I think Viggo Mortinsen said it best (I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the exact words). All the money they make and all the awards they win eventually get treated like they are more important than the work itself. I'm not interested in the awards for the most part because I don't write for the critics. I write for my own pleasure and the pleasure of children who will be reading my books. That's how it should be. Did Meyer set out to write a bestseller? Not likely. She probably wrote it for herself and for girls who could relate to the character. From what I understand, Paolini wrote Eragon because he was disappointed with the quality of similar books, not because he wanted to make a lot of money and get a movie deal. Say a need in the average reader. Shakespeare wrote for the people, not for literary merrit. He had the poetry for the upperclasses and sex and violence for all of them. In Shakespeare in Love, which is about as accurate as a movie could be according to my Drama teacher, there is a scene with someone saying, "Love, and a bit with a dog, that's what they want."
That reminds me of something a local children's writer said when talking about awards. Charlotte's Web, which is considered one of the essential children's classics, was a finalist for the Newberry Award, but it did not get ANY other honours or awards.
It really depends on your goals. There was one fellow a while back who did not want his literary novel featured on Oprah's list/show. It would have made him far more money, but he felt that it would be the wrong direction for his 'literary' novel and writing. Say you're a professor of English at a university...the awards and critical acclaim may be of more value in advancing your career. Having the critical acclaim may open doors that simply being a best selling success would not. A best selling success would get your name recognized as well, just in different circles, and probably would lead to more income from royalties--especially in the short term. Both types of 'successes' would likely lead to future sales of novels, so that consideration is probably a wash. I personally just write the best story I can, the type of novel that I would like to see on the shelves. After submitting my work, what happens after that, I have little control over (as compared to the actual creation and writing process). Terry
The fan base, without a doubt. I already know that the critics will rip me to shreds for my lack of literary skills and artistic talent, so I'll aim for what I can actually accomplish. Fans are easy to please. Just give them a good story, likeable characters and an interesting plot. Oh, and don't screw it up. I think I can manage that.
Wouldn't a 'mainstream' success require literary skills and artistic ability? I would not say that either of the two audiences is 'easier' to win over (critics or fans), it's just that they possibly have different expectations in a piece. What is to say that what critics desire isn't a good story, likeable characters and an interesting plot? It may have more do do with topic and style than anything else, as to which group will like a piece better...and then there is that piece where the two intersect. Terry
Oh, I'm not saying that critics don't judge all that as well, I'm saying that they judge that and more. While I'm not saying that fans are all alike, most people don't have a literary formation that enables them to judge things like writing skills and artistic talent. (Most) Critics do. Therefore, for someone who lacks that, it's easier to win over the fans than the critics. Well, of course there's a middle ground. However, I thought that the question here was which of those sides would you prefer if middle ground was not a possibility.
Even if they do have the skill, avgerage readers are not looking for things to comment on. They are reading because they like reading. Critics are reading to do just that, find things to say about it, good or bad. So even readers like us know what makes a book good or bad, we aren't thinking about it or don't care.
We keep referring to the "average reader." I'm not too certain I know who that average Jane or Joe truly is. If it's, dare I say, eh...Joe the Plumber, then what would we consider to be his average? His taste in literature? Pulp, pop, or literary? Have we not seen the low reading scores happening in schools across America? Have we not heard of the decline in reading across the boards? Who is this fictitious average reader we keep trying to write for or to concern ourselves about as writers?
I mean, blast! we don't even know if 'Joe' is really the guy's name! And come to find out, he DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A PLUMBING LICENSE! We're dealing with hardcore degenerates, here. Our average readers are deceitful, lying people who will use any means necessary -- even chicanery -- to get what they desire! Dastards. I would have to say, though, that the 'average reader' is anyone who is not a writer, but enjoys reading. These people are probably not seeing any of those little, trivial mistakes you make. (I never did until I started writing often)
Reading scores in the US are higher or about same now compared to where they were more than a decade ago (National Center for Educational Statistics). Notice that the only group that has lower scores in 2005 than in 93 are 12th graders and only by 7 percentage points as basic, 5 at proficient, and a gain of 1 in above proficient. All other groups have a net gain scores, while 12th graders have net wise dropped only slightly. I fail to see how our reading scales are so much worse that we can't have a average reader. Also, reading has not declined across the boards (if by boards you mean world wide). The world as a whole reads better now than it did in 2000. Also, the US isn't the only country in the world that reads books. The average reader is not fictitious but is in fact the same concept as the casual movie goer, casual gamer, or casual television viewer. The normal person who does these things casually when they feel like it and coincidentally makes up most of the industries profit margin. If a publisher wants to make a profit, which we know they do, they just meet the demands of that demographic if nothing else to survive. Otherwise nothing gets published because there's no one to do the publishing! Regardless a books popularity doesn't make it good. A book must be judged by it's own merits not how successful it is. Many good books can like many good movies or games or television shows just go unnoticed because no one picked up on them. Critics aren't always the best judge because I agree with some past posters who say they've been discolored by years of critiquing. A book is good if it is in fact good. It is good if the reader finds it to be good and what the reader finds good will vary by the reader. of course I think in general many people will agree on what makes a book good and what doesn't which is what allows us to come to consensus' on these sort of things. How many people will actually say Ender's Game is a bad book? I can't imagine many because it does so much right and so little wrong. It compels, it thrills, it's well written, well structured, well organized with strong characters, plot, and a unique feel all it's own. Then there are other books that just seem to walk the line and we all get split over whether it qualifies as good or not. Twilight is a great example. I hate it with a passion but all my qualms are personal and the sort of things some readers probably won't mind (or might even enjoy!). We should not judge a book by the numbers it racks up by by the content of it's pages.
Personally, I like books that people read, but aren't in the mainstreams following a cult and what not. Because an award doesn't always mean the greatest story or the greatest written story, Twilight is an example. The award doesn't always reflect the true writing.
Does anyone else feel somewhat reduced or a tinge of shame when a book that you've picked up or ordered online has the Oprah Book Club seal on it? I know that it's an unreasonable disdain, but I just don't want to be a part of that ilk. And I've nothing against Oprah, per se. I mean, "You go girl!" I've never enjoyed running with the herd. (Perhaps it's why I'm not big on the average reader, the hottest book or author, or any of that latest-greatest hyberbole and hype.)
I would find it amusing. "Hey, I finally got one!". I don't run with the herd either, but it's not out of disdain. I honestly try to give popular books a real effort from time to time. And sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised. It's always a warm, glowy feeling. "There's hope for me yet!" lol... On the thread in general... When it comes to the mass market... it's a mytery I'll always be working to understand. With any skill you develope to the max, others will only appreciate it in its most basic form. That's a hard lesson I learned long ago, with a skill completely unrelated to writing. But I think the rule still applies here. As writers, we are entertainers, I think. Magicians with clever tricks. But it's usually the simplest tricks that people want to see. As a juggler, all of the amazing tricks I've spent years building up to, with hundreds of hours of practice, pale in comparison to the stuff I learned in the very first month, as far as the 'average person' is concerned. Juggling while eating an apple... the dumbest, easiest, most commonly reproduced juggling trick (which you could teach yourself in a day) is the height of awesomeness. People spend 20 years learning to do five clubs behind the back, and someone will always ask: "can you juggle while eating the apple???" Writing is similar. Maybe five clubs behind the back isn't so entertaining to Joe the Plumber, but it is to me! But that's just because I know how awesome it is. Fortunately, people are not so woefully ignorant of writing as they are of juggling. Joe the Plumber had to pick up a few things in high school, right? He knows how stupid eating the apple is, so we can't impress him with that. But he doesn't demand a heck of a lot. He has little appreciation for what you might achieve with 20 years of practice. He just wants a good show. So practice for a year or two, polish your act, and give him the show he wants. That isn't so hard, is it? Not unless you're like me, and have no bloody clue what Joe wants. Anyway, you ask which is the better book... the one that is relatively easy to write (if you 'get' Joe) and entertains the most people... or the one that's damn near impossible to write, and entertains even the experts. Well, what kind of question is that? As Maia says... you'll have to define 'better' - which is why my first posts didn't give the answer the OP wanted. And why this one still doesn't. XD But you couldn't convince me in a million years that eating the apple is the best trick ever.
Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by average reader: anyone whose career isn't based on reading, such as in publishing or critics, and writers who are able to let go of the instincts we develop when we do read. And Yeah, using one country to describe what an average reader is a bad idea.
The better novel, for me, is the one that was well written. Not the one that sells the most copies. It's not like the masses have a great big attention span. It should even out, or close to it, in terms of how much you make off your novels. I would think, anyway. But with a guy like Hemingway, were his novels bestsellers in their day? I mean, if not, then it comes down to what you prefer -- fame and riches, or literary merit of the highest order. Hmm. Personally, my main goal with anything I love, is not to make money off of it. That cheapens the whole thing, and you start to produce bad writing. And that backfires on you, because you're expected to write literary greatness, and you start to write mainstream work. Then what? Weigh it out, that's all.
I knew as I was writing my Reading Test Scores comment that I was excluding other countries. Remember all that advice about "write what you know?" Well, you know the deal about the U.S. and its literate but not really society. Didn't mean to leave Canada, Great Britain, or any other nation out...lol. Though I'm sure you guys have a slightly higher bar than US.
Not to insult Americans, but it wouldn't surprise me. Several of the Americans here have described how poorly used the libraries are and how few bookstores they have. It's a complete contrast in Ontario. I sometimes have to line up to check my books out.
Guess it depends on where in the USA. The libraries in the local area are doing well enough--not great. The one in the city where I work expanded into larger facilities just last year. In my small town, the library added on, trippling its size about a half dozen years ago, and the county library moved into newly built, larger facilities about three years ago. There are not tons of book stores, but the main towns around each supports an independent bookstore. From my perspective, teens read, but you have to have books around that they're interested in and, thus, want to read. Terry
The better novel is the one that attracts readers. Let's face it someone like Dean Koontz or Stephen King aren't exactly considered "high literature" yet they both attract readers. A person could write the "best" novel in the world but if no one but their immediate family and a few close friends ever reads it how good is it, really? Unexceptional comes to mind. 10 out of 10 times I'll put my cold hard cash towards one of them (or a few others) before I'll buy in on the latest and greatest so-called masterpiece by some Joe Blow clown. Why? Because like clockwork writers like King and Koontz have proven they can tell a great story.
Actually, the literacy rates and readership rates in the U.S. and Canada are the same. In the U.S., the most literate city is Seattle. Among Canadian provinces, it is B.C.
That's good. So I guess those towns that I've heard about are not a good representation of the country. Anyway, "best" is totally subjective. We all want different things when we read. Some people actually believe that writing is about literary devises and not story. My high school writer's craft teacher actually said, "It's not about telling a story." Even though literary devises, as far as I'm concerned, exist to serve story. But anyway, there are others who hate all that and just want to get to the action or sex. And of course there are all those in between.
Great analogy, however, if it is easier to write the next novel that millions of readers love the hell out of (Twilight,) then why do more authors win awards than write than do write the next Twilight? I think it is harder to write a story that millions love the hell out of, than it is to write a novel that wins awards.
Let's not forget that there is lots of sex and violence in Hemmingway. That's the real challenge, I think. It's easy to write a mass market popular book. It's not that difficult to write a book that has so much literariness that you barely realize that there is a story under all that imagery and metephore. What's not easy is to write something that pleases the English majors who think storytelling is for preschool teachers and people who don't spend their days looking symbols that the writer never intended to be there.
