Why Mega-Successful Authors are Good News for Everyone

Photo credit: Beacon Radio on Flickr

So there’s this post floating around from the Huffington Post that activated some massive internal raging. 

I’m not going to link to it, because I don’t want to give it extra free traffic, but if you’re so inclined, it’s pretty easy to find on Twitter, as it involves telling J.K. Rowling to stop writing adult books because she’s hogging up all the success—but it’s ok for her to write kid lit because those books aren’t as good anyway. Yep. 

As much as I'd like to rage about why kidlit is just as important as adult literature, I know I'm preaching to the choir here, so I'm going to focus on something equally important (and a little less screamy).

The thing that some people, particularly people outside of the publishing industry tend to forget, is that there’s room for everyone to be successful. In fact, one author’s mega-success is actually good for everyone else.

Think about it.

Let’s take J.K. Rowling, for example. The Harry Potter series was one of the first major crossover kid lit titles that blew the door wide open for other kid lit successes. Why? Well let’s take a look.

Harry Potter, as we all know, sold incredibly well. Incredibly x a million. Hugely successful books means more money for publishers—who then have more cash to buy more books from writers and give more debuts a chance, more money for bookstores—who then run less of a risk of crashing and burning like Borders, and more money for the authors—who, quite frankly, deserve their success. But it’s not just the money—hugely successful books are the direct result of more people reading. 

Why is more people reading a good thing, you ask? I can’t even tell you how many people I’ve heard say “I didn’t like reading but I loved [insert popular book title here].” Successful books show people who didn’t think they liked to read that reading can actually be great. Successful books get more people buying books, and guess what? Many times when they finish reading said successful book, they look for another book. Because maybe reading isn’t so bad after all and they’ll like the next book just as much as that successful book they just read.

Time and time again, successful books have proven that they help so much more than the author.

The Twilight series brought the spotlight down on YA lit.

The Hunger Games series opened the door to a variety of fantastic dystopian novels, like say, a little series called Divergent.

The 50 Shades of Grey series gave a huge boost to erotica sales.

All of these books created new readers—people who didn’t really read much before because they thought they wouldn’t like it and changed their minds after reading that successful book. And that’s good for everyone, because more readers = more book sales, and more book sales = good news for writers.

See, this one huge aspect of the publishing world that I love—we can genuinely be happy for each other’s successes, even (and especially) crazy-massive successes, because it’s good news for everyone. Books are not a market like cars or laptops or iPads where the customer will only buy one for several years. The success of one book opens the door for the successes of many others, and to me, that’s one of the many things that makes this community so incredibly wonderful.

So let’s cut the jealousy and the bitterness and just be happy and supportive for one another, okay? There’s no need for negativity in this incredible community that I will always love.

What do you think? 

Twitter-sized bites: 

Writer @Ava_Jae breaks down why mega-successes like J.K. Rowling & E.L. James are good for the publishing community. (Click to tweet)  

.@Ava_Jae says “…there’s room for everyone to be successful [in the publishing industry].” What do you think? (Click to tweet) 

Character Development: Morals & Ideology

Photo credit: Walt Stoneburner on Flickr

Every one of us lives by a different standard of morality with a unique worldview etched into us over the course of our lives, beginning with simple lessons in childhood and culminating with deep introspection of controversy sitting in the moral gray.

Just as you and I have different ways of viewing and interpreting the world, our characters should each be unique in their worldview and moral code. And it shouldn’t always reflect your own, either.

Each of our characters have (or should have) a history that shaped them into who they are. This very same history will also help to mold the way that they view the world, from their outlook on life (pessimist? optimist? realist?) to the rigidity (or not) of their sense of right and wrong.

Knowing this aspect of your characters is essential to both character development and plot. Throughout the course of your novel, your characters will be pushed to their limits and challenged in various ways—and knowing the basis of how they view the world is the foundation to the decisions that they make.

Here’s an example: in the Twilight series (Stephanie Meyer), the Cullens drink animal blood because they believe it’s immoral to hunt humans. Most other vampires, however, have accepted their human diet as part of their nature, and see nothing wrong with it. This makes the Cullens act very differently around Bella than other human-hunting vampires. Different worldviews. Different moral codes. Different decisions.

Another example: in Shatter Me (Tahereh Mafi), Warner tries to manipulate Juliette into using her ability to torture people fighting against The Reestablishment. To Warner, it is a necessary part of living in a world torn apart by war, but Juliette refuses because she can’t bring herself to intentionally harm another human being. Different worldviews. Different moral codes. Different decisions.

There are many other examples out there, but they all lead back to the same conclusion: our worldview and moral code shapes our decisions, and they should affect our characters the same way.

Make a point not to neglect this aspect of character development—it is an essential part to truly understanding your characters and allowing them to act in a way shaped by their beliefs and understanding of the world.

How do you incorporate your characters morals and ideologies into your work?

On Reading "Bad" Books

Photo credit: Wiertz Sébastien on Flickr

So there's been this belief going around for some time now that the quality of books—especially popular books—has been decreasing over time. It's this idea that the books people enjoy reading today are somehow lesser than the novels that were popular twenty, fifty, even a hundred years ago. 

And it bothers me. 

It bothers me that people look at Twilight and The Hunger Games and Harry Potter and even Fifty Shades of Grey and say things like, the garbage that people read nowadays, and this book will never stand up to x-classic, and it bothers me that there's this belief that the books people enjoy reading now are somehow worth less than what people used to read. 

I'm not going to try to tell you that Twilight was written with the same literary finesse as Great Expectations or Brave New World—that's obviously not the case—but I truly don't believe that makes it a lesser book, and furthermore, I don't think that makes anyone who read Twilight and loved it a lesser reader for enjoying it. 

Regardless of what you think about these massively popular books, they accomplished something that shouldn't be overlooked—they got people reading. I've heard people say, I don't usually like reading, but I read Twilight (or Hunger Games or Harry Potter) and loved it. I know people who rarely read, who picked up novels that others like to call "garbage" and guess what? Not only did they enjoy it, but they realized reading isn't so bad after all. They realized the right book can actually make the reading experience—*gasp*—enjoyable. 

I picked up the Twilight series in 2010, long after the crazy fandom had already stated and the first two movies had already been released, and I realized as I was reading in public that I felt self-conscious. I was getting looks and I felt the need to defend myself and say, "What? I haven't read the series yet," and people seemed relieved when they found out I wasn't re-reading the series, as if that would be something horrific. And even then, the insinuation that I should be somehow embarrassed about reading the series in public bugged me, because no one should feel that way reading a book.

And now it's happening again, except this time it's with Fifty Shades of Grey. And I'll admit—I was tempted, especially at first, to think, why in the world are people reading that? How did that get popular? But the fact of the matter is, people who don't normally read very often are reading—and enjoying—the series, and even if I won't be picking up the book next time I head to the bookstore, maybe it'll remind people that reading isn't so bad after all. Maybe it'll make people who don't often read pause before they dismiss the idea of picking up another book. 

I'm not saying that you have to enjoy every popular series that is released—or even that you have to read every massively successful book out there—I know I haven't, and I have no plans to do so. All I'm saying is that this idea floating around that so-called "garbage" books are somehow damaging our culture or aren't worth the time spent to read them needs to stop. All I'm saying is that we should celebrate the fact that people are reading, even if we don't necessarily agree with what they're reading.

All I'm saying is a book is a book, and if it gets people reading, that's good enough for me. 

 
What do you think about reading so-called "bad" books? Do you agree with the stigma? Why or why not?

A Lesson from Bestsellers: Write Whatever You Want

Photo credit: K. Denman on Flickr

Not too long ago I wrote a post on What Makes a Book a Bestseller, and with The Hunger Games breaking all sorts of records in the box office, many people are left wondering what will be the next big thing.

Although fans would most certainly disagree, many have called The Hunger Games the next Twilight, and others have speculated what the next Hunger Games would be, but I think if bestsellers have taught us anything, it's that very rarely is there a next x (where x is a previous franchise, anyway).

Allow me to explain. If, for example, the fan base behind a non-Twilight vampire series exploded, meriting a debut on the screen and ridiculous merchandise sales, then yes, it might be appropriate to call the new phenomena the next Twilight. But as it is, The Hunger Games is about as similar to Twilight as Edward Cullen is to Mad-Eye Moody—both are fictional characters with recognizable names, but there ends the similarities.

Now I'm aware that when people refer to a phenomenon as the next x, they aren't referring to the similarities between the two, but the popularity of the franchise. That's fair, but comparing the two, at least to me, indicates some sort of lumping together (i.e.: Twilight and Hunger Games), which isn't fair to either book.

Harry Potter and Twilight and The Hunger Games are all their own separate entities. They were bestsellers for various reasons, none of which include their authors trying to write the next x. Time and time again when successful authors have talked about their experience writing their book, by and large they have talked about writing the story—their story, the story that only they could write. The point wasn't to be hugely successful or write the next big thing, the point was, and always will be, to write the book that demanded to be written.

And that is a lesson that all of us should remember.

The next hugely popular book won't be the next Harry Potter or Hunger Games or Twilight— it'll be the next it. It'll be its own thing with its own synthesis of ideas and characters and the right combination of word-of-mouth and captivating story. It'll be the book that the author had to write, the book that they pounded into the page over the course of years, the book that the author never equated with the other bestsellers because it is its own it.

The bestsellers are telling us something, and it's not just that vampires and magic and dystopians are popular— they're telling us to write the story that you want to write and worry about the rest later.

Or don't worry about it at all. Who knows? One day your book may be the next it.

What do you think? Have you learned any lessons from the bestsellers? 

Dystopia: The New Vampire?

With the last Twilight movies on the horizon and mounting hype over upcoming movies like The Hunger Games and Divergent, many are left wondering if dystopia is the new vampire.

For those of you who don’t know, here’s a quick definition of dystopia from dictionary.com:

dys·to·pi·a

   [dis-toh-pee-uh] 

–noun

a society characterized by human misery, as squalor, oppression,disease, and overcrowding.

— n
	an imaginary place where everything is as bad as it can be
[C19 (coined by John Stuart Mill ): from dys-  + Utopia ]

In summary, it’s the opposite of utopia. And its increasing popularity is more than evident on the shelves.

So in the sense that vampires are slowly going out of fashion and dystopia is building quite the fan base, I’d say that yes dystopia is the new vampire. However. HOWEVER. There is an enormous difference between the two genres that I think will set dystopia apart from the vampire craze that flooded bookstores not that long ago.

Before I go on, I want to say first and foremost that I’m not dissing any vampire novels. They had (and some still do) a huge following and it appealed to a large base of particularly excitable pre-teens and teenagers who snatched up more than a few of them. They were entertaining and people liked them, which is why they became popular in the first place.

So I give Twilight and the rest of the vampire books out there a lot of credit. They caught onto something that really resonated with people.

The only bone I have to pick with vampire novels is that a lot of them are the same. I’m not saying they all have the same plot (that would be an unfair generalization) but the vast majority of vampire books I glanced at in the bookstores went something like this: girl meets boy. Boy (sometimes girl) is a vampire. Boy loves girl but is afraid to hurt her. Girl thinks boy is mysterious and doesn’t care about the danger. TENSION.

Entertaining? Absolutely. But I got a little tired of it pretty quickly.

And that’s where dystopian is different. Whereas there was only so much you could do with a vampire story, a large range of dystopian novels are emerging. What makes dystopian different is that each story has a different society. Every novel has new challenges and new obstacles to overcome. Are there similarities? Of course, but there’s potential for a lot of variety.

For example: The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins (c’mon, I couldn’t write a post about dystopian novels without mentioning The Hunger Games at least twice). Basic plot involves a competition in which two teenagers from each of the twelve districts are forced to enter every year. The competition? Survival of the fittest. Last one still alive wins.

Now compare this to Wither by Lauren DeStefano. There aren’t any competitions here, initiations or factions. Wither’s focus is on something entirely different: genetic engineering gone wrong. In this dystopian novel, scientists accidently triggered a time bomb in every human so that women only live to the age of twenty and men twenty-five. As a result, girls are married off in the early teen years and forced to bear children in order to keep humanity alive.

I don’t need to go on to explicate the difference between Wither and The Hunger Games.

So what’s the point Ava? They’re different, so what?

In my opinion the end of the vampire age is coming because people got bored. The stories became repetitive and readers wanted something different. I think the vampire craze is coming to a close not because of a lack of talent or anything like that, but a lack of variety.

Dystopian is different. There can be huge variations and still fit within the realm of dystopia. Of course there will be repetition, but I think there's much more potential for variety than the vampire craze was ever able to offer.

And that will give it the momentum it needs to carry forward.

What do you think? Is dystopia just another passing craze? Will variety make a difference?