Playing Favorites?
People sometimes ask "What's your favorite book you've written?" -- which is an unintentionally triggering question for a writer. The flip answer is "The one I've just finished writing." -- the honeymoon period that comes from completing a successful book is always pleasant, if fleeting.
But, if someone asks this, what they're really wondering is which book is worth their time to read. Which is why it's sort of a loaded question, since any writer worth their ink and paper loves the books they've written.
From my perspective, there are books that have been fun to write, and books that have been difficult to write. One of my books (heh, I won't say which) tormented me to write, stubbornly evading resolution that very nearly broke me. Others were a breeze and a delight to write.
Looking at the body of work, I love them all, but for different reasons. They all tell stories I thought worth telling when I wrote them, and I love them for that. There are ones that I think readers who are new to me might read first over others -- they're like "entry-level" books, suppose, versus ones that might be more demanding for someone coming to me cold.
It's partly why I wrote a trio of novellas:
RELICT
SUMMERVILLE
THE DAY OF THE NIGHTFISH
They're intended as quick, even introductory reads for readers who are unfamiliar with me and my writing style. Curiously, RELICT is my most-popular book, for whatever reason. People dig the sea creature feature aspect of it, I guess.
In terms of my novels, I think three of the more approachable ones -- again, thinking in terms of a new reader to my work, would be (not in order):
CHOSEN
SUCKAGE
THE CURSED EARTH
I think CURSED is probably the most "user-friendly" of my novels, although it's also my longest (and has a lot of characters in it), which can be a barrier for readers with short attention spans.
CHOSEN is easily my darkest horror novel. I still look back on that one and find true horror in it. I've had readers in the past tell me it's their favorite of my books. I liked writing this one, my own spin on a zombie story (being generally sick to undeath of zombies, personally), but I recognize that this one is a legitimately very dark novel. Inasmuch as it's a horror story, I successfully channeled horror with it.
Whereas SUCKAGE is one I've had readers tell me is "smooth" and "cool, like jazz" -- which amuses me, since it's really a story about emotional abuse in many ways, just with vampires. I guess in my effort to come to terms with things, I wrote that one smoothly. But, again, it's vampires, and if readers are either over vampires, or thirst (haha) for glamorous vampires who aren't a-holes, they might be put off by such a book.
My WOLFSHADOW TRILOGY are three books I'm somewhat reluctant to recommend to new readers of my work, even if they're fans of werewolf stories. Not because I don't believe in the books, because I do. Rather, because if readers groove on werewolf romance (ack), they're not going to find it in those books. I know that hipsters are terribly triggered by the first book in the series -- I skewered the hipster culture of the time so thoroughly that hipsters detest SAAMAANTHAA. There's just more of a journey with those three books, and I feel like readers are better-suited tackling those other books before getting to them.
SAAMAANTHAA was the first novel I unleashed on the world, and I was still finding my way as a novelist. Again, I stand by the work, but it's like listening to a band's demo reels of eventually popular songs -- I got to where I was going, but have since refined my style in a fashion that produces what I consider far smoother journeys for readers. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows? But that book's not for everybody, and that trilogy is something I rarely recommend out of the gates. I joked once (in an interview, back when people actually cared about what I wrote) that I intended for SAAM to be "The MOBY-DICK of werewolf novels, but actually may have written the ULYSSES of werewolf novels, instead" -- a statement packed with irony, since the specter of James Joyce haunts SAAM throughout. But it gets at the point I was trying to make. SAAM isn't for everybody, whereas those other books I mentioned are certainly intended for wider audiences.
And there it is. Probably more than anyone would want to know!
But, if someone asks this, what they're really wondering is which book is worth their time to read. Which is why it's sort of a loaded question, since any writer worth their ink and paper loves the books they've written.
From my perspective, there are books that have been fun to write, and books that have been difficult to write. One of my books (heh, I won't say which) tormented me to write, stubbornly evading resolution that very nearly broke me. Others were a breeze and a delight to write.
Looking at the body of work, I love them all, but for different reasons. They all tell stories I thought worth telling when I wrote them, and I love them for that. There are ones that I think readers who are new to me might read first over others -- they're like "entry-level" books, suppose, versus ones that might be more demanding for someone coming to me cold.
It's partly why I wrote a trio of novellas:
RELICT
SUMMERVILLE
THE DAY OF THE NIGHTFISH
They're intended as quick, even introductory reads for readers who are unfamiliar with me and my writing style. Curiously, RELICT is my most-popular book, for whatever reason. People dig the sea creature feature aspect of it, I guess.
In terms of my novels, I think three of the more approachable ones -- again, thinking in terms of a new reader to my work, would be (not in order):
CHOSEN
SUCKAGE
THE CURSED EARTH
I think CURSED is probably the most "user-friendly" of my novels, although it's also my longest (and has a lot of characters in it), which can be a barrier for readers with short attention spans.
CHOSEN is easily my darkest horror novel. I still look back on that one and find true horror in it. I've had readers in the past tell me it's their favorite of my books. I liked writing this one, my own spin on a zombie story (being generally sick to undeath of zombies, personally), but I recognize that this one is a legitimately very dark novel. Inasmuch as it's a horror story, I successfully channeled horror with it.
Whereas SUCKAGE is one I've had readers tell me is "smooth" and "cool, like jazz" -- which amuses me, since it's really a story about emotional abuse in many ways, just with vampires. I guess in my effort to come to terms with things, I wrote that one smoothly. But, again, it's vampires, and if readers are either over vampires, or thirst (haha) for glamorous vampires who aren't a-holes, they might be put off by such a book.
My WOLFSHADOW TRILOGY are three books I'm somewhat reluctant to recommend to new readers of my work, even if they're fans of werewolf stories. Not because I don't believe in the books, because I do. Rather, because if readers groove on werewolf romance (ack), they're not going to find it in those books. I know that hipsters are terribly triggered by the first book in the series -- I skewered the hipster culture of the time so thoroughly that hipsters detest SAAMAANTHAA. There's just more of a journey with those three books, and I feel like readers are better-suited tackling those other books before getting to them.
SAAMAANTHAA was the first novel I unleashed on the world, and I was still finding my way as a novelist. Again, I stand by the work, but it's like listening to a band's demo reels of eventually popular songs -- I got to where I was going, but have since refined my style in a fashion that produces what I consider far smoother journeys for readers. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows? But that book's not for everybody, and that trilogy is something I rarely recommend out of the gates. I joked once (in an interview, back when people actually cared about what I wrote) that I intended for SAAM to be "The MOBY-DICK of werewolf novels, but actually may have written the ULYSSES of werewolf novels, instead" -- a statement packed with irony, since the specter of James Joyce haunts SAAM throughout. But it gets at the point I was trying to make. SAAM isn't for everybody, whereas those other books I mentioned are certainly intended for wider audiences.
And there it is. Probably more than anyone would want to know!
No comments have been added yet.
