Kiteflying

[shalanna]

Really bad old joke heard on Telethon from Norm Crosby: (warning: PG-13)

"Ben Franklin was out in the thunderstorm, in the rain, with the key on the string, running to try to get the kite up in the air. So he couldn't get it up. So his wife Aretha [sic(k)] calls down from the window, 'You need more tail!' And Ben yells back, 'Make up your mind! Last night, you told me to go fly a kite!'

(joining in the collective groan across the 'net)

nineweaving notes: "At Worldcon, 11:00 am panel, for sheer Schadenfreude: "Harry Potter Has Put Children's Fantasy Back Fifty Years" (Sharyn November, Jane Yolen, Graham Sleight, and other two Britons). Of course all the editors there, and everyone else on the planet, had rejected the first book as badly written and derivative: half Roald Dahl and half Enid Blyton. How were they to know? Much of Rowling's rocket-launch was in her artfully presented backstory of struggle and poverty (though Rowling's neighbourhood was rather nice, said one Briton). And Bloomsbury was going down the drain, and put everything they had into one last desperate throw of the dice: that gamble too became legend. Sharyn November said she shudders every time a manuscript comes across her desk signed with initials. Much bewailing of adverbs. And dismay at nonexistent editing."

*grin*

Comments

[amanda-marrone.livejournal.com]

Every time I read a children's book that is wildly popular that I just don't get I remind myself that I am not the target audience. I happen to really enjoy the HP books and even if I have quibbles about things in the books I must admire the author's ability to not only become a sensational hit with her target audience but become a hit with adults as well.

As for her rocket launch attributed to her woe is me background, if the book didn't strike a cord with people they wouldn't have finished it let alone read beyond book one even if Rowlings had been improverished because she was putting all her money into helping the poor or saving puppies and such. The fact is people are reading and enjoying the books.

And that's what I was grinning about--

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

The reason I just said *grin* in response to that quotation is that it's a virtual admission from those editors (and agents) that they didn't expect the books to be popular. They had all these "reasons" why it "couldn't" succeed, and yet it has, beyond anyone's wildest expectations. So, by extension, that means that OTHER books they keep rejecting (such as, perhaps, MINE *ahem*) might well do the same kind of rocketing upwards, given half a chance. That's why I just *grin*-ned.

I honestly believe that many books READERS would love are being blocked out of the New York houses because of several misguided "rules" and ideas that editors and to a larger extent agents have. For example, there's a long-standing rule that in romance, the heroes have to have rippling muscles and be conventionally attractive in an almost ridiculously cliched way (so far as I am concerned). I have always been attracted to nerds/ Jerry Lewis types, and so I always think it'd be cute for a romance hero to be beautiful on the INSIDE instead and kind of nerdly on the outside, but you almost never see that--not in category, because there's an unwritten rule.

For years I heard that "funny books don't sell well and win awards," but when they FINALLY gave Jennifer Crusie's books a chance, they created an entire market slice! People WANTED funny books back (they died out around the early 1960s when weepies came in, according to my unscientific research.) Now "funny" books and comedies, as well as epistolaries (which they told me FIRMLY would NEVER come back!), have invented a hugely successful genre--chick lit.

So they don't know what could be next on the "next big thing" list. They're rejecting based on attitudes and beliefs they've held for years, or that "common wisdom" from past failures has led them to believe. It's got to be a tough job. But it's even TOUGHER being a writer who hears stuff like, "I don't know how to pitch this, although your writing is wonderful," and "You have to be branded, so you can only write in one genre per pen name so your brand is recognized," from people who ought to love literature rather than have to worry about marketing. But today it's all about the bottom line, and they're too nervous not to toe that line. Too bad they're missing out on a lot of books that could make them big money, just 'cause the books are not what they THINK will sell!

And of course the Potter books are a shining example of something they didn't think would sell. I don't think they need to be defended, although for some reason any time you say anything about them, fans jump on you *GRIN*. I think the record speaks for itself, telling the industry that you just never know what will catch readers' interest or create an entirely new market. And I think they KNOW that, but they don't have crystal balls to tell them what's going to be big, so they reject books that might just be that next big thing. Pity.

The problem is that a book is not seen as successful unless it sells a boatload of copies and supposedly appeals to "everybody." The fallacy there is that not everyone likes the same thing, and people who only pick up "blockbusters" of whatever stripe and don't find them appealing probably think they just don't like to read, which isn't necessarily the case. Some people who don't cotton to the big suspense authors might like cozy genre mysteries, but since they're not hyped and on the supermarket shelves (not as often as the suspense/intrigue stuff is), they aren't even aware that there's anything beyond the Agatha Christie novels that they may not have cared for years ago. Some who don't like bestsellers might love midlist authors. But they may not be aware that novels can be THAT different from one another, and so they may not seek anything else out. One good thing is that chick lit readers have discovered novels that aren't weepies and aren't gore-fests and can be relied on to be funny . . . that's why it's so popular. And that's a good thing, even if much of chick lit is pretty, well, shallow. . . .

Some is deeper. I think mine's deeper. But then I'm not even sure it's chick lit, though I'm marketing it as such.

Re: And that's what I was grinning about--

[amanda-marrone.livejournal.com]

The reason I wrote was more directed at an author I heard speak about how similar his book was to Harry and how he'd felt like he'd been ripped off. There are more than a few books that have similar set-ups--mean teacher, less than perfect hero, mean schoolmate that mean teacher favors--(The Worst Witch books for one--my daughter loves these) it's just the HP books do it better--or at least appeal to a broader audience. When they keep complaining about HP it starts sounding----well, I'll leave it at that.