Hype
This will be somewhat incoherent--am still a tad tired. Last week was not good, but ended really well, with a school visit to Chadwick Academy in Rancho Palos Verdes.. The school is just as beautiful as it looks--it was first established as a posh boarding school many years ago. I went up there once as a fifth grader, when a friend and I (going through our brief horse crazy phase, as we couldn't get anywhere near the actual beasts) were taken to see a gymkhana. Looking back, we were not only impressed by the dressage, but intimidated by the precision of the girls' riding outfits.
Anyway, I had a splendid time interacting with kids of all ages, and talking about books. I did the Harry Potter test of the younger grades, and the answer surprised me a bit. This is one school, so in no way can my result be regarded as statistically meaningful, but when I asked the sixty or seventy middle schoolers how many loved Harry Potter, of course all hands shot up. As always. But when I asked how many had read all seven books, eight hands rose, from a group sitting together--giving all the signs of a friendship circle. A few more had read the first three, and more than half had read the first one. But everybody had seen the movies. Up until a year or two ago, when I asked who'd read all the books, usually all hands shot up.
I do not intend to waste space debating movie versus book. Instead, I was contemplating how the newness of Harry Potter seems to be slowly wearing off, though I'm sure they still sell in the thousands each day--if not more.
Two times in my life have I seen the profound effect of "something new." That was the Beatles, in 1963 and how they utterly changed rock, and Star Wars in 1977, and how that movie changed film. I don't think that the Potter books changed children's literature in so profound a way--I never saw anything new there, just a very clever recombination of tropes (boarding school, sports stories, and magic) that had been around for ages, and given the pizzazz of wit, clever inventions, and vivid scenes. But the effect of the Potter books on publishing was tremendous--children's literature became respectable to read. Long books could finally be published, after years of insistence that kids would only read 70k at most (despite many of us longing for big books at age 12 and up). Series came back in a big way.
I'll talk more about specific books when the Andre Norton jury list goes live--the SFWA pundits are doing whatever they do, so the final ballot isn't out yet.
Right now I want to ramble a bit more about the Potter phenomenon, and about hype.
One of the high school kids made a comment that echoed some of the talk I've seen on discussion sites. In fact, the girl's words were almost word for word quotes. This I found eerie because it was clear she was reaching for her own words, formulating her own thoughts, and not relating what she'd read. She said something to the effect of, I loved the Potter books, but it was such a relief when the last one was published. I started reading the books in third grade, and as they came out and the characters got older, they were the same age as me, and I had this weird feeling that Harry was really alive out there. When the story was finished, he was okay, it was all done. I didn't have to worry any more.
Some day someone is going to do a study on the "Harry Potter generation"--the kids who were just at the right age to discover the books, and who grew up with them as they came out. Probably nothing else will be quite that magical--just as so many of my generation felt about the Beatles, and how, for a while, they led the teen culture, not just musical fashions. The Harry Potter generation has to be just as large as my own Baby Boomer gen, and the spread of Beatles' music around equivalent to the vast reach of the Potter books. (Lord of the Rings in 1966 being a second wave.)
That led me to think about hype. The Potter books aren't new any more, kids have heard about them before they begin to read chapter books. They may even find themselves expected to read Rowlings' books.
There are so many different types of hype. The one every artist wants is the spontaneous joy of discovery, the word of mouth OMG you have to read/try/see this! Then there is the hype of Everyone is reading/trying/seeing this, so if you want to be hip, you need to do it, too. The worst type of hype--the type that the word most often calls up--is the huge paid-for publicity splash where you are exhorted from every billboard and mediamercial to read/try/see X. You might give X a try if you are right there, just to see what the fuss is about, but you find the constant commercial blat uncompelling. (Or even downright repellent, and you wouldn't touch X if it was the last thing around.)
But even if you decide to give it a try to see what the fuss is about, the hype worked just that little bit: it gave you a modicum of investment. Curiosity, even negative curiosity is more investment, or energy, than a total cold stop. So many works are cold stops. You've never heard of the book or author, you have to have a physical encounter, because you don't know about it to seek it out, and then there are tests of eye and ear: cover, blurb, page 93 test. All involving a few seconds, and that might be all the work gets, whereas hype will keep you at it for much longer.
Sometimes I hear, "It was okay, but not worth the hype," to which I say (or just think) "Yeah, but the hype worked enough to get you to try it." The best of course is "Now I know why everyone is loving it!" I feel that way about Buffy, which didn't have hype at the beginning--not the way some TV does, but built its audience, and its hype, over the seasons.
Newness is its own kind of hype. Everybody loves the pique and surprise of the new. I think this is one of the main reasons why I'm working on Flycon2009, though I've got way too much going on. Besides the chance to get into book and lit and film and art discussions right here at my computer, it's a chance to bring a whole raft of writers to the attention of others on the other continent.
North America is of course a juggernaut in the publishing biz, but many of us get absolute zip in the way of publicity or hype. So, especially for new authors, midlisters, or small press authors, here's a chance not only to catch the eye of participating North Americans, but to catch the eye of Australians, because we've got a really big Australian contingent--not just writers but editors and readers and so forth. And this is a chance for North Americans to discover some of these fantastic writers.
I mean, I've been reading a LOT of YA novels for this Norton Award. I think this year has probably been the best year ever, in the number of really good books I read. And a lot of these are from Australian writers, who are just beginning to enter the English-speaking genre scene. A bunch of these writers will be on tap to talk to, and exchange ideas with.
Good hype for all, I hope. And good fun.
Anyway, I had a splendid time interacting with kids of all ages, and talking about books. I did the Harry Potter test of the younger grades, and the answer surprised me a bit. This is one school, so in no way can my result be regarded as statistically meaningful, but when I asked the sixty or seventy middle schoolers how many loved Harry Potter, of course all hands shot up. As always. But when I asked how many had read all seven books, eight hands rose, from a group sitting together--giving all the signs of a friendship circle. A few more had read the first three, and more than half had read the first one. But everybody had seen the movies. Up until a year or two ago, when I asked who'd read all the books, usually all hands shot up.
I do not intend to waste space debating movie versus book. Instead, I was contemplating how the newness of Harry Potter seems to be slowly wearing off, though I'm sure they still sell in the thousands each day--if not more.
Two times in my life have I seen the profound effect of "something new." That was the Beatles, in 1963 and how they utterly changed rock, and Star Wars in 1977, and how that movie changed film. I don't think that the Potter books changed children's literature in so profound a way--I never saw anything new there, just a very clever recombination of tropes (boarding school, sports stories, and magic) that had been around for ages, and given the pizzazz of wit, clever inventions, and vivid scenes. But the effect of the Potter books on publishing was tremendous--children's literature became respectable to read. Long books could finally be published, after years of insistence that kids would only read 70k at most (despite many of us longing for big books at age 12 and up). Series came back in a big way.
I'll talk more about specific books when the Andre Norton jury list goes live--the SFWA pundits are doing whatever they do, so the final ballot isn't out yet.
Right now I want to ramble a bit more about the Potter phenomenon, and about hype.
One of the high school kids made a comment that echoed some of the talk I've seen on discussion sites. In fact, the girl's words were almost word for word quotes. This I found eerie because it was clear she was reaching for her own words, formulating her own thoughts, and not relating what she'd read. She said something to the effect of, I loved the Potter books, but it was such a relief when the last one was published. I started reading the books in third grade, and as they came out and the characters got older, they were the same age as me, and I had this weird feeling that Harry was really alive out there. When the story was finished, he was okay, it was all done. I didn't have to worry any more.
Some day someone is going to do a study on the "Harry Potter generation"--the kids who were just at the right age to discover the books, and who grew up with them as they came out. Probably nothing else will be quite that magical--just as so many of my generation felt about the Beatles, and how, for a while, they led the teen culture, not just musical fashions. The Harry Potter generation has to be just as large as my own Baby Boomer gen, and the spread of Beatles' music around equivalent to the vast reach of the Potter books. (Lord of the Rings in 1966 being a second wave.)
That led me to think about hype. The Potter books aren't new any more, kids have heard about them before they begin to read chapter books. They may even find themselves expected to read Rowlings' books.
There are so many different types of hype. The one every artist wants is the spontaneous joy of discovery, the word of mouth OMG you have to read/try/see this! Then there is the hype of Everyone is reading/trying/seeing this, so if you want to be hip, you need to do it, too. The worst type of hype--the type that the word most often calls up--is the huge paid-for publicity splash where you are exhorted from every billboard and mediamercial to read/try/see X. You might give X a try if you are right there, just to see what the fuss is about, but you find the constant commercial blat uncompelling. (Or even downright repellent, and you wouldn't touch X if it was the last thing around.)
But even if you decide to give it a try to see what the fuss is about, the hype worked just that little bit: it gave you a modicum of investment. Curiosity, even negative curiosity is more investment, or energy, than a total cold stop. So many works are cold stops. You've never heard of the book or author, you have to have a physical encounter, because you don't know about it to seek it out, and then there are tests of eye and ear: cover, blurb, page 93 test. All involving a few seconds, and that might be all the work gets, whereas hype will keep you at it for much longer.
Sometimes I hear, "It was okay, but not worth the hype," to which I say (or just think) "Yeah, but the hype worked enough to get you to try it." The best of course is "Now I know why everyone is loving it!" I feel that way about Buffy, which didn't have hype at the beginning--not the way some TV does, but built its audience, and its hype, over the seasons.
Newness is its own kind of hype. Everybody loves the pique and surprise of the new. I think this is one of the main reasons why I'm working on Flycon2009, though I've got way too much going on. Besides the chance to get into book and lit and film and art discussions right here at my computer, it's a chance to bring a whole raft of writers to the attention of others on the other continent.
North America is of course a juggernaut in the publishing biz, but many of us get absolute zip in the way of publicity or hype. So, especially for new authors, midlisters, or small press authors, here's a chance not only to catch the eye of participating North Americans, but to catch the eye of Australians, because we've got a really big Australian contingent--not just writers but editors and readers and so forth. And this is a chance for North Americans to discover some of these fantastic writers.
I mean, I've been reading a LOT of YA novels for this Norton Award. I think this year has probably been the best year ever, in the number of really good books I read. And a lot of these are from Australian writers, who are just beginning to enter the English-speaking genre scene. A bunch of these writers will be on tap to talk to, and exchange ideas with.
Good hype for all, I hope. And good fun.