Kas, well, I think the better book is not the one that moves me, but moves millions. If a book moves millions of people, and continues to do so, it is a great book, regardless of any other factors. Like you said, some great books never get a chance to be seen, and if they do get seen they will be loved by millions. I can't be sure which those are. I can only be sure which ones have captivated the hearts of many.
Perhaps part of a novel bring great is also being hated. But at Amazon Twilight has four stars of five stars with almost 4,000 votes. At BnN it has five of five stars and almost 7,000 votes.
That statement just seems illogical to me because there are so many other factors, which don't reflect the actual quality of the book on any level - whether it be emotional impact, quality of writing, or 'magic'. A book can be lesser in every respect and still be successful entirely due to luck. I think it's rather naive to believe otherwise, so I guess this is where we politely agree to disagree.
People who are looking to buy the book say it's good? I'll try to hold back my impulsive sarcasm here.
I think it is absolutely impossible for a book to captivate millions of people's hearts do to marketing. In order for a book to even reach that kind of status, word of mouth is necessary. If people don't love the book, they will not tell their friends about it. Word of mouth has been and will most likely continue to be the best form of advertising. I would love to see a book that captivated millions of people's hearts because of luck or marketing. All marketing can do is get people to check the book out. It cannot make the book move them. It cannot make them tell their friends they just must read the book.
It isn't 100% luck. You can't write "cat ran and hit a can", get lucky, and wind up a millionaire. There are some basic things in the mess that people like, and luck fuels the jet. I'm saying there are countless other books which would have just the same numbers if only they also had luck, on top of whatever key component makes the work enjoyable. Which means that these highly successful books tend to be a very common sort. You might try diving into a used book store a few times. Pick up whatever titles manage to grab your attention from the title and dust jacket summary. I lost count years ago of how many gems I discovered that way. And then compare those random selections to the best seller titles you are used to.
I also read the nobody books. Shoot, I even read novels on Webook. Two great novels on that site are God and the Other, and Allison Wonderland. But I can't be sure if other books that I felt were magical would have the same impact on the world if an equal amount of people read them. I don't know if people would be as fanatical about them and spread the word how wonderful they are as fervently. Looking at how fans of Twilight spread the word of Twilight, you would think they are being paid. Anne Rice's vampire series was similar. Her fans, like me, continue to spread the word, hehe. I also continue to tell people to read Allison Wonderland. It will be a shame if no one ever publishes that novel.
If you read enough books you'll probably notice that many have the exact same key ingredients in common. Twilight was built on an extremely simple and common theme. No, it wasn't just vampires and werewolves that made the books appealing. It was a tried, tested and true formula guaranteed to reach many teens and even adults who pine for the days of innocence and dreamy idealism. It's important to note these things, and use them, as I said before - but since hundreds of thousands of authors, published, or aspiring have used, are using, and will use the same theme, the book is essentially identical to so many others, if not for the more fantastical elements. So in a very roundabout way, the addition of vamps and such were, in fact, key to success, as virtually the only ideas to make it stand out. If it had been an entirely mundane relationship you would have tossed the book into a box somewhere and forgotten about it, because you've almost certainly read that story before. Haven't you? Didn't want to get into another Twilight discussion, but you, as the OP, brought it up. When you read a book written by a nobody, quite often you will see these very same ingredients. When you love a book and recognise that, at its core, it has the same key ingredients as a bestseller, and you love it like a fanatic, then you know that are looking at a best-seller-that-could-be. Can it really get any simpler? This is what publishers look for. You know that it would be loved by millions, because the books that become massively popular almost always adhere to an old formula. Combine that formula with a couple new thoughts, quality writing, and a little imagination, and you will get published. With luck. And you might even become a millionaire. With luck. Most writers who I have bothered to track often say in interviews - "it all comes down to luck" or "I just got lucky". They aren't just being modest. They are telling you a cold, hard truth.
Kas, I am not sure if you realize this, but you keep implying that I have not read enough books. Not only that but you implied I am ignorant or at least naive to very simple concepts. Normally, that would be considering condescending, but I don't think that is your intentions. Voice is more important for the magic of a book than a tired formula. There is a reason some books that use the same formula are not magical. Some of those books lack a good voice, despite the fact they have all the elements that Twilight has. I think Flowers in the Attic is loved for the same reason. The voice is the magic of that novel. I didn't much care for the plot. The voice captivated me and kept me reading. It is the same reason I enjoyed Twilight. Twilight's plot is sort of, bleh, especially the big let down ending. But the book is magical. A magician could be the best performer in the world, and have the best tricks, but if he lacks stage presence, I doubt he will get a following like Criss Angel, David Blaine, Cyril Takayama, Oz, or David Copperfield.
That wasn't my intention. I'll just slap myself on your behalf.:redface: But I did want you to clarify your point - and I'm laying things out in a very simple way to find out what the heck we're actually arguing about. XD
Well, when it comes to arguments, people that know me claim I would argue with a rock about the difference between a bolder, rock, and pebble. If the pebble told me it was a rock, I would set a rock next to it. "What's this?" If it said a bolder, then I would place a bolder next to it. "And what's this?" If it said a massive bolder, I would ask it, "What is a pebble?" If it pointed to fragments of rock, I would smash it with the bolder and say, "Now you are pebbles." Okay, not really. I think we agree more than we disagree. I do believe many great novels go unseen, but I can't be sure which ones are great until they captivate the hearts of many. I can enjoy one, and personally think it is awesome, but I have said a great novel is one that captivates the hearts of many and continues to do so. Because I think it is awesome is not enough to make the book great, IMO.
I feel totally opposite in this. Naturally, I want the story to be written well, but I'll take a good story with a "blah" voice over excellent voice with no story. Arch, why do you care so much about what everyone else is doing? Yes, if something is immensely popular, there is going to be something worthwhile to it. But what about doing what is right for you, and being yourself?
You do have a point there. Writing a novel is very hit-and-miss, for this reason and so many others. It's very difficult to nail the perfect voice, and many good writers fail to do so. When the book is completely lacking in this respect, then I'd say it's an obvious dud, even if the writing is great. But the voice in Twilight did not seem unique to me. Rather, it seemed to be an exaggeration of the familiar, which only amplified the feeling of cliche. But that's just me.
I might have worded myself wrongly. Twilight had a plot, it just wasn't that great. A great voice will not be enough to pull me through an okay plot, if the novel doesn't also have character's I like. By no means am I saying Twilight is a character driven novel. Although, character driven novels do not need a great plot. I would say Twilight focused on character interaction more than plot. I also like these kinds of novels. But if didn't love the unique voice it has, there is no way I would have finished the novel. And if a novel has a voice I really dislike, no matter how great the characters, the plot, the character interaction, and so forth, I will not be able to finish it.
Well, yeah... lol. Excellent writing with a totally bland voice probably wouldn't enthrall me. But all the charisma in the world can't keep me tuned to a book with no story. Balance, balance, balance. The problem with bestsellers is that they all too often lack the balance between all of these things which should define a great book. Instead, they have a few very appealing qualities (to certain people), and it's enough to set the ball rolling despite any flaws. I find that depressing.
Kas, I understand the voice in Twilight was not your thing, but I imagine you can think of novels that weren't written all that well, yet you liked the voice. It made you feel a certain way and you enjoyed it. Was it enough to keep your reading despite the novel's flaws?
I know you were asking Kas, but for me, if the writing is bad, the voice is not going to come through. If plot elements are clumsy and the way the events play out makes no sense, they will be too distracting for me. Since we're using Twilight as the example, the vampre flip-flopped too quickly for it to make sense, and it distracted me so much that I wasn't able to get to the parts that were potentially good. Certainly there are times when a story is badly written that I have kept reading. The one I can think of was about the aftermath of a hit and run accident. The driver didn't realize he had hit a person at the time (thought it was an animal) because of poor visibility, but didn't come forward once he figured it out. The writing was crap and the author seemed totally clueless about the natural voice of the characters, but the behaviours of everyone involved were believable, the pace of the events realistic, even if the use of language was stiff and not always realistic, and there was a lot of empathy in it, so I wanted to know if someone would come forward and if the victim, who was in a coma, survived.
Rei, you're Jewish, so I will forgive you. Kidding. I didn't mean if the novel is bad. If the novel gave you that great feeling some novels do because of the voice, would that be enough to keep you reading an okay novel? Not bad, but okay.
No. For example: When I was a youngster, I loved the voice of the first Xanth novel by Piers Anthony. However, the series in general was lacking in too many areas for me to fully appreciate it... so I finished the first book, got halfway through the second, and stopped. Yes, I did finish the first book, and I enjoyed it as a 'good' read. I wasn't really crazy about it though - and the very voice I loved actually became annoying over time. I loved it to begin with because it was so different from what I had read up to that point, but there just wasn't enough substance in the content to keep me going. However, it must be said that he wrote something like 20 Xanth novels, and they still sell plenty. I use this author as the perfect example because I LOVED his Incarnations of Immortality series, which was written in a comparatively bland (very bland) voice, but had an excellent story. I read "On a Pale Horse" and "For Love of Evil" three or four times each.
What difference does it make if it's bad or okay in this context? Besides, if it's okay, there is going to be more to it. I just gave you a long-winded answer saying what would keep me reading if there are blaring weaknesses. And as I said before, I while I want both, I care more about story than voice, so voice is not enough.
Sometimes a bland voice fits. A good novel comes to mind, Stranger in a Strange Land. I thought Dune had a rather bland voice as well. Both great novels, though. But I wonder how much more I would have enjoyed them if the voices were also captivating. I love the voice in, Where the Red Fern Grows, and I also enjoyed the story. The voice in, the Adventures of Tom Sawyer is magical. If only Mark Twain would have thrown Tom Sawyer on another planet, wooo.
I would never call the voice in any of the novels you just listed bland. Especially not where the Red Fern Grows. Heinlein as well is very consistent and writes with a great voice in every work of his I've ever read, Stranger included. The only bland book he ever made was Starship Troopers, and it was bland because of an utter lack of plot not because the voice was bland. I wouldn't even call Twilight as having a good voice. The voice is horrid and the writing is equally horrid. The content is the only thing that makes the novel so successful and I myself find the content wholly lacking for reason's I've explained to death (bad characters, horrible character development, insane story line that makes little sense, etc.). That's besides the point. There are many factors in a good novel. I've listed them before. Having one point down perfectly isn't enough to make up for sub par marks in the other areas. It might make the novel popular but that won't make it good. The better novel is going to be the one that does as many things as good as possible, regardless of it's popularity or critical acclaim (both of which I think are horribly biased, especially critics. And we all know the flaws of mob rule.).
I only said Stranger in a Strange land had a bland voice. And Dune sort of had a bland voice. Where the Red Fern Grows has a wonderful voice. I don't think Stranger in a Strange Land is a bland novel, though. The voice was bland to me. It felt like an impartial, distant, news reporter told the story. Honestly, I almost gave up on it in the beginning. What made the novel for me was Michael and Jubal, but mainly Michael. The long parts where Michael was not involved, I didn't care for much.
Hmmm. I still wouldn't call it bland but I do see what you mean. I think apathetic is a better word. Maybe it depends on the definition of bland. When i think bland I think "not highly favored, or tasteless." Maybe you're aiming for the "unemotional, distant" definition which now that I think about probably is right. I guess I could call it bland from that definition.
