Apparently, puppy is not amused: A Discussion on Brand Name Authors
Blame Courtney for the title.
Bitch.
Well, it's been a good while since you've all been treated to a nice, long, Kate-style rant. Why, I believe there are some people now on my F-list who have never been treated to a Kate rant, and don't get the reference! Don't worry. You're not missing much. Anyways, lo, I am annoyed. BUT, I shall try and turn said annoyance at consumer entitlement into a topic for productive discussion. Aren't I awesome?
So, I came across a discussion today about a random-thus-official 'Best of Science Fiction Authors' list, which apparently was laboring under the impression that no worth while science fiction has been produced since the sixties, seeing as how the youngest author on the list was Heinlein, and you know, dead. Whatever. Not the point, though the 'ZOMG if it's not fifty years old its not classic and if its not classic it can't be good' idiocy is a subject for another day. No, the point is that in the course of said discussion, people started naming current scifi authors they believed should be on the list. One name put forth was Dan Simmons, award winning author of Hyperion, Ilium and the like. It was decided by random internet peoples that why, yes, Simmons, IS a quality writer. However, popular consensus also decided that his 'problem' was that he had 'writer's ADD' and gets bored in one genre and moves on to the next, and thus has written sci-fi, horror, crime noir, etc.
Seriously? That's a problem? Because the thing is, this random group of people on the internet aren't the only consumers that see things this way.
I'll admit, my initial annoyance stemmed from the 'my genre is superior to yours, and ACTUALLY, my good sir, sci-fi is properly pronounced skiffy' tone set forth by the discussion. But once that past, it got me wondering about the actually fairly widespread belief that authors should stick to one genre, and what I like to call consumer entitlement. I've certainly seen it before.
So where exactly does this belief that authors should stick to one subject come from? To my understanding, its pretty standard advice that writers seeking to branch out into more than one genre use pen names so as not to alienate their existent fanbase, and you know, I still don't quite understand why. What is it that says if an author makes a name for themselves in science fiction and becomes known for a certain type of fiction, that they then are 'less free' to venture into mystery novels or urban fantasy?
Creative writing classes all agree on one thing: the start of your novel sets the tone of the whole piece. It's your contract with the reader, the first taste that says "If you like this, you'll like the rest of the novel, as it's more of the same.' And for the most part, that's good, practical advice. Today's society is leery of false advertising. Nobody wants to pick up a dark gothic blood and guts book from the horror section and get a happily ever after romance ending. People browsing the science fiction section for tales of teleportation gone wrong and hostile AIs out of control aren't usually looking for scar-toting, Abra Kadabra uttering boy wizards half way through. Pick up a novel and read the back copy, yes, you should expect the book inside to fit the tone. And yes, to a degree, if you buy that book and take it home with you, you're entitled to expect to get what you pay for.
But why is it so many people seem to expect the same to hold true with an author's entire career? Some genres seem to be more tolerant of it than others. YA readers couldn't care less if their favorite authors have adult books in the mystery or romance section. Urban fantasy readers don't seem to care as much if their must-buy authors have some sci-fi, YA or romance offerings on the shelf. But god forbid an acclaimed 'mainstream' author write a pulp scifi, or a Hugo winner jump ship for another genre.
Again, there is at least a basis for the logic. It's the reason quality series are in such high demand. Tastes are varied, and subjective. When a reader finds a book they love, the first thing they do when they finish it is go and see if the author has more of the same. What else do they have out there? And if that reader exclusively reads science fiction, yes, they're first going to look for more sci-fi. If instead that author has a bunch of contemporary mysteries, some will be intrigued enough by the author's first offering to venture into unknown territory and give a new genre a shot. Others, apparently, will go raise sound and fury.
But that, to me, smacks of consumer entitlement. The idea that because "I contributed to your career, I am thus owed this and this and this." But I don't think it works like that, and maybe I'm missing something here, because plenty of people apparently do. The thing is, yes, by buying the author's first book, you contributed to their career. But you also got what you paid for. You wanted a science fiction book you'd enjoy. You bought that book and gave your hard earned cash for it, and in return, the author delivered precisely what you wanted, a sci-fi book you'd enjoy. And maybe you proceed to do the same for the author's next ten books, all also science fiction. But that transaction only extends to each book. As soon as you finish the one, the transaction between consumer and author ends there. What you decide to do about the next book is an entirely new transaction. The seven or even twenty five dollars you dropped on Book One, does not entitle you to a say in the genre or subject matter of Book Five.
And that's the thing I don't understand. Because the author's first book is NOT a contract with their readers. At least not from where I'm standing. Yes, readers tend to expect that an author will stick to one genre. But that doesn't mean the author has any obligation to do that, just because you enjoyed their book. The first chapter of a book is a contract with the reader because YOU'VE ALREADY PAID FOR THE BOOK when you continue past that first chapter. You want to be reassured by then that you're going to enjoy the rest of it. The same does NOT hold true of an author's second and third and fourth books, because in purchasing that first book, you are not agreeing to a contract in which you then promise to purchase every other book the author puts out.
Again, I suppose there's room for debate. Because I know many readers who just don't like investing in one-time authors or ones without a lot of other work to peruse. Invest seems to be the right word there, as these readers are usually ones who prefer long, epic series. They want to invest in a world, or a set of characters, immerse themselves in it and come back to that world in numerous future installments. They don't want their journeys into the author's imagination to end after one dip in the shallow end. And when they find an author they invest in for several installments, even year's at a time, only then to see the author switch seemingly without warning to another genre, then yes, I suppose I can see how there could be disappointment there, maybe even a sense of betrayal. That still doesn't mean I feel the author owed you anything different. Its their career after all, and books take far longer to write than they do to read. The individual consumer's twenty dollars a book is (I feel) not in ITSELF comparable to the usual months of work a book takes to produce. And I think everyone would agree that good books do not result from a sense of obligation, or simply to fulfill a contract established with the reader. If that's the only reason an author has for continuing with a certain series well....we've seen how that ends. And that's when readers tend to slide to the opposite end of the spectrum and start accusing the author of padding the series, and taking it places it doesn't need to go just to keep bringing in the paychecks.
But still, maybe it's not quite as black and white as it was to me when I started writing this post. Maybe there is a line, a balance somewhere in the middle. The question then becomes, where is that line drawn? How much does an author owe their readers? How much do readers have a right to expect from the authors they've followed and supported over multiple installments? I absolutely can't fathom the idea that an author should only be limited to their first genre, they're only human of course, and just as reader's tastes change over the course of their life, of course an author's tastes can change in the same fashion (And of course it's not like I have any vested interest in this discussion. I don't have writer's ADD at all. Oh no, the first book I write, yeah, that's my genre for life. Absolutely.)
So. Still. Where do you all draw the line? If an author wants to write in multiple genres, doesn't want to limit themselves to a set subject matter or area, how should they best go about it? Write under other pen names and don't publicize them? Hope it works out better for them than it did Nora Roberts? Or is it all about those first few books, making sure that the readers know from the get go that you aren't going to be sticking to a pre-set pattern with an initial ensemble offering of novels of varying genres?
Personally, I'm thinking I lean more towards the latter. Pen names can be see through, especially more and more these days where successful marketing seems to suggest that each pen name would need an equally established web presence of their own.
Anyways, that's my thoughts.
Discuss.
- Kalen, who's mostly talking about the kinda uproar we can all expect if JK Rowling ever dares write another book and its NOT in fact a new Potter-verse novel