More Fiction Questions

Happy New Year! I hope you had a fun-filled celebration, got home safely, and this morning you're probably asking the same question I am: What in the world is ABC thinking by having Dick Clark on the air? Look, I loved Dick Clark's American Bandstand. He's an iconic figure in American music, and looked 25 for roughly 40 years. But...the man had a stroke, for goodness' sake. You can't understand him. He's lost his voice. He sometimes can't think of the word he wants. He screwed up the countdown as the ball dropped (how hard is it to count down from 30?). It's like watching somebody's ancient grandpa on TV. Yikes. It makes you sad just to watch him. Why doesn't somebody put their arm around the man and say, "Times up, Mr. Clark. You've had a great run. Now we're going to let Ryan Seacrest run it on his own..."

And with that happy opening, I've had a bunch more fiction questions come in...

Patricia wrote and asked, "What's the difference between a fiction 'series' and a 'trilogy'? I understand in a series each book must stand alone, but what about a trilogy? It's all one big story broken up into sections, therefore each book does not stand alone. If you pick up the second or third book in a trilogy, you'll be lost because you need to start from the beginning...like the Lord of the Rings."

A series is a list of books that generally have a continuing character, though sometimes it's the place that continues, or it's a family saga with various characters all related. John D. MacDonald's wonderful Travis McGee series is a great example, featuring the yacht-living fixer getting in and out of scrapes. Sherlock Holmes, Jules Maigret, and Adam Dalgleish are other well-known examples of series characters, as are the Hardy Boys, Nancy Drew, Nick Carter, Perry Mason, etc. The 82nd Precinct series uses a setting for its series, and the characters come and go over time. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia is a series, yet it's not presented in a chronological manner (The Magician's Nephew is one of the last books, but it takes place ages before all the others). With each of these books, you can pull any one out, read it, and enjoy the story. Reading the other books is not necessary to enjoy the one you've got.

A trilogy is nothing more than a three-book series. Sometimes the story has three separate parts, such as Ludlum's Bourne trilogy or Auster's New York trilogy, but in those cases each story stands on its own. In a few cases a story is simply too long to tell in one volume, so the publisher has to release the novel in two or three volumes...but that's becoming very rare. In the real world of publishing and selling books, each book must stand on its own, and be able to be read and enjoyed without reading the others in series. And I'm sorry to say you use faulty logic in pointing out Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. That was not written as a trilogy -- it was a prologue and six books, plus an appendix. It's got a fascinating history -- it was only published in three volumes because of the paper shortages in Britain after the war.  I don't believe Tolkien referred to the books as a "trilogy."

Pam asked, "Is it true that fiction publishers prefer series for kids over a series for adults?"

While there's no hard and fast rule about this, I think it's fair to say that, in the real world, it's easier to sell a kids series than an adult series. That's because the investment in a kids series is smaller, and the publisher is hoping to get kids hooked on a series of sales. Much tougher to get adults to buy into a series -- in fact, I know some publishers have a policy of not going beyond three books with any particular character.

Ty wrote and noted, "Every now and then you'll see a debut novelist in the general market pop out of nowhere with a six-figure advance after a fierce bidding war. How does that happen? Where does the buzz come from to create a frenzy like that for someone unknown?"

The reason it makes the headlines is because it's so rare, Ty. Sometimes a publisher gets a story that has huge potential. The storyline, the writing, the expected audience are all viewed as extremely strong. When I was a publisher with Time-Warner, we could pick two titles per year and call them a "make-book" -- projects that were going to get a lot of marketing and publicity helps, and were going to be pushed by our sales staff, even though the author was unknown. Elizabeth Kostova's The Historian was a make-book (though I had nothing to do with that one), and it got so much pre-publication buzz it became the first ever debut novel to release as a New York Times #1 bestseller. And yes, the author was paid a king's ransom -- a $2 million advance. That said, Kostova worked on her novel for ten years, and created a fascinating story. Still, it was the publisher who decided to make it a cause ce'le'bre. A similar thing happend a few years earlier at Time-Warner, when they paid $1 million to Nicholas Sparks for his debut novel, The Notebook.

A couple thoughts on these and other, similar, stories: This doesn't happen often. When it does, the story is always big and captivating. The writing always shines (and while I may not be the biggest Nick Sparks fan, I'm certainly willing to concede he writes a story that is readable and emotional). The publishing house really gets behind it and decides they are going to make this project a best-seller. They spend a lot of time, effort, and money on creating buzz for the book before it releases, then they support it with a ton of marketing after it releases. That's where these make-books come from. And you should know that they're risky -- they don't always work; and when one fails, some editor somewhere is going to take the heat for costing the company so much money. 

Don and James wrote to ask, "Why do some people edit fiction with the wisdom of Obi Wan Kanobi, but when they write their own novels they have the mentality of Forest Gump?"

Because editing and writing are two different skills. They are related, but not the same. A great songwriter isn't necessarily a great singer. A world famous choreographer may not be one of the best dancers. I know you're a sports fan, and one of the things we've seen in sports is that a great player generally makes a lousy coach (in fact, in football and basketball, the best coaches were normally average or below-average players -- perhaps because the game did not come easy to them, they needed to study the fundamentals more, and thus became better at thinking through the game). So a great editor, one who really understands what it takes to work on a good manuscript and make it even better, may not be able to write a great novelist herself. And there's no shame in that. I'm 50, and as I've gotten older, I've developed a much better sense of the work it takes to become great at anything. Malcolm Gladwell has surmised that it takes about 10,000 hours to become really great at anything. So (to go back to our coaching analogy) you can bet the guy coaching and winning with a professional sports team really knows his stuff -- and, in fact, knows much more than all those dipstick fans writing letters to the editor and complaining about his team. The people making a living at singing are blessed by God with incredible voice and talent, and probably worked as hard as anyone else who becomes successful in a chosen career. I know that the people who dance professionally are SO good they expose the rest of us amateur hoofers. I've said it before -- the editors who last in this business are generally VERY good at what they do.  Listen to them...even if they've never published a book.

Comments

[Ane Mulligan]

It was very sad to see Dick Clark like that, and I'm old enough to remember him on American Bandstand.

I'm pleased to see your remarks on the editing and writing comparison. Too many writers think a paid edit must come from a published writer. Not so. Camy Tang and Robin Carroll both did paid edits before they were published and were great at them.

Thansk for acknowledging that fact. :)

Good post, and I'm looking forward to the next ones.

[AW]

Who's Dick Clark?

Just kidding.

I don't understand "The Notebook" thing. While the story is emotional and readable, isn't it kind of predictable and cliche? It's a typical love story. What made publishers see that as something worth a million dollar advance? Is it the fact that it is so typical? Or is it not considered typical to other people? I would think that a story like that could either sell a lot or not at all, so what made publishers jump on it?

Happy 2009 Chipareno!

[Pam Halter]

I think we call TLOTR a trilogy because it's set in three book volumes and three movies. Still, each book doesn't really stand alone. And each book doesn't give much, if any, backstory.

Maybe it's a fantasy thing? I'm reading a three set right now, High Druid of Shannara by Terry Brooks, and it's one long story in three books that all need each other. None stand alone and if you pick up the second or third one, you'll be totally lost. In fact, if you aren't familiar with the other Shannara books, you'll be confused over some points. Yet, he is a best-selling author and keeps on publishing similar titles.

Hence, my confusion.

Do you think it's a difference between CBA and the general market?

[Anne Lang Bundy]

Watching Dick Clark for just a few moments got me all choked up, but I thought it fitting that ABC allowed him the honor to host. Our society too readily pushes aside the frail aged rather than revere what they have yet to offer us. I'll gladly suffer for a few moments once a year the impairments which are Clark's 24/7 burden.

Besides, I'm getting older and may not be far behind ...

[GIna Holmes]

Forget Dick Clark. What I'm hearing is that it IS possible to get a new author a million or two advance. Do you think I'd look better in a Rolls or a Bentley?

[AW]

Gina, go for a Bentley with 36kt gold rims and diamond chips in the paint... all sparkly and glittery, ya know? Then blare Ice Ice Baby from your huge speakers in the trunk.

That would be fantastic.

[Lynn Rush]

I said the SAME THING to my sweet hubby while watching Dick Clark on the air. It was so sad.

Hey, thanks for your post, Chip. Helpful as always.

[Timothy Fish]

The great thing about a series is that readers tend to buy the books needed to complete the set, even if the book is mediocre. The bad thing about a series is that the most significant thing that will ever happen in a character’s life happened in book one. Mysteries make great series because the story isn’t about the detective, but about the people who might have committed the crime.

[Cindy Thomson]

Stephen Lawhead's King Raven Trilogy is an example of a three book series. I think it's an exception to what Timothy said above. I liked book two better than book one, and so I'm really looking forward to book three. I think it's a good example to study to see how the books are related but still different enough to capture the reader's interest.

[chip]

Actually, it's not true that "readers tend to buy the books needed to complete the set." The fact is, Book Two will sell fewer copies than Book One; then Book Three will sell fewer copies than Book Two. It's why so many publishers are tired of three-book series.

And no, this isn't a CBA/ABA thing. The same holds true whether you're dealing with New York or Grand Rapids. And LORD OF THE RINGS is really one long story -- in a way, it's one long novel, which Tolkien turned into six books.

[KR Dial]

AW, I get The Notebook. The element of the two love stories evolving together was compelling, with the kicker being the extreme dedication of the elderly husband to his wife. Having the children say to their father, "Why do you keep coming here Dad, she doesn't even remember you?" His reaction, his loyalty is what makes the story an emotional thrill. My husband and I cried together watching that story...sure we knew we were suckers...but we had to ask ourselves...Would we have that kind of loyalty when life called for it?

[Carolyn]

We live in a world of "it's all about me and my needs."

We live in a world where divorce is the norm.

In this world, THE NOTEBOOK presented a message of lasting love. Evidently, a lot of people are open to that message.

The fact that the story is based on Sparks' wife's parents strengthens the message.

I didn't know it was targeted to receive massive publicity by the publisher, which propelled it to success. Now I feel like all those articles I read that presented it as "what can happen when you match a good story with good writing" were unfair.

I feel like a kid who's just learned there is no Santa after all.

It was the publicity that brought about the huge success. I should have known.

[chip]

Don't be too discouraged, Carolyn. The fact is, the editor and the publishing house also saw real value in the book or they'd never have made it a make-book. And a lot of marketing won't help a crummy product -- if the book is truly bad, it doesn't matter how great the ads are, people will soon realize it's a bad book. So, yes, the publisher threw money at this one. But they saw something special about it...as did the four million readers who purchased it.

[AW]

Hey KR, yeah, I liked the movie too...but to me movies hold a different place in my heart than books.

Movies are entertaining and so are books. But there is so much more to a book. You get to soak in every word as an art form, lingering on sentences that stay with you for a lifetime. Films are great, and believe me, I love the art of film. But in the book world I feel like I'm immersed in a world, rather than just observing a world from the outside. I love observing stories in film. I'm immersed in them to a degree. And I love the direction, production, music composition, all the beauty of it. But there's something about a book...

I love sentences. I love words. I love punctuation. I love books.

I "get" why The Notebook is a huge success, doesn't mean I like the reason why it is a success. :) It's a great story, but personally, I don't think it's a great book.

Just my little 'ole opinion, means nothing in this world, but it's my heart.

[Angela Meuser]

My husband calls The Notebook a corndog movie. These are the movies he eats a corndog while watching so he can poke his eyes out with the stick when he's done. I think he did the same thing when Dick Clark came on the air...

[Carolyn]

Thanks, Chip. You did make me feel better.