A wizard boy, a vampire and a bit of kink

Once again I must apologise for my lack of posts.  I can really only blame myself but I don’t like doing that so instead I’m going to blame work which has been very busy this last week.

Following on from my previous post about bestselling ideas, I was a little shocked that the first three bestsellers that immediately came to mind were all women; J K Rowling, Stephanie Meyer and E L James.  

Where are the bestselling males making headlines?  Well of course there is Stephen King who everyone has heard of, but he doesn’t seem to have the same punch as these three women.  What about Terry Pratchett?  I am slightly biased, being a fantasy fan, and I have a strong suspicion that Mr Pratchett is more a household name recently because of his commendable campaigning for euthanasia and Alzheimer’s rather than his wonderful books.  There are others; Iain Banks, Dan Brown, John Grisham, but no other writers have made quite as big a splash as J K Rowling, Stephanie Meyer and E L James.

 All three women are the creators of a franchise, are household names, they have all owned headlines and the book series, movie deals, crowds of screaming females (the ages of which depend on the particular books) and inescapable merchandise.  Harry Potter even has a place in the Universal Studios theme park – I wonder if they’ll do something similar for 50 Shades.

Why have these three women succeeded in making headlines where others have failed?  Does them being female have something to do with it?

I’ve been having a good, long think about this and I do think that being female is a part of their success.  Not because women are better at writing than men, of course they’re not.  It’s because of the market.

More women read than men and women are more likely to discuss the books they’ve read and share with friends and family.  These three women cover every age bracket; J K Rowling captures the young and subsequently their parents, Stephanie Meyer has hold of teenage hearts and E L James taps into the (consenting) adult.

Success in publishing is largely down to understanding your target audience.  Who is your book aimed at?  Young adult fiction and romances are the largest parts of the publishing market, so it seems only natural that these three major bestsellers should fit into these two categories (if 50 Shades can be considered romance).

I still think that 50 Shades’ success was actually down to the taboo idea.  Let’s face it, E L James didn’t necessarily have to build up her readership in the way that other authors do.  She simply jumped onto Stephanie Meyer’s grown up readership with a new twist on an already successful idea.  She threw in a lot of kink and her own fantasies and came out winning.  Not to mention that the story was so taboo that people who would usually not be interested in erotica felt the need to read this book.

So 50 Shades can claim that it went beyond satisfying the need of a major target audience and it broached the concept that humans are social animals.  To a large extent to be different is to be outcast, and instinctively humans need other humans to survive.  So a handful of people read a book, raise questions, criticism and glow about it which means that other people read it to find out what the fuss is about.  Soon enough, people are buying it purely to be ‘in with the crowd’.  What a feat!

So here’s another question; would a man be able to do what these women have done? 

Of course!  Ian Fleming did it before any of these three.  Will Twilight and Harry Potter survive as long as Bond, James Bond?

Is the idea more important than the words?

As a writer, published or unpublished, do you react negatively when the name Stephanie Meyer is mentioned?  How about J K Rowling?  E L James?

All three are best sellers with the most simple of ideas; the vampire romance, the epic story of the wizard boy and basic erotica.  These are not new ideas, so what makes these so different from the others?

I grew up on a series of books called The Worst Witch which told of Mildred, a young witch attending witching school, and her adventures.  Ok, so she was just clumsy rather than being prophesised, she wasn’t going to save the world but I still couldn’t put the books down.  Does anyone remember these books?  They certainly didn’t make headlines.

When I hit the dreaded teens I lapped up vampire romance books.  I can’t remember any off hand but I do remember loving them, pouring over them, soaking them in.  The fact that I can’t remember them shows that they definitely didn’t make headlines.

I’ve read quite a bit of erotica in my time too.  Mills and Boon, Black Lace, My Secret Garden, all of which are well known, none of which have commanded the headlines that Fifty Shades of Grey have. 

There are a number of theories as to why Harry Potter, Fifty Shades and Twilight made it big when similar ideas have gone fairly unnoticed.

Luck is a major factor.  No one can really know that their book will be a bestseller.  They just put it out there and if the cosmos wills it, they will have released it just as the world’s readers want that story.

Marketing is also important.  I recently read an article about the importance of titles and it’s very true – if Fifty Shades of Grey had been given a normal, erotica title then it would not have been the success it is today.

Another article I read recently made a worrying point, however, about the quality of these books.  It is well known that Fifty Shades is not particularly well written, you only have to read the Amazon reviews to get a hint at the quality of the writing.  The first Harry Potter book is not exactly writing gold, as J K Rowling recently admitted (which made me like her – she’s acknowledged just how much she’s grown).  Does this mean that ideas are more important that quality writing?

What would this mean for all of the amateur writers out there?  We who scour the internet in our procrastinating moments, looking for hints, tips and rules to perfect our writing, and pour for hours over our manuscripts, working each sentence to near perfection.  Is it all a waste of time?  Should we instead be thinking up new angles and original plot lines and to hell with the writing?

I don’t know about you but this thought terrifies me.  Then it occurred to me that Twilight isn’t original.  The basic plot has been told over and over.  There’s nothing new about it so what makes it so special?  Harry Potter and Fifty Shades, I can understand.  The epic boy wizard and the taboo of sadistic sex, but what is so special about the girl who falls in love with a vampire?

Perhaps in this case, the story is just what teenagers (the target audience) wants.  I spent a lot of time at school writing the girl meets vampire story for my friends (and myself).  Maybe if I’d just put that little bit of extra effort in, I could have penned Twilight.  But then, who can’t say that?  It seems to me that Twilight’s success is purely down to tapping into teenage desires and nothing more.  Following along that line of thought, Fifty Shades of Grey must tap into the taboo thoughts of some women, especially as it is basically Twilight fan fiction.  Fifty Shades is the adults Twilight, which explains a lot of its success (although doesn't excuse it, in my opinion).

Because I can’t contemplate the notion that ideas are worth more than good writing (both should be equally important, surely) and because I want to be able to give mainstream readers some credit in taste, I like to think that luck is the real reason these three bestselling ideas made it big.

You can’t predetermine what will be a bestseller, but if mainstream readers are after ideas, whether original or not, over quality writing, I hope to never be included among them.  I would rather be a good writer with compelling words and ideas, than a bestseller.

Why so series-us?

What do Stephanie Meyer, J K Rowling, Terry Pratchett and Paul Magrs all have in common?

They’ve all written a series!

When I was researching, believing myself ready to submit a fantasy novel to publishers and agents, I came across one thing, over and over.  Publishers love their fantasy in threes.  The general notion seemed to be that if you can make your story into a trilogy, it is more likely to sell.

As a reader, I disagree with this.  I would rather read one stand alone book then a trilogy.  I thoroughly enjoyed Northern Lights of the His Dark Materials trilogy (Phillip Pullman), for example, but The Amber Spyglass actually annoyed me and was a battle to finish.  I adore The Blade Itself of the The First Law trilogy (Joe Abercrombie) but couldn’t for the life of me tell you what happened in The Last Argument of Kings.  I couldn’t even remember off hand the titles of these third books!

On the other hand, I am an ardent fan of the Discworld series (Terry Pratchett), the Brenda and Effie series (Paul Magrs) and Joe Abercrombie in general who’s novels all feature the same world and reoccurring characters (I read with longing that Logan Ninefingers and/or Glokta will reappear).

Yes, I dislike trilogies but love a good series.  What’s the difference?

A trilogy tells the same story over the course of three books.  While I have repeatedly read that all trilogy books should be able to stand alone, this simply isn’t true and if you want any closure for your new favourite characters, you must read all three.  Three books are not many, but have you noticed that many trilogies grow in size as they go on?  The final book is always the thickest and suddenly gaining that closure becomes a marathon.

A series tells the story or stories of a set of characters in the same location.  This can be as varied as the writer wants and can make work.  It may be that a series stretches across a whole world (Pratchett’s Discworld), a country or two (George R. R. Martin’s Westoros and across the Narrow Sea) or a town (Whitby in Magrs’ Brenda and Effie series).  It could focus on a small set of characters (Brenda, Effie and friends) or a whole cast full (Rincewind, Vimes, Vetinari, The Librarian, Susan, Death, Colon, Nobby Nobbs, Carrot, Tiffany, Granny Weatherwax, Nanny Ogg to name a few and that is not counting the one off characters through the whole series).

A series is something special, it is something that readers become loyal to.  It is the equivalent of joining a group of friends on a new adventure.  You live and breathe there with them and look forward to when you can return to them.

A series is also a sure fire way to make a publisher a lot of money.  Once one book has a readership, the whole series has a readership and the longevity of the books relies on the number of books in the series.  Not to mention that someone may discover a book fairly late and then catch up through the backlog, resulting in more sales and an ever increasing customer base.

Whatever the series you hope to create, there are some constants which must remain throughout;

• Locations must remain familiar.  Feel free to introduce new locations, of course, but make sure they are repeated throughout the series.
• Have a cast of reoccurring protagonists.
• How about some reoccurring antagonists?  This will differ depending on the series.  Crime stories will require different protagonists throughout, but how about that serial killer that got away?

While a series should have constants, it is also very important that each book work as a stand alone story.  This is where it becomes tricky!  A series can/should have a main issue or story that is worked on throughout (the game of thrones in A Song of Fire and Ice, Brenda’s fight for a normal life in the Brenda and Effies books) but each book must have its own story with a beginning, middle and ending giving the reader closure.

You also want to ensure that anyone can dip into the middle of your series and still be immediately hooked without wondering what the hell is going on and being forced to find the first book.

How about a sub series?  Within the Discworld series there are the City Watch series, the Witch series, the Wizard series…if you have a large cast of characters this might be one way of dividing stories.  It also gives way to marketing opportunities – which is your favourite Discworld sub series?

Why not experiment?  Both of my current novels are the beginnings of series’.  One will rely on three main characters with some minor reoccurring characters.  The other will rely on a world, with reoccurring characters but a new story and point of view each time.  I’m actually very excited to see where both will lead me.

As with all writing, there are exceptions to all of these rules.  When it comes down to it, write what you love but make sure it works.




Fancy a bit more?  Check these links out -
www.bestsellerlabs.com/the-hottest-tip-no-fiction-writer-can-afford-to-ignore
http://www.joeabercrombie.com
http://www.terrypratchettbooks.com/ 
http://lifeonmagrs.blogspot.co.uk/


 
 

A Friday afternoon with a Woman in Black

On Friday I took a half day at work and spent my afternoon sat at the back of a cinema watching The Woman in Black.

Ghost stories, to me, at the epitome of horror.  Nothing scares me more than a good ghost story and while I hate being scared I am drawn to these stories; they entice me, they’re addictive.  The reason for this, I believe, is because there is always a good plot behind a ghost story; how did the person die, what do they want?  That is what  separates ghost stories from a regular slasher/gore film.

I went to see The Woman In Black because I had to (it’s a classic, gothic ghost story!), but also because I wanted to see if Daniel Radcliffe could leave Harry Potter behind.  I am pleased to say that Daniel Radcliffe is a very good actor.  At no point did I look at him during the film and think of a little boy wizard.  Daniel Radcliffe has grown up and has now starting to show the world that he can act.

The Woman in Black is a story about grief.  The grief of Arthur Kipp (Radcliffe) who has lost his wife and the grief of parents losing their children.  Arthur Kipp, a solicitor, travels to a small isolated village to deal with the paperwork on the estate of a recently deceased woman.  He arrives in the village where the children die in violent and strange circumstances and the presence of a spirit hangs over their homes.   Kipp continues with his work and uncovers the story of the inhabitants of the old house cut off from the mainland. 

While The Woman In Black is primarily focused on the theme of grief, it is my opinion that this story is also a journey for Kipp into fatherhood.  He starts the film so consumed by grief that it has become his identity despite his love for his four year old son.  Throughout the film he begins to appreciate the importance of his son and as the film continues you begin to see him as a loving and responsible father rather than a man torn apart.

This film is typically horror in that it is full of jumps.  It is set in an era that is perfect for horror stories of this type, full of scary dolls, oil lamps, no telephones and creaking floorboards.  Daniel Radcliffe carries the film as his character is the main focus.  The story is learnt and filters through Kipp and he is a character that the viewer empathises with from the very beginning.  Many reviews worried that Radcliffe would be too young to play a character like Kipp and I admit I too was a little worried about his age.  I am happy to say that Radcliffe portrays Kipp sensitively and, although is young, it is never questionable that he could be a young husband a father.  In fact, I believe that Radcliffe’s youth brings something extra to Kipp’s character; a certain vulnerability of the young and naive which makes his grief and actions all the more believable and painful.

This is a story that can be picked apart and interpreted in so many different ways.  The ending, for example, is different to that of the book, which may annoy some but I feel gives the film an interesting ending with some form of conclusion.  Again, the ending can be interpreted in different ways and so I think it is best to stick with the immediate feeling you are left with when watching it, which for me was an uneasy feeling of closure.

The whole film leaves you with a tingling sense of uneasiness with that boost of adrenaline that fear inspires.  Daniel Radcliffe is superb in the leading role, conveying so much heartache with just one look. 

This film is classed as a 12a.  I would not let a twelve year old watch this film, although I wonder if a twelve year old would grasp the true horror of this film.  Would they just see the jumps and ghosts or would they see the mind-numbing agony behind it of the loss that no person should ever have to suffer?  This is an adult story for an adult audience, I do wonder whether a child would be able to fully appreciate the themes in this story.

While this film will not find a home in my permanent collection, I am glad I went to see it and I would urge anyone other than those of a truly nervous disposition (or anyone who has recently suffered a loss) to see it also.  A beautifully gothic film and a perfect start to Daniel Radcliffe’s non-Harry Potter career.

I will be venturing to the cinema again on Valentine’s Day with the person I love for a very different film, a trip back into my childhood for the new Muppets film!