SBD -- what do you expect from an author?
Oct. 9th, 2006 09:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jmc_bksHappy Thanksgiving to my Canadian friends! And happy Columbus Day to my American friends! And happy Smart Bitches Day to everyone!
Okay, first, in light of the holiday, I'm looking for suggestions and recommendations for books set between 1450-1790. New World set, Old World set, a mix of the two, any are fine. Could be romance, could just be historical fiction. The last book I read set anywhere in that time frame was Laura Esquivel's Malinche, which was good. I liked Colin Falconer's The Feathered Serpent and Someone Else's Inca trilogy, too.
Second, today's SBD: what do you expect from an author? Huge question that could net all kinds of answers. But I'm thinking about branding and style. And wondering, do you as a reader assume that because one particular book by an author "speaks" to you, all of them will? What brought this to mind? Well, I picked up an anthology of science fiction/fantasy short stories at the library the other day; the only reason I did so was because it included a short story by Megan Whalen Turner, whose YA books I adore (The Thief, Queen of Attolia, King of Attolia). The short story wasn't bad, but it never really drew me in. Which got me thinking about this as a larger issue among the romance reading community.
Dear Author has blogged about branding and authorial/publishing promises recently. Bev has, too. This sort of relates to that, although I am not trying to start a discussion about intentional branding, per se, at least not the kind done by marketing or a publishing house. I'm thinking more about how we as readers often slot authors into little boxes as we read their books. For example:
Is it fair to do that? To the authors? To ourselves? That's kind of limiting, isn't it? Shouldn't writers push outside the box, stretch it a little? Otherwise things get stale. And do we as readers really want a steady diet of the same stuff? Sometimes it's nice to know what you're gonna get (category books, anyone?) but it's also nice to open up a book and be surprised by what you find inside.
Why do we assume that because we liked Author A's book #1, we'll automatically like book #2? That kind of decision making in reading is rife -- libraries and bookstores everywhere do displays and endcaps based on a single author, or have "If You Like" flyers posted. But that's like assuming that because you like chocolate chip cookies, you must also like cookie dough ice cream. Sort of the same ingredients, but different products entirely. I know it works sometimes (the glom), but it is just as often bound to lead to some disappointed readers.
A lot of readers seem to think that authors should not change styles or sub-genres -- it breaks an implicit promise to them, the fan, the devoted reader. More and more, I believe that writers should not worry about being bound by whatever genre or sub-genre they first wrote in. Would I be (will I be) sorry when Eve Dallas is promoted to Captain and takes a desk job? Sure. But I'd rather see it happen timely than see the series drag on past its prime (I know, some people already think it has). Linda Howard doesn't thrill me anymore -- too much suspense, too little romance. But that's okay, too. More or less the same for Julia Quinn, Rachel Gibson, Julie Garwood, Patricia Cornwell, Linda Fairstein, and many other authors. Just because a writer has more than one good book in them, doesn't mean that they have more than one good book that works for me as a reader.
Of course, the last paragraph assumes that the writer is writing what s/he wants to write, without thought to publishing pressure or market forces (what's the Next Big Thing?); if the author sees writing as a job only and is producing stories following the market, then I guess they should worry about being bound and managing their audience's growth.
Having blathered all of that, I do have a problem with authors who begin series and then leave them in the middle. Yes, Donna Boyd, I mean you. Your werewolf world had just kicked off a revolution against humanity in order to avenge the death of Nicholas Devoncroix at the end of The Promise -- talk about a cliffhanger ending. But no third book since then (1999).
Okay, time to wrap up. But I'm not sure what my point was anymore and I've meandered all over the place. I guess, first: do you assume that because you liked a particular book of an author, you'll like other books? Then: does that lead to disappointment, or are you generally satisfied, once you have found an author whose voice and style works for you?
Okay, first, in light of the holiday, I'm looking for suggestions and recommendations for books set between 1450-1790. New World set, Old World set, a mix of the two, any are fine. Could be romance, could just be historical fiction. The last book I read set anywhere in that time frame was Laura Esquivel's Malinche, which was good. I liked Colin Falconer's The Feathered Serpent and Someone Else's Inca trilogy, too.
Second, today's SBD: what do you expect from an author? Huge question that could net all kinds of answers. But I'm thinking about branding and style. And wondering, do you as a reader assume that because one particular book by an author "speaks" to you, all of them will? What brought this to mind? Well, I picked up an anthology of science fiction/fantasy short stories at the library the other day; the only reason I did so was because it included a short story by Megan Whalen Turner, whose YA books I adore (The Thief, Queen of Attolia, King of Attolia). The short story wasn't bad, but it never really drew me in. Which got me thinking about this as a larger issue among the romance reading community.
Dear Author has blogged about branding and authorial/publishing promises recently. Bev has, too. This sort of relates to that, although I am not trying to start a discussion about intentional branding, per se, at least not the kind done by marketing or a publishing house. I'm thinking more about how we as readers often slot authors into little boxes as we read their books. For example:
Nora Roberts = good dialogue, families
Julia Quinn = european historicals with humor
Christine Feehan = alpha vampires with hot sex who run rough-shod over spineless heroines
Marian Keyes = Brit chick lit with big issues lurking beneath humor
Is it fair to do that? To the authors? To ourselves? That's kind of limiting, isn't it? Shouldn't writers push outside the box, stretch it a little? Otherwise things get stale. And do we as readers really want a steady diet of the same stuff? Sometimes it's nice to know what you're gonna get (category books, anyone?) but it's also nice to open up a book and be surprised by what you find inside.
Why do we assume that because we liked Author A's book #1, we'll automatically like book #2? That kind of decision making in reading is rife -- libraries and bookstores everywhere do displays and endcaps based on a single author, or have "If You Like" flyers posted. But that's like assuming that because you like chocolate chip cookies, you must also like cookie dough ice cream. Sort of the same ingredients, but different products entirely. I know it works sometimes (the glom), but it is just as often bound to lead to some disappointed readers.
A lot of readers seem to think that authors should not change styles or sub-genres -- it breaks an implicit promise to them, the fan, the devoted reader. More and more, I believe that writers should not worry about being bound by whatever genre or sub-genre they first wrote in. Would I be (will I be) sorry when Eve Dallas is promoted to Captain and takes a desk job? Sure. But I'd rather see it happen timely than see the series drag on past its prime (I know, some people already think it has). Linda Howard doesn't thrill me anymore -- too much suspense, too little romance. But that's okay, too. More or less the same for Julia Quinn, Rachel Gibson, Julie Garwood, Patricia Cornwell, Linda Fairstein, and many other authors. Just because a writer has more than one good book in them, doesn't mean that they have more than one good book that works for me as a reader.
Of course, the last paragraph assumes that the writer is writing what s/he wants to write, without thought to publishing pressure or market forces (what's the Next Big Thing?); if the author sees writing as a job only and is producing stories following the market, then I guess they should worry about being bound and managing their audience's growth.
Having blathered all of that, I do have a problem with authors who begin series and then leave them in the middle. Yes, Donna Boyd, I mean you. Your werewolf world had just kicked off a revolution against humanity in order to avenge the death of Nicholas Devoncroix at the end of The Promise -- talk about a cliffhanger ending. But no third book since then (1999).
Okay, time to wrap up. But I'm not sure what my point was anymore and I've meandered all over the place. I guess, first: do you assume that because you liked a particular book of an author, you'll like other books? Then: does that lead to disappointment, or are you generally satisfied, once you have found an author whose voice and style works for you?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-10-10 01:09 am (UTC)Yes, isn't that why we have Auto Buy lists? Because we like one book so much we assume the next one will please us?
Jane
Auto-buy lists
Date: 2006-10-10 03:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-10 12:11 pm (UTC)Autobuys
Date: 2006-10-10 03:27 pm (UTC)