A quick look shows that as of 2012, the Twilight books had sold 120 copies in seven years. You don't hit that by having a very limited audience. Quite the opposite. To hit those numbers you have to appeal to a broad market, and probably have to break out of just the genre audience. Again, that jives with what I saw - lots of people reading the books who didn't read much, including people who probably never read urban fantasy before or since.
I don't apply that kind of criticism to a book unless I think it deserves that type of criticism based on myself reading it. As I noted before, I don't care if a book is popular or not. I generally don't even know if a book is popular or not when I start reading it. I'm not going to hate or love it merely because it's popular. I'm not a hipster(that's a joke). I don't feel a book is made to have 'cross-appeal' by appealing to different age groups, but rather, by appealing to people with very different ideas and values about what they want to read. Those don't always run on age lines. I don't care for the Da Vinci Code for a great many reasons. One is that the author did not give his wife due credit. Another reason is that he took the idea from a book from the 1960s rather than thinking it up himself. I realize according to semiotics all books are about other books, but I still think he could have done a better job(been more creative). The original question is why did these authors succeed? Great promotions and having a subject that people like (werewolves, vampires, orphans and magic, conspiracies). It simply is not necessary to write very well to have a story that is popular. And unfortunately, if an author can't promote his book or have a subject people like, he's going to be less popular.
Generally, with being "successful" it tends to be right concept at the right place, the right time and the right mood, which is what a lot of them captured, i read all four books of the Twilight saga, and personally thought they were drivel, but realised that they were the right books for that point in time, because that is what we needed then, like with 50 Shades of grey and Harry Potter. I grew up reading Harry Potter and still love reading them to this day... exceeeept for the new one, i've got it and started reading to be massively disappointed, I think because the original series for me was such a brilliant read that the series for me is the seven books, and if they were to do anything else, it would have to be exceptional. and while the concept was decent, I still feel I was let down. Probably because I've found i share the same sentiments as a few others, that it being a script, for me personally did not work, it needed to be in prose to really continue the series well. On the other hand, someone like King, had the chance to build their fanbase (i can also add Robert Jordan and Terry Pratchett into this list as well, as they both have a large number of books) which is how they have remained successful and relevant to this day.
@theamorset, All you seem to be doing is making excuses for why Twilight was popular. First you say it's because it followed a basic formula that many other books have done. Then you say the only reason certain books become huge is because "oh they got a lot of promotion". (You really need to make up your mind, which one is it?) But no, promotion is not always the case, and that's definitely not the case with Twilight. It was popular among all my friends before the first movie even came out, and this was back in eighth grade in middle school. The original question WAS why did these authors succeed, and I think saying "because they follow the same formula as dime-store novels" is just a cop-out. It's too easy. Then you tried to say it was because of promotion. That's also not true. There was no unprecedented promo for Harry Potter or Twilight when those first came out. It wasn't until the readers started devouring them that they got promo. The readership came first, then the movies and billboards. It was just that people needed something that wasn't being provided at that time, and those authors mined that vein. They gave the people what they wanted. It was like someone else said, it was the right time and the right moment. You can put down Twilight all you want and say it's just like any other novel, but then please please please explain to me why those other dime-store novels didn't become huge hits like Twilight? (EDIT: I'm also not trying to change your opinion on whether Twilight is a good book or not. You have the right to hate it with a burning passion if you so choose. I'm just saying your excuses for WHY Twilight was such a huge phenomenon are weak and fabricated.)
Twilight got Meyer $3/4 of a million dollars in advance, as a first-time, unknown novelist, before a nickel was spent on promotion. If you could simply promote a book to that level of success publishers would be doing it all the time. The argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The books did well because A LOT of people really loved them. Same holds true for Potter.
@Steerpike , are you saying that the advance was $750,000? For a first-time, unknown author? Surely that means that the publisher knew they'd got a block-buster on their hands, and they WERE GOING to spend whatever it took on promotion to ensure they got their money back?
Yes. There was a bidding war over the MS, hence the huge advance. I'm pretty sure what Steer meant is that a publisher can't make a blockbuster by deciding to give a $750k advance and spending millions on promotion. The MS has to have something special.
As @Tenderiser said, you can't spend something into a blockbuster. The vast majority of works publishers wish would have that status never get anywhere close. The $750,00 advance was the result of a bidding war, which meant editors at multiple publishing houses foresaw the books would be a huge success, and managed to convince everyone else necessary at their respective publisher in order to put in these large bids. That's not something that happens just because the publishers are planning to take a gamble on marketing; that happens when the publishers are pretty sure they've got a big thing on their hands.
In addition to the excuse making to explain the success of books like Twilight, Potter, and the like (which I believe is a mistake from a writer's point of view), that approach really treats editors and publishers as hapless fools haphazardly shelling out advances in the hopes that they can spend enough marketing to dupes to regain their investment. It's a completely unrealistic and nonsensical view of both publishers and readers. The people buying these books are savvy industry professionals with a lot of experience in determining what will appeal to readers. They don't shell out huge advances based on some vague hope that the marketing department is going to save their hides. They shell out huge advances when their experience tells them "wow, readers are going to love this." Are they always right? No. But it's hardly the kind of random, marketing-driven luck people seem to think it is. Editors who took that approach wouldn't last long in the industry.
Another thing about the Meyer advance might be this: She may have had a credible and detailed plan for completion of her series - a plan several publishers believed in. She may also have been willing to help personally with marketing (making personal appearances and so on). The publishers probably weren't bidding on one manuscript and some vague handwaving; Meyer might have had some serious and strong follow-up. If she did, she could have made the publishers a lot more comfortable with advancing a lot of money.
Saying that something is "objectively" good or bad, and that you are qualified to make the call, strikes me as extremely pompous. Also, it irks me when people make this false dichotomy between "commercial/popular" and "good quality." 50 Shades of Grey has writing that is, in my personal opinion, embarrassingly bad, but that doesn't mean I hold some kind of elite qualification to say it doesn't have any type of merit in terms of breaking new taboos or making commentary about society. I personally think the book is sexist as fuck and can't stand it, but that doesn't make me some kind of book police judge who holds the grand answers to which books are "objectively" good or not. As for Harry Potter, it follows the same "hero storyline" as epics like LOTR, Star Wars, etc. and has a lot of symbolism and deeper themes in it. Just because it's easy to read and doesn't get into adult job economics of the wizarding world doesn't mean it's shallow. Honestly, I find Lemex's posts to be bordering on total arrogance. Something can be commercial AND deep, or one of the other, or neither. Personally, I prefer to learn what I can from the "greats" in terms of both quality and market success, rather than wasting my time griping about the perceived bad quality of those who have hit it bigger than me. Because that just sounds like bitterness and jealousy.
I'm going to put this out there: could it be possible that the only reason for the success of your Meyers, your King, or your Rowlings is that people want simple reads that don't force them to think too deeply? People like formula because it's easily digestible. Plus, having a huge portion of a bookshelf devoted to Stephen King or James Patterson (or whoever) looks good as in, "Look how well read I am..." Culture nowadays tends to look at quantity outweighing quality.
I don't think it can be the only reason. It may be one of the reasons, but there are lots of simple, formulaic books out there. Why are these simple, formulaic books so much more popular than others?
The In-N-Out Double Double? That's easy - McDonald's has tons more outlets than In-N-Out, even in California. The Double Double is a million times better than a Big Mac, and anyone who's ever eaten one will tell you so.
I dont even know what a double double is... and i've not even seen an In-N-Out either... (they don't have them where i am)
That argument falls apart when Rowing and Meyer were both completely unknown before their massively successful series came out...
Yeah, I agree with @Tenderiser - this almost proves the opposite of what you were trying to, I think. Rowling and Meyer were the Double Doubles - they had no recognizable name, but there was apparently something in their formula that made them delicious to a lot of people.
@BayView @Tenderiser why do you suppose it is so hard for many writers to acknowledge that millions of people actually really liked these books. Why do we seem to want to resort to rationalizations that ultimately paint these readers as dupes of marketing or slaves to a pop-culture phenomenon?
It's a bit of a mystery, for sure. I know it took me a while, when I started publishing, to accept that what I thought of as "good" writing (ie. the writing I admired) wasn't necessarily what a lot of readers were looking for. My books tend to get reviews with phrases like "really well-written" and "Sherwood is a reliable writer" but they rarely get the gushing "OMG this is my new favourite story and I will fight anyone who doesn't love it!" reviews. I read best sellers in my genre and sub-genre and pull my hair out because they're breaking the rules I've set for myself in my writing (strive for realism, no alpha-hole heroes, don't sacrifice characterization just to make the plot tidy, etc.)... but readers clearly don't follow the same rules I follow. At least not all readers, all the time. I think that's hard to accept. We want our understanding of "good" writing to be universal, and it really, really isn't.
I don't know. To be sure, as a big horror fan, I scratch my head at King's success. It's frustrating that I don't understand it. It doesn't make me angry but maybe people just don't like something being a mystery to them!
I've always felt like this is a major part of it. Writing is very much an uncertain endeavor. It won't ever translate into much for the vast majority going into it. I feel like writers, especially when starting off, want there to be rules of what is good and what isn't, steps to follow that will result in a good product, etc. That's why you see so many "rules" posts on writing forums. The idea that there aren't rules, and that millions of people can like something we think is bad, further chips away at whatever certainty there may be around the craft.
...I also hope Sherwood approves of my books because I strive for the same thing. There are things I will do to sell but there are things I won't, even though they seem to be very very popular...
Could be. I like King's early works. But there are other horror authors I prefer who haven't had nearly his success.
