completion. Mark Turner (http://markturner.org/) is not some random fluffy-headed academic who has no idea what it's like to be a writer. He is one of the leading lights of the field of Cognitive Linguistics, and he is also the husband of Newberry-honor author Megan Whalen Turner (http://home.att.net/%7Emwturner/).
______________________________________________

Arden:

[Quiller]: Of course I don't know what I'm talking about. 30,000,00 copies of the Da Vinci Code have been sold to women (and another 10,000,000 to men)

Can you reveal where you got your figures? When I purchased my copy of THE DA VINCI CODE I wasn't asked to list my give any background information -- race, creed, color or gender.

And I heard that 13,241 women bought the book for a male in their lives -- husband, son, father, uncle, beloved. Doesn't that throw the results?

And I'm curious as to who exactly bought the rest of the books. Children? Or pets?

Does it make a difference my professional career was built on sizing up people accurately in a matter three or four seconds? Do it a few thousand times (actually, a few dozen times is more than enough, but let's not sound like bragging here) and it is easy.

So, you're a spy who's retired from the game and is now seeking to come up with the formula for writing commercial fiction? Or what?

And, if I'm getting this right, you think that people read FICTION to learn about how to handle problems in their lives? Who reads non-fiction then? People who didn't find the answers in fiction and were forced to resort to factual reading measures?
______________________________________________

Quiller:
... ... People bought the Da Vinci Code because it was about old Italian art???

*begins to pen The Sistine Chapel Codex straight away*

Seriously, just because women like old Italian art does not mean they rushed out to buy the book. I like Strogonaff. Shall I buy any book that mentions it?

ah... PeeDee ... um maybe I should have put a "ridiculous" smiley http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif after that "old Italian art" gag. Sorry 'bout that.
______________________________________________

PeeDee:
ah... PeeDee ... um maybe I should have put a "ridiculous" smiley http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif after that "old Italian art" gag. Sorry 'bout that.

I am unimaginably relieved to hear it. My blood pressure can go down a notch or two.
______________________________________________

Arden:
I like Strogonaff. Shall I buy any book that mentions it?

Yes, definitely. Then you will be open to the strogonoffian impulses in your neuro-to-mouth brain center and you will be able to write, and emote, without a bib.

I can recommend some top stroganoff fiction if you're interested. There is a spillover in the genre, however, to pasta fantasy fiction. Unfortunate, but that's the way illogical literature cuisine goes.
______________________________________________

PeeDee:
Yes, definitely. Then you will be open to the strogonoffian impulses in your neuro-to-mouth brain center and you will be able to write, and emote, without a bib.

I can recommend some top stroganoff fiction if you're interested. There is a spillover in the genre, however, to pasta fantasy fiction. Unfortunate, but that's the way illogical literature cuisine goes.


Yes, I read some of that stroganoff/ravioli slash fiction on the internet. Very crude stuff. A bit tough to read. I think the writer should have let it simmer longer. Still, I gobbled it down anyway. After the second one, though, I started to think they were a bit canned.
______________________________________________

Shweta:
Another note about the logic/emotion thing.
I think we're getting "logic" (All cats are grey, my dog is grey, thus my dog is a cat) and "reasoning" (My last boyfriend ate all my candy, so I better hide the candy from my current one) confused in some of these posts. Or at least, I get the feeling people are using the word "logic" to mean both things, and not realizing there's a disconnect.

The presupposition I see in your posts, Quiller, is that it's either logic or emotion. but there's far more to human reasoning than either blind logic or pointless emotion. Words (which are being processed cortically, I assure you) are evoking dynamically changing mental models, which are learned from experience, complete with emotional impact. You seem to be thinking that if people get involved in building those mental models, that is equal to emotion. Which seems very very strange to me.

ETA: Uh, the faulty logic and reasoning above are just me being silly. They're still examples of logic and general reasoning, even if they're both wrong http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif
______________________________________________

[Shweta]

Quiller:

Repeatedly on this thread, those who have read a slush pile for a living have complained about the lack of story appeal in all those dead trees.

Repeatedly on this thread, people have complained that crummy wordsmiths with technically flawed novels have enjoyed vast commercial success.

Some on this thread have said it is all luck, like winning the lotto (one even said mathematics is not a hard science, though math gives the hard numbers concerning the chances of winning Lotto).

A couple of people on this thread even brought religion into the discussion.

Yet ....

... when it was stated that novels fill an emotional niche for the buyers of novels, all kinds of conflabuations occur.

So, I kindly suggest this plan of attack. Don't bother studying the market to notice the commonalities among what sells, and sells by the boxcar loads*. Ignore the ex-writer of advertising, ignore the ex-seller of decades of high tech products when he says "sell the sizzle, not the steak". Write what you want, stories of bad dates included. Let the market decide -- with its wallets -- if that is what it wants to buy.

May the luck be with you.

* My brother tells me the world is filled with starving writers. I wonder if he knows something I don't.

[Shweta]

Sadly, that's all I have.

I only really remember what I said, after this, well enough to reconstruct it. It was largely a reiteration that Jamesaritchie and others said earlier, but perhaps it bears repetition.

I seem to have a fundamental disconnect with Quiller.
We are not using the language the same way. We do not mean the same thing by "emotion". By emotion, I mean things like "anger" or "sorrow" or "joy". Not "a single man saving civilization". I don't even recognize this as a possible definition of the word "emotion".

Also, I find Quiller's definition of emotion incompatible with the notion that it's processed subcortically. Story is not processed subcortically. It involves the interpretation of words, which are very much processed in the cortex.

We do not mean the same thing by "good writing". It's something Quiller seems to object to. The "shimmering words".

I mean writing that conveys the story vividly, without getting in that story's way. Quiller seems to mean what I think of as "beautiful writing", which can be done well or badly, but is a type, not a quality. I don't think writing that draws attention to itself is necessarily a good thing in prose.

We are agreed, I think, that the story has to be compelling. But a story, when told, is told in words (if you're writing a novel). A lot of popular fiction seems to have prose that is clunky, awkward, imprecise, and repetitive. I think that's what we're arguing about, Quiller, not whether we want our writing to be intrusively "pretty", which is what you seem to think we're saying.

Beyond that, there seems to be a larger disconnect. My understanding of it is this: Quiller thinks we're all arguing for "logic" rather than "emotion". I don't see this in anyone's posts, though, so I'm not sure where it's coming from.

(Edit: I remember something else I said)

We can agree that stories should have emotional impact, that we should take something from them, without agreeing about what something is. I personally find your ideas rather oversimplified, Quiller. You seem to think people are a lot less complex than I think they are.

The gain is the learning how to deal with a difficult partner (he had a terrible childhood he never told you about) ... or learning how to look a hero (in case you someday NEED to be a hero to save your butt or someone else's) so you can get laid ... or learning how to achieve the Holy Grail (so the world is saved from Communism or an overturned cruiseboat or a burning skyscraper) ... or learning how high society operates (in case you, young lady, get invited to high tea) ...

Personally, I didn't read Butler's Kindred to find out what I should do if I was a Black woman magically transported back in time to a time when slavery existed. I don't think that's possible.
I didn't read Gail Levine's Ella Enchanted to find out what I'd do if I was cursed with obedience and had wicked stepsisters.
I didn't read Tanya Huff's "Blood" series or Robin McKinley's Sunshine to find out how to handle vampires. I really didn't.
I didn't read Bujold to figure out how to do what her protagonists do. The only literallesson you ever learn from Miles Vorkosigan is don't be Miles!
And I certainly didn't read Jasper Fforde's The Eyre Affair to figure out how to be one of the literary police in an alternate England in which Wales is a Socialist Republic and Dodos still exist.
Bouncing over to less fantastic scenarios, I don't read Austen in order to figure out how to be British landed gentry, either.

Yes, there are things I have taken from all these books. They are never the superficial plot-based things mentioned above.

And then there's this:
So, I kindly suggest this plan of attack. Don't bother studying the market to notice the commonalities among what sells, and sells by the boxcar loads*. Ignore the ex-writer of advertising, ignore the ex-seller of decades of high tech products when he says "sell the sizzle, not the steak".

I find this (and other things you've said) rude, Quiller. Perhaps they weren't intended that way, but please try to respect your fellow writer. I know it can get frustrating when people seem not to understand you. But please do not condescend. As an advertising expert, you ought to know that it does not make your case any stronger.

And please remember that we all come to this board with expertise of various sorts. You have one sort, which may or may not map well to success in writing fiction. I have expertise in the study of language and thought, which (similarly) may or may not help me. Others have other sorts of expertise. All we can, and should, be doing is offering it to one another. Sharing, not selling. Not here.

[Quiller]

You are welcome to try to do it any way you want. Allow me, however, to notice the commonalities among novels the public has voted with its checkbooks to be books it wishes to read in quantities.

An artist paints with paints, but a selling artist paints for the core emotional impact. www.etimerlake.com is very casual acquaintance of mine. Her paintings are always more than colors. Noteworthy to me is that she says she works and works hard to get that impact. She says she does not know just how she gets there, but it ain't easy, and surely it is not the steadiness of the hand applying the paint, not is it the choice of brands of paint tubes.

A writer writes with words, but a selling writer moves the reader at the core. Not with a laugh or two, not with a cry or two, but trembling at the core. The Freedom Fighters of the slave mines of Planet Orbe have triumphed over evil!!

It also helps to have a whole bunch of "insider information" to share to help the reader feel s/he is now at least a small part of an insider group.

Anyone want to know why WWI fighter pilots wore silk scarves? It wasn't to keep warm at altitude, for wool is much warmer. It had to do with the engines of the time in the planes they flew. The engines used castor oil, the very best lubricant available at the time (and still used in racing engines decades later), and the engines leaked a lot of oil into the air stream behind the prop.

[Zolah]

The Freedom Fighters of the slave mines of Planet Orbe have triumphed over evil!!

Hey! Who gave you permission to use the Freedom Fighters of the Slave Mines of Planet Orbe (TM, PP)? They're mine, damn you, all MINE!

[Shweta]

A writer writes with words, but a selling writer moves the reader at the core.

See, that'd be my definition of a "good" writer.
Pretty words are nothing without emotional impact.

And allowing for your definition of emotion, I can see how you men this to apply to bestsellers which I find anything but "moving".

The problem isn't there. The problem is this. You're still not responding to the actual objections I've seen to you're position. They're not to this. We basically agree with you about this. Where we do not agree is your expressed idea of what that impact is. The notion (for example) that people read romances to figure out how. I semi-repeat, I did not read Austen to figure out how to get married.

[Quiller]

The notion (for example) that people read romances to figure out how. I semi-repeat, I did not read Austen to figure out how to get married.

So, just what DID you find so emotionally appealing about Austen?

There was SOMEthing there for you. Wanna share what? I kinda bet it wasn't the laughs or the cries, the shimmering of mid-summer tree leaves in the evening sun, or a chronological listing of Aunt Millie's incidents of sexually molesting her sister's seven year old son.

[Shweta]

I take it you've never read Jane Austen.

It was the subtle satire, and the way she shows characters through their dialogue. And makes them so vivid that I share in their emotions. Totally the laughs and cries.

[Quiller]

...read Jane Austen.

It was the subtle satire, and the way she shows characters through their dialogue. And makes them so vivid that I share in their emotions.

Are you saying the emotional impact _for you_ was that you felt superior in recognizing satire less intelligent readers would miss? That your _vivid_ images were a source in pride in that the masses missed your insights?

Well, okay. THAT emotional impact had value for you.

Ayn Rand does much the same (with even far more subtlety as goes satire) for various readers, and her books still sell long after she was dead.

A writer deals -- consciously or not -- with a reader's core emotional values. I suggest consciously is more predictable as to affect and effect.

[Shweta]

Are you saying the emotional impact _for you_ was that you felt superior in recognizing satire less intelligent readers would miss? That your _vivid_ images were a source in pride in that the masses missed your insights?

...Where do you get this from? Not only is it not right, I don't see it at all in what I said.

I think it's commonly known that Jane Austen's work is satirical. It is, in places, laugh-out-loud funny. She was poking gentle (ok, normally gentle) fun at her own social class and the manners of her time. I don't think anyone could enjoy her work without noticing that. There's nothing snobby or superior about getting the author's joke, and I enjoy it all the more because other readers do get it.

I'm finding it very difficult to take your ideas seriously when your interpretation of what's said on this thread is so... incomprehensible to me, Quiller. If your analytical tools are getting at the truth, why can we not recognize that in your actual analyses?
Do you believe that we're (I'm) just too stupid and misled to recognize the truth you offer us (me)? If so, I'd rather hear you say it straight, and I promise I won't be offended :)

[Shweta]

Incidentally.

There was SOMEthing there for you. Wanna share what? I kinda bet it wasn't the laughs or the cries, the shimmering of mid-summer tree leaves in the evening sun, or a chronological listing of Aunt Millie's incidents of sexually molesting her sister's seven year old son.

This is what leads me to venture that you've never read Austen. It's not any judgement (good or bad) about you, just the inference that if you had, you would have picked an example that had something to do with her books.

So I'm not making a value judgement when I say "I assume you've never read Austen". I'm just inferring from what you said.

[Quiller]

...it's commonly known that Jane Austen's work ... was poking gentle fun at her own social class and the manners of her time. I don't think anyone could enjoy her work without noticing that. There's nothing snobby or superior about getting the author's joke, and I enjoy it all the more because other readers do get it.

:)

okay, Jane Austen poked fun at her social class and their manners. It seems readers, you included?, liked reading about people of a certain social class (with "affected" manners?) getting poked fun at.

THAT is emotional impact (for the readers of the book), THAT is selling the sizzle rather then steak. The novel was also, I gather, informative as to the specific manners of a particular social class readers were happy to see poked fun at.

btw, no I have never read Jane Austen. Somehow I have never heard of a reason to think I might be emotionally satisfied by reading an Austen novel, and now that you have explained they are about poking fun at a (presumably upper class) social class, I really have no desire to read one. I have, however, read as many as three novels in one day, and a (mid to late career) Robert Ludlum in an evening. I have also read as many as 150 novels (I counted as best I could when I saw the stacks on the floor against the wall) in one summer while working full+ time and commuting 4 hours to/from work. I am a sight reader rather than a phonetic reader so I read only for content, totally missing the lyricism of the words.

FWIW, I could not force myself even 50 pages into a Harry Potter book, or five pages into an Anne (sp?) Rice, nor five pages into "Valley Of The Dolls". Simply put, they tell stories with an emotional impact I do not wish to be impacted by. Simply put, I am not part of their market. I wonder if publishers are trembling and sniveling because of that? http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

[HConn]

okay, Jane Austen poked fun at her social class and their manners. It seems readers, you included?, liked reading about people of a certain social class (with "affected" manners?) getting poked fun at.

THAT is emotional impact (for the readers of the book), THAT is selling the sizzle rather then steak. The novel was also, I gather, informative as to the specific manners of a particular social class readers were happy to see poked fun at.

Quiller, you really don't understand the pleasures of reading a Jane Austen novel. The social satire doesn't make a person feel superior. In fact, it has a wide variety of effects, including making a person think carefully about their own assumptions about social structures.

But that's a small part of enjoying an Austen novel, and not everyone shares it. A major part of the pleasure I had from Pride and Prejudice came from the author's voice. I also became invested in the characters and wondered how/if they would find happiness within their rigid society. The book is also funny.

In short, a reader's response to a book is complex. It can't be easily reduced to (paraphrasing) "romance novels teach you how to deal with a troublesome man." It has to do with the reaction a reader has to voice, and to character, and to tone, and to plot, and to author's vision.

You have your own way of reading and of responding to books. Not everyone works the same way, nor do they read the same way. You don't seem to be able to accept that.

My suggestion to you is this: Stop talking about steak and sizzle. You don't seem to understand how other people read, and how their responses differ from yours. You keep trying to put us into weird, tiny boxes (such as "the DaVinci Code deifies women" or whatever) and we keep telling you we don't fit.

Harder than learning something new is unlearning something you once believed. Take my word for it that you are off-base here, and take some time to look at the subject again.

Good luck.

[Quiller]

Take my word for it, I am not. You, of course, are allowed to think I am.

Yet, keep in mind the premise of this thread is "what separates commercially successful novels from more finely crafted novels that don't sell well". I maintain the buyer's expectations are more thoroughly met. You, who claim "to understand how people read", can maintain anything you wish.

The buyer, the reader with the bux in hir/hes hand, determines whether a writer is paid or not.

[Tilly]

Yet, keep in mind the premise of this thread is "what separates commercially successful novels from more finely crafted novels that don't sell well". I maintain the buyer's expectations are more thoroughly met. You, who claim "to understand how people read", can maintain anything you wish.
Many of my best-loved books, those I found most emotionally satisfying and met whatever expectations I had, weren't best sellers. Other readers would perhaps not find the delight I did in them. That's okay, readers are all different. Many who would have loved them might not have discovered them. There are a vast number of books, and more are published every year.

Many of the people I know who read regularly have favourite authors and favourite books which were not best sellers.

I used to work in a library, which gives a fascinating insight into fellow readers. Particularly a small library, where you have a chance to chat and get to know the people. Again, often the books that touched people deeply, which were close to their heart, which they'd recommend to me, were not best sellers. Sometimes people would mention that they didn't enjoy a bestseller because it didn't reach out to them, it didn't speak to them the way their favourite books did, and didn't live up to the hype.

Readers are different.

With best sellers, they seem to affect readers the same way other loved books do, but simply with more people. Sometimes that seems to be because more people have heard of the title. Sometimes it's because the book is extremely good, although I'll come across people who will disagree with that on any given title, and there are extremely good books that are not bestsellers. To me, bestsellers exist in the overlap between the tastes of different readers.

You seem to desperately want there to be some common denominator between best sellers. I've only seen one. They sell more copies. They are otherwise hugely varied.

[HConn]

Yet, keep in mind the premise of this thread is "what separates commercially successful novels from more finely crafted novels that don't sell well". I maintain the buyer's expectations are more thoroughly met.

Your remark about buyer's expectations is not controversial. Where you get into trouble is when you try to tell people what those expectations are.

You, who claim "to understand how people read", can maintain anything you wish.

Not only don't you understand how other people read, you don't read very well yourself.

I didn't claim to understand how people read. I told you that you don't understand how people read. I don't have all the answers, but I don't know that you don't even have the right questions.

[Quiller]

Whatever. You call it the way you see, I call it the way I see it. I have some history seeing things as I see them. By no means 100%, but more than often enough to be useful with a high degree of reliability. Long, long, long ago I learned to trust the gut feel. Call it the "muse" if you wish, though the term used in my prior career was "seeing around corners". It was in fact common to long-termers, and some were incredibly adept at it, so much so some wondered if in fact clairvoyance might be a physical fact. I don't believe in "spirits", so it must just be "paying attention".

A story I once heard about someone who went on to unusual heights. Sherry Lancing, as a young agent in an agent mill for Hollywood actors, reporting irritated some other young agents by saying it was obvious who had star potential and who did not. Challenged, she laid out the pictures of five actors (not actresses) who she said would someday be major stars. She was scorned and laughed at, but the five she laid indeed hit the big time. I do not recall all the actors, but do seem to recall she named (young/unknown) Dustin Hoffman, Robert DiNiro, two others equally now famous and a fifth almost as so.

I would like to know what Sherry Lancing saw so obviously in those five, out of all she had to chose from, she did not see in so many other actor wannabe's. Certainly it was not unusual beauty in a land of unusual beauty (reportedly, Lancing liked the company of unusually beautiful men).

[Shweta]

Perhaps we should agree to disagree, Quiller. And if you manage to write a bestseller, do feel free to come back and laugh at us. We'll probably pat you on the back.

Going back to the original subject, I'd be interested to know if anyone else has an opinion about what sells.

I wonder if you can only take people so far beyond what they already know, in any given book. I've noticed a lot of readers of fantasy/science fiction aren't hugely fond of a lot of what I think is "good" until they've read some of what ... the other books build on, or something.
And a lot of "literary" work seems to reference and build upon previous work.

So I guess I'm wondering about, not books in isolation, but books as part of a literary history, and what effect relation to other books a "typical" reader is familiar with might have.

[Sassenach]

I have some history seeing things as I see them.

Mazel tov. You and about 6 million other earthlings share that skill.

[reph]

Psst, Sass, it's 6 billion. I concur with your sentiment, though.

[Sassenach]

Psst, Sass, it's 6 billion. I concur with your sentiment, though.

Correct...I'm terrible at math.

[bsolah]

One thing I wanted to say is that writing well and writing what normal people like is not counterposed. It's just a matter of taste. Too many literary snobs have hijacked the term 'good writing' to tack on the things they enjoy, like there's some irrefutable criteria.

I think it's also a matter of these literary snobs having this elitist view that ordinary people can't tell which writing is good, and which isn't.

[Quiller]

I think it's also a matter of these literary snobs having this elitist view that ordinary people can't tell which writing is good, and which isn't.

Defining what "literary" is is a little like defining the "World's Long Suspension Bridge". Change to definition to suit the desired outcome, and they all are. And that can be a problem for those who want to be King/Queen Of The Hill without bothering to climb a hill.

Those who write without any care whatsoever for the reader ("the reader MUST to come to ME!!") are doomed to be read, if read at all, only by people exactly as themselves, a rather small group numbering maybe a few hundreds worldwide.

Core emotional drives have a much wider audience, as does "insider" information.

[Quiller]

if you manage to write a bestseller, do feel free to come back and laugh at us. We'll probably pat you on the back.



I am not sure there are only two choices of goals for writing, either writing Great Literature, or Writing Bestsellers.

Me, I am always candid with myself. Writing a bestseller is a little like winning Lotto (except, I never play Lotto). Last year, in the State of New York about 100 winning Lotto tickets were sold and about 18.5 BILLION (with a "B") losing tickets were sold.

While I would ~~~~love~~~~ to have a bestseller, my goals are something a bit less. First and foremost, I want to write novels that sell. Secondly, I want to move people.

My father wanted to be a professional baseball player. However, he couldn't hit a well-thrown curve ball often enough. There are more professional baseball players in the NBL than there are bestselling novelists in this country.

Fifteen years ago or so, I read a scriptwriting column in Writer's Digest (I slum it sometimes) where the writer was giving up the column because he finally got to the point of making a decent enough living writing movie scripts. He commented, I remember reading, that less than two dozen people in Hollywood (at that time) made $100,000 or more a year. I was stunned, because I was sitting in a sales office at the time, in my cubicle, and there were more than two dozen people -- UNDER 30 years of age -- within 150 feet of me who were making more than that (don't envy them, for there is a high turnover in that business).

Attempt to get rich writing bestsellers? Nah. I want to move people. First I gotta tell a story they want to hear. To do that I gotta know what they want to hear. Maslow, though badly dated, is not a bad place to start.

[Sassenach]

Core emotional drives have a much wider audience, as does "insider" information.

I think your background in advertising is clouding your understanding of why some writers are popular.

Where's the "insider" information in, for example, Nora Roberts or Danielle Steel? Or most romance and women's fiction?

[booray]

Well Written and Not so Popular
vs
Not-so-well Written and Can't-go-to-sleep-till-it's-finished Popular

Actually this isn't that difficult to explain, although extremely difficult to do. The well written book that fails to garner the interest and sales as the best selling novel of the wildly popular so-called second rate novelist, has certain shortcomings:

1. Like a piano virtuoso, the writer dazzles with her wordplay.
2. She plays with 25 ¢ words like a juggler tossing swords.
3. She paints detailed pictures of the inner life and struggle of her characters.
4. She etches into the reader's mind all the grit and texture of the setting.
5. She makes it as real as she can.

Now let's contrast that with the wildly popular writer:

1. She doesn't dazzle, she doesn't want her reader to notice her writing at all.
2. She uses a vocabulary that the average high school student can understand, and if she has to use the BIG word, she gives enough clues that the reader can understand it, even if he has never seen it before.
3. She indicates inner struggle briefly by noting a twitch, or frown, or a well placed cuss word.
4. She lets the reader build most of the setting, giving only the necessary clues. A solid gold door and a teak floor? What else do you need?
5. She makes it more than real, who wants real?

Plus:

1. The writer has a BIG IDEA.
2. She tells a good STORY.
3. She gives the reader a PAYOFF.
4. The reader learns something NEW.

[AncientEagle]

Anyone want to know why WWI fighter pilots wore silk scarves? It wasn't to keep warm at altitude, for wool is much warmer. It had to do with the engines of the time in the planes they flew. The engines used castor oil, the very best lubricant available at the time (and still used in racing engines decades later), and the engines leaked a lot of oil into the air stream behind the prop.

Actually, they wore silk scarves to keep the skin of the neck from chafing from the necessarily constant turning the head to look about during aerial combat.

[TrainofThought]

I don’t agree. There isn't a definite divide between Writing well vs. Writing popular. Writing is an art, and people’s opinions will differ. Many factors go into the success of a popular or well-written book: agent, marketing, what’s going on in the world (history plays a big role) and the book’s audience. I also think established writers’ books go immediately to the bestsellers list. James Patterson’s books are always on the top bestseller’s list. Writing well or popular writing isn’t solely based on society’s view. If Oprah has you on her show, it is pretty much a guarantee your sales will skyrocket.

Writing Popular: As an avid reader, I may shred a popular book, while others’ praise it. I’ve read bestsellers with horrible writing, weak storyline and bland characters (ie “Shoot the Moon” by Billy Letts). Then I’ve read bestsellers with great writing, story, and characters (ie “The Historian” by Elizabeth Kostova).

Writing well: Someone with a higher caliber in writing, and the English language, can debate my right to criticize good or bad writing.
So that's my take on it.

[bsolah]

Boorey, why can't a 'popular book' be well written. Why do you think there's some clear cut divide. I agree with TrainofThought. You can't make this generalisation.

[Shweta]

I thnk we're mostly agreed that "popular" books can be well-written, bsolah. We're just talking about the fact that that doesn't seem to be a necessity.

[bsolah]

But in your opinion they're well written. Other people read these books, so they must be decently written for people to enjoy them.

[Joanna_S]

I know that the chances are high that I will never write a literary novel. My goals are fairly simple -- to keep the reader turning the page and to make the reader root for my main characters. I write romantic suspense with an emphasis on action/adventure. I try to be invisible in my books. I don't want people thinking about the author. I want them thinking about the characters and the story. I want them on the edge of their seats, staying up way too late, and thinking, "Just one more chapter..."

Those are my goals. It isn't that I'm incapable of literary fiction. I actually wrote a nonfiction book that's fairly close to it (it's fictional nonfiction). But for my novels, I just tell stories.

I am not saying I'm a bad writer. I simply like books that take the reader on a wild ride and therefore, those are the kind of books I like to write. We all have our niches, don't we?

-- Joanna

[Shweta]

But in your opinion they're well written. Other people read these books, so they must be decently written for people to enjoy them.

I may have lost the previous posts that said this, bsolah, but someone was mentioning that they'd talked to several people (non-writers) who enjoyed the Da Vinci Code but found it badly written.

So not necessarily.

[Quiller]

Actually, they wore silk scarves to keep the skin of the neck from chafing from the necessarily constant turning the head to look about during aerial combat.

With all the castor oil on their faces and necks, you think they were worried that wool scarves give more chafe than silk scarves? (WWI airplane engines held GALLONS of castor oil.)

The diapers they also wore, was that for "chafe control" twisting and turning in their seats during aerial combat?

[AncientEagle]

With all the castor oil on their faces and necks, you think they were worried that wool scarves give more chafe than silk scarves? (WWI airplane engines held GALLONS of castor oil.)

The diapers they also wore, was that for "chafe control" twisting and turning in their seats during aerial combat?

Sorry, Quiller. I forgot for a moment that you have the inside information and the rest of us don't know anything. Of course, I haven't had five careers in which I excelled, only one before now, a lifetime in the military. Excuse me for daring to correct a man who has every bit of the inside information, who is, in fact, full of it.

Keep checking the other threads for a guy called "Bud8." I think you and he would really enjoy each other.

[Shweta]

It does seem to me, just from familiarity with the fabrics, that oil is more likely to clog up silk than wool. Oiled silk would be hard to breathe through, and oiled wool just unpleasant.

However, isn't it possible that they used the silk scarves for several reasons, and not just one? I ask this as someone entirely clueless about aviation, for the record.

[AncientEagle]

It does seem to me, just from familiarity with the fabrics, that oil is more likely to clog up silk than wool. Oiled silk would be hard to breathe through, and oiled wool just unpleasant.

However, isn't it possible that they used the silk scarves for several reasons, and not just one? I ask this as someone entirely clueless about aviation, for the record.

You are absolutely right. Research mentions both uses, in fact. And no doubt attracting pretty girls was a third use. But I would think, if wiping oil were the primary purpose, there are fabrics more suitable than silk -- cotton, even. But you and I probably just don't get the big picture.

[maestrowork]

I know that the chances are high that I will never write a literary novel. My goals are fairly simple -- to keep the reader turning the page and to make the reader root for my main characters.

"Literary" and "page-turner" are not mutually exclusive, IMHO. There are many crossovers now, like "literary mystery" or "literary suspense" or "literary historical" or definitely "literary romance" that are both "artistic" yet gripping in terms of plot and characters. Many "literary" fiction climbed to the best-seller lists recently. So "literary" CAN be "popular" and vice versa.

I think sometimes people confuse "literary" with "experimental" or "weird" or "elitist," that "literary" must be arty-farty and incomprehensible to anyone without a PhD in English. That's simply not true. Sure, there are literary stuff that IS arty-farty and incomprehensible or weird or boring, but it would be unfair for us to generalize. Imagine we say something like "all romance novels are formulaic, trashy soft porn." That wouldn't be true.

[Joanna_S]

I wasn't in any way putting down literary work, or implying that they won't sell. I was just talking about my own goals. I simply know that when I write fiction, it doesn't fall anywhere on the literary radar. As an author, I try hard to be invisible.

Heck, I was discussing this with my agent, who was bemoaning the fact that she might have to cut one of her literary writers. I said, "Well, I know you don't mean me" and she laughed, knowing that it's true and that it doesn't bother me. As I said in my other note, I wrote literary fictional nonfiction (what a mouthful!) once and although it was a lot of fun, I know that my novels will never be described similarly. My agent describes my stuff as "bullseye mainstream". Since that's what I was trying for, I'm happy. Would I be happier with a literary bestseller or something? Perhaps. I know how fun it is to play with word pictures, quirky characters, and offbeat themes. But I really, really want to sell and therefore I'm writing what I think the market wants. We'll see if I'm right on that last one or not. My book's only been on the editor's desk for a couple of weeks.

-- Joanna

[Quiller]

Sorry, Quiller. I forgot for a moment that you have the inside information ... I excelled, only one before now, a lifetime in the military. Excuse me for daring to correct a man who has every bit of the inside information, who is, in fact, full of it.



My second career was as a hired killer working for my uncle. How many Purple Hearts do you have?


Now, for the slow to process types, the silk scarf worn by WWI fighter pilots was not to keep warm (it is cold at altitude, usually even on a hot summer day, but most particularly any other time of year) but rather to filter out as much of the flying castor oil spray as possible so the pilot would ingest less. For the REALLY slow to process types, castor oil is a laxative. Hence the reason pilots wore diapers.

[Shweta]

Now, for the slow to process types, the silk scarf worn by WWI fighter pilots was not to keep warm (it is cold at altitude, usually even on a hot summer day, but most particularly any other time of year) but rather to filter out as much of the flying castor oil spray as possible so the pilot would ingest less. For the REALLY slow to process types, castor oil is a laxative. Hence the reason pilots wore diapers.

Quiller, I ask you a second time.
Please attempt to be polite. It is, as far as I know, the only general rule on this board. But it is a rule.

Please stop trying to bolster your arguments by insulting other peoples' intelligence.

[AncientEagle]

My second career was as a hired killer working for my uncle.

Great line. I hadn't heard it in several years.

[Alan Yee]

And this thread is getting seriously way off topic. Writing well and writing popular are not mutally-exclusive terms. There's well-written popular books out there.

[Quiller]

Quiller, I ask you a second time.
Please attempt to be polite. It is, as far as I know, the only general rule on this board. But it is a rule.



Okay, sorry. Scratch the "slow to process" editorializing. I make nice now.

So, is it that best selling novelists are just plain lucky, or do they write stories different from those which are written by more highly skilled wordsmiths of greater craft and talent?

I felt the stories are different, and contain loads of insider information. But, maybe I am wrong and it is luck after all.

[LeslieB]

*scratches head* I still don't get what insider information has to do with anything, since almost none of the books I read have anything vaguely resembling it. The only writer I can think of that I read that could qualify for writing 'inside information' is Tom Clancy.

This reminds me of an argument I had back in college with a friend who was studying advertising. He couldn't understand how I could say that I loved a particular product while hating their ad campaign. He couldn't get that I liked the product in spite of the ads, not because of them.

That is exactly how I feel about Tom Clancy's stories. I like him in spite of his obsession with naming what size bolts hold tank parts together, not because of it. When I get to his 'inside information', I skim over it until I get back to the good parts.

[Nyna]

I have to say I think that popular books are popular not because they're well written -- though they can be -- but because they resonate, for whatever reason, with a lot of people. I don't think you can pin it down any further than that. People will always read for different reasons, enjoy books because of very different things, and take away different lessons from any given text. Some books, admittedly, I think are popular because people don't have to take anything away at all. For the rest -- well, it's all about what touches people. And I think that that will always be a nebulous goal at best.

Also: Quiller, people read nonfiction for insider information. Fiction is much more about imagination. And did you have to mention the bit about diapers and laxatives? The romantic image of fighter pilots has been ruined to me forever. I may cry.

[bsolah]

I think bestsellers become that way because of the ideas of the story. If it's a good idea, it'll hook readers, and they don't have to be literary genius' to convey exciting stories.

[Shweta]

I'm thinking about the flip side; about well-written novels (or scripts or hwatever) with perfectly compelling plots that still don't appeal to a broad audience.

And I think in at least some cases this is because they restrict their audience.
For an obvious example, I adore Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, but I know my brother wouldn't. Why? Because he has no real familiarity with/interest in Hamlet.

You couldn't write R&G are dead without reference to Hamlet, obviously; but that very foundation restricts the audience some. And it seems to me that in any art, that happens a lot. When you have familiarity with the field, and previous work in it, things appeal that don't appeal to newcomers. And vice versa.

I'm not talking about pretty writing, here, more about ideas and expert knowledge. The things that seem really cool to a newcomer to any area are probably not the things that seem cool to an expert. (for example, Vernor Vinge writes a lot of SF, but he apparently tends to stay away from the physics because he's a physicist, and the things that appeal to him are going to be incomprehensible to non-physicists.)

So it seems to me that, carrying that over into literature, what writers consider "good" might well be influenced by the fact that writers tend to be voracious readers; while most people who buy bestsellers aren't reading quite that much. So an idea that seems "good" to someone who doesn't read much might well seem cliche to someone who does; and an idea that seems "good" to someone who reads a lot might well seem needlessly opaque to someone who doesn't.

[Soccer Mom]

I have to agree that it is the concept that gets a book off the shelf and into the hands of buyers. When I first spotted "Jurassic Park", my first thought was not: "Oh Goody, Now I can learn how to clone dinosaurs". My first thought was: "Cool! Dinosaurs."

The emotional response is just that simple. Now for me to finish the book, I have to actually enjoy the characters and the story. The writing doesn't have to be breathtaking. Good writing is nice and can lift a good story to greatness.

I guess all I'm saying is some days I like my nice healthy broccoli.

Some days I just want the candy bar.