Peg Herring's Blog - Posts Tagged "steig-larsen"
Swept Up in a Bestseller
Everyone agrees that nobody knows what makes a bestseller. Books that were BLOCKBUSTERS often leave me asking, "On whose block?"
Those who know me can guess that I do not care about vampire boyfriends, Glenn Beck's rantings, or the people you meet in heaven. But even in my favorite genre, mystery, I'm puzzled by what others like that I find insipid or overdone or unbelievable. It may be Grouchy Reader Syndrome, which results, I believe, from reading so much that anything average isn't good enough.
So it is with trepidation that I approach Steig Larsen's GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO. Friends have told me I will like it if I wade through the long initial setup. Friends have said things like that before, sometimes rightly, sometimes not so much.
I want to like it. I want to be swept up in the bestseller that everyone else has already read and formed opinions on, from terrible to terrific.
I'll let you know how it goes.
Those who know me can guess that I do not care about vampire boyfriends, Glenn Beck's rantings, or the people you meet in heaven. But even in my favorite genre, mystery, I'm puzzled by what others like that I find insipid or overdone or unbelievable. It may be Grouchy Reader Syndrome, which results, I believe, from reading so much that anything average isn't good enough.
So it is with trepidation that I approach Steig Larsen's GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO. Friends have told me I will like it if I wade through the long initial setup. Friends have said things like that before, sometimes rightly, sometimes not so much.
I want to like it. I want to be swept up in the bestseller that everyone else has already read and formed opinions on, from terrible to terrific.
I'll let you know how it goes.
I Can Write It, You Can Write It, He Can Write It...
I just finished Martha Grimes' FOUL MATTER, a send-up of the publishing industry that I found thought-provoking. She touched on so many aspects of writing and publishing that I have felt or observed, things like author fantasies (I could write a great novel if I had someplace to go and write uninterrupted), author insecurities (What if I can't finish this mess? What if I'm really not any good at all?), and the outrageousness of publishing (the fact that talent is way down the list of why an author gets published, the manipulation of sales figures and contract wording, and the lack of serious editing, especially for authors who have already "made it").
Aside from enjoying the book immensely, I found that some things I've been subconsciously aware of were confirmed, at least for me. Talent is subjective. We don't know if we have it, nor do our editors, agents, and readers. Writing is an art, and people only know what they like. There are those who try to speak for the world, hence Pulitzer Prizes and the New York Times Bestseller List. But no one can define talent outside his or her own opinion. To me, if you put William Kent Kruger's prose alongside John Grisham's, there is no comparison, and they both tell a good story. But which of them is making money hand over fist?
Perhaps time is the best judge of writing talent, although there are those who hate the classics and claim Ernest Hemingway bores them. For genre fiction, time is an enemy in most cases. Reading Agatha Christie today requires a suspension of modernity; one has to step back in time mentally and appreciate what she was doing at the time. I doubt she would be widely published today.
So what's a writer to do? I guess we have to assume that we can write, that what we do will be appreciated by somebody. Maybe we'll hit the scene at just the right moment and make a splash. Maybe we'll be mildly successful and have a string of respectable successes. Maybe we won't be recognized at all, even though we know in our hearts that we're better than that other guy. In that case, we have to hope that we're ahead of our time and will be wildly popular in the future. Maybe Steig Larsen is watching from some shadowy afterlife and chuckling into his beard.
Aside from enjoying the book immensely, I found that some things I've been subconsciously aware of were confirmed, at least for me. Talent is subjective. We don't know if we have it, nor do our editors, agents, and readers. Writing is an art, and people only know what they like. There are those who try to speak for the world, hence Pulitzer Prizes and the New York Times Bestseller List. But no one can define talent outside his or her own opinion. To me, if you put William Kent Kruger's prose alongside John Grisham's, there is no comparison, and they both tell a good story. But which of them is making money hand over fist?
Perhaps time is the best judge of writing talent, although there are those who hate the classics and claim Ernest Hemingway bores them. For genre fiction, time is an enemy in most cases. Reading Agatha Christie today requires a suspension of modernity; one has to step back in time mentally and appreciate what she was doing at the time. I doubt she would be widely published today.
So what's a writer to do? I guess we have to assume that we can write, that what we do will be appreciated by somebody. Maybe we'll hit the scene at just the right moment and make a splash. Maybe we'll be mildly successful and have a string of respectable successes. Maybe we won't be recognized at all, even though we know in our hearts that we're better than that other guy. In that case, we have to hope that we're ahead of our time and will be wildly popular in the future. Maybe Steig Larsen is watching from some shadowy afterlife and chuckling into his beard.
