"Pre-packaged" novels

I've been told since I was little, even before I was a writer, that the average person wants "the same but different." People, in general, want entertainment that isn't a risk--something they're in the mood for, but not the exact same thing that they've experienced before.

And, frankly, I'm one of them. When I'm in the mood, I don't want to risk my time, money or emotional investment on something I'm not sure I'll like. Same but different. The guarantee.

It's frustrating to me the writer, but it's totally true for me the consumer. *shrug*

well, it's pretty much the same reason, out of the twenty most watched shows on cable, like half of them are law and order/csi/ncis stuff.

as which deleyanlee explained well, they don't want a risk. why watch lost when they can watch something they are familiar with and know they'll probably like?

mulcahy67 said:

well, it's pretty much the same reason, out of the twenty most watched shows on cable, like half of them are law and order/csi/ncis stuff.

Click to expand...

The advantage of Law and Order (and other crime shows to a certain degree), is that each episode is independent of one another. If you miss a few shows you don't feel completely lost as to what's going on, which does turn some people off. This is actually why I never watched Lost, or Heros, etc when they aired.

Now when it comes to books that are copies/rehashes/etc...the closer two works mirror each other, the less interesting I find them.

Well, what everyone said was true, but sometimes people just like vampire/werewolf stories (examples.) I'm one of them. It's not that I'm afraid to get emotionally invested in something different. I just simply like those stories.

Because they're fun and entertaining. I love series where I can follow the continuing adventures of beloved characters.

What DeleyanLee said is the same thing I've heard (that was in reaction to someone saying, "Ugh, not another sequel video game!")

For me personally as a consumer it's not so much about fear, as it is about how rare it is to find a story that really speaks to me, and how glad I am when I find a series or author where all the stories resonate with me. I think everyone has certain types of story they adore and want to read again and again, but as adults we don't have the tolerance for repetition children do, so instead of just re-reading a book a lot we want to read a lot of similar books which are different enough to surprise us and get at different facets of the situation we are intrigued by.

Cowardly publishers who only care about the bottom line? A big business that does not care about innovation? The readers are addicted to a certain style? The fact that reading has been set on the bottom rung of "important" subjects in school for so long that certain generations think reading YA is the ultimate achievement of a reading population? Hack writers using thread bare formulas?

Bunches of reasons.


It's pretty much the death spiral of arts, and literature is in one now.

It's the same as watching re-runs, or spin-offs. If the original is good, you figure you'll like the new one.

Use Her Name said:

Cowardly publishers who only care about the bottom line? A big business that does not care about innovation? The readers are addicted to a certain style? The fact that reading has been set on the bottom rung of "important" subjects in school for so long that certain generations think reading YA is the ultimate achievement of a reading population? Hack writers using thread bare formulas?

Bunches of reasons.


It's pretty much the death spiral of arts, and literature is in one now.

Click to expand...

Jeez. Apocalyptic much?

But seriously, this kind of thing really isn't anything new, or dooming. People felt the same way about the advent of the novel in the 1700's--it was a genre considered to be the area of lackwits and women, an idle pursuit with no art or intelligence required. Gothic romances a hundred years later (which are formulaic and often laden with the most purple of prose) received much the same reaction. Pulp SF of the 1940's-60s? Same deal. None of it has stopped good, original writers from being published or successful.

I think this becomes a problem when something we don't really like becomes very popular. For example, I don't like medieval European fantasy settings, vampires, or werewolves. It's not just because they've all been overdone (though they have), it's because I didn't particularly care for any of those things in the first place so their saturation within the genre really, really annoys me.

I love united space-faring confederations and space battles, so no matter how many times I read this same Star-Trek-like setting in science fiction, I don't get tired of it (though I am thoroughly sick of some of the SF character clichés). I also never get tired of reading about dragons in fantasy, no matter how many times they're used.

So maybe a lot of it comes down to whether you like what's currently popular or not, lol.

Use Her Name said:

Bunches of reasons.

Click to expand...

You left out: because they're a fun read.

It depends what type of reader you're aiming for. Some readers just want a fast, easy read. I used to devour horror and crime in my early twenties. My favourite authors didn't produce fast enough.

Then there are the readers [which I have developed into]. I love my literary thrillers, writers like Ian Rankin and David Peace who write a blend of genre and literary. It takes longer to find those type of books, but trust me they are there.

I remember having a similar rant against chick-lit writers, when I was experienced my first 'rejection shock' moment. Turned out it was my writing that was shocking, and not the state of publishing that was resulting in rejections.

Use Her Name said:

Cowardly publishers who only care about the bottom line? A big business that does not care about innovation? The readers are addicted to a certain style? The fact that reading has been set on the bottom rung of "important" subjects in school for so long that certain generations think reading YA is the ultimate achievement of a reading population? Hack writers using thread bare formulas?

Click to expand...

/Salute

/Flamesuit

Use Her Name said:

It's pretty much the death spiral of arts, and literature is in one now.

Click to expand...

Sounds depressing, but I don't think it's really that bad.

Look at all the spinoff / clones that came out when Star Wars blew up box offices.

Look at all the serial killer clones that errupted when Silence of the Lambs hit.

Literature often mirrors what's going on in cinema. It often precludes it, but a lot of readers don't think that way.

Don't worry, as soon as this damn vampire thing dies a horribly painful death (I hope) a new shitty microgenre will explode for carbon-copying.

It is about the duplication of an experience. You want to relive an experience, but ou can't re-experience a work for a first time, so you turn to something that looks like something you've enjoyed before, hoping to enjoy it again. If you enjoyed and were scared by a zombie book, you're likely to buy another hoping to be just as scared.

Use Her Name said:

Cowardly publishers who only care about the bottom line? A big business that does not care about innovation?

Click to expand...

This is just both bitter and wrong. The industries want nothing more than innovation. Editors and producers stake their careers on it. But time and again, people return to the familiar, neglect the original and leave these experiments busted. People long for the familiar, so that's what sells and that's what successful businesses offer. If they don't care about their bottom line, they go out of business. End of story.

Use Her Name said:

The fact that reading has been set on the bottom rung of "important" subjects in school for so long that certain generations think reading YA is the ultimate achievement of a reading population?

Click to expand...

Huh? We must live in very different areas then, because all the schools I know about are trying to cram so much math and English in, it's making kids' heads spin. These are the two major subjects that standardized testing looks at. Some schools have even cut recess and music to fit more English in. I'd say they think it's important.

The reason many teachers think YA is great is because it's getting kids to read in their spare time *in addition to* the required reading for school. And I have to admit, a book that makes a non-reader sit down and invest their time in it (no matter how silly it is), accomplishes something pretty cool in my mind. And you never know what books the former non-reader may move onto next. How many teens have started reading Jane Austen because of the Pride, Predjudice, and Zombies series? Or picked up Wuthering Heights beacause it's Bella Swan's favorive book? There are also plenty of exceptionally-written and thought-provocing YA novels out there that should not be discounted simply because they were aimed at a younger audience.

How dare we give readers what they want? It's appalling!

Use Her Name said:

Cowardly publishers who only care about the bottom line? A big business that does not care about innovation? The readers are addicted to a certain style? The fact that reading has been set on the bottom rung of "important" subjects in school for so long that certain generations think reading YA is the ultimate achievement of a reading population? Hack writers using thread bare formulas?

Bunches of reasons.


It's pretty much the death spiral of arts, and literature is in one now.

Click to expand...

Like Cezanne and his paintings of Mont Saint-Victoire. Why couldn't he just get it right the first time? Also, Monet and his damned waterlilies and haystacks.

Media are big believers in franchises and brands. The power of name recognition and brand equity are significant economic values, and critical complaints of the artistic bankruptcy of such products aren't damaging enough to make original stories and content more economically valuable than sequels, spin-offs, adaptations and derivations.

Original works, no matter how good, have to build an audience. Franchise entries and derivatives, no matter how bankrupt or dubious, have an audience built-in. This has been going on since Arthur Conan Doyle, unable to otherwise disentangle himself from his popular creation, threw Sherlock Holmes off a cliff.

In short, the market for entertainment media is viewed by companies who pay the freight as being comprised of people who lack discerning taste and who make decisions based on name recognition rather than critical opinion. In the past, that view has been rewarded. This summer's dismal movie box office for a slate of films that's been franchise-heavy may indicate the tide is turning.

I fail to see what's wrong with people liking what they like, and I fail to see why it's a bad thing for publishers (and writers) to provide them with more of what they like.

There are many, many smart books being publshed now. If you are interested in YA, check out CarolRhoda's lab line. They've chosen some very creative books. Most publishers offer a mix of books each year that run the gamut from popular fiction to books that buiild a following more slowly but are more respected in the long run.

djf881 said:

Original works, no matter how good, have to build an audience.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It's not that writers can't create new and original things. It's just that writers have to work harder and write it better in order to make people want to read it and establish that as the new thing to read.

It can be done. William Gibson comes to mind as a prime example.

[quoteThis has been going on since Arthur Conan Doyle, unable to otherwise disentangle himself from his popular creation, threw Sherlock Holmes off a cliff.[/QUOTE]

I think it's benn going on as long as stories were being told to the public.

And that didn't work so well for Sir Arthur, BTW. He succumbed to pressure and brought Holmes back several years later and kept writing him for years more.