The One-Drink Book Club is an informal, (almost) weekly series in which fellow author Emma Lee Jayne joins me and our other creative friends to talk about the life, business, and art of writing and making books … for the duration of one Friday-afternoon drink.
OK, nice show, great points. That the books take on a life and ownership of their own was well put.
My question: is the marketing of a book very far removed from its writing? Sure, there are commercial decisions on sequels, etc. But how about the idea that just as story and storytelling are hard-wired into us, are points like Cialdini's "Influence" also having effect on how we view books - that point of connectedness and community that prompts us to buy things like swag and merch, let alone sequels.
Good question. I think it depends on the writer. For me, marketing and writing are on opposite sides of the planet. Some people can and do write with marketing in mind (planning a gotta-read-it sequel while writing the first book, writing a niche specifically because they know it's hungry for more books), but I just write what comes and then make those marketing decisions later. I mean, think about Unicorn Western. That book is hideous from usual marketing perspectives, because how the hell do you advertise it? Are the readers Western readers or Fantasy readers? So among other things, I finish the book and then decide if it might benefit from a sequel. Or I guess I can technically know it in advance because the story is just too big for one book, but in that case it's a story decision, not a marketing one. I'd have more money if I could think otherwise, but I can't. It limits my audience but makes my work a lot more enjoyable.
I do have one kinda-notable exception: Invasion. Sean and I wrote those books as mercenary as we could while still keeping the story riveting (or at least I thought so), trying hard to hit some hungry demographics and write must-keep-reading hooks into every chapter. It worked for exactly one book. By the seventh book in the series, it was completely "Truant & Platt" -- as much as Unicorn Western -- and not the smart book to write from a marketing perspective at all.
Hey Werner -- I absolutely hear you on this, but having discussed this with Emma a few times in the past and having listened back to the episode today, I think there's some nuance that's getting lost in any in-the-moment explanation of an issue with so much ... well ... nuance. Maybe I can help bridge some of the gaps.
I think her intent re: JK Rowling wasn't to say emphatically that JK is a bad person, but was instead to say that NO MATTER WHAT you think about her, good or bad, the books can be considered independently. Like: EVEN IF you don't like JK (and some people don't), you can still like the books. I don't believe she meant to say anything like "Even though she sucks, you can still like her books." It's difficult to articulate quickly when you're on the spot, so what maybe came off as virtue signaling wasn't, I don't think, intended that way. Stuff comes out half-formed when you improv like we do. I know I've said things I sort of wish I hadn't in the past. (Her own opinions about Rowling aren't really an issue because we all get our opinions.)
The books issue didn't come across fully on the episode either. Having talked about this a lot, I know what she means about "the books aren't hers anymore," and it's definitely not literally that the books aren't hers. The idea is that once any art goes out into the world, it stops being solely the domain of the creator because everyone sees it through their own lens, and that interpretation becomes part of the art for the person viewing/reading it. The circumstances of my life when I read those books is part of my experience of them, and that part of it has nothing to do with the creator.
Personally, I run into this issue with creators I have problems with. For instance, I'm not a big fan of Harvey Weinstein, but Miramar WAS Weinstein, and Miramax made so many movies that I love and don't want to give up. Similarly, a Black friend of mine was lamenting the fact that The Cosby Show was such a positive influence for him growing up ... and it's not fair that Bill Cosby's issues should take that away from him. And it shouldn't, in my mind, because even if Cosby created the show entirely by himself (which obviously he didn't) the show itself had its own life: It didn't fully belong to ANYONE anymore.
Even though I don’t agree with some of Stephen King’s stance on things, I still read his books because he’s one hell of a storyteller. I love the rich characters he gives us, the fantastic world-building and the emotional rollercoaster his stories provide (but not so much the endings). Even though those stories become part of my experience, which stays with me my entire life, I still see it as a creation King made for me the reader. At least that’s my perspective, or as King said in On Writing, “…that’s your little red wagon.”
Bill Cosby is tougher for me. I was a big fan. He was a comedic genius and “America’s Dad”. As a teenager, I met him at a tennis tournament. Bill was kind enough to let me take a picture with him. I still have that pic, but it now sits in a box unseen. I’ll throw it away the next time I come across it. Having victims of sexual abuse among my friends and family, I can’t separate the artist from the crimes.
The depths of disappointment from fallen icons are more difficult to reconcile than I ever thought possible. Now it may happen again with the growing Neil Gaiman controversy.
Again, thanks for your detailed perspective. I appreciate and respect it. I look forward to your next article.
Oh man. I didn't know the Gaiman thing. I swear, it doesn't feel safe to like anyone anymore. I think all I can do is to just stick to watching the art rather than the artist in a lot of cases ... which makes me like the aforementioned separation even more. It's practical, in a way, since you never know who's going to turn out bad.
That, and I'll keep making irreverent podcasts ...
OK, nice show, great points. That the books take on a life and ownership of their own was well put.
My question: is the marketing of a book very far removed from its writing? Sure, there are commercial decisions on sequels, etc. But how about the idea that just as story and storytelling are hard-wired into us, are points like Cialdini's "Influence" also having effect on how we view books - that point of connectedness and community that prompts us to buy things like swag and merch, let alone sequels.
Good question. I think it depends on the writer. For me, marketing and writing are on opposite sides of the planet. Some people can and do write with marketing in mind (planning a gotta-read-it sequel while writing the first book, writing a niche specifically because they know it's hungry for more books), but I just write what comes and then make those marketing decisions later. I mean, think about Unicorn Western. That book is hideous from usual marketing perspectives, because how the hell do you advertise it? Are the readers Western readers or Fantasy readers? So among other things, I finish the book and then decide if it might benefit from a sequel. Or I guess I can technically know it in advance because the story is just too big for one book, but in that case it's a story decision, not a marketing one. I'd have more money if I could think otherwise, but I can't. It limits my audience but makes my work a lot more enjoyable.
I do have one kinda-notable exception: Invasion. Sean and I wrote those books as mercenary as we could while still keeping the story riveting (or at least I thought so), trying hard to hit some hungry demographics and write must-keep-reading hooks into every chapter. It worked for exactly one book. By the seventh book in the series, it was completely "Truant & Platt" -- as much as Unicorn Western -- and not the smart book to write from a marketing perspective at all.
Emma lost me at dissing JK - HP not hers anymore? Would she say that about any of her novels? I stopped listening after the Virtue Signaling.
Hey Werner -- I absolutely hear you on this, but having discussed this with Emma a few times in the past and having listened back to the episode today, I think there's some nuance that's getting lost in any in-the-moment explanation of an issue with so much ... well ... nuance. Maybe I can help bridge some of the gaps.
I think her intent re: JK Rowling wasn't to say emphatically that JK is a bad person, but was instead to say that NO MATTER WHAT you think about her, good or bad, the books can be considered independently. Like: EVEN IF you don't like JK (and some people don't), you can still like the books. I don't believe she meant to say anything like "Even though she sucks, you can still like her books." It's difficult to articulate quickly when you're on the spot, so what maybe came off as virtue signaling wasn't, I don't think, intended that way. Stuff comes out half-formed when you improv like we do. I know I've said things I sort of wish I hadn't in the past. (Her own opinions about Rowling aren't really an issue because we all get our opinions.)
The books issue didn't come across fully on the episode either. Having talked about this a lot, I know what she means about "the books aren't hers anymore," and it's definitely not literally that the books aren't hers. The idea is that once any art goes out into the world, it stops being solely the domain of the creator because everyone sees it through their own lens, and that interpretation becomes part of the art for the person viewing/reading it. The circumstances of my life when I read those books is part of my experience of them, and that part of it has nothing to do with the creator.
Personally, I run into this issue with creators I have problems with. For instance, I'm not a big fan of Harvey Weinstein, but Miramar WAS Weinstein, and Miramax made so many movies that I love and don't want to give up. Similarly, a Black friend of mine was lamenting the fact that The Cosby Show was such a positive influence for him growing up ... and it's not fair that Bill Cosby's issues should take that away from him. And it shouldn't, in my mind, because even if Cosby created the show entirely by himself (which obviously he didn't) the show itself had its own life: It didn't fully belong to ANYONE anymore.
That's my two cents, anyway. Hope it makes sense.
Hey Johnny,
Thanks for the clarification. It makes sense.
Even though I don’t agree with some of Stephen King’s stance on things, I still read his books because he’s one hell of a storyteller. I love the rich characters he gives us, the fantastic world-building and the emotional rollercoaster his stories provide (but not so much the endings). Even though those stories become part of my experience, which stays with me my entire life, I still see it as a creation King made for me the reader. At least that’s my perspective, or as King said in On Writing, “…that’s your little red wagon.”
Bill Cosby is tougher for me. I was a big fan. He was a comedic genius and “America’s Dad”. As a teenager, I met him at a tennis tournament. Bill was kind enough to let me take a picture with him. I still have that pic, but it now sits in a box unseen. I’ll throw it away the next time I come across it. Having victims of sexual abuse among my friends and family, I can’t separate the artist from the crimes.
The depths of disappointment from fallen icons are more difficult to reconcile than I ever thought possible. Now it may happen again with the growing Neil Gaiman controversy.
Again, thanks for your detailed perspective. I appreciate and respect it. I look forward to your next article.
~Werner~
Oh man. I didn't know the Gaiman thing. I swear, it doesn't feel safe to like anyone anymore. I think all I can do is to just stick to watching the art rather than the artist in a lot of cases ... which makes me like the aforementioned separation even more. It's practical, in a way, since you never know who's going to turn out bad.
That, and I'll keep making irreverent podcasts ...