Also, I cant speak about bookstores across the pond, but it would be impossible to go into ANY kind of bookstore here and not find a selection of SK novels. Anywhere.
Also, I cant speak about bookstores across the pond, but it would be impossible to go into ANY kind of bookstore here and not find a selection of SK novels. Anywhere.
Sloth Love Chunk
The selection of SK novels in any book store I've been to (new or used, and probably its the same all over North America) have always had epic amounts of Stephen King books.
Most of the titles I grabbed, I grabbed because I found them cheap at a used book store (like Kerry's downtown, or Old Forrester, also downtown), and I'd either heard nothing about them before, or I'd heard wonderful things.
I love browsing through old bookstores to see if they actually put their King together, or let the books float around to catch people's interest at random. Most of them clump the books all together, so its just like four or more rows of King. That'll catch anyone's eye.
I agree with everyone who said whoever wrote that piece of garbage quoted in the first post doesn't know what they're talking about and/or is lame. I love The Dark Tower books, and very much dislike both of the other titles mentioned (I refuse to mention their names any longer. I won't talk about them, because I didn't like them), so to me, to see someone compare them, especially considering that both book series' are meant for a younger audience (youth to young adult), whereas King's Dark Tower books are meant for intelligent readers with some measure of maturity and brains... Well... I think you get the point I'm trying to make.
Random PM's are loved!
Call me Can.
Discord Tag: Can*/Tommy (They/Them pronouns)#5588
I don't think he was planning on accusing King of owing his success to circumstances. Maybe he just didn't use the right words but he says King is an excellent writer so I guess he made a mistake when choosing the way to phrase his thought. I said it was true, not that it was bright in any wayOriginally Posted by Jean
Because it's one of the two: either his article doesn't make any sense being only a re-chewing of the most tautological of commonplaces (namely, that if nobody buys an author's book, this author won't be successful), or he is accusing King of owing his success to circumstance. In either case, not very bright.
Those around for King's arrival would probably tell us the definitive story. There must be someone here who remembers what it was like in the US literature-wise in the mid- to late-1970s and 1980s, and what impact King had on the publishing and reading climate. I don't know much about that time, having been born in 1980, and following King only since 1995, but I do know most if not all of King's books were best-sellers from the outset and media sensations, pretty much, especially in the case of It.
Actually, here's an article from 1980 where King himself talks about this right-time thing:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...,4544597&hl=en
Ummmm actually, we tend to measure success (at least the majority in America) in dollars, right or wrong. Also, "Author/Writer" is a profession, which is defined as performing a service for a fee. Therefore, I believe an author's "success" is measured by the amount of people who actually "buy" his or her books.
And I don't believe the writer was saying anything as obtuse as "King owing his success to circumstance". I believe he was simply using SK as an example of the shifting marketplace and overall tenor in the literary world and publishing business.
Attacking the man's intelligence seems a bit beneath the folks on this site. He had an opinion and stated it in a professional manner. That's all.
Of course that's just MHO, as well.
28 in 23 (?)!!!!
63 in '23!!!!!!!!!!
My Collection: https://www.thedarktower.org/palaver...ion-Merlin1958
The Houston Astros cheated Major League Baseball from 2017-18!!!! Is that how we teach our kids to play the game now?????
I believe his use of King as an example was oversimple and ill-conceived.
I am occasionally accosted with theories like this one by self-important bookstore clerks when I'm trying to make a purchase. I usually just nod politely until I can excuse myself. Privately, I don't give such ideas much credence. They work better as convenient excuses for those who are secretly content with being unsuccessful writers than as useful advice for those with serious ambitions.
If you are a literary agent, then go ahead and quote this article to your clients all you want. But, if you are a writer, tell your agent to just keep looking for a market for the horror story you're still working on. Even if you have to start small, sales will come to good ones.
That's why I called it a commonplace. That's what that part of what I said looked like before you abridged it:Ummmm actually, we tend to measure success (at least the majority in America) in dollars, right or wrong. Also, "Author/Writer" is a profession, which is defined as performing a service for a fee. Therefore, I believe an author's "success" is measured by the amount of people who actually "buy" his or her books.
it's one of the two: either his article doesn't make any sense being only a re-chewing of the most tautological of commonplaces (namely, that if nobody buys an author's book, this author won't be successful)...That was, actually, my question: if he didn't say what I think he said, then what, besides the commonplace mentioned above, he did say? Your answer is good because what you saw in the article is a lot more positive than what I saw there; still, taking into account everyone has already said here about a great writer creating his own market and - larger - his own cultural context, even the interpretation offered by you doesn't look very sound to me; also, it's rather the author's personal impression (also disagreed with by many here) on the state of things rather than any deep analysis of the market. I am afraid I still fail to see what he endeavored to convey to us except, I have to repeat, either a very trivial thing or a very biased one; neither seem to me, as you called it, "a professional manner".
ETA: also, what path said.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What really gets our ire up is the idea that coincidence played a large part in his success. Writing is a lot like stand up comedy. There are very few overnight sucesses. Most overnight successes have put in years of work and refinement and rejection into their work.
A better example of "right place, right time" would be To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. Here is a book that dealt with a relevant issue of the time in which it was written. It was so well written, evidence that Ms. Lee was a great writer and well practiced, and hit on a nsocial nerve that was so alive at that time that this book, Lee's FIRST and so far only book, was an instant bestseller when it was published July 11, 1960. It went on to win the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1961. It remains a bestseller and remains in print to this day, and in 1999 was voted Best Novel of the Century by the Library Journal. If this book were published today, it would still be an excellent book BUT, given the circumstances and condition of the world that may have led to it's immense popularity (I have no idea of what the world was like at the time seeing as to how I suffer from not having been born just yet) would To Kill a Mockingbird reach the bestseller status it enjoyed when it was published? I don't know, but I think it may have gotten lost for a year or so. I think it would still garner the awards because it is such a good book, but the world is a lot different now, and would people see it as a relevant book now as it was then? I doubt it.
Maybe that's something for another thread, but I think it bears on this conversation.
Margaret Emmie Mackey Catoe, you are, have been, and always will be my soulmate, and I love you.
Con todo mi corazon, por todo de mis dias. And I always will, in this life and into the next.
August 2, 1947 - September 24, 2010
Good point! To Kill a Mockingbird is one of my all-time favorites, but if it were to be published today--with the rampant political correctness now existing--I don't know if it would even reach best-seller status. Too many groups would be protesting some of the language and depictions.
John
To Kill a Mockingbird has, ever since it was first published here in 50s, enjoyed an immense succes in Russia, - and in what was the Soviet Union - in spite of the fact that we didn't have either racial problems till very recently, or any civic conscience (Communist state, you know); but it's one of the greatest books about how children grow up and become real people, and it would be such in spite of any circumstances; I don't know anyone here who hasn't read and loved it; it's a book for all times - excepting, maybe, the present times of raging PC in Western countries; and I am very sorry to learn that it has any bearing on success of such books as that one. If circumstances can kill the success of a great book, they are the wrong circumstances, and the consequences won't delay telling in all spheres of culture and society.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think the controversy would just serve to boost the sales. In fact even if it wasn't a particularly good book. We've created a country where people like nothing better than to be offended and outraged.
A number of years ago, the Cleveland Public Library (if I remember correctly) set up a reader's discussion for various books, one of which was To Kill a Mockingbird. The reaction of a substantial number of people in the community to this book was to really trash it because of the racial aspect of the story--no other reason.
John
Bearing in mind that when I say if the book were to be published for the first time right now, I do mean the book as it is and not brought up to date. Here are a few facts about the time period. It was volatile with civil rights issues and many people were upset about the changes that were going on. The subject of rape was very much still a taboo subject and hadn't been extensively written about. The idea that a black man had raped a white woman in the US at that time was a very charged subject, mostly because of the racial tensions of the time. Today in the US, a book about the rape of a white woman by a black man wouldn't garner much attention because of the subject matter. There is nothing so shocking to the collective about that as it was in 1960. It wouldn't be breaking any social taboos via it's publication, except fo the language that was used. In the PC world we live in in the US now, the language itself would be the reason any controversy might be created. That would help the sale of the book true, but only if such a controversy should come up.
Like I was saying, the book itself wouldn't change so it would still be a great book. I just believe it would have gotten lost in the sea of other books out there for a while. It eventually would emerge because great books always do. Remember that Salem's Lot wasn't an immediate bestseller, but it was a well written and great story. It too eventually rose in stature, just like Mockingbird would. Unlike Mockingbird though, there were no controversial subject matters to aid in the sales of Salem's Lot, just the great writing.
Margaret Emmie Mackey Catoe, you are, have been, and always will be my soulmate, and I love you.
Con todo mi corazon, por todo de mis dias. And I always will, in this life and into the next.
August 2, 1947 - September 24, 2010
Timing and circumstances aside, if he didn't have the chops he wouldn't still be writing bestsellers 35 years later.
I'm saying this over and over again but the author of the article said that King had timing + circumstances + talent and that adds up to bestsellers. He is saying commonplace things but they are still right.
I think there is some truth to what the author is saying---however there are many flaws. For one, I think the real reason he would have a harder time is the decline of the publishing industry and the fact that publishers are wary of publishing anything that won't sell of the shelves.
Further, when I was working at Borders, we sold plenty out of the horror section--not just King. The Anita Blake novels went as fast as we could stock them, and plenty of people were buying World War Z and Joe Hill's work, to name a few. The idea that the genre is dying/dead or that King's earlier works have no place in the current market is debunked rather easily by anyone who's worked in the genre section of a bookstore. Horror still sells--and SK's books (new and old) still take up enough room, we half jokingly referred to it as the 'Stephen King Section' separate from the horror section.
I was stocking copies of Carrie andhis newer works, in addition to horror novels from newer authors.
Last edited by Ves'Ka Gan; 12-19-2009 at 12:42 PM. Reason: typos
YOU MUST CHILL. I HAVE HIDDEN YOUR KEYS.
And I'm saying the circumstances and timing didn't matter. That is where I disagree with the author. King's talent is what made him a bestseller. There was no interest in horror when his work was published. Carrie flew in under the radar, but was good enough to get King another book contract. It sold less than 15,000 hardback copies when it was released. The paperback went on to sell more than 1,000,000 copies a year later. King has said that he felt The Exorcist opened the way, but it is my contention that even if King's work were published today with no timing and no circumstances, it would still be well received. Carrie sold moderately in it's first year, but it's first year as a paperback saw an explosion. If you look at the release information on The Collector's website you will see a gradual increase of the print numbers from 30,000 for Carrie (which was too many so the next book was printed in shorter supply) to 20,000 for Salem's Lot to 25,000 for The Shining (12,000 or so for Night Shift, but that's because it was a collection) and then BOOM The Stand gets 70,000 copies.
Like I said, if he were to start today, I think we would see the same sort of progression regardless of circumstances and timing.
Margaret Emmie Mackey Catoe, you are, have been, and always will be my soulmate, and I love you.
Con todo mi corazon, por todo de mis dias. And I always will, in this life and into the next.
August 2, 1947 - September 24, 2010
I guess there's a bigger difference than I thought between the North American market and the French one (that I know best). It's amazing to see how well King still sells overseas!
With one or two exceptions, such as The Colorado Kid, I can walk into prety much any bookstore and buy whichever King novel I want. If they don't have it in stock, they can order it and I'll have it within the week. This isn't possible with many titles.
I'll also say that I can walk into ANY bookstore and unless it is a specialty store, like some around tourist areas such as Gettysburg where a few bookstores specialize in books about the US Civil War, I can find at least one King novel. Even the independants.
Margaret Emmie Mackey Catoe, you are, have been, and always will be my soulmate, and I love you.
Con todo mi corazon, por todo de mis dias. And I always will, in this life and into the next.
August 2, 1947 - September 24, 2010
I'm not sure how it matters that we can find SK in bookstores TODAY, as opposed to 1975. He's obviously made his career.
The original post wasn't really a critique of SK...it was more about the publishing industry, and it was basically accurate.
As for Carrie - the hardcover didn't sell. It sold 1 MIL paperback copies, because it was a short, tense, well-written genre horror novel exactly perfect for the paperback market. Then, it got made into a great movie. SK was undoubtedly - and in his own words - boosted by a great book made into a great movie.
That put him onto Hollywood's radar screen, and everything else followed from there.
One can't make the argument that SK's career goes the same way if the movie of Carrie was terrible. He probably becomes a successful genre author - like VC Andrews or Dean Koonzt - big selling, but not a cultural touchstone.
I agree totally with the original post - an author can't break out of their defined roles in today's compartmentalized market. A few superstars can write their own ticket, but most can't.
I remember when Different Seasons came out, and everyone made a big deal because it was more "literary," as opposed to horror like SK was known for - as though it was a big risk for him. So that was in 1982, you can imagine what people would say today. Would anybody let Tom Clancy write a romantic comedy, or would everyone mock him? Or Dan Brown a techno-thriller?
So...obviously SK is a superstar and can do what he wants...the article had nothing to do with his talent. But publishing is a way different business than it was back then, and the Carrie movie breakthrough is as important as anything else.
Anyway...I'm not editing this before I post it, so I reserve the right to modify statements if I decide they don't make sense...haha...
I agree with you that the Carrie movie boosted King into superstardom Rafha. Hollywood made him the celebrity he is today, and I agree with you that the publishing world is, and was then as well, very compartmentalized. However, author's CAN break from those defined roles if they want to AND are capable of it. I know a few authors who are very capable of it, but prefer to remain in their niche. I know another one or two who have branched beyond the genre (though many don't know it) and wrote well done books that sold failry well even though they received little to no fanfare.
What helps to sell King's book today is his name. What helped to sell his books back in the 70s was his name recognition from several movies as well as the well written books that scared people so bad they saw vampires during the day and creeping fire hoses in the hotels when they were on vacation. Would King have been so successful without the film Carrie to boost him? I honestly don't know, but that wasn't the point of the writer of the article, so my comments have been made with the assumption that someone would make the Carrie movie today as well (hopefully as well as De Palma did).
What I DO believe though is that without the Carrie film, and in today's market, King STILL would have become a force in the publishing world. His work is better than most of his contemporaries (in my opinion), it is more gripping than most of the horror being published today, and he showed a willingness to embrace new ideas regarding publishing and hasn't shied away from a challenge. Couple that with his writing talent and you have someone who was born to be a leader of his field. I would also like to say that without King's influence in the 80's and 90's, I don't think the publishing world would be where it is right now. I believe the book publishing world would be a lot different. And I'm going to leave it at that. Talk to y'all later.
Margaret Emmie Mackey Catoe, you are, have been, and always will be my soulmate, and I love you.
Con todo mi corazon, por todo de mis dias. And I always will, in this life and into the next.
August 2, 1947 - September 24, 2010
I'm not a big believer in talking about what people could do if they wanted to. You either can, or you can't. You do or you don't.
But I agree some could still break out of their perceived genres, at some level, just not nearly at a superstar level like SK has achieved. Who are your examples? I'm trying to come up with some myself...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
