I think each book written, fills a niche. If three million people have the same niche waiting to be filled and one book, fills it, then that's just as good as the book which only fills 350 niches. It doesn't mean one is better than the other.
@cutecat22 I agree completely. That's why books like Perks of Being a Wallflower, Speak, and The Outsiders are so majorly popular and taught at schools and keep getting reprinted. Because there were no books addressing those issues because no other author cared to write about those type of books (or they just didn't think to), and then there were, and everyone went mad for them. It tapped something unfulfilled, like Twilight and Harry Potter. PS, I also think it's interesting that the writers of these hugely successful books always say the same thing in interviews, that they "did not write with a theme or a message in mind", that they were "just trying to tell a good story". And I think sometimes that's when stories are the best, when they flow naturally and that's what the author cares most about, the story. When authors try to force a message on their readers, it's always super obvious...and it turns off their audience. But if the story just flows and it happens to have a message that unfolds naturally in the story, that's when it works.
Absolutely! And the worst reviews, are the ones where the reviewer looks for something which is not there, and turns a story into something it's not, like the one who said Harry Potter was actually about a mentally ill boy (Harry) who was actually in an insane asylum (Hogwarts) and everything he sees and does, (magic) is simply a figment of his imagination, a manifestation of his mental illness. What tosh and bloody nonsense. I think it was best put in a diagram I once saw on another site which was something like: Writer: "The curtains were a dark shade of blue." Teacher: "The curtains represent the character's descent into a depression which he finds difficult to master." Writer: "No, The fucking curtains were fucking blue!" Excuse my language!
That's the one! This is why I can't do a public read aloud of my book (or even just a snippet). Not only would I fluff the lines, I would have to keep stopping to explain things to the listener so they didn't start thinking that the blue curtains were a representation of my character's frame of mind!
The good thing about literature is that the author's intent and interpretation of his/her own work don't matter. To paraphrase Lionel Trilling, the creative writer can tell us what he meant to do, but we don't have to believe him.
I kind of believe in the exact opposite. If the author intended for the work to be one way, then we should believe him/her. What's the point of presenting a message through our books if they don't matter in the long run? I may as well quit my novel about bigotry and xenophobia and just write mindless action books then.
Death of the author is quite a common thing. Fahrenheit 451 was originally written as anti-television, but the book seems more about censorship and what's easy not always being best.
I think the point is that once you publish the books belong to the readers as well as the writer. Readers are going to bring their own interpretations, and shouldn't be bound by the writer's intent. In fact, they can't be bound by it - they're going to bring their own viewpoint to the work no matter what the writer says.
I think its ok for an author to ask questions, but to try and give answers is just arrogant tosh. (Pretty much like all art really) And yes in my opinion a good book needs a good story. To expect a reader to trudge through 100k words of your turgid monologue is just arrogant. I'm reading Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdee at the moment, and it really is hard work, I'm sure it says lots of deep meaningful things, but it's just boring me.
I can't speak to the others, but King was a talented writer who came along when horror fiction was badly fading. So his good fortune was a lot of talent and a lot of good timing.
@Tom13 Yeah, you should always make the story enjoyable and interesting, or else no one is going to want to read it and no one is going to get your message. Not that writers should be obsessed with making books other people will like, I'm just saying the story should always come first.
I think there is a major appeal to stepping out of reality for a while which is pretty obvious with Harry Potter but with the Twilight series I think that having that kind of connection with someone is something a lot of people hope for. Not to say you wanted it to go down like it did in Twilight, but to be drawn to someone as much as they to you. I think that is pretty epic in my opinion.
Harry Potter is a kids book and should be judged as such. It's very black and white. Characters with dubious morality almost don't exist (I can think of Snape only, maybe Slughorn, who happen to be the Slytherins!) and villains are mostly cartoonish (Umbridge). It's not supposed to be in the same shelf as Crime and Punishment, which is not a bad thing because it's enjoyable in its own way, though I have plenty of issues with it and how Rowling handles the series. Meyer on the other hand was successful because through her books she speaks to many of the girls who have the same issues as Bella. They identify with her. I had a far easier time watching the movies than reading the novels because the novels' target is more accurate, whereas the movies are more generic. There's no real problem with it. For every person who claims Edward is an abusive boyfriend there's another who loves him. And, truth be told, Jacob is FAR more abusive than Edward could ever hope to be, haha.
Hackneyed metaphors, stereotyped characters, circumstantial plots, rehashed premises, these books follow in the great tradition of the dime-store novel and yellow journalism. What's not to love? They follow in a long tradition of the dime-store novel.
@theamorset, I think thats a cheap way out. It's too easy to just dismiss Twilight and say "oh it's just brain fodder". It was massively successful, where tons of other books failed to be. It was a phenomenon. Downplaying it and trying to pretend like it was just like any other "dime-store novel" is just plain lazy. As I said before on this thread: "Twilight is a success (and more importantly, a "good book") because it brought people together and created bonds that will last for years and years to come, maybe even a lifetime." And that's what I think books should do. Take you on a ride you will never forget and forge bonds that will last forever.
Stereotypes are only stereotypes because many people did the same thing. (a little along the same lines as cliches), that being said, if many people have done the same thing, then there must be something good in there otherwise they would stop ... #justsaying
That's exactly my point. Twilight did not take me on a ride I'll never forget. It may have taken a lot of people on a ride they'll never forget, but I was not on that bus for long, and when I was, all I wanted to do was get off. I don't like how it's written. You can't make someone like a book if they don't like it. Twilight has a limited readership and a limited fandom. It has limitations as a work of art. A book does not have to be well-written to be popular, and a book does not have to be popular to be well-written. I don't worry about either. If a book is popular, mazeltov. If well written, mazeltov. I feel that Twilight was successful with a certain type of reader only. There are, in fact, a great many people who are that certain type of reader. And of course, 'bad writing' can certainly 'create bonds' and 'bring people together'. It need not be good writing to do that. 'Ren and Stimpy' has a legion of fans, so does 'Family Guy'. Neither are particularly well-written. They're popular never-the-less. Stereotype is actually a limited picture of someone based on superficial traits that aren't necessarily common to the person's group as a whole, but are assumed to be. They are born of prejudice and are commonly directly and clearly negative. All stereotypes have a negative effect on a culture, whether they are directly or indirectly negative. Stereotypes cause limited thinking, and in that sense are always negative in effect. A stereotype does not become such by repetition. It would be a stereotype even if no one had ever written such a thing before. For example, the first person who wrote about that all black men crave white blond women, was writing a stereotype born out of prejudice(racism). When many people copied it, it can be considered a cliché, though practically speaking, the term cliché is usually reserved for characterizations, or for short phrases or metaphors that were long ago worn very thin. They may have originally been creative or appealing, but don't have to be. They were worn through by repetition, and any charm they once had was lost long ago. Sam Spade, the hard-bitten, womanizing, cynical private eye, for example. It's been used to death. That's why 'Lieutenant Robert Goren' was liked by so many on the television program. A little craziness was tossed into the usual mix, and people loved it.
The kind of criticism around Twilight is applied on writing forums to almost any book popular enough to be a phenomenon. Anyone else remember when Potter was first taking off? Or the Da Vinci Code? Contrary to the above, I say a book only hits sales the like of Twilight, and garners a ridiculous advance for a brand new author, when it has a lot of cross-appeal. People I saw reading Twilight ranged from 13 year old girls to 50 year old doctors and lawyers, male and female alike. It wasn't my kind of book, but I'm not blind to the broad and wide-ranging appeal of the series just because I didn't like it personally.