jtglover: Buzz vs. Popularity, New vs. Old, Spy vs. Spy

J. T. Glover (

jtglover) wrote,
@ 2008-06-13 15:50:00

Current mood:	busy
Entry tags:	marketing, reading, writer education, writing

Buzz vs. Popularity, New vs. Old, Spy vs. Spy
[Originally a lengthy comment on greygirlbeast's journal entry for today. She was talking about the popularity contest aspect of publishing, so I got to thinking about who's popular -- where, why, and what that popularity means...]

Katherine Kurtz vs. Paul Jessup. Katherine Kurtz is a Grand Old Lady of the current wave of fantasy writing, a Founding Mother if ever there were one. Paul Jessup is a burgeoning writer getting favorable notice (or maybe it's just a matter of being visible) in various places I read online -- Jeff VanderMeer's blog, Clarkesworld, Fantasy Magazine, etc.

KK is famous, important, etc., and I had no idea up until seeing her at a con recently that she was publishing more Deryni books. It's true I don't regularly read Locus or the digest mags, but I would have thought that I would have heard about her publishing. PJ, by contrast, is getting various online press and will presumably get serious attention when he puts out his first books next year. Don't know if it's a young/new vs. old thing, or what, but in some measure one gets more attention than the other.

As to markets, hmmm... I'm talking completely off the cuff here, but I've heard a low but constant buzz about Lady Churchill's Rosebud Wristlet for a while. I've never yet submitted there, I know no one who has submitted there, and I know no one who has told me they've read a story there, and yet that magazine name shows up in "year's best" mentions, offhand references among certain SF taste-makers, etc. Is it "more popular" than F&SF? Probably not. What about the high-paying Jim Baen's Universe? Well... Maybe it's just a matter of me not knowing enough SF readers, but I've never met a single person who's talked about reading a story at JBU.

You'll note a recurring caveat here is "that I know." I don't know the entire world, and I really don't know all that many SF people -- readers, fans, writers -- in real life. This is always a problem, e.g., in the discussion about whether short fiction markets are dying, because even if 30,000 people are reading F&SF, say, and you just don't happen to be one of them, or know other people who subscribe, then you can have a skewed perception of what's popular.

ETA: This seems a not inappropriate time to remind people of Speculative Fiction Authors Considered As High School Students. Tangentially related, in so far as high school is all about the popularity, and nobody is more popular in high school than ~~the bookworms who get taped to flagpoles~~ the big-brained elites who eventually become Lords of the Internet.

(24 comments) - (Post a new comment)

	j_cheney 2008-06-13 08:06 pm UTC (link)
	What about the high-paying Jim Baen's Universe? Well... Maybe it's just a matter of me not knowing enough SF readers, but I've never met a single person who's talked about reading a story at JBU. Ouch! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jtglover 2008-06-13 08:09 pm UTC (link)
	I know, I'm sorry. :( Obviously they are out there, otherwise JBU wouldn't exist, and wouldn't pay as well as it does. Again, probably just not knowing the readers. Certainly most people have never heard of anyplace I've published. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	j_cheney 2008-06-13 08:11 pm UTC (link)
	I have to agree that the JBU crowd is a bit insular. I was pleased to be paid so well, though. ;o) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	jtglover 2008-06-13 08:12 pm UTC (link)
	I would have, too. One day. :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	sboydtaylor 2008-06-13 08:09 pm UTC (link)
	Jessup is a cool guy. Very intense, but very cool. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jtglover 2008-06-13 08:14 pm UTC (link)
	That's been my impression as well. Another one of the dozens of people I'd like to meet at a con one day. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	pauljessup 2008-06-14 02:29 pm UTC (link)
	I'm intense? Hopefully not in a serial killer kind of way... heh heh heh (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	sboydtaylor 2008-06-15 03:39 am UTC (link)
	Ha! Definitely not. In a creepy-good-story way. :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	will_couvillier 2008-06-13 08:17 pm UTC (link)
	I read one at JBU, I read one! ::runs around excited to have read one:: Of course it was because it was a Nebula finalist and the author was in an online workshop with me once, but I read one there! Really! (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jtglover 2008-06-13 08:20 pm UTC (link)
	Well, that's one. Next you're going to tell me you subscribe to F&SF, Analog, and </i>Asimov's</i>, and that you read them all every month. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

will_couvillier
2008-06-13 08:35 pm UTC (link)

Nope. What are these titles of which you speak?

Actually, I tend to read the small press and independents more than the print. A couple months ago, I bought all three to see what I was missing, but couldn't tell you today any title or author I read in them. Other mags I've read recently: Shroud #1, Apex Online, for a Jessup reprint involving a very evil sort of CCG, the current issue of Shimmer, Niteblade for some poetry, and I just ordered issues 1-8 of Black Gate, just cause I love that old style heroic and they have a good special on back issues going right now. A lot of my reading comes from anthologies.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	sartorias 2008-06-13 08:32 pm UTC (link)
	Who's cool and who sells doesn't always map. I think the generation point of a lot of the "who's cool" in our subgenre is a cluster of editors who are seen at the cons that are considered the cool cons. Their friends get their voices heard. This is part of being human. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jtglover 2008-06-13 11:11 pm UTC (link)
	Too true. We'll always have the well-regarded and respected person who doesn't sell for beans, the millionaire hack everyone loves to hate. I think it would be a lot of fun to go to more cons and see/learn more about how it works, though it seems like it would be really easy to get caught up in them as a thing in and of themselves. Not that that's bad, but $$$, you know. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	pauljessup 2008-06-14 04:12 pm UTC (link)
	Ah, but I do SELL as well. So, nyeah. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	sartorias 2008-06-14 04:28 pm UTC (link)
	So does George R.R. Martin--and he's another popular guy. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	pauljessup 2008-06-14 05:51 pm UTC (link)
	Well, pfft. You and your examples. Either way, I was just be silly. (Reply to this) (Parent)

grayrose76
2008-06-13 08:52 pm UTC (link)

I read Lady Churchill's regularly. I will actually subscribe to it as soon as I relocate - changing address is a pain in the behind. I also have a story to submit to LCRW if it gets rejected from its current market. I know writers who submitted to LCRW, though I don't know anybody who got an acceptance. They have a very long response time and don't pay a lot, but atm I would take a story sale to LCRW over almost everything, I think.

As for JBU... Subbed there, so I read a couple of stories, yes. Not as exciting as LCRW in my book. But my book is very odd.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

jtglover
2008-06-13 11:14 pm UTC (link)

A-ha! Clearly I'm not asking people enough about their reading habits. One of the things I'm coming to believe more and more is that there isn't a "best" magazine in the genre -- only editors whose tastes one does or doesn't agree with. Big shocker, I know: "good is relative!" Still, it seems like there are a few markets that get a lot of attention, from the Big 3 to the WT/F/Clarkes triad to a few others...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

david_de_beer
2008-06-14 07:00 am UTC (link)

well, Kelly Link is affiliated with Lady Churchill's, and she's one half of the team that selects for the Year's Best Fantasy&Horror; the big three are older than most and get mention because of that, since the are kind of the standard, but also it's noticeable that for awards the readers of F&SF, Asimovs and to a lesser degree Analog, simply nominate and vote a hell of a lot more than other zines do.
(Realms of fantasy has more readers than the above mentioned, except for Analog, but it's not as visible on the polls, the readers don't seem to nominate as much whereas the Big 3's are dedicated to the awards).

Cemetery Dance is probably the biggest -- certainly one of the oldest -- in the horror markets, but it slips by most discussions it seems like.

some writers are more extrovert and far more noticeable for being all over the place, and they get mentioned by champions with big blog followings. That tends to create a perception of them being known well, at least in online culture.

Cons seem to work fabulously for people looking to connect, and people like name dropping who they met at cons and take more notice of and promote friends they meet there.

JBU readers seem to be pretty much a group to themselves; the mag does get read, now and then there'll be a mention, or a nomination will pop up somewhere, but the Baen readers are a group to themselves it seems.

IGMS slips under the radar completely, and what about Interzone? It's a popular mag for certain readers, but not as widely spoken about as some others. But those who do read are passionate about it and if you hang out on the right forums you hear about it, and here right simply means the forums where it gets mentioned.

There's not a great deal of rhyme or reason to any of it, and buzz is, well, buzz. Whether it genuinely translates into sales, or quality of writing to a broad audience is very difficult to say, near impossible.
Simply so that some magazines and certain writers have very vocal champions.

Are they better? To those who read them, yes, they are. To everyone? No, I don't think so, some readers are more quiet than others.

We have trememdous diversity and range in the genre mags today, catering to a lot of tastes and that's good, IMO.

"Good" and "personal taste" are two concepts we all very often confuse one with the other.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

jtglover
2008-06-14 11:02 am UTC (link)

I think your points are right on. It's an imbalanced, highly personality-driven process, else ROF and CD would both get more mention. I'm glad about the range of stories being published these days as well, as I'd hate to have everything read like the Big 3, plus CD for horror, I guess.

Agree completely on the "good" vs. "personal taste" thing. There are so many factors that push people not to talk about what's good or bad in SF that I think most people just tend to talk about what they like. That leads to less fights and more promotion, but I wonder sometimes if the genre would thrive even more if there were more serious reviews and criticism.

I think a lot of it comes down to intention -- whether they feel that way deep down or not, a whole hell of a lot of SF authors just say that they're writing to have fun and tell a story, so they shouldn't be evaluated critically. I can understand the impulse, as I'd hate to have my fledgling career crushed by a powerful, mean-spirited critic, but I'd also hate to publish horrible work for ten years without any critic saying my work isn't good because of X. On the other hand, I'd hate to see fun work I enjoy driven out of existence because SF suddenly took itself way too seriously. I think there's always going to be a divide to some extent between authors who are writing to entertain and those whose goal is to write something meaningful.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

david_de_beer
2008-06-15 08:20 pm UTC (link)

I think there's always going to be a divide to some extent between authors who are writing to entertain and those whose goal is to write something meaningful.

ah, but why should those two concepts be viewed as in opposition? or mutually exclusive within the same individual writer?
As Michael Chabon said in an essay of his, "I'm an entertainer."
Whether as writer or reader, the specific manner of entertainment differs from the specific need at that moment.

I don't know whether it's true, but I read once the Greeks viewed comedy as the highest of the arts. I look around at the average Hollywood comedy, and my first impulse -- when compared to the idea suggested by the Greek thought -- is, "how we have fallen."

Sure, these average Hollywood comedies are not artistic, meaningful or memorable. And yet, and yet, I do enjoy them, quite often pick them over films lauded for artistic achievement or worthy subject matter, because at that particular moment, the silly comedy is what I feel I need.
This is how I, personally, view films and my preference for silly comedies fills the need I have when I want to watch a movie.

So, when you get right down to it, those movies do exactly what they were created to do. They fill the exact need for me that I need them to fill.
Does that follow then that they are lesser artistic creations than more seriousminded movies struggling with uncomfortable material?
To me, no.
To someone else, yes; but what is that person's need for movies? It won't be mine, and so they look at them differently.

Meaning, I firmly believe, is an attribute the creator/ writer is largely helpless to inject; when a story fills a need for people they will find meaning therein, they will create meaning the writer might never have intended nor perceived. It might not be a false meaning, not to that person.
Meaning is a dangerous word, like talent.
before I get too far off-track, I do agree with Chabon that entertainment has a needlessly bad name that we, ourselves, have given it and it's time for us to take it back and be proud of it, be aware of the role it plays and celebrate all the diverse ways in which we can and are entertained.
As such, no, I don't believe entertainment is at war with meaningful stories. But then, meaningful stories are the domain of the reader, not the writer.

a whole hell of a lot of SF authors just say that they're writing to have fun and tell a story, so they shouldn't be evaluated critically.

I suspect you're right, and there is a large element of self-preservation involved. Necessary self-preservation. I wonder if Cat Rambo wasn't onto something when she said that some ways in which publishing operates promotes the survival of, not the talented, but the thickest-skinned.
Then again, one can also argue that reminding yourself "this is supposed to be fun", is a reminder that you started this because it gave you pleasure. a pleasure that might not be dissimilar from simple job satisfaction, an athlete who trains to compete in the Olympics, etc. A professional satisfaction, that brings with it pleasure. A pleasure that comes from the act of doing it, being involved in a job you love and want to do, rather than one you have to drudge through the hours for a steady paycheck.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

david_de_beer
2008-06-15 08:21 pm UTC (link)

Critics -- I don't know, I just don't know. You summed up both sides of the coin pretty well. I'm either or on this one, jsut don't know. There is something very self-serving and egotistical in the idea (and often execution) of negative criticism, designed to be correctives of the field.
I do believe that the writer's true enemy is invisibility. And so it follows that the only genuine weapon you can wield against stories you think are lesser quality is oblivion. Besides, it gives me personally more pleasure to talk and mention stuff I do like, hopeful I can participate in a small way in a potential positive buzz. It's slow, gradual, but it can pay off better than scything the genre and separating the good from the bad from the ugly.
And in the era of Google-Me, it's both wiser for (especially new) writers to stay mute on the bad and applaud the good, and it's simply nicer when someone says, "thank you, I'm glad you liked it!" than "you cretin, ignorant swine, you just don't get me/ are jealous/ buffoon, etc, ad infinitum."

I love talking about theory in general and at times am frustrated that we can't talk more specifics, but more and more I'm beginning to understand why it's sometimes not a good idea.

so yeah, I don't know.

interesting post you made, and the comments have me thinking, more than I have space and time for right now:)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

jtglover
2008-06-15 10:34 pm UTC (link)

I do believe that the writer's true enemy is invisibility.

Jonathan "The Corrections" Franzen said something about this once. I haven't been able to get into his fiction yet, but I've really enjoyed his essays (even if they sometimes grate). Early in his career he apparently avoided interviews, didn't want much information circulating about himself, on the view that his work should speak for itself. It didn't exactly do a lot of talking.

The positive-only approach has its merits too. There is so awfully much published these days that I think many people look for guidance on where to find good stuff, so I suppose the praising thing really would do a good just of guiding people away from the bad stuff.

The bad thing for literature, I suppose, is when something bad does well at the expense of the good. There's no arguing about taste, of course, and sometimes criticism is basically ignored by readers who think the critic has a case of sour grapes (or is just wrong and/or stupid). On the other hand, sometimes it needs to be said when the emperor ~~is writing pointless, cliched, plot-stretching sequels~~ has no clothes.

As to specifics, I guess that's what conventions are for. :)

I'm glad you found the post useful.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

jtglover
2008-06-15 10:47 pm UTC (link)

Agreed about the entertaining/meaningful thing, of course. Shakespeare wasn't trying to write Meaningful Literature -- it happened along the way while he was trying to write the best, most entertaining, most human stories he could. Excellence -- in comedy or tragedy -- should be celebrated. Comedy is rarely my thing, but I like it done well. Part of the problem with the ranking of comedy, I think, is that what makes people laugh is often highly context-dependent. Jokes in Shakespeare, e.g., often have to be explained, thus making them inherently unfunny, except in a removed, scholarly sort of sense.

Michael Chabon is who I always think of first lately (Graham Greene back in the day) when it comes to discussing the intersection of literary fiction and genre fiction. Interesting, though, that his more "genre" efforts haven't seemed to do as well, at least to judge by the critical (non-)reaction. I haven't gone out and researched, but it seems like they just haven't gotten as much attention, though Yiddish sure has done well. I'm talking about people coming from the lit direction, of course -- plenty of folks coming toward literature from the genre direction.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(24 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

LJ Labs

Store