There Ought to Be a Law

I feel the same way, but everybody writer's gotta make a living. Not every reader is as picky as us.

All we have to do is the best we can, and overtake the has-beens.

Then there's the publishers who know a 'name' will sell, even if it's drivel based on the 'name' selling past books.

If you were that writer, though, would you change a thing? And would your readers let you? There aren't many writers who've survived crossing genres. For instance, readers expect a mystery writer to BE a mystery writer. No matter how much you love, say, John Grisham's novels, would you buy a John Grisham high fantasy?

I understand exactly what you are saying, Puma. I recently bought a book just because of the author. Didn't even bother to read the back cover until I was about half way through the book and still couldn't figure out the plot. The antagonist turned up in the last 2 pages with absolutely no hint or relevance to the entire story.
Yes, I was completely disappointed. But, if I saw another new book by this same author, I'd probably buy it anyway.

On the flip side, can you name any novelists who you think are still great after-- say, 8 or more books?

Just curious.

Good question Jenna. I mostly read fantasy these days and I'd nominate Robin Hobb and Tad Williams as two who (largely) continue to impress - book after book.

At NasFic last summer, one of the panelists pointed out that authors who have become a brand are pushed to put out a book in a very short time period. They're no longer writing just to put a roof over their own heads, but also over the heads of editors, agents, etc. If they become a product, then the industry gives them little time to rework the book or step back and recharge. Point being, it's not so much that the author has lost their edge, as they are working under decreasing time periods and increasing pressure to perform.

Birol said:

....Point being, it's not so much that the author has lost their edge, as they are working under decreasing time periods and increasing pressure to perform.

Click to expand...

Yep. Contractual obligations, in the form of multi-book deals - the Holy Grail for many - has ruined a few writers' reputations (IMO of course).

aka eraser said:

Yep. Contractual obligations, in the form of multi-book deals - the Holy Grail for many - has ruined a few writers' reputations (IMO of course).

Click to expand...

Stupid question alert: Can you turn down a multi-book deal? Without your agent going apeshit, I mean? I've always thought that would be what I would want to do, if I'm ever lucky/good enough to be published...

Yeah, that piker Stephen King should've shut up YEARS ago.

I know I really don't enjoy anything Meg Cabot has to say anymore, either.

Or that loser William Faulkner? Wrote ten books in ten years, junk like As I Lay Dying? Who does he think HE'S kidding?

JennaGlatzer said:

On the flip side, can you name any novelists who you think are still great after-- say, 8 or more books?

Click to expand...

David Brin. Orson Scott Card. Anne McCaffrey. Mary Stewart. Dorothy Gilman. Terry Pratchett. Robert Silverberg. Ben Bova. Lois McMaster Bujold.

Hmm. I'm seeing a pattern here. Maybe there's something intrinsically better about the science fiction/fantasy writers?

lfraser said:

If you were that writer, though, would you change a thing? And would your readers let you? There aren't many writers who've survived crossing genres. For instance, readers expect a mystery writer to BE a mystery writer. No matter how much you love, say, John Grisham's novels, would you buy a John Grisham high fantasy?

Click to expand...

Well, substituting the name of an author I actually like for 'John Grisham'... and substituting the word 'buy' for 'borrow from the library' (chronic poverty)...

Yes, I would borrow the 'John Grisham' : but you're right, many wouldn't.

The solution is obvious: to write under a pen name. But usually the 'John Grisham' writer won't do that because they'd be starting from scratch and rebuilding a reader base and risking failure (which is hard for many to handle after success). Secondly, the pressure to churn out more of the same is intense. Contracts are offered, with attractive advances, contingent on 'more of the same'.

Even so, there are authors who write across genres using the same name, and seem to do okay at it. Iain Banks springs to mind. I don't read widely enough to know if there are 'big name' authors who do it successfully after becoming established in one genre.

JennaGlatzer said:

On the flip side, can you name any novelists who you think are still great after-- say, 8 or more books?

Click to expand...

Diana Wynne Jones and Isaac Asimov spring to mind. I'm not saying that all their novels are great, but I've liked later ones from both authors. Both of them tended to jump around in what they wrote, rather than sticking to one series or formula.

JennaGlatzer said:

On the flip side, can you name any novelists who you think are still great after-- say, 8 or more books?

Click to expand...

John Sandford.

Birol said:

At NasFic last summer, one of the panelists pointed out that authors who have become a brand are pushed to put out a book in a very short time period. They're no longer writing just to put a roof over their own heads, but also over the heads of editors, agents, etc. If they become a product, then the industry gives them little time to rework the book or step back and recharge. Point being, it's not so much that the author has lost their edge, as they are working under decreasing time periods and increasing pressure to perform.

Click to expand...

aka eraser said:

Yep. Contractual obligations, in the form of multi-book deals - the Holy Grail for many - has ruined a few writers' reputations (IMO of course).

Click to expand...

That's when some people say the author is selling out.

I just started a James Patterson novel today and nearly fell over when I saw how many books he's published. I don't think the long-term authors should have to start over but I do understand what you're saying. I've read plenty of authors who seem to stop trying after ten or twelve hits, but there are those who've continued to keep me on my toes. Perhaps some of it comes with switching series - it seems like the same characters can start to repeat themselves and a new MC can shake up their writing. Just my two cents.

JennaGlatzer said:

On the flip side, can you name any novelists who you think are still great after-- say, 8 or more books?

Just curious.

Click to expand...

Agatha Christie! But of course, she's dead now. Ah, the good old days.

p.s. It's also interesting to note how many would say "oh, his last five books really sucked" and then go on to buy his next one. Such loyalty is kind of baffling.

Janet Evanovich started out in Romance and broke out into the whole bounty hunter / detective thing. I'd say she's pretty successful. In her Stephanie Plum series I'd have to say that #12 was my favorite. 13 didn't quite stand up to that but it was still a good book, and I'll still keep buying books in that series if she keeps writing them. In my mind she's proven that she can and will still stand the test of time.

Everyone has their ups and downs. Some books will just be better than others... people continue to buy books from authors that might disappoint, because the readers have SEEN that the author can do better, and they hold out hope that not all of the books past x number will suck.

There is a particular author that I've lost patience with at the moment, some of you might know her in horror/sff, and the reason is not her writing but where she took it. The series she had going was fantastic for the first 6 books or so and then they changed flavor entirely. I don't necessarily dislike WHAT she wrote - I just think she should have separated into a different series at that point, because it turned into an entirely different genre and she didn't stay true to the original character. I might go back to her at some point. My mom still keeps sending her books to read after she's done with them.

I haven't been published (yet!) so my opinion might change on this, but I'd imagine if someone dangled that multi-book carrot in front of me I might not take it. Not without some stipulations anyway. I'm just a slower writer - anything I turn out in a short period of time is not at an acceptable level of quality for me (even after accepting that I'll write crap the first time around). I just don't think I COULD whip out a fast 70-90k words, make one pass through it, and send it off to the publisher for print. I mean even if the readers liked it I just wouldn't feel good about it.

Ian McEwan and Cormac McCarthy have put out great novels in the last couple years well into their careers.

John Updike, Phillip Roth, Don Delilio and Joyce Carol Oates are prolific as all get out and have been well reviewed in their last couple of outings (though I have to admit that I haven't read any of their most recent books).

Cranky said:

Stupid question alert: Can you turn down a multi-book deal? Without your agent going apeshit, I mean? I've always thought that would be what I would want to do, if I'm every lucky/good enough to be published...

Click to expand...

Sure, you could turn it down. But I'm not sure you could do so without your agent having a cow.

aka eraser said:

Sure, you could turn it down. But I'm not sure you could do so without your agent having a cow.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

JennaGlatzer said:

On the flip side, can you name any novelists who you think are still great after-- say, 8 or more books?

Just curious.

Click to expand...

If my twenty-second book is as good as Philip Roth's American Pastoral, I shall be extremely happy. And very old.

No way I'm stopping after four or five books, and hand over that twelve book contract, I'm signing it now.