Thanks to everyone for participating in Writer Appreciation Week. Hope all the writers out there feel, well, appreciated.
I know lots of people are probably skipping out early to get in their last BBQ or trip to the beach on this fine Labor Day weekend, but this blog stops for no one! No one, you hear!!
Only it’s going to stop this coming Monday and Tuesday. Just a quick Labor Day Weekend blog break, and it will be back in full force with a You Tell Me on Wednesday.
Now then.
Devastating news from PBS: the iconic show Reading Rainbow, a show little Nathan was completely obsessed with and directly resulted in his life in publishing, is no more, ending a truly amazing 26 year run. LeVar Burton: you are a great man, and Reading Rainbow will be sorely, sorely missed. The New Yorker’s Book Bench reflects on what it was like watching it as a kid.
Meanwhile, in other television news, “Will & Grace” veteran and literary agent sibling Gail Lerner is developing a comedy show about the publishing world called “Open Books.” Oh my. (via Jonathan Lyons)
I just caught up with this post from How Publishing Really Works that itself was catching up with a PW article from 2005 (if the blog existed then we would so have been all over this), analyzing some, shall we say, eye-opening stats from iUniverse. In 2004 there were 18,108 titles published on iUniverse. 83 of them sold more than 500 copies. Average copies sold: 43.8 per title. (via Self-Publishing Review)
Gawker investigates: the last remaining ways of getting a book deal?.
Neil Vogler pointed me to this great post at the Guardian about how, in many ways, the writing life hasn’t changed all that much.
There are some very nice words out there that need adopting! You too can be the proud parent of the word “sacriolist.” (via John Ochwat)
Something I always tell the query-averse is that summarizing your work doesn’t end with the query. Published authors have to give a brief description of their work constantly. In fact, my client Jennifer Hubbard, author of the forthcoming THE SECRET YEAR, points out that for purposes of conversation and marketing it’s usually helpful to whittle it down to a one-liner.
As an agent who advocates some consideration of SEO when choosing titles and pen names, I found this blog post pretty awesome: testing out character names using Google Ad Words. (via John Ochwat)
And finally, you know you want to sing along one more time. “Butterfly in the skyyyyyyyyyyyy…”
Have a great (long) weekend!
Nancy Coffelt says
I have such wonderful memories of snuggling on the couch with my son when he was little. Reading Rainbow was his favorite show.
Now he's a man – with a beard – and his own job and apartment.
He never writes.
He never calls.
Literary Cowgirl says
My brother and I were huge Reading Rainbow fans. I knew what authors to search out in the library because of LeVar Burton.
I can't think of a time when a show like that could be more needed than now, when so many children are raised by a television set, and their parents are too busy to read them a book. I am a strong believer that every child shood be read stories.
And, enjoy your blogging break, and your weekend in general.
Jade says
What's Labour Day? Is it your reward for labouring away at your jobs all year?
Literary Cowgirl says
Hi Laura. Hey guess what? We don't have Labor Day in Canada, but we do have Labour Day here. Woohoo, another day for North Americans to labour on their MSs. Enjoy the day.
Laura Martone says
Oh, well, Happy Labour Day, Literary Cowgirl! Good luck with your mss… I'll be critiquing someone else's in honor (or should I say "honour"?) of the holiday!
mkcbunny says
LeVar Burton rocks.
I love the idea of adopting a word. Plus, the usage examples are hilarious. I wish I could commit to "drollic" or "sturionic."
Kia says
Erm, I'm a Brit so I can be forgiven for not knowing what Reading Rainbow is, right?
Mira says
Jil – you are a sweetheart.
JJ – it probably seems like I post more than I do, because my posts are so INCREDIBLE. But, just so you know, I strictly limit myself to 2-3 posts daily, which is standard for a 'regular.' It requires an INCREDIBLE amount of self-discipline. Personally, I'm amazed that I'm able to do it. Sometime I just sit around staring at the walls, thinking: wow. I've managed to go 3 hours without posting at Nathan's. I'm INCREDIBLE.
I think you can see the theme here.
But it's a new day, and I can post again – yay!
So, first, since Reading Rainbow is closing, I want to share a link that helps with Literacy. Maybe folks already know this one. You 'click' on it every day, and the sponsors donate money for books. You can click on the other tabs, too, like Hunger and the Rainforest. It's cool. Here's the site: Literacy Site
So, the links. These are some fun links for labor day, Nathan! Cool. Except for the one about I-Universe, which I really didn't 'get'. It had math in it, so my mind shut down, which is the best way to handle math.
The other links are cool. I'm going to test out my own name at the Google name thing. Just for fun. I hope they do a T.V. show on publishing – that's marketing!!! It will bring people to books if it's funny enough.
Okey dokey. Hope everyone is having a fun weekend so far.
Julie says
I too mourn the end of Reading Rainbow. It should be played in reruns forever. It is such a wonderful show.
Like that adopt a word thingy. I'm gonna have to look into that more 🙂
Laura Martone says
So, I just realized that after promising yesterday at 3:46 p.m. that "you'll hear not a peep from me for the rest of the weekend," I went ahead and posted again at 1:02 a.m. this morning. Oops. In my defense, I was responding to Literary Cowgirl, who had directly addressed me. At least, I think she had.
Well, since I'm here again… I just want y'all to know that, after much thought about the coolness of the "Save the Words" link, I adopted "magistricide" (the killing of a teacher or master).
Now, don't go reading anything into that, Nathan. As teachers go, you're the best… and I hope you stick around a long time! I just thought the word sounded cool. Some of them I had a hard time pronouncing, let alone remembering.
Okay, here I go again. I'll try hard not to return. Heehee.
—–
word veri: aught – as in I aught to stop wearing out my welcome at Nathan's!
Mira says
I know Laura. My posting quota gets confusing when people talk to me. It's a very, very complicated thing, this posting business.
Okay, I adopted Snollygoster. I had to. It's the best darn word I ever saw in my life. Forgot to look up what it means, though. I'll have to check, since I've made a lifelong commitment to use it. Shouldn't be hard to work that into a conversation.
Laura Martone says
Darn it all! I was trying so hard NOT to come back… and then Mira had to go and talk to me. Argh.
Incidentally, Mira, I love that you adopted "snollygoster" – that's hilarious. Not only is it a totally fun word to say – Lewis Carroll, eat your heart out! – but the definition's not bad either. It means "a clever, unscrupulous person" – hmm, I'll have to remember that. It could make a terrific insult! So, no, Mira, I don't think you'll find it hard to use it… unfortunately, there are a lot of snollygosters in the world!
Abby says
My husband suggested I make the Reading Rainbow theme my ring tone…think I might just 🙂 Thanks Nathan for a reminder of the good old days!
lora96 says
Reading Rainbow…NOOOOOOO. I loved that show. I use old episodes in my 2nd grade class. That iconic butterfly…aahh the grief.
Lora
litdiva.blogspot.com
CKHB says
No more Reading Rainbow? Oh, MAN.
Hey, does anyone else remember the ABC Saturday morning shows based on books, with the orange cat Captain O. G. Readmore?
Anonymous says
Seven or eight years ago, certain people in the publishing business were saying that because of the Harry Potter books, a new generation of 'avid readers' would be created, and that the publishing business would likely prosper as the result.
Here in Vancouver, Allan MacDougall said that.
And exactly who is Allan MacDougall, I hear you ask?
Allan MacDougall is the CEO and publisher of Raincoast Books, the Canadian distributor and publisher of Harry Potter in Canada. When Allan was at the Hannover Book Fair one year, there was a minor buzz being generated about this new children's book called Harry Potter – so MacDougall inquired about the Canadian rights, and discovered that they were still available.
He had to put in a bid on the series, knowing that the odds of selling even five thousand copies of each book would be improbable. He said to his assistant, 'let's go hog wild here, and assume that we might eventually sell ten thousand copies of each book'.
He put his bid in and won the rights. By Christmas of that year, Raincoast had sold 75,000 copies – and Allan knew that they were pretty much riding a runaway train.
The notion that Harry Potter alone was going to 'create an entirely new generation of avid readers' was, in my mind, just plain silly. For one thing, I noticed that my nieces and nephews were indeed reading the Harry Potter books – but I noticed as well that that's all they were reading. Indeed, they were reading these books, and then re-reading them. In other words, they weren't advancing to other books – J.R.R. Tolkien, or C.S. Lewis, for example.
If you were to ask me, which person has done more to get kids reading, LeVar Burton, or J.K. Rowling I would say Burton, hands down.
Rowling was a passing fad. LeVar Burton was an ambassador to books.
Anonymous says
Oh yeah, I forgot to write that Raincoast Books, in March of 2008, shut down its publishing division.
See the irony there?
Literary Cowgirl says
Laura,
A good thing they didn't have this adopt a word thing when I was doing basic training (QL@ here), or rookdom at Norwich, because I would have snapped up magistricide in a heartbeat!
Laura Martone says
That's hilarious, L.C.! Yeah, I could've used "magistricide" myself back in the day… not all professors are created equal, if you know what I mean!
Donna Hole says
Anon @ 5:23p
I have to agree with you about the Harry Potter books. I have been cursed with children who don't read, unless it's instructions for accomplishing missions or getting cheats on their video games. I had hoped the Harry books would jump start them, but only one of mine even read the first book.
I had the same hopes with the Goose Bumps series. They read those books, but nothing else. And only because they had to write reading logs and book reports at school.
I was pretty disappointed to read some of the – reviews? – on writing for children/YA. Quick, snappy, get to the juice of the story, don't drag out any one scene or concept. Get to the end as quick as possible.
Maybe texting has turned our kids away from pleasure reading.
………..dhole
Jen C says
I know it's a little late, but I went on a book-spree today. Most of what I bought were books I'd been meaning to pick up for ages, like the Time Traveller's Wife and the Poisonwood Bible, but in keeping with Writer Appreciation Week I bought a book by a local, debut author too. It actually looks really cool, not something I would have bought if I hadn't been specifically looking for something from a first-time author.
terripatrick says
Let's hope Reading Rainbow lives forever in reruns, travels the globe for at least a decade or two and is translated into every language.
Love you LeVar! Thanks for the memories!
Thermocline says
The iUniverse stats were a good reminder that there are no shortcuts, other than writing an amazing book.
I'm going to cry if Sesame Street ever goes off the air.
Mira says
Well, I disagree that Harry Potter didn't bring kids to books.
I don't think kids went from Potter to LOTR or C.S. Lewis. They went from J.K. Rowling to Stephanie Meyer.
Maybe not all kids went on to read to other books after Potter, but alot of them did. That's why YA is the 'hot' field, and I believe it can all be traced to the Potter books.
That's why the writer is so important. If you can get the right writer, you can revitilize a genre or the industry.
Mira says
Oh, and by get the right writer, I don't mean the one who writes the best query or who is easy to work with or who never says anything negative on the blogs or who markets themselves well.
I mean a writer who writes a book that will reach millions.
Welshcake says
Nathan – how about a one-liner competition on the blog sometime (you haven't done one already, have you)?
But perhaps you've sworn off competitions…
Anonymous says
Mira, the writers 'who reach millions', these days, tend not to be the most talented writers – they're just the ones who have won the lottery.
Rowling didn't sell a billion copies of Potter because she's a talented writer.
She sold a billion copies because she got lucky.
Mira says
Anon – well, you're talking to the wrong person.
I adore the Harry Potter books. I think they are amazing pieces of literature that will last.
From my perspective, J.K. Rowling got lucky in that she is wildly talented, and also has the innate drive and discipline to write no matter what.
Now, Stephanie Meyer – I do think she got lucky. Very good timing.
Chumplet - Sandra Cormier says
Just dropping in to say Hellloooooo! Funny — verification word is twitau. That's me…
Donna Hole says
Ohh, ohh! Mira and Anon: can I butt in? Well, doing so anyways.
I started with the Harry Potter series late because I was hoping to find something my kids would enjoy. I don't mind reading MG/YA, I like to know what kids are into these days (being the mom of 5 teenagers).
I liked the first book, and the second book, and by the third book, I realized this series probably wasn't for just 10 year olds. Nope. I do believe the popularity of the Harry Potter series is not in the number of middle grade students that have read the series, but in the number of ADULTS that have read and supported the series.
Because seriously, do yo think that by "The Goblet Of Fire" she was writing for 10-12 year olds? Debateable at book three "Prisoner of Azkaban".
I'll admit I'm not well read in the YA series, but I have read several of the most well publicized, including TWILIGHT (first book only), SISTERHOOD OF THE TRAVELING PANTS, ERAGON, and yeah yeah, Harry Potter.
How many review's of these books have we read that were written by 10 – 17 year olds?
Not that I don't think any of these series were not excellent books. I mean, Paulini started his book when he was like, 15? But I do believe it is the interest of the "adult" readers, not the interest of the YA readers that mark a book for extreme popularity.
I mean, who made "The Giving Tree" popular, the kids who read it, or the adult controversy over the meaning behind the book.
Anonymous says
Mira, I never said that Rowling's not talented.
Ask any published novelist what's required to make a living from writing fiction, however, and the answer will almost invariably be, luck.
I remember seeing Tom Clancy being interviewed once (this was when the market was saturated with Clancy's novels). The interviewer asked: "So why are you selling so many copies right now… there must be something special about your novels?"
I thought for sure that Clancy was going to say something about how great his plots were, or how his writing was so easy to get into. Instead, he just grinned, and shrugged his shoulders, and said: "I got lucky."
The interviewer persisted, and said: "But surely there's more to it than that…"
And of course there is more to it than that, but again, Clancy just shrugged his shoulders and repeated: "I got lucky."
People outside of the publishing business just don't understand the role that luck plays.
Also, Harry Potter isn't literature – I'm sorry, it's not. This isn't even up for debate. These are derivative children's novels. She actually has generic ghosts and witches in these novels. And by the way, the novels are meant for kids, not for adults – any person can, or rather, 'should' be able to see that.
It was alarming when adults started reading these books – doesn't say anything about Rowling's abilities, however. Rather, it's just further evidence that people, these days, have incredibly poor reading skills (to say the least), and would prefer to read a children's book over something that's challenging and engaging.
I also laughed at your suggestion that Meyer's success was based on luck, and that Rowling's was based on talent – that's just downright condescending.
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
I don't think you are probably the right person to call anyone condescending, and I'm going to delete similarly tinted comments from here on out. There are quite a few people who see a lot of literary merit in the HARRY POTTER books and there are adults and children who have enjoyed them. They don't deserve to be sneered at, nor do you personally get to close the debate on what is considered literature.
Mira says
Nathan, thank you.
I hope it's okay if I respond to one point…? If you'd prefer I didn't continue this, please delete it.
Anon, I understand what you are saying about luck, but I think you and I are talking about apples and oranges.
I'm not arguing that 'luck' is involved in becoming a published writer, whatever luck is…
But what I'm saying is that certain writers, once they do have the luck to get published, also have their fingers on the pulse of the reader. They write something that reaches across broad spectrums. They create new genres, like Tolkien, or they speak to something in thousands of people, like….well, take your pick. Or they may not even reach their audience during their lifetime, but they write something so enduring that it speaks to people hundreds of years later.
Whether you include Rowling in that or not isn't really the main point of what I was saying.
What I'm saying it that there is something to the writer who can….well, write. Beyond being published. Beyond making a living at it.
A writer who can write.
Anonymous says
Well, Nathan, what is literature then?
You have to set some kind of a standard, obviously, or else the word itself will lose its meaning.
I can only speak for myself, but if people were to start debating whether or not the Harry Potter books should be classified as literature, then I would back out of that debate pretty quickly.
Right now, it's fashionable to argue that every person's opinion is equally as valid as everyone else's – and I'm sorry, but I don't agree with that. Literature is literature. If you allow for any piece of writing to be classified as being literature then you've just destroyed the very notion of literature itself.
Sure, you can have the Harry Potter debate if you want to, but then what's to prevent you from having a similar debate about the merits of, say, Twilight, or of Nancy Drew? I'm not sure I see the point of that?
Maybe a better question would be: What isn't literature?
Are you willing to answer that question?
You seem overly concerned with not offending people – but how can you honestly answer such a question without offending people! I just don't see that.
Surely, there must be books that you would classify as not being literature – if you were to name them, then you would likely end up offending many or most of the people who love those books. (And then, in turn, I could say what you just said to me, that it's not for you to close the debate on what is or isn't literature.)
Well that's just nonsense.
You have to man-up, and take a stand.
Nevertheless, I'm genuinely curious: what books would you consider not to be literature?
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
I'm not saying it definitively is literature, and my opinion of what is or isn't literature isn't particularly important (to myself or others).
All I'm saying is that "what is literature" is an ongoing debate, and it's not one that any one person has the power to close.
Anonymous says
Nathan, I realize that the definition of literature is constantly changing, and that people will always debate the merits of certain books – but I see no reason why we can't close the debate on certain books?
Surely literature does have a standard, and surely some books are so far below that standard that having one such debate would be completely pointless and stupid?
I believe that the standard for what constitutes literature is rather high – which should make it even easier to know which debates are worth having, and which are not.
Also, I'm disappointed that you won't name a few of the books you feel are not worthy of being classifiable as literature – honestly, I think you're taking the easy way out there. I personally would've found your answer to be enlightening.
Even an extreme example would have sufficed. (Although I would've loved it if your example had not been an extreme one – that would've showed daring!)
Not Harry Potter? Not Nancy Drew? Not Twilight?
Then what!
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
It's really not my job to determine what is or isn't literature — I leave that to the scholars.
Anonymous says
My grade twelve English teacher asked us this question on an essay exam one time – what is literature?
You should ask this question of your blog-readership some time.
The responses would be incredibly illuminating, I'll bet.
Laura Martone says
Anon –
I think this is an extremely subjective debate… as it is with visual art and cinema. What one person considers classic… might be trash to another.
For instance, many professors and readers consider WUTHERING HEIGHTS to be a classic example of "literature," but personally, I find it to be little more than a trashy gothic romance with two extremely distasteful protagonists.
But that's just my humble opinion. I certainly wouldn't look down on someone who thought otherwise.
Your tone seems to indicate that you would indeed scorn those who thought differently from you. I agree with Nathan – the debate on what is and isn't literature will never be closed. And frankly, I'm heartened that it won't be because I enjoy debating such things… if all parties are respectful of others' opinions, that is.
Anonymous says
Laura, I don't think that deciding what's literature and what's not literature is nearly as subjective as you say it is.
Obviously there are books that are worth debating the merits of. I'm not saying that there's an absolute standard for what constitutes literature – and I never did say that.
But if a person is going to advance the idea that, say, a Nancy Drew novel is literature, and in the same category as, say, A Passage To India, and that their opinion is as equally valid as mine or as anyone else's, then I can't even be bothered to argue with them.
That's just not a debate I'm going to engage in.
As I said before, literature is literature. It has a standard. If you remove that standard and allow for anything to be called literature, then you're defeating the point of creating the word 'literature' in the first place. My chief point, really, is that some books fall so far short of that standard that it's pointless even having the debate.
Nancy Drew is one such book (I'm not saying that Nancy Drew has no value, or that it doesn't serve a purpose, I'm just saying that it's not literature). Nancy Drew just isn't on the same level as A Passage To India, which surely is literature – are you seriously going to argue otherwise?
Okay, if you want to, I guess.
Donna Hole says
Sorry Anon, but I take offense to the notion that I, as an adult who read and enjoyed the children's novel Harry Potter, have poor reading skills. I take offense to anyone who makes a judgement about my intellect based on the books I read.
I have an extremely wide variety of tastes, and if I choose to indulge in a little "easy reading" to clear my head of the more important concerns of the world for a few hours, I feel entitled to the break.
One of the things I liked best about the Potter series was not the story itself – though it was very entertaining – but watching Rowling's growth as a writer.
IMO, if she'd continued the books on a purely 5th grade reading level, she never would have sold as many books. Children aren't demanding of a writer. Adults are. As the story became more and more complicated, her writing skills had to rise to the challenge. Obviously, she did very well.
You can get "lucky" in hitting on a popular concept; you can get "lucky" in having the right agent work with you to get the story published. But the skills of the writer to "tell" that story and keep Reader interest is not luck at all.
That's just my opinion: I'd rather think of myself as a talented writer – no matter how long it takes to get published – than to think I just got lucky.
And I appreciate the difference between "not wanting to offend" and having "respect" for differences of opinions. Nathan Bransfords blog is one of the few places anyone (not just writers – published or not) can come and enjoy those differences without being ridiculed. There are no "absolutes" in here.
So, if some have a different "opinion" than your's, those comments should be as welcome as your own.
………..dhole
Mira says
Anon, well the Potter books are YA fantasy. Fantasy is a relatively new genre, and young adult fantasy is an even newer genre, so those genres are difficult to assess – there are less examples of great literary classics.
I suspect you're crossing genres. You're comparing fantasy with literary fiction (A passage to India.)
And honestly – I know I used the word literature – but I didn't mean it to carry such weight. It has a more casual meaning for me. Besides, I see more gradients in the quality of books than literature/not literature. There's just good – and that's where I'd place the Potter books. I think the Potter books are an amazing feat of imagination and world building. They re-vitalized and perhaps helped to define the YA fantasy market. They're good.
Sometimes, when something is wildly popular, it can be difficult to see how good it really is.
Whether they are 'literature' along the lines of Alice in Wonderland? Um, probably not. I do think they are better than the Narnia books. But then, I don't like the Narnia books, so I might be biased there.
Anonymous says
Donna, I didn't mean that every single adult who reads Harry Potter is a poor reader, nor did I mean that every published novelist succeeded purely because of luck.
But again, I have to stick to my guns, and call it the way I see it. And the way I see it is that the Harry Potter books are children's stories, and that children's stories are called that for a reason, because they're meant for children.
I also refuse to accept the notion that Harry Potter is literature.
I'll also continue to assert my opinion that Rowling sold as many copies as she did, not because she's such a talented novelist (although talent obviously played a small part) but rather because of luck – blind luck.
Okay, so all of that seems to anger some people here.
Well, there it is.