Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

So recently I've been thinking much about the question in the topic title. Yesterday I went to a big library to look for some good books in Polish (for those of you who don't know/remember, I'm from Poland) because lately I've only been reading stuff in either English or Spanish (or Polish translations of stuff written in other languages). And as I looked at the shelves with Polish literature it struck me that mostly everything written in Polish is... well... not really good. I could make out three basic categories of novels in Polish - fantasy (mostly unoriginal that tries to attract the readers by putting all kind of Norse mythology elements or angels inside, although there are some original stories), books for middle-aged women (mostly romance stories) and some philosophical, intellectualized books written for people with too much time to spare.

And so, the most popular novels of the last few years are: Twilight, Harry Potter, DaVinci's code and the like. What makes these so popular? In each of them we have a more or less normal person suddenly confronted with a entirely different world than the one we know from our everyday, boring life. So if I want to write a book that is popular (and I want to be a novelist) do I have to create a story based on the same pattern? Is that the only way to become popular?

Apart from the authors style, which has to develop constantly, what kind of story should be told so that the book would be considered good? No, not good, extraordinary. Is there any way to know what will sell and what will not? And is it that good =/= popular?

What are your opinions?

--------------------

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one...

I may only be a pretentious literature major, but I don't think that good = popular. Case in point: Twilight. Contrived swill does not a good novel make.

You mentioned a common theme: "In each of them we have a more or less normal person suddenly confronted with a entirely different world than the one we know from our everyday, boring life." Joseph Campbell has a lot to say on this in his The Hero with a Thousand Faces. That scenario is one of the most common (if not the most common) in myth, so it's not surprising it works so well.

As for there being particular stories that will make a book good, I don't think such stories exist. As Henry James wrote in his essay "The Art of Fiction," "The execution belongs to the author alone; it is what is most personal to him, and we measure him by that." In that way, I think a good book becomes more about style. (Of course, as James admits, sometimes you won't be interested in the subject of a novel no matter how well it's written; but that applies to ubiquitous as well as esoteric subjects.) I probably won't be interested in a story about siblings who talk to their dog, but if they each have their own distinctive voice, and the dog doesn't literally return the favor, I might give it a shot.

I think along the same lines as Kane, but not entirely. Popular books are not necessarily good or bad. Popularity is just a side-effect, although popularity can affect how people perceive the book when reading it, and potentially make it better. Also tastes can affect how good a book is, so a person might like a book that features all their favourite topics even if it's not very well written and the author hasn't got much to say. Twilight is popular and has themes that are easily accessible to a broad audience, so it hits a perfect note, or so I believe anyway.

The crucial thing to consider is whether a book is good at what its purpose is. Twilight and 1984 are miles apart but both are good books in my opinion. I've read some of Twilight. It's a big seller, and all credit for it for being so, but I couldn't go further because it's uninteresting and not demanding enough. 1984 is thought-provoking and almost timeless. The principles and messages of the book have so many applications in people's lives and in society, even in the success of Twilight as it happens. However the purpose of 1984 and Twilight are also miles apart, and I prefer books which have a purpose to influence me and my perceptions of the world, or are to tell a memorable story. Twilight is just pulp, it's undemanding and fun, and it's very good at that.

Having said all that, I believe that's just a small factor in what makes a popular book. A popular book is simply a marketable (accessible) work of fiction that is marketed effectively. Twilight has revitalised the vampire obsession in young people. It's no accident, marketing has done it. The Da Vinci Code is only popular because of marketing. Dan Brown basically copied The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail written two decades previously that wasn't nearly as popular, and then his publishers did the rest. I have two friends who are published authors and a third who is currently writing his book. It's a truly terrible system. I wouldn't want to be in their position, they're stuck writing books in the same formula under a contract with their publishers. They want to branch out and try different things but they can't. That's the problem, the pursuit of popularity stifles the art.

Quote (SZ)

So if I want to write a book that is popular (and I want to be a novelist) do I have to create a story based on the same pattern? Is that the only way to become popular?

As far as I understand, if you want to write your masterpiece and you want it to be read by a broad audience and therefore gain popularity, you must find a decent publisher that cares about your writing and strike a fair contract with them. If you do this tell me how. Either that or the normal way: make a name for yourself in journalism or some other endeavour so that you have a ready market for whatever you write, allowing your publisher to give you more freedom.

This post has been edited by sweetdude on 8th July 2010 18:09

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Incidentally, I just figured I'd point out that you can get a free audio version of Henry James's "The Art of Fiction", along with the lectures by Walter Besant that Henry was responding to in his essay, at librivox.org.

I also am currently enjoying "Aristotle's Poetics- for screenwriters" by Michael Tierno. I guess it's written for screenwriters, but I think any fiction author might get something out of it if he doesn't want to wade through Aristotle's original work. It tries to summarize what Aristotle thought made up a good narrative, and I think he does a good job, giving some cool modern movie examples to illustrate his points, such as Rocky, The Godfather, and The Breakfast Club.