What sells today...

RG570 said:

Haven't people been saying this exact thing for the last fifty years? .

Click to expand...

In 1885, the year Twain's Huckleberry Finn was first published, when the library committee of Concord, Massachusetts, the public library of Emerson and Thoreau, banned Huckleberry Finn for “coarse language.” Louisa May Alcott, a member of the committee, declared that “If Mr. Clemens cannot think of something better to tell our pure-minded lads and lasses he had best stop writing for them.”

So yes, people have been saying this since story telling began. In fact, in a letter written c. 797 to Hygebold, Bishop of Lindisfarne, Alcuin rather pointedly complains about the monks' choices in dinner reading "Quid Hinieldus cum Christo?" or in context:

Alcuin to Hygebold said:

Let the words of God be read at priestly banquets. There it is fitting to listen to a reader, not to a harper; to the discourses of the Fathers, not to the songs of the heathen. What concord hath Ingeld with Christ? The house is too narrow to hold both.

Click to expand...

I agree that 'literary' fiction is a slightly silly term (once literary novels would have been called 'belles lettres', but that sounds rather fey these days); but to suggest that what we call literary fiction is just another genre ... well, 99% of people who say that are people who only write the other kind, or not at all. Presumably on that analysis "The Age of Innocence", "1984" and "Portnoy's Complaint" are all the in the same genre. If so, then the world 'genre' is meaningless.

It is another genre and most people seem to accept that - with the same set of stylistic expectations as any other. I think you are confusing literary fiction with literature as it is defined by the cultural opinion formers of our day and of history. The two are different things. Many of the first have ambitions to be part of the second but I am not convinced that the overlap is that great.

Meh.

I'm one of those hardliners who assert that literary fiction is not a genre; it's a marketing term. I note that one does not study "literary fiction" as a genre academically, and that it not regarded as a genre in the three main library cataloging systems.

Genres absolutely do exist, and in fact most of the canon of English and American novels are examples of genre fiction.

job said:

Look at what's bestselling according to the New York Times.

Last year we had --

2008 New York Times Bestsellers

Plum Lucky by Janet Evanovich
Duma Key by Stephen King
The Appeal by John Grisham
Change of Heart by Jodi Picoult
Compulsion by Jonathan Kellerman
Unaccustomed Earth by Jhumpa Lahiri
Where Are You Now? by Mary Higgins Clark
Hold Tight by Harlan Coben
The Whole Truth by David Baldacci
Sundays At Tiffany's by James Patterson and Gabrielle Charbonnet
The Host by Stephenie Meyer
Odd Hours by Dean R. Koontz
Blood Noir by Laurell K. Hamilton
Nothing to Lose by Lee Child
Sail by James Patterson and Howard Roughan
Fearless Fourteen by Janet Evanovich
The Last Patriot by Brad Thor
Tribute by Nora Roberts
Moscow Rules by Daniel Silva
Acheron by Sherrilyn Kenyon
Smoke Screen by Sandra Brown
The Force Unleashed by Sean Williams
Devil Bones by Kathy Reichs
Dark Curse by Christine Feehan
Anathem by Neal Stephenson
The Story of Edgar Sawtelle by David Wroblewski
The Lucky One by Nicholas Sparks
The Brass Verdict by Michael Connelly
Extreme Measures by Vince Flynn
The Gate House by Nelson DeMille
Divine Justice by David Baldacci
The Christmas Sweater by Glenn Beck with Kevin Balfe and Jason Wright
Cross Country by James Patterson
Scarpetta by Patricia Cornwell

And as you can see, books of quality -- thoughtful, well-written, 'intelligent' -- books are entirely missing from this list.
Twaddle, all of it.

In the halcyon days of yore, when literary agents and publishers were unintimidated by the subtle anti-intellectualism of our times, had real respect for the integrity of writing, and were willing to buck the market,
we got --

1988 New York Times Bestsellers

The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe
The Icarus Agenda by Robert Ludlum
Zoya by Danielle Steel
Alaska by James Michener
The Cardinal and the Kremlin by Tom Clancy
The Queen of the Damned by Anne Rice
The Sands of Time by Sidney Sheldon


Ah ... those were the days.

Click to expand...

Really? A short story collection (Jhumpa Lahiri) was a #1 Bestseller last year? Am I dreaming? What is the world coming to?

Neal Stephenson's Anathem is up for at least two SF awards, so I'd suggest that quite a few people think it's other than "twaddle". (I've not read it.)

There are also several other writers there who have their fans.

I don't think that the 1988 list is any different, apart from being shorter. The only one on there with any "literary" cred is Thomas Wolfe, and that was for his journalism - Bonfire was his first novel. The others are all mainstream bestselling novelists who work in particular genres, as are almost all of the writers on the 2008 list.

Ah, but we must always remember that genre is a shifting and ever-changing beastie. After all, to the Victorians, Charlotte, Emily and Anne Bronte were writing what they considered to be the equivalent of porn--because women shouldn't write such racy novels. As moralities, technologies and societies evolve, so too do the genres that define them.

Don't you go dissing Robert Ludlum, there, Eyeblink. Now that he's dead, he's writing better than ever.

caw

Genre is a tricky term. For instance, why are Atwood's Handmaid's Tale and Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go on the literature/fiction shelves of my B&N rather than SFF? Why are the Brontes not on the Romance shelves?

I think genre might mean different things in different contexts. For bookstores and readers, it's a marketing term. But what about writers? At last year's WorldCon, Lois McMaster Bujold said that for writers, a genre is a group of texts in conversation with one another. I've been pondering that ever since.

Philip64 said:

Let me clarify a little what I'm asking, saying and not saying.

First, you say that everyone is still after good books. Of course they are. The problem comes, as you will know, with trying to define what is and what is not a good book. As several other people posting here have pointed out, one man's life-changing masterpiece is another person's unreadable trash. There is no absolute standard of quality, and if there is, then it's the test of time.

Click to expand...

The test of time, yes. That's why it's foolish to pass judgment on what is being published today. As others have pointed out, much of the stuff that we consider "great literature" today is stuff that was originally published as commercial fiction.

Second. I'm not saying that 'safe bets' are intrinsically mediocre. That was a quotation, not a judgment. But editors and publishers who don't want to spend their whole time packaging fairly run-of-the-mill chick-lit (for example), are finding it harder and harder to keep their jobs.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is true at all. Every publisher, every editor, every agent is looking for the next big, fresh, outside-the-box work. They are looking for the next trendsetter. But simply being different, big, outside the box, or whatever definition you choose doesn't make a book better. Nor does it mean anyone will like it. And money is an important factor here, not an evil. It costs money to produce books and make them available to the reading public. If you do it in a way that doesn't earn you profits, you eventually can't do it anymore. So if a publisher is going to take risks, they need to be carefully thought out, calculated ones. That's always been the case, recession or not.

Third, it matters less and less what agents and commissioning editors want. Just because an agent loves a book, just because an editor or publisher loves a book, doesn't mean (as it once did) that it will get published.

Click to expand...

A high-risk, "loved" book has never been guaranteed publication, now or in the past. There are plenty of "loved" mss that never see the light of day and there always have been. The choices and risks publishers make must be balanced and calculated to give them the best odds of staying in business. Otherwise they are shooting themselves in the foot.

Not any more. I know of occasions recently where editors have received submissions with huge enthusiasm only to be told by their bosses that they may not buy them. Too risky. I'd be surprised if your agent hasn't had that experience lately.

Click to expand...

This is not a new thing. It has always been this way. Some of those beloved mss get published and some don't.

Finally - in response to a point from someone else - I'm not saying that just because a book has to be translated from German or French or Spanish that this makes it automatically better than a book written in New York or London (why would I?!). What I am reporting (because it's what I've been told) is that translations into English, for US and UK publishers, have never been fewer.

Click to expand...

Told by whom? Where are some statistics on this?

All this said, I am heartened that so many posts here vehemently resist the idea that events in the market could or should cramp their style; and are determined to write just what the hell they like. My hat is off to them. I hope this post has stiffened their resolve (which was the intention!)

Click to expand...

If you don't write what you love and enjoy writing, chances are you'll never be published. Without that emotional commitment and fervor, the writing will be uninspired and lacking. As I've said before, writing what you love to write and writing for publication are not mutually exclusive ideals. I'd wager the vast majority of successful writers are so because they are writing what they love.

Beth

cwfgal said:

the vast majority of successful writers are so because they are writing what they love.

Click to expand...

Much like the vast majority of unsuccessful writers.

caw

You know what I think is the greatest threat to intelligent publishing today? It's not the recession, or commercial mentalities. It's the advent of computers and word processing programs, which have made it ridiculously easy for any Tom, Dick, and Harry to fill up hundreds of pages with words, print it out, and call it a book. These mss flood the desks of agents and editors who are becoming more and more overwhelmed by the constraints of time and the ever-growing size of their slush piles. As a result, they take shortcuts. They find themselves reading less and less of each ms before making a yes or no decision, or maybe not reading some mss at all. As a result, some gems may go undiscovered.

In decades past when writing a novel required months or years of laborious handwriting and/or typing, writers had to be highly committed and determined. They had to agonize thoughtfully over every word they put on the page. Typically, only those who possessed an absolute emotional commitment to their work persevered. They wrote what they loved and they wrote because they loved doing it.

Nowadays, many people think the ability to fill pages with words is all it takes to call oneself a writer. And in the most base sense of the word, they are correct. But if you want to be a published writer, it's going to take talent, craft, and artistic ability, regardless of what type of fiction you create. And even if you possess all those things, it doesn't mean anyone will like what you create or that your literary genius won't be lost in all the slush.

Beth, feeling exceptionally cranky this weekend.

I still think genre's a marketing category more than anything.

Now on to my take on the OP's statement that it's getting harder to find original and eclectic works in today's market. Given the current state of the world economy the market as a whole is shrinking, and we also have to consider the fact that when times are tough people and companies tend to take fewer financial risks.

So yes, given a shrinking market we are going to see fewer 'outliers' coming into the bookstores. It's partly an artifact of a shrinking sample, and partly an artifact of financial conservatism. As it stands now, publishers want to be sure something will sell well enough to earn out its costs. This means that original and eclectic books have to be very good before the money people will take the risks.

However, this same conservatism applies to genre submissions too. Publishers want to see very good romances, fantasies, mysteries or whatever other genre is under discussion. It's not so much a desire for mediocrity, as a preference for the conventional over the experimental all else being equal.

blacbird said:

Much like the vast majority of unsuccessful writers.

caw

Click to expand...

I agree.

The simple fact that a writer loves what she's writing doesn't make it "good." Likewise, the fact that a writer's work has been published doesn't mean that writer sold her soul, or bent to the whims of the market, or wrote something she didn't love.

Beth

I work part-time for a book wholesale company. The co. buys used books by the truckload, and I work in the warehouse. The only books that are kept for resale are textbooks. Everything else is recycled.

Seeing just how many unwanted books there are in the world gives me a feeling of hope as a writer. There's tractor-trailers full of them, and that's just in our location. If all those writers were able to find an agent and a publisher, that means there's hope for the rest of us.

Philip64 said:

No offence intended, Greg.

Let me clarify a little what I'm asking, saying and not saying.

First, you say that everyone is still after good books. Of course they are. The problem comes, as you will know, with trying to define what is and what is not a good book. As several other people posting here have pointed out, one man's life-changing masterpiece is another person's unreadable trash. There is no absolute standard of quality, and if there is, then it's the test of time. What is under attack here is diversity. That's what's at risk when big publishing houses close and shorten lists. The safe bets remain, the riskier titles - from hitherto unproven writers, or writers from other countries, or even writers they like, but whom the retailers haven't yet made a killing on - get turned away. That makes life harder for all of us. (Apparently, the number of 1st novels that sold more than 5000 copies in the UK last year was... five. So the purely economic argument against them is pretty compelling.)

Click to expand...

I really don't get why you're arguing this as if it's a new thing. It isn't, at least in the States. And in more than two decades in publishing, I've seen lists shorten and lengthen several times for economic reasons. I've seen virtually every genre (including literary) weather booms and busts.

So?

Second. I'm not saying that 'safe bets' are intrinsically mediocre. That was a quotation, not a judgment. But editors and publishers who don't want to spend their whole time packaging fairly run-of-the-mill chick-lit (for example), are finding it harder and harder to keep their jobs.

Click to expand...

Statistics/sources, please? Because I know a lot of editors and I don't know of any who've lost their jobs or had their jobs threatened because they're being forced to work on projects they deem to be beneath them.

Third, it matters less and less what agents and commissioning editors want. Just because an agent loves a book, just because an editor or publisher loves a book, doesn't mean (as it once did) that it will get published. Not any more. I know of occasions recently where editors have received submissions with huge enthusiasm only to be told by their bosses that they may not buy them. Too risky. I'd be surprised if your agent hasn't had that experience lately.

Click to expand...

That, also, is nothing new. Happens all the time. Publishing is a business, even though God knows it isn't run like one. Choosing something with good odds of selling over something a lot more risky because it's an unknown is what publishers are faced with virtually every day. And, by the way, my agent calls the "too risky" comment just another way to word rejection; it means nothing except that the editor or publisher decided to pass.

Finally - in response to a point from someone else - I'm not saying that just because a book has to be translated from German or French or Spanish that this makes it automatically better than a book written in New York or London (why would I?!). What I am reporting (because it's what I've been told) is that translations into English, for US and UK publishers, have never been fewer.

Click to expand...

Just wondering if you've even considered that there are currently fewer translations simply because UK and US publishers aren't finding non-English books they believe will work in their markets. Which is usually how buying decisions, whether English or foreign-language projects, are made.

In the UK there has been a recent boom in Scandinavian crime fiction, spearheaded by the excellent Henning Mankell (now that is a great guy - gives all his royalties to orphanages in Africa); but apart from that, it's been pretty much downhill all the way. I don't think that this is because readers have become more insular. It's probably because a.) publishers feel they can no longer afford to shell out for translations; and b.) they are worried that British/American readers are resistant to foreign writers. The result is what you see in your B&N or Waterstones. A vanishingly small number of new translated titles sourced from the non-English speaking world. (Did someone mention Khalid Hosseini? Do me a favour. The guy has spent the last 33 years living in California.).

Click to expand...

I doubt that translation costs have anything to do with the price of beans. (As my dad used to say.) With all the computer software and speedy internet stuff available, translating anything is getting easier and cheaper. Which is not to say the publishers don't still pay a premium, considering they continue in the face of all logic to use outdated procedures and machinery.

B.) Can't speak for the UK, but over here readers have, by and large, shown a lot of resistence to foreign writers for a long time, so that isn't new either. We have an occasional book or author break through, but not often. I don't see it as a problem in diversity; we have a huge population and an awful lot of home-grown talent that's pretty diverse.

I mean, seriously, I don't worry if a translation of one of my books doesn't sell in huge numbers over in Germany or Spain or Japan. I don't think much about it -- beyond some cool stuff like getting a Chinese copy that I have to open "backward" in order to find the copyright and see which title it is.

Maybe foreign writers look at our market and wish they could be featured more prominently, I don't know. But I don't believe they aren't because publishers are "cutting back" or becoming more "inclusive" or any of that. It's just business. It always is.

All this said, I am heartened that so many posts here vehemently resist the idea that events in the market could or should cramp their style; and are determined to write just what the hell they like. My hat is off to them. I hope this post has stiffened their resolve (which was the intention!)
http://thiswriterstale.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

Whatever your intentions, some of us have been writing whatever the hell we liked for a long time.



I, for one, am not expecting that to change.

NeuroFizz said:

If "they" are getting published and "we" aren't, I seriously doubt it's because agents and editors are ignoring original stories that are stylistically and craft-wise of the highest quality, in favor of humdrum stories that are mediocre in quality but ringing with reality TV-type hype.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

And by anyone inferring that what's being bought by publishers right now is mediocre, just because it's genre or not "literary," is a slap in the face to those of us who have sold, and who always endeavor to write to the very best of our abilities.

JJ Cooper said:

And, you mentioned Random House before, they were kind enough to give this unknown a deal - two books and all.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

GregB said:

I do object to the claims that this is anything new and that "commercial fiction" can be equated with "mediocrity."

Click to expand...

And ditto again. Actually, I think I agree with almost everything GregB and CheshireCat have said in this thread.

job said:

Look at what's bestselling according to the New York Times.

Last year we had --

2008 New York Times Bestsellers

Plum Lucky by Janet Evanovich
Duma Key by Stephen King
The Appeal by John Grisham
Change of Heart by Jodi Picoult
Compulsion by Jonathan Kellerman
Unaccustomed Earth by Jhumpa Lahiri
Where Are You Now? by Mary Higgins Clark
Hold Tight by Harlan Coben
The Whole Truth by David Baldacci
Sundays At Tiffany's by James Patterson and Gabrielle Charbonnet
The Host by Stephenie Meyer
Odd Hours by Dean R. Koontz
Blood Noir by Laurell K. Hamilton
Nothing to Lose by Lee Child
Sail by James Patterson and Howard Roughan
Fearless Fourteen by Janet Evanovich
The Last Patriot by Brad Thor
Tribute by Nora Roberts
Moscow Rules by Daniel Silva
Acheron by Sherrilyn Kenyon
Smoke Screen by Sandra Brown
The Force Unleashed by Sean Williams
Devil Bones by Kathy Reichs
Dark Curse by Christine Feehan
Anathem by Neal Stephenson
The Story of Edgar Sawtelle by David Wroblewski
The Lucky One by Nicholas Sparks
The Brass Verdict by Michael Connelly
Extreme Measures by Vince Flynn
The Gate House by Nelson DeMille
Divine Justice by David Baldacci
The Christmas Sweater by Glenn Beck with Kevin Balfe and Jason Wright
Cross Country by James Patterson
Scarpetta by Patricia Cornwell

And as you can see, books of quality -- thoughtful, well-written, 'intelligent' -- books are entirely missing from this list.
Twaddle, all of it.

In the halcyon days of yore, when literary agents and publishers were unintimidated by the subtle anti-intellectualism of our times, had real respect for the integrity of writing, and were willing to buck the market,
we got --

1988 New York Times Bestsellers

The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe
The Icarus Agenda by Robert Ludlum
Zoya by Danielle Steel
Alaska by James Michener
The Cardinal and the Kremlin by Tom Clancy
The Queen of the Damned by Anne Rice
The Sands of Time by Sidney Sheldon


Ah ... those were the days.

Click to expand...

You're being sarcastic, right?

Thought I'd check before I waste energy being all righteous and indignant and stuff.

ChaosTitan said:

And by anyone inferring that what's being bought by publishers right now is mediocre, just because it's genre or not "literary," is a slap in the face to those of us who have sold, and who always endeavor to write to the very best of our abilities.

Click to expand...

This bears repeating.

writing is a craft, not an art. Like a screenwriter-for-hire, you produce what your paymasters want you to produce, or there’s the door.
Then I'll take the door and have done many times. I was fortunate enough to find a publisher who believed in my work despite the difficulty of ramming it into a given genre. Although my income from the book was modest it was enough to keep me writing. I love that my novel (published in 2005) is still in high school reading programs and I get to hear from students on a regular basis.
Should new writers (or old ones, for that matter) really be worrying about publishers’ bottom lines? Shouldn’t they – it almost sounds like heresy to say it – be worried about following their own vision, going where the Muse or the spirit or their imaginations take them?
I couldn't write a word if I was concerned about what was going on in publishing. I write what I want to write and am dogged and determined enough to believe I WILL find an agent/editor/publisher who shares my enthusiasm. My current wip is also going to be difficult to slot but I can't worry about that. I'm writing a story that interests me, set in a time that interests me and about people who interest me. I'm cheeky enough to believe it will interest someone else too.

Philip64 said:

“Shouldn’t they – it almost sounds like heresy to say it – be worried about following their own vision, going where the Muse or the spirit or their imaginations take them? In short, thinking like artists – even if they fail. Because most are going to fail anyway, at least in financial terms.


http://thiswriterstale.blogspot.com/

Click to expand...

As a writer who follows her own muse, I agree wholeheartedly. As a (former) literary agent, I have some reservations, which go something like this: Sometimes "thinking like artists" can translate to "thinking like autists", that is, writing to please oneself alone, without concern for the reader's enjoyment. Filling a book with all sorts of inside jokes might amuse the writer no end, but what does it do for the reader? A writer in love with his characters may allow them to indulge in pontification or endless introspection, while the reader, less enamored, longs for action and consequences. It could be argued (by me in agent mode, for example) that some of the things publishers want are actually good for most novels: drama, high stakes, economy in writing, strong plotting, and active, passionate characters worth caring about.

Just to play devil's advocate...

job said:

Look at what's bestselling according to the New York Times.

Last year we had --

2008 New York Times Bestsellers

Plum Lucky by Janet Evanovich
Duma Key by Stephen King
The Appeal by John Grisham
Change of Heart by Jodi Picoult
Compulsion by Jonathan Kellerman
Unaccustomed Earth by Jhumpa Lahiri
Where Are You Now? by Mary Higgins Clark
Hold Tight by Harlan Coben
The Whole Truth by David Baldacci
Sundays At Tiffany's by James Patterson and Gabrielle Charbonnet
The Host by Stephenie Meyer
Odd Hours by Dean R. Koontz
Blood Noir by Laurell K. Hamilton
Nothing to Lose by Lee Child
Sail by James Patterson and Howard Roughan
Fearless Fourteen by Janet Evanovich
The Last Patriot by Brad Thor
Tribute by Nora Roberts
Moscow Rules by Daniel Silva
Acheron by Sherrilyn Kenyon
Smoke Screen by Sandra Brown
The Force Unleashed by Sean Williams
Devil Bones by Kathy Reichs
Dark Curse by Christine Feehan
Anathem by Neal Stephenson
The Story of Edgar Sawtelle by David Wroblewski
The Lucky One by Nicholas Sparks
The Brass Verdict by Michael Connelly
Extreme Measures by Vince Flynn
The Gate House by Nelson DeMille
Divine Justice by David Baldacci
The Christmas Sweater by Glenn Beck with Kevin Balfe and Jason Wright
Cross Country by James Patterson
Scarpetta by Patricia Cornwell

And as you can see, books of quality -- thoughtful, well-written, 'intelligent' -- books are entirely missing from this list.
Twaddle, all of it.

In the halcyon days of yore, when literary agents and publishers were unintimidated by the subtle anti-intellectualism of our times, had real respect for the integrity of writing, and were willing to buck the market,
we got --

1988 New York Times Bestsellers

The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe
The Icarus Agenda by Robert Ludlum
Zoya by Danielle Steel
Alaska by James Michener
The Cardinal and the Kremlin by Tom Clancy
The Queen of the Damned by Anne Rice
The Sands of Time by Sidney Sheldon


Ah ... those were the days.

Click to expand...

Why, hello, Jo! Fancy meeting you here!

But, but...Sidney Sheldon and Daniele Steele are on your good list? And The Story of Edgar Sawtelle by David Wroblewski is worthless? I loved that book! It made me get a second dog. I also respect Stephen King--I think lots of writers could learn a trick or two from him. And I think Coben and Silva are quite good, too.