The Writer Who Wrote Too Much
In last week's blog post, my dear friend, EG Manetti, author of the 12 Systems Chronicles, mentioned a novelist in the comments section and once again showed me how oblivious I am to large segments of the world.
I say 'again' because the first time occurred when I joined a GR SciFi Review Group and received her novel for my first of four reviews. As it became apparent I would not be reading about aliens, FTL ships, or shifting dimensions, I remember thinking, as my eyes grew wider and wider, "Boy, there sure is a lot of sex in here."
I have since (ahem) become a bit more sophisticated and would today describe it as an isolated human society, evolved into a patriarchal extreme, punctuated with steamy four-flamers.
Anyway, I suspect EG was trying to keep me from falling into despair by pointing to another suspense writer who also writes in a mixed genre format: JD Robb. I'll just go ahead and expose myself by admitting that I had never heard of her. A few facts to put my ignorance in context.
JD Robb is the pen name Nora Roberts assumed when her publisher complained she produced too much content. Too much content? Silhouette Romance published her first novel in 1981. Over the next 35 years, 1982 to 2016, she published 236 novels, an average of almost 7 books per year. In my 6 years writing, I produced 5 novels. She published 49 in the same span of time. Worldwide, she has over 300 million books in print. She's had 148 best sellers, 39 when they debuted.
I also think I would like her. An interviewer once asked, "What are you writing now?" I imagine she had a deadpan expression. "Nothing. Right now I'm answering your questions." That I never heard of her says more about me. Go ahead. Insert your jokes here.
But what about the writing? Is it any good? Better yet, does it matter? In one two-year period, she produced 23 novels, effectively one a month. Think about that.
Maureen Corrigan, literary critic for the Washington Post pulled no punches in reviewing one of those novels, 'Black Hills'.
"I'm going to say what I think straight out: 'Black Hills' is synthetic mind candy. It's not even very satisfying synthetic mind candy, like, for instance, Clive Cussler in his prime or Patricia Wentworth's soothing Maud Silver mysteries. Roberts could probably do better than a novel that, chapter by chapter, feeds her readers the top 100 female fantasies: (1) a rock-'em/sock-'em romantic partner who also takes out the garbage the minute he's asked; (2) a French lover; (3) lustrous hair that keeps its shape even when a serial killer is looking to scalp its owner; (4) a rollicking shopping spree with the girls, followed by a spa day the following week; (5) a fierce wild animal (in this case, a cougar) that, inexplicably, forms a loving bond with the heroine. Need I continue?"
Ouch.
I think, however, it would be intellectually careless to dismiss Ms Robb and her readers with the usual snide, lazy comments about the Romance crowd. We're fiction writers. Fantasy and escapism are what we offer. We have more than enough reality. Well, maybe except me. Obviously, I don't even know who's in it.
Reason tells me Ms Robb is a plot point on a probability curve. In a universe of writers, someone must succeed. But if reason obtained, I wouldn't be a novelist.
And, as I detailed in an earlier post, beyond a certain point, the pursuit of reviews falls to the Law of Diminishing Returns. No. Ms Robb shows us that readers read. Especially, if they trust you. Scrimp, scrape, save, cut corners, shave luxuries if you must, but market, market, market. Get your book out in front of paying eyes. The Law of Probability also dictates a tipping point will eventually be reached. To paraphrase a term currently in political vogue, persist!
Besides, I have no choice. Unlike many writers before me, the bottle is not an option. My second hangover transformed me into a cocktail nurse. There's never been a third.
As always, I welcome your thoughts and comments.
P.S.
Ms Corrigan's observation of Clive Cussler affirmed mine. I have often taken the advice to read authors in my genre. When I read him, he must have already been past his prime. But he does duplicate the JD Robb experience. Once you breakthrough, readers will read you.
P.P.S.
Ms Corrigan also confirmed why I remain a bachelor. Though I consider myself a rock 'em/sock 'em kind of guy, I never felt it my destiny (fate?) to take out the garbage.
I say 'again' because the first time occurred when I joined a GR SciFi Review Group and received her novel for my first of four reviews. As it became apparent I would not be reading about aliens, FTL ships, or shifting dimensions, I remember thinking, as my eyes grew wider and wider, "Boy, there sure is a lot of sex in here."
I have since (ahem) become a bit more sophisticated and would today describe it as an isolated human society, evolved into a patriarchal extreme, punctuated with steamy four-flamers.
Anyway, I suspect EG was trying to keep me from falling into despair by pointing to another suspense writer who also writes in a mixed genre format: JD Robb. I'll just go ahead and expose myself by admitting that I had never heard of her. A few facts to put my ignorance in context.
JD Robb is the pen name Nora Roberts assumed when her publisher complained she produced too much content. Too much content? Silhouette Romance published her first novel in 1981. Over the next 35 years, 1982 to 2016, she published 236 novels, an average of almost 7 books per year. In my 6 years writing, I produced 5 novels. She published 49 in the same span of time. Worldwide, she has over 300 million books in print. She's had 148 best sellers, 39 when they debuted.
I also think I would like her. An interviewer once asked, "What are you writing now?" I imagine she had a deadpan expression. "Nothing. Right now I'm answering your questions." That I never heard of her says more about me. Go ahead. Insert your jokes here.
But what about the writing? Is it any good? Better yet, does it matter? In one two-year period, she produced 23 novels, effectively one a month. Think about that.
Maureen Corrigan, literary critic for the Washington Post pulled no punches in reviewing one of those novels, 'Black Hills'.
"I'm going to say what I think straight out: 'Black Hills' is synthetic mind candy. It's not even very satisfying synthetic mind candy, like, for instance, Clive Cussler in his prime or Patricia Wentworth's soothing Maud Silver mysteries. Roberts could probably do better than a novel that, chapter by chapter, feeds her readers the top 100 female fantasies: (1) a rock-'em/sock-'em romantic partner who also takes out the garbage the minute he's asked; (2) a French lover; (3) lustrous hair that keeps its shape even when a serial killer is looking to scalp its owner; (4) a rollicking shopping spree with the girls, followed by a spa day the following week; (5) a fierce wild animal (in this case, a cougar) that, inexplicably, forms a loving bond with the heroine. Need I continue?"
Ouch.
I think, however, it would be intellectually careless to dismiss Ms Robb and her readers with the usual snide, lazy comments about the Romance crowd. We're fiction writers. Fantasy and escapism are what we offer. We have more than enough reality. Well, maybe except me. Obviously, I don't even know who's in it.
Reason tells me Ms Robb is a plot point on a probability curve. In a universe of writers, someone must succeed. But if reason obtained, I wouldn't be a novelist.
And, as I detailed in an earlier post, beyond a certain point, the pursuit of reviews falls to the Law of Diminishing Returns. No. Ms Robb shows us that readers read. Especially, if they trust you. Scrimp, scrape, save, cut corners, shave luxuries if you must, but market, market, market. Get your book out in front of paying eyes. The Law of Probability also dictates a tipping point will eventually be reached. To paraphrase a term currently in political vogue, persist!
Besides, I have no choice. Unlike many writers before me, the bottle is not an option. My second hangover transformed me into a cocktail nurse. There's never been a third.
As always, I welcome your thoughts and comments.
P.S.
Ms Corrigan's observation of Clive Cussler affirmed mine. I have often taken the advice to read authors in my genre. When I read him, he must have already been past his prime. But he does duplicate the JD Robb experience. Once you breakthrough, readers will read you.
P.P.S.
Ms Corrigan also confirmed why I remain a bachelor. Though I consider myself a rock 'em/sock 'em kind of guy, I never felt it my destiny (fate?) to take out the garbage.
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Eldon
(new)
Apr 15, 2017 02:24PM
Must be why I'm married lol...I take the trash out weekly :)
reply
|
flag
Weekly ??!!You married an understanding woman. Good for you !! :-D
What weekly's not normal?? What's normal?
Daily. Or five minutes after you sit down to relax. Whichever comes first. :-\Oh, man. I'd be so dead right now if I was married.
Daily!? You just need a bigger garbage can hahaha!
lmaoEldon, you may have just saved five or six marriages !!
...her publisher complained she produced too much content. And there you have traditional publishing in a nutshell. It's all about
On another note, did you discover if she is still writing her own novels or has she turned to the James Patterson model of ghost writers?
No. She doesn't use a ghost writer. All her work is in her name or a pseudonym.However, she must be slowing down. In 2016 she published five (!!) novels under her name. This year she has ** only ** one, due for release in September.
And don't get me started on James Patterson. I read him because he writes in my genre. He can't even be bothered to write them himself anymore.
When he did, I thought the writing pedestrian, the stories formulaic and the concepts derivative. His ghosters are uninspiring, unimaginative, and unoriginal.
But when he puts out anything with his name on it, they just line up and buy it. Baffling business we're in.
Good to know. Side note: I've never much cared for the Nora Roberts books although I've read at least a dozen of the JD Robb. While Ms. Corrigan's criticism has some validity, the heroine in the JD Robb books gets beat up and filthy on a regular basis.
Rafael, once again you write a blog post that gives me pause trying to think of a response. You raise one of those questions that I can never answer to my own satisfaction: if an author writes dozens of books a year then one automatically assumes the content must be derivative, superficial, simplistic, and yet time and again it sells -- in millions of copies! So, what does that say? What does it mean? It's baffling, you say. I haven't figured it out yet. All I know is, I wish I could sell as many books as Patterson. Truth is, I'm reading one right now, and flying through it. The plotting is just superb, the writing simple. Maybe that's the answer : the writing should not hold up the plot. There should never be a point where the reader has to stop to look up a word or have to re-read a sentence because it was obscure first time around. That also makes it easier for the writer to write.
Joanna wrote: "Rafael, once again you write a blog post that gives me pause trying to think of a response. You raise one of those questions that I can never answer to my own satisfaction: if an author writes doze..."Good points Joanna :)
Out of curiosity which Patterson book are you reading?
The Murder House. I 'm almost finished. The book was loaned to my husband last year, and I only just picked it up because I'm going to be seeing Patterson at the Palm Beach Book Festival and I wanted to get reacquainted with his style. Honestly, it's an engaging read!
A couple thoughts, Joanna, and like Eldon said, you always make good, thoughtful points.James Patterson, and his fans are indeed legion, does a phenomenal job of engaging readers. So much so, that they, like me, return for another read. That's when, for me, he began to wear. I never finished the third. When you read one James Patterson novel, you've read them all. Only the names and milieus change. Maybe he realized that, hence the ghost writers.
And without knocking his readers, I wish I had every one of them, they know what they want and will take it in seemingly limitless quantities. I'd be very interested in your thoughts after reading the second.
Finally, you and I agree on this one. I always think I've failed as a writer if a reader stops to admire a paragraph's prose. My goal is to make the words disappear from the page and have the story unspool in the mind's eye of the reader. In that effort, simplicity rules.
That's when, for you and me, it becomes complicated. Readers will happily read things agents will reject. And agents clearly are not locked into what readers want or their every project would be a best seller.
All we can do is write. And remain baffled.
Some agents will reject simplicity though I think nowadays everyone is recognizing that attention spans are short, and that the simpler the better. Look, Patterson is going to the novella idea with his BookShots, billed as novels under 150 pages, "with all the boring parts taken out." (I wish he'd heeded that advice with Murder House actually. The end dragged, I thought.) Murder House wasn't my first Patterson novel. I believe that was Along Came a Spider. I thought that was pretty good, as were the Alex Cross novels which followed. Murder House reminded me of one of those older novels with the idea of two antagonists!
Maybe, we are the ones at fault misreading what readers really want? Maybe they want "more of the same" each time. Maybe there's a comfort level for readers with "the same?" Perhaps that's why series with the same protagonist do better in the end than standalones. And how else to explain the phenomenal sales of romance novels??? Always the same plot, no?????
Joanna, we may indeed be misunderstanding the reading public. Sounds like a blog post to me, 'What Do Readers Want?' Stay tuned...
Joanna wrote: "Maybe they want "more of the same" each time. Maybe there's a comfort level for readers with "the same?" Perhaps that's why series with the same protagonist do better in the end than standalones. And how else to explain the phenomenal sales of romance novels??? Always the same plot, no????? ..."Good points, but I remember that before indie publishing, I read a lot of 'meh' novels. Because 'meh' was the best I could find on my latest bookstore run or in airport desperation.
As for romance novels all being the same plot, I vaguely recall from my university days something about there only being five 'true plots' in all fiction. If you think about Shakespeare, his comedies all boil down to: boy-meets-girl-marries-girl (occasionally boy-meets-girl-dressed-as-boy-marries girl). His tragedies? People are crazy and everyone dies. His histories? All kings die noble deaths and the tudors rock.
