How to use this Page

I think it's also related to the evolution of the human race and life as we know it. Things that mattered back in the day compared to today and the transformation of the way we live our lives. Reading older books has a certain charm about them because of the language used and the way they lived.

One thing I've noticed from historical dramas, including movies, set in far-flung eras (as in Tudor England of the 16th century, also the era of Shakespeare, to the 19th century of Charles Dickens) is that the people/characters are portrayed as speaking in a progressively less verbose and articulate manner through the centuries up until the modern era. Is this trend portrayed in the entertainment media accurate, or were the characters focused upon in by-gone eras those who had the advantage of the best education and stimulating social circles - especially in Shakespearean literature.

For me, THe Good Earth (winning in 1931-1932), and The Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man (1917), Sons And Lovers, and Gone With The Wind (1936-1937) were all simply written. I thought them easy to read without complex language to stumble over. But perhaps - to one degree or another - they contain more depth of characterization, introspection and abstraction than some of the more recent titles that have topped the best seller lists?

This is incredibly, incredibly interesting. We keep looking and whining about the best seller list while there almost certainly is a writer, this instant, that will be called a classic-writer in the future! We just don't look at non-bestelling books, and we find great literature in the aftermath. An incredible, incredible, and revealing post. The golden era is not dead at ALL.

The definition of great fiction has changed over the years. Some for the better and some for the worst (cringes).

This might be off topic, but I think it's interesting anyway. I personally know a lot of people who are reading older classics now thanks to e-books. And how is that possible you ask?

Well, a lot of web sites like Kobo offer free reads, and people who are just starting to learn how to read e-books are taking advantage of those free reads and rediscovering classics like "Uncle Tom's Cabin."

Just a couple weeks ago I looked up the bestsellers of the ‘80s, when I was in college, and found a list with the top ten for each year.

And in practically each year you find romances by Sidney Sheldon, Judith Krantz, Danielle Steel, and Jackie Collins, or thrillers by Ken Follett, Frederick Forsyth, Robert Ludlum, John le Carre, and Tom Clancy.

But for Pulitzer’s? Norman Mailer, John Updike, Alice Walker, Toni Morrison, and Anne Tyler.

Still, I love le Carre. And for 1983, I never could get through Ironweed, but I still have my Return of the Jedi Storybook. :p

That John Grisham bloke seems to be quite popular!

My God. It all went in the crapper in 1980. It is so obvious it's like a slap in the face. In fact, it is a slap in the face. That was my graduating year from college. It was also, well, if you were around then, you know the history of what happened very well. Very sad.

what a great list, and esp liked the insertion of other notable work that year that wasn't a best seller

maybe a top ten list for each year (as one commentator above mentioned they had seen for the 80s)?

thanks so much ;-)

Nathan - do you have a sense of the results if you looked at English language (ie not just US) sales?

There appear to be some flaws in the data.
For instance, "The Robe," by Lloyd C. Douglas, appears to have been either published twice, or popular twice, 10 years apart: in 1943, and 1953.
Also, Ulysses was NOT published in the U.S. at first. In fact, it was published in Paris by Ford Maddox Ford's friend and bookstore owner Sylvia Beach, who was a Joyce fan.
Lastly, other than The Great Gatsby, note NONE of Fitzgerald's earlier work, including This Side of Paradise, which made him a near instant celebrity, in 1920.
Sales do not necessarily determine taste, nor discernment amoung the reading public. They never have. I have always had the same problem with "box office" receipts from movies.
Just because someone bought a book, or a ticket, doesn't mean they LIKED the movie or book. It just means it was purchased.
Also, how many sales are considered "bestselling" in any given year?
In 1918, Pearl Curren rose from obscurity to literary fame with her purported taking dictation for novels etc via a ouija board for Patience Worth.
That sort of sensationalist popularity doesn't appear noted, because Modern Library doesn't consider her books worth mentioning...
To really be accurate, one would have to look at comparisons, and actual print runs, and reviews, etc.
I'm just sayin'...(as the child of two anthropology professors).

I'm surprised I'm the first one to comment about how man-heavy the list is!

Nice points, Kristi.

Awesome post, Nathan. I'm actually a bit blown away by your research and the fact that you linked everything. That is just terrific, thank you.

I'm not familiar with all the books, but what stands out for me is commercial was pretty popular early on.

At least I'm assuming that there are quite a few romance books - guessing by the titles - that were the bestsellers of those years.

And this was in the day when genre fiction was hard to come by. In fact, I could be wrong about the dates, but wasn't reading genre fiction considered somewhat decadent or sinful until about the 1900s?

Coming back to recent times, it's interesting to see the advent of movie blockbusters. E.T. and the Jedi Storybook (?) :) You can probably tell quite a bit about a times period by looking at the best seller list.

Thanks, Nathan, this is really interesting!

My first takeaway from this list is that it's gratifying, almost heartwarming, to see that so many great books sold so well. As to the distinction between "commercial" and "literary" fiction, in my opinion they are symbiotic - as William F. Buckley Jr. said (pretty much) in an interview many years ago: "You can complain about the state of literature all you want, but when you can buy a play by Shakespeare for a couple of dollars, I'd say things are pretty good."

Terin-

Actually it's true that The Robe had two separate bestselling years 10 years apart. One when the book was first released, the second when the movie based on the book was released.

>>>Nathan said:
>>>Terin-

>>>Actually it's true that The Robe had two separate bestselling years 10 years apart. One when the book was first released, the second when the movie based on the book was released.

I guess sales of The Great Gatsby was a bestseller when the movie was released? I didn't bother researching this, but, did see the book in stores with a new cover...

Fascinating list... who knew Winston Churchill was such a popular author? The real turning point, though, I think, comes around the Return of the Jedi Storybook. Few are bigger Star Wars fans than I, but a movie tie-in was the year's best seller? Now that's a culture shift.

I'm going to vote for globalization. Since the 1900's, technologies like radio, movies, television, and the internet have provided readers with increased context of geographic settings and characters that were previously not there. With this increased context, I believe that readers no longer had a need or desire for exhaustive details and descriptions of settings.

I think mostly the list illustrates that tastes change, and John Gresham is a very rich man. Are the older books really "more literary" or do we just think they are because they're old?

Also, in case anyone doesn't get it, the Winston Churchill listed is an American author unrelated to the British PM.

The Modern Library's list is chock full of white men! It's interesting that we haven't really progressed on that front.

I'm sorry to see that we haven't really progressed when it comes to gender or racial representation. Very few PoCs, very few women.

This is a fascinating list. I saw some books that I need to read - thanks for the reminder!

So, by decade, the number of "100 best" novels (I don't guarantee 100% correctness in my counts):

1900-1909: 13
1910-1919: 9
1920-1929: 16, 2 of them reached #1
1930-1939: 18, 1 of them reached #1
1940-1949: 13
1950-1959: 12, 1 of them reached #1
1960-1969: 11, 1 of them reached #1
1970-1979: 5, 1 of them reached #1
1980-1989: 2
1990-1999: 0
2000-2009: 0
2010-2013: 0 (to date)

No books published after 1983 made it onto the "100 best" novels list. That's (counts on fingers) thirty years ago. And that's unrelated to popularity.

One could put forth the argument that it's not that readers used to have better taste, but that publishers used to have better taste.

Another alternative: John B. Thompson, author of Merchants of Culture, notes, "While agents existed in the 1930s, ’40s, and ’50s, they were not as prevalent or powerful players as they are today. What you had from the 1970s and ’80s on was the rise of what I call the super agent... There was a very close relation between publishers and authors. That was all destroyed in the 1960s and ’70s, completely. ... Once the agents became significant players they demanded high advances at a time when retail chains were growing and houses like Simon & Schuster and Random House were coming under the umbrella of large corporations and were able to afford the large advances."

Anyway, you can't blame the readers for not reading books that weren't published.

"Are the older books really "more literary" or do we just think they are because they're old?"

My opinion: It's just that they're old.

Mary Shelley wrote a literary classic about stitching together corpses and reanimating them.

Dickens wrote about ghosts that revealed past, present, and future. Today, they might shelve him alongside pulpy SciFi--maybe even Stephen King?

Most literary classics endured to today because they were also commercially viable.

"One could put forth the argument that it's not that readers used to have better taste, but that publishers used to have better taste."

No. I don't think taste has anything to do with this time-sliding phenomenon. I think it has everything to do with POV (and a sort of glorious revisionist history) We place great works of old on a pedestal.

What really has happened is that "literary classic" has become a genre unto itself. And no modern book can become one because one of the predetermining factors is age.

But it is a sliding scale (time's always moving, right?)

Are Fahrenheit 451 and A Clockwork Orange classics now? I Am Legend?

(If Night of The Living Dead is a classic film and George Romero says he owes everything to I Am Legend--does that make I Am Legend also a classic? Trivia: Romero made Night of the Living Dead because he couldn't secure the rights to I Am Legend). Odd how we look at and categorize things, isn't it?

There's definitely this grey area that's fiction our parents grew up with, fiction that inspired current writers, that predates most of us. Works that feel like they should be in the same categories as Dickens and Verne and H.G. Wells -- but are simply too new to be compared with such "greats."

I think there is definitely a stigma about holding up a modern work to a classic of old is to devalue the classic. And that's not necessarily true.

I also think we innately think "old timey" language constitutes a classic as well. But Catcher In The Rye pretty much proves that as bunk.

I think it's hard for us to see "Like, ohmigod, amiright?!" in a sentence and consider that book a contender for a classic.

But it's really no different than the language in The Three Musketeers. It's just that we are no longer accustomed to the slang and idioms of the past. (And the translation :P).

Anyway, that's my long-winded thought.

To further my point on revisionist classics, here's a movie example.

Do you know why It's A Wonderful Life is a staple of American Christmas?

I mean, think about that story for a minute. It's not your average Christmas fair. In fact, it's downright depressing.

A dude is stuck in a town that he wishes he could get out of. His brother goes off to war, sees the world. He wishes he could have lived the life his brother did. But instead he stays behind and takes care of the town and its bank. People in this small town are depending on him. When he makes a mistake that causes 5k to be misplaced his asshat boss hides the money so that the bank will likely crumble. This guy devoted his entire life to this town and these people. At the first sign of trouble they are all turning on him.

He is so depressed that he goes to a bridge to kill himself...

Keep in mind, this is a CHRISTMAS MOVIE. A staple of American television. When a humorous animated Superbowl commercial of an assembly line robot jumping off a bridge causes a riot and gets the commercial pulled after 1 airing ...well, you get the picture. Yet, during Xmas, the time of year most noted for highest suicide rates ... IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE has become a Xmas ritual.

Why?

Here's what happened.

Traditionally, Xmas is a terrible time for television programming. Most networks put on reruns and things that cost them very little. They figure people are traveling or with their families so don't have time for TV (which was probably more accurate in the past).

So Xmas programming is notably pretty bad. There's a lot of cheap filler.

It's a Wonderful Life was filmed in 1946. At that time copyright had a 28 year "lifespan" that could be renewed. The producers failed to renew it. So, in 1974, It's a Wonderful Life fell into the public domain.

And there's your answer why it has become a staple of American X-Mas television. It was dirt cheap to put on the air and could be run endlessly.

Makes you think about how and what we consider a classic (and why we think of it that way) doesn't it?

I'm actually very surprised that each Harry Potter book wasn't the best selling of its year. I had assumed that those books dominated the market. Each one.

I have to say that I contributed to the John Grisham best selling title. I remember that period fondly.

Modern day authors are writing for the mass market. Just throw together simple sentences, include them in 15 word paragraphs, group those in two page chapters and you wind up with a book that is designed to pass time and pad pockets. What author is going to take the time to present the reader with content that is worthy of appropriate discourse when most readers want instant or short term gratification and are not interested in sitting down and deconstructing the content.
Are there any authors that actually take the time that writers did 100 years ago to construct a novel?

Stacy: Yup, me. For various reasons I spent ten years writing my first published novel. And it didn't do me much good, which may be why not many writers want to do that now. I'm not saying my book's a classic, far from it. The sad thing (for me, not necessarily for readers) is that my book isn't making much money. It doesn't have thrills, chases, mysteries, mysterious villains, strange sexual appetites or magical people. It just has people. Which doesn't seem very popular anymore. Was it ever? I didn't see "The Help" on the list or "The Group" (published 1954), both of which I used as 'models' for the type of book I wanted to write simply because it's the type of book I like to read. Unfortunately, that's not what people are gobbling up for their Kindles. So now I'm being pressured to pump out a murder mystery in a month. Are we more literate now? Don't know. But 'literature' has changed.

Many of you are taking this as a sign that readers have changed. Of course they have. But what I think is the dominating effect is the price compression between paperbacks and hardbound books.

Now, I haven’t researched these numbers so they are basically from memory:

In 1900, the average annual income of a skilled worker was about $400. College graduates received about $5 per week or about $250 a year to start. An income of $1000 per year was quite good. At the same time hardbound books were for a few dollars – say, $4. While paperbound books were about $0.25.

The average skilled worker today gets something like $40000 per year – or about 100 times what they made in 1900. If books were similarly priced, hardbound books would be about $400 and paperbacks would be about $25.

Because of the compression of prices, many popular books, which might have been paperbacks decades ago, are published in hardbound. Is there anybody who can’t afford Fifty Shades of Grey? What if it cost $400. Or even $100.

But a truly well written novel might fetch $100 today if there were no TV, no video games, and no Amazon to sell it for $12.

Another key aspect of this is that publishers cannot afford small print runs. Decades ago the relative costs of publishing fell on material and shipping. Today it is on editing, cover art, and returns. So, costs today are heavily front loaded. Small print runs are money losers. This pushes the publishers to the more secure mass market books – the dime novels of the 21st century.

You simply cannot draw conclusions from such lists because our world is very different from the world before and just after WWII.

Maybe one of these days, Mason Davis and the Rise of the Storm Makers, will make that list too!

Nathan, did you see this article in the NYT Mag about "What It Means to be Popular (When Everything Is Popular)"? Makes some interesting points regarding books, music, videos, etc, and draws attention to how we even calculate popularity anymore when there are so many splintered arenas to calculate.

Would help if I left the link, huh?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/08/magazine/the-culture-package.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=MG_TCP_20130910&_r=0#/#item_01

Geez...how much money does John Grisham have?

Although the point about best-selling books is valid (that they don't necessary reflect what people were reading, only what they were buying), I think it's even more telling that so few National Book Award winners of the past are even known today. Apparently it takes a lot to make a book a classic.

This is almost meaningless, unless you include the fraction of the total public buying each book. Until the Age of Pulp, books written specifically for the masses just weren't widely available. The existence of a mass market is almost guaranteed to change the balance on the #1 best seller.

I never post anonymous but screw it I'll do it this time.

You know what I think is the problem, not that everybody is too positive, but that agents are looking for the wrong stuff in choosing clients.

I think it's messed up that self-published authors cannot get agents and then end up doing fantastic on their own and getting an agent.

I think the people in publishing need to get smarter about what they're doing.

You gave me such food for thought that I had to write a whole blog post on it. Thanks, Nathan!
http://lindsaysmith.net/2012/08/too-nice-or-too-phony/

I don't think it's bad for authors to stay positive and support each other. After all, there are plenty of readers who will give us the painful truth. Just like in Hollywood, where actors generally put on a good face for their peers, we should try to be professional and positive and leave the criticism to others. First of all, it's hard for readers to be believe you're being impartial anyway (and let's face it, I'm not going to write a negative review for a friend). Secondly, it's a small community and you might well meet the writer whose book you bashed on GR. Not a great way to make friends and influence people.

If anything, I wish that authors would remain MORE professional and stop harassing regular reviewers who didn't like their book. Grow a thicker skin, people, or get out of the biz.

I think the people in publishing need to get smarter about what they're doing.

Here, here. I recently attended a conference and objectively speaking (and I'm not even querying yet!) the things the publishers were saying were so risk-averse it's ridiculous. They will only try to sell what already sells. They claim they want something different, but all they want is more of the same. They white-wash covers, put extreme limits on the number of minority characters they are willing to have in their books, and jump on band-wagons. An editor said she would only be interested in my YA sci-fi if it was dystopia. Seriously? I am so SICK of dystopia and I doubt I'm the only one.

The recent seven-figure deal with the wanna-be 50 shades book is yet another example of the publishers getting really excited for MORE OF THE SAME.

Good questions. I also avoid negative reviews. I prefer to boost what I love rather than slam what I don't.

It's a fallacy to treat the new democratized publishing world, with reader reviews, as equivalent to the old aristocratic version, with learned reviews. Why should mere 'consumers' feel the need to develop a complex criteria? After all, they bought the 'product.' All they have to do is love it or hate it.

In the case of a qualified person giving a real old-time review, I think you have to clearly lay out your criteria for what you are saying. For instance, express an understanding of what the author tried to do and say, how such a thing should be done and said, and specifically how the author failed or succeeded.

One thing that blows my mind is how basically illiterate people can use the internet to sound educated. Their grammar and spelling has been beaten into shape by a combination of some long-suffering teacher and the computer's dictionary/grammar-check functions - but they can't connect the logical dots from one phrase to the next. This morning I read a comment on an article at Poetry Foundation dot org, in which someone excoriated the essayist for saying that lyrical poetry is a cognate to nursery rhymes and riddles. She felt that the essayist was being snobbish for making lyrical poetry superior to nursery rhymes. Apparently she thought 'cognate' meant "highly superior" - however, all her words were spelled correctly and she used a bunch of phrases and qualifiers that sounded faintly academic. So funny but also disheartening. It makes me wish there were more trade-based high schools out there and that they were less stigmatized.

There is a problem, and it's even more prevalent in the indie world than the traditional world. I pretty much won't buy independently published books anymore, because the reviews are -always- positive and frequently from people that didn't even read the books. Just other authors that went and said something like "this is guy is great! buy his book!" I was fooled by that a few times and read the absolute worst books I've read in my life because of it. The current refusal to do negative reviews harms everyone, but, especially, it harms the consumer, because it becomes impossible to distinguish not just good from bad but what I might like from what you might like. At the end of the day, lying is still lying even if it's "no, those jeans don't make your ass look fat."

There are so many good responses here that I almost didn't respond, but I decided to add my piece.

You hit the mark with honest review. As several people said, there are many negatives with the overly positive as well as agressive negative reviews. Both types are rarely constructive; often they do not give a reader concrete, specific analysis. I'm always pleased when I come across a review who does give a thoughtful, honest review.

Honesty: yes! A reviewer can be honest without being caustic and bombastic. I would add to honesty that good/great reviews are thoughtful and analytical as well. Even books I love/like have issues.

Having said that, I do enjoy H. L. Mencken. I wouldn't mind if a new Mencken rose up and wrote for the Internet.

Huh, I kind of blogged about this today at the Drunk Writer Talk blog... Group think today. :) There's a link to a goodreads ARC giveaway on my post there... I won't link here, but anyone interested can google. ;)

I fully believe that professional reviewers and all readers, for that matter, should be honest in their reviews--even if they hated a book. But I don't think that means authors shouldn't support each other and draw the attention of their own fans/followers to the work of other authors. It's good karma if nothing else. :)

I, for one, think it's fabulous that authors support each other.

I'm also an author who's chosen not to criticize fellow authors' work in public. Do I like every book I read? No. But I'm an author, not a professional critic so I keep those opinions private (or amongst friends). I could choose to post my thoughts as a reader, but to what end? It feels to me a bit like: don't sh*t where you eat.

There aren't any other professions I can think of where the workers publicly deride their co-workers' or competitors' work.

You don't see actors, or screenwriters for that matter, publicly criticizing each others' acting skills.

That's what critics and the general public are for.

I know there's this tradition in the literary world of authors reviewing other authors' books... but it's always seemed odd to me. Aren't there enough qualified lit profs and librarians etc. etc. to do the critic job without authors pooping on each other? (clearly I have a scatological fixation today.)

That said, I love it when readers are honest. Even when their words sting or are completely inaccurate. (i.e. describe things in the book that aren't there.)

I look at Goodreads in particular as less of a review site, and more of a social networking site for book lovers. Some of the members post thoughtful reviews that could have ended up in a review journal or newspaper if more of those were thriving these days and/or still publishing reviews. But most members just post their gut reaction to books. And that's great.

In my mind, anything that encourages reading is, well, to use a frequently misused squeefest word: awesome.

I'm curious as to why neither you nor Silverman has stated outright the logical consequence of this love-fest - that writers are not made aware when their writing is of poor quality.
The most alarming problem that I see is not the critics participating in this mutual admiration society, but the editors. I know that there is a market for everything, but there is such a thing as objectively poor grammar, structure etc., and editors need to be honest with their clients if they are to be truly kind to them.
I've watched as freelance editors jump on twitter and join writing hashtags so that they can make 'friends' with writers and get work from them (usually ones that have given up on traditional publishing.) I'm looking for freelance editors, at the moment, so I've been reading books that have been edited by some of the more popular editors on social media, and some who have been recommended to me by self published authors. As I read, I find myself genuinely angry to think that anyone has been paid for editing these works. I'm not talking about prose that might not be to my taste, I'm talking about gaping plot holes, appalling deus ex machina, scene after scene which does not further the plot and, worst of all, "ending" the work based on word count, regardless of any plot arc - at all - being resolved (seemingly justifying it by calling it a "series").
Sure, not every writer listens to their editor, but I know these writers, and they shared their process, talked about how they were working through the changes suggested, and they believe they have produced quality work - because their editor told them it was ready for publication.

The question is, does it matter? If these guys are all proud of their self published work and some are even selling fairly well, are the editors wrong not to actually try to help them make their work better? Am I not being a coward by not telling them what I truly think?
Obviously, my personal view is that it does matter and that I am a coward (hence the anonymity). Story telling is vital to human psychology, and evolution. However ugly or beautiful the prose, if stories without endings, or psychologically real characters, or illogical "plots" become the majority of stories published (even the traditional publishers are putting them out there, now) we are failing to provide the next generation with the tools to become good storytellers. Eventually, stories won't quite entertain or move us,so they won't teach us anything, either, but no-one will know why (except the screenwriters - assuming they have enough stories to recycle!)

For my work, I'm going to keep looking for an honest editor, because I consider lying to me, telling me that my work is great, when it's not, to be not just unprofessional, but not at all friendly.

To put it another way, I've never found there to be a shortage of people on the Internet willing to tell you how much you suck.

Long ago, I remember the unwritten rule "Don't say so-and-so is a bad writer" or "Don't say that trade published fiction has a bunch of stinkers." I understand that literature is an art form. Not all art speaks to all people. This is true for movies (we review them, too), art (critics abound), and theatre (being critical here is an artform in and of itself). We are culture that is addicted to reviews (restaurants, plumbers, television shows, sports).

What is happening, I believe, is that smart authors and publishers realize the power of a positive review and they "game the system." This is similar to the movie reviews a decade ago that would pull positive review quotes out of a negative review and then use that in their advertising. It is another version of publicity spinning.

As far as negative reviews are concerned, I think the problem is the extremists reacting. If you examine closely the pattern, you will find that enormously popular books and authors get the highest volume of vitriol. Often, these negative reviews take on undercurrents of racism, elitism, colonialism and a host of other -isms. The point is that positively negative reviews that push the boundaries of good taste often don't use valid explanations for their views.

This same problem occurs on the positive extremes as well. A glowing review that gives no legitimate reason for that particular view is common. I like those sites that offer the question for comments "Was this comment helpful?" I vote that we all start clicking the corresponding box so that we can help level the field.

Because, in the end, why do we have reviews? We use them to make intelligent purchases with our hard-earned discretionary income. Reviews are supposed to aid us in that search. When reviewers are paid, when reviewers are dishonest, or hostile, it cheats the potential customer.

And, to all those out there that don't leave reviews, let me encourage you to do so in the future. You don't have to be flowery or long-winded (like me). You just have to be honest and specific. What appealed to you? Or, conversely, what repelled you?
If we can collectively provide more honest, unbiased, non-publicist reviews, then we have a better chance at killing the rainbows and puppies and squelching the haters who gotta hate.

Nathan, I happened to blog about this yesterday. Loving the comments on your post (and on mine too.) We're all thinking about these thing since Silverman's article. I was thinking about them before too when I asked in the comment section of a friend's blog if we can really trust reviews from aspiring novelists. I won't go into all the details here since they're in my post, but my opinion is still--NO, I do not trust most reviews, not the overly positive or overly negative ones.

I agree with Nathan when he said there is no shortage of people who are willing to tell you how much you suck.

I believe in being honest, and I also believe we can be honest without being rude, hurtful and biligerant. As a writer, I take my work to my critique group because I want to hear what works along with what doesn't work. I trust they will be honest while being kind.

I shoot for the same consideration when writing a book review. I haven't liked everything I've read, but I try to picture them sitting across from me as I write what I think in a constructive manner.

I'd love to see more people, in all aspects of life, raising up to the challenge of being honestly kind!

I had a no negative review policy for a while, and my blog suffered. Not because I wasn't giving good reviews, just because I wasn't reviewing enough. I'm a harsh critic even on books I enjoy. So I went back to my tried and true honest but not mean review policy. It's made a difference. As for the question have we gotten too nice? I'm not sure. The reviews that personally attack authors, and the way every PNR review is compared to twilight makes me think not. On the other hand, the way authors have been attacking negative reviews makes me think they're not used to it--as in there aren't enough neg reviews out there.

It depends where on the internet you look. The internet is full of everything, from cheerleading to the kind of vitriol that could strip paint.

The best thing to do is read a reviewer's policy statement. If you want the good, the bad, and the ugly, written by people who are not authors themselves and who don't work for publishers, they are out there. There are ninety kajillion book reviewers on the internet. You can find what you're looking for.

Hmmm! Very interesting points. I personally haven't been privileged with much politely fake feedback from people online. Quite the opposite a lot of the time. So I know how I wouldn't like to be treated and I go out of my way to be polite if and when I have intelligence and the emotional fortitude to do so.

Linking this question to the one about, "Why the heck is America so violent?" I think that many people in an individualistic culture are very quick to invade each others boundaries, to disagree on what constitutes conventional behavior, and to hold in contempt other people's emotional world views. You can see so much of it documented in writing on the internet. Do a Youtube search for something like pit bulls, Obama, or... geez, anything really!

I tie this into the idea of online shallowness. Based on both the blank praise and the anti-social remarks I see everywhere in comments online, I think that most people struggle to analyze and articulate their thoughts and feelings about a text. That inability to analyze and articulate may increase people's tendency to lash out at each other, and even worse- lead to a fear about articulating your own opinions- even if those opinions are respectfully honest. No ordinary person going about the course of an ordinary day wants to get cornered and attacked. In order to be truly honest, you must feel safe enough to BE honest, and that safety from personal attack and manipulation just isn't there on the internet yet.

I think that some of the online shallowness has also increased because of the increased accountability that Google and Facebook created. You're not so anonymous, and coworkers and employers can link to your online profiles.

I also think that the increase in online college classes may have impacted people's agreement on what constitutes "netiquette."

Just some of my thoughts. I always enjoy the online community created here,
Naja

There is a difference between being constructive and being an asshole just because someone gave you a box to stand on in the public square. I don't think we need more negative anything. More constructive criticism, certainly.

But some of these reviewers are simply being mean to get traffic to their blogs. That's despicable.

Also, if you're an author and you're unprepared for negative reviews, then don't publish. Yes, they hurt. Cry to your dog and then write something else. Or get drunk and complain to your sig other.

But for f's sake, stay off Goodreads when you do it - those bitches are NASTY and they will NOT forgive you.

This is a great question. My feeling is that it takes GUTS to follow your dream, and no one should try to piss on your parade. Does that mean that there aren't poorly written books out there? NO. It means that we need to lift as we climb. Do not deny someone their right to happiness and their dream just because you don't happen to like their style, their grammar, their story or their book.

I'd rather people practice being overly kind because of social media than be twits to each other because it's easier and makes them THINK that they look smarter or better educated.

Do your thing. Write your book. Share the characters and stories that are aching to get out of your head and heart. And...kill people with kindness. The world needs WAY MORE of it, not less.

I expect reviewers to be more honest than kind, but I really am disgusted when writers decide to give a fellow writer, especially one who writes in the same genre, a nasty, negative, review. They are essentially dissing the competition and it smacks of pettiness and jealousy. In those cases I think niceness is the only professional stance to take.

Or better yet, say nothing.

I also agree that there's no shortage of people who are willing to tell you how much you suck. It's not just the reading public, either - Kirkus takes pride in being "the world's toughest revieweers," do they not?

Someone mentioned in a previous comment that editors need to stop participating in this mutual admiration society. That person appeared to be talking about freelance editors, but it made me think of editors at traditional publishing houses, and I don't see those editors going out of their way to avoid honest criticism. Quite the opposite, in fact, and the evidence is the sum total of queries and manuscripts that are submitted and subsequently rejected every year.

As a published author, I can also say that my editor doesn't allow my work to slide - he pushes me to write the best books I possibly can, and if he thinks there's something that can be better, he tells me.

I have no data to back up any of my assertions, but I don't think there's an imbalance in favor of positive energy. If you ask me, the positive energy in the book world is still catching up to the negative.

I recognize that my behavior has changed since leaving college and all of those writing classes I loved. No matter who it was, almost everyone's story paired their compliments with constructive criticism in workshop all in an effort to help the writing.

There were times when no one could think of anything to say about a story (good or bad), not because it was perfect but because it was too far gone or to raw of a first draft (it's extremely difficult to help anyone out with a first draft since--hopefully--it's just the jumping off point). But we always tried to help out to help the writing as best we could.

Now, if I have trouble reading something because the writing isn't what it could be, I put it down and leave it forever and rarely speak of it again. I save my reviews (whether in person or online) for works that I am excited about. It doesn't help the writer of the book/story I couldn't and didn't want to finish. It leaves them not knowing how they can improve.

Positive comments (and puppies and rainbows) are nice but my confidence increased once I understood how to fix my errors and improve my writing, and then reached a skill level where I could see the other errors that I was not at point to recognize before.

As long as we avoid border-line hate-speech and criticizing for the benefit of no one, constructive criticism can only help our fellow writers out and, since seeing someone else's writing problems can help you recognize your own, it can help ourselves.

I just think there's more.

We live in a time when everyone who purchases a book has the ability to be a critic and voice an opinion (twice actually. Once on Amazon, once on Good Reads). These are reviewers with no agenda of critically reviewing a book. In most cases, the ratings are of the liked it/didn't like it variety--with a somewhat unrelated point system attached.

You point out, Good Reads straight up rapes some work. Usually it's done to be funny, the Fifty Shades of Grey review with pictures and videos comes to my mind.

What's even more baffling are the 4 star reviews that are luke warm. "It wasn't great. 4 stars!" Or the 2 star reviews that love it, "AWESOME! Was captivated, a real page turner. But I hate Helvetica. 2 stars."

Actually, the REAL version of this review is -- "Good book. I don't like the genre(then why the hell did you buy the book) so I can only give it 3 stars, even though it's the best book I've ever read in this genre."

There's also nothing quite like being ripped a new one, by poor grammar and terrible spelling.

I just think there's more.

The Internetz is too nice? Is that chap online?

I agree, Nathan, with what you've said and what Ava Jae wrote in her comment. When I decided to self-pub my first book, I was able to quickly find kindred spirits on Twitter and Facebook, others who have chosen the same path (at least for now). We support each other. I will not publish untruthful reviews or say things I don't believe. But you can be a "friend" by retweeting, hosting an interview on your blog, re-posting an announcement to your FB page. And it is more fun to be engaged with others who are climbing the same mountain you are.
Being a writer/author is damned hard. Why shouldn't we be nice to each other? Why shouldn't we help each other out? The "us" and "them", and "me" versus "them" mentalities of the old publishing world are going away. Good riddance.

Hi Nathan. I'm reminded of what Dr.Seuss said,‘Be who you are and say how you feel, because those who matter won’t mind and those who mind don’t matter.’ If you love a squeefest (& I include myself in that number), then squee your heart out. If you're inclined to be a harsh critic then slay your dragons. Either way, as long as you are being true to who you are at core, then nothing else matters!
Yvette Carol

The title of this post made me laugh. What are some of the things I've seen going in the literary community lately? Hmm. Twitter or Goodreads-incited flamewars between authors and readers, sites dedicated to trashing and ridiculing books of a certain genre and the authors who write them, the many, many people who trash self-published or the corresponding people who trash authors who choose to sign with an agent and go traditional, Goodreads lists of authors who "behave badly" and corresponding lists of reviewers who behave badly (and stalkerish posts of personal information like where these people live, work, and regularly hang out--yikes), and many other things. Lately the literary world--at least online--has seemed more like a battlefield than a field of rainbows and puppies.

I am never going to support the idea of encouraging people to be nastier or more negative than they already are, because clearly the literary community is perfectly capable of doing that on its own.

That isn't to say that I'm opposed to critical or honest thinking. OF COURSE reviewers should be honest about their opinions. I think that goes without saying. But for too many people, "honest" is just an excuse to be cruel or snarky, often almost as a game.

Is too much shallow praise or lack of sincerity a problem? Maybe...? I dunno, I feel like the worst thing that happens there is that people praise a book and then those praises don't pan out. Should this problem be corrected by encouraging more negativity and critical words? I don't think so. Like I said, we have plenty of that already. Too much, I'd say. I think as a community we should strive for meat instead of fluff, of course. But that meat can still be served kindly, respectfully, and politely.

Great question, and one I struggle with. I'll write a negative review, but only if I can separate my emotions out, explain what appeared to be wrong with the book, and point out anyplace where I thought the author succeeded.

To second a couple of other commenters: it's the Goodreads stars that bother me. Goodreads stars are set vaguely on a scale of taste, from "didn't like it" to "it was amazing". I've considered just not giving stars because my taste is not always guaranteed to correlate to quality.

E.g., I recently gave a very popular YA book a one-star review--it was one of those violent dystopians, made me practically ill to read--but it was actually reasonably well-written and I made that clear in the review. Even included a disclaimer against the star rating.

It still bothers me. I worry about the author seeing the review and only seeing the one star, rather than the affirmation contained in the review itself.

I'm a puppy and rainbow kind of writer - for some of my stories. Others not so sweett, but I write children and adult fare so that broadness is to be expected.

We tend to forget there is a difference between a review and a critique. With a critique, one pays to get bashed, and the review one buys to knock or buys and wanting it free, knows that bashing will earn money returned.

To me, a review is giving a potential reader an inside track and I will not make a negative review. If I believe one is required, I contact the author and let them know why I think there is a problem, including my reasoning, but also not in a bashing manner.

I, in fact, have a review due on a book for a friend. The writing is excellent, his stories, however, are disturbing, antisocial, and could be construed as being from a psychopathic mind. I will write the review and ask him if he wishes me to post it.

I don't see it as fake. Maybe because I've never complimented another writer on facebook, twitter, or goodreads and not meant it. I always mean what I say.

At the risk of being negative, I think the point of the essay was missed. It's not about a lack of negativity so much as a lack of honesty. The online book culture is built mostly out of writers following writers, and the primary reason anyone follows, or retweets, or likes anyone else is to get attention for themselves.

The beginning of the essay touches on something that bothers me deeply--writers are becoming famous online not for their books but for their twitter and blog posts. And that's part of the writer's point. Once you become "friends" with someone, it's much harder to be honest and tell them when you don't like something they've done.

This is an interesting question. I think there is a plethora of fake "love" on the net for friends, cliques, or others people see as potential help. But there is genuine love as well. The problem is sorting it out, and I have chosen not to. As a reader,I still purchase books by reading the blurb and a few pages or by the rec of friends who share similar reading tastes. If I stumble upon a book I don't like, I stop reading it and move on. In the end, I think the niceness helps some people and it's only a problem if you let it become one. As far as opinions of my work, I'm a writer, not a mind reader. If someone says they like my book, I'll never know for sure if they are telling the truth or not. We can all choose to believe what we want and participate in the lovefest or not.

I'm with you on the hateful reviews on Goodreads. There are a lot of Simon Cowell wanna-bes out there. Sometimes they just want to be clever and make fun of a book because it makes them feel better somehow about themselves.

On the other hand, I agree with the poster who pointed out that once you become online buddies with a writer it is hard to tell them their book bored you to sleep. That's why I try to keep my friends separate from the books that I read. If I make friends with you, I probably won't read your book. Or I'll read it and just won't tell you that I read it unless it blew me away.

Many excellent responses so not sure how I can add much more except to say it is one thing to give support to a writer through false postings on social media and another to be honest to the work and not the person.
After all, isn't a critique supposed to be objective? What has happened to objectivity?
I'm not implying support for someone who wants to give a negative and hostile review. There are too many riding either end of the scale and not enough of us in the middle!

I'm a co-founder of the online book recommendation site for kids and teens called Whatcha' Reading Now? We have a policy of only reviewing books we love. This is not simply to play nice, but if we are going to endorse a book, we want it to be one all three of us truly liked. So, while there are plenty of books we've read and disliked for one or more reasons, we don't see a need to put that out there. After all, someone else might feel differently about that work.

We theme each of our WRN? issues (humor, love, friendship, mystery, etc...) and I can tell you there have been many times we've struggled to find a book all three of us loved enough to feature on our site and give it our stamp of approval. So, this whole age of being positive on the Internet doesn't mean we're all sugarcoating things, it just means some of us choose to focus on the good and let others make up their own minds on the rest. We get large shipments of books from major publishers each week for review, but we're very selective in what we use. Because we're writers in addition to being reviewers, we're aware of and sensitive to all the hard work that goes into producing a book. That alone is a good reason for not going "harsh" in any review. It's just the way we roll at WRN?

I definitely think there's an assumption these days that people need to be nicer to one another. I can attest to this with a personal experience. In addition to writing and editing, I review books and I got to know a writer a little bit before reviewing her book. I didn't like the book and said so in my review, albeit respectfully. In no way did I degrade or disrespect her; I simply stated in the review what I didn't like about the book itself. And she got angry, telling me in an email how she felt like my comments about the editing of her book were unwarranted (even though I said repeatedly in a private email to her that I was on her side and urged her, for her own sake, to find a new editor.) A few days after my review appeared on Amazon, another review of the same book appeared that praised it to the high heavens.

I'm not saying reviewers, editors, and others should rip a book to shreds. But if it isn't good or if the story is weak and needs work, we shouldn't be afraid to say so (provided, again, that we remain respectful in our approach.)

I don't think there is anything wrong with writers/readers/bloggers to support authors by talking positively about their books. I look at these more as recommendations rather than reviews. And when it comes down to it, I think if a book doesn't have a buzz about it, that should be enough. There is enough negativity in the world (the news) so why not keep the ugliness to ourselves. And puppies rock.

I've been thinking about this lately. It's an interesting issue.

I think it's a mixed bag. Certainly the community that is forming is wonderful. Authors supporting each other is terrific!

But the downside is the pressure on authors to be 'honest' (alot of the not-so-nice commenting people mentioned is done by readers, not authors, or it's posted anonymously). I think there's a definite loss there, in terms of honest exchange of opinion and truth.

I think we are entering the world of public scrutiny and celebrity. Just like actors and musicians tend to have almost scripted positive responses to their interactions with fans and interviewers, authors are beginning to feel the same pressure.

It is really easy to say the wrong thing and have someone swear they will never read your book, or promote your book, or feature it on their blog, or whatever, because they didn't like what you said. Authors may be wary about generating that type of ill will. The two-edged sword of the internet, which is allowing authors to finally have some visibility, is also placing them at the recieving end of other people's immediate opinion.

Some brave souls may ignore this pressure and speak out anyway. And thank goodness, because we need honest voices. For an actor to give a scripted response is one thing, that's what actors to. But to silence the voices of writer could be a great loss.

For those brave souls who speak out, if they are lucky, they'll get a positive reputation for frankness that people will accept. Men will probably find this easier than women; an outspoken woman still tends to draw harsh critique, for the most part.

My final concern is that this pressure to be 'nice' will impact what people write. That they will soften their books because they are worried about the reaction from readers.

Of course, writers will speak. We do have the fortunate options of pen names. That may help balance the pressure to be popular rather than truthful. And, again, some writers will always choose truth over popularity.

It will be interesting to watch.

I agree! This is a great post, and you're awesome! The guy you quoted is the best! I love your blog! You talked about a subject I love!

Full disclosure: Positivity is my #2 "StrengthsFinder" strength. So I tend to think everything's great. I'm totally a rainbows and kittens and cupcakes kind of guy. But the saccharine squeefests make me gag a little, and I stay out of them. It often comes across more like sycophantic ass-kissing celebrity worship than actual dialog. I also don't ask for autographs when I meet super awesome famous people, which I have a few times recently. Even that one time when I really was tongue-tied star-struck. (Sorry, Nathan, it wasn't you, though you're a close second.)

Anyway, someone wise once used to yell at me quite often, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." Reading between your lines, it sounds like on Goodreads you'll list the books you've read, but you'll only actually review the ones you like. That seems completely honest to me and very stable and sustainable. I think it's a good approach in person, and a good approach online--twitter, facebook, blogs, etc.

I see what I write (msytery-thriller) is not on the list. Well, I never said I was trendy.

As much as I read, I don't think I've ever read something that would be classified as "women's fiction" (yes, I am a girl).

I'm sure there are many lovely stories in that category, but the base descriptions never appeal to me enough that I pick them up.

Am I alone on that?

No, A.M. Perkins. No, you're not.

@Steven Nelson Literary Agency doesn't rep mystery/thriller so you're not likely to find them discussing it here.

http://nelsonagency.com/manuscript.html

What is "Voice-driven literary novels" ... :-) Is this something geared towards audio-books, or a method if writting in first person or something.

@Lynn August - Yes, I would like "voice-driven" clarified as well. Most of what I write I would classify as "character driven", I assume that's not the same thing. Maybe Kristen can expound.

-Wendy Tyler Ryan
http://www.wendytylerryan.com

@ Joseph - I called Nelson recently, and though I haven't submitted my query yet, they told me they would be happy to look at something in the "general fiction" category. Perhaps they do look at mystery/thrillers?

Richard, where would your book be shelved? You want your book in front of the readers who are looking for books like yours. And you want an agent who has relationships with editors who want books exactly like yours. Go for the niche.

Thanks for sharing this info, Kristin.

Yay! I write funny romance!

@Joseph, @Richard: My book's on Kindle and Nook, so I'm not looking for an agent at the moment, but thanks anyway.

Hmm . . . my novel fits two of the points under women's fiction (comedy and small town setting). And it is about a protagonist dealing with issues common to women in their 20s and 30s. But--I've been getting quite a few rejections to my query letters. I guess this means my plot doesn't appeal, or else I need to work on my overall query.

I'm not worried that my novel is not on this list. My novel is what it is. If Nelson is not my agent one day that is fine. There are others out there and other ways to be seen and heard. I would prefer going with an agent because I believe that is the BEST way but certainly not the only way. I write what I love with great passion and vigor. I don't write so EVERONE out there will like it. I know not everyone likes fantasy but that's ok because there are those that do. No matter the genre you write in just remember you need to do it for yourself first. Not for wealth or fame. If that comes then great but don't look for it. Concentrate on the story you are writing and make it the best you ever have done. You may find that you impress yourself before ever impressing someone else.

Thanks for the info, Kristin. Was there any feedback specifically about historical romance?

Uh, guys? I'm pretty sure you won't find STEVEN Nelson discussing anything here.

But I assume that was a typo. :-)

No, never mind, I misread. Simply a lack of punctuation. Yes, I'm laughing at myself now.

@ Steven: I was curious about self publishing on various sites before at least attempting to get agent. I can not get an answer from ANYBODY as to whether that's a good idea or not! These blogs are entertaining, but not always helpful.
And Carmen, I really appreciate the advice! Makes enough sense. However, Nelson said that they did in fact represent that genre...Do you have some insight perhaps on this matter? I'm very curious. Thank you so much!

@ Richard - even 5 years ago people would have said self-publishing is a bad idea. More and more it's becoming a viable and potentially legitimate avenue for getting your work out there (see: E.L. James and Amanda Hocking for debut writers who hit it big). However, there are trade-offs with self-publishing: you need to do a lot of proactive marketing to get your book out there, or else it will get lost in the mire with other self-published novels. You'll want to make sure it's as polished as could be and consider using an editor to give it a look for grammar and continuity. Nathan Bransford has posted some great articles in the past about self-publishing.

@ Lynn and Wendy - voice-driven usually means that either the narrator or characters have a really strong voice. It often goes hand-in-hand with character-driven, but not always. Think of books like The Help or The Hunger Games, though you don't need to be narrating in first person. Voice is one of the hardest things to define in writing - people either have it or they don't. It's a very subtle thing, and is most often revealed through the writer's personal style. I hope that helps!

Excellent! I'm writing a voice-driven romantic comedy!

@Richard (and anyone else new to the game)

www.absolutewrite.com/forums

AbsoluteWrite forums: where your questions get answered. :-)

And I promise there are pages and pages devoted to all the topics that have come up here and many more. You'll want to search the archives before posting your own.

@ Richard - Rachelle Gardner recently posted about self-published authors looking for agents. Might be useful: http://www.rachellegardner.com/2012/05/self-published-author-seeks-agent/

We have seen a number of ergo baby carrier sale sleep authorities know this as a new ergobaby canada "negative slumber organization." ergo baby carrier My partner and i undoubtedly disagree,www.ergobabystore.ca and thus would likely my child.

very interesting. I think the problem with literary fiction is that the lack of definite borders means a lot of aspiring literary writers go in without much of a guide and so produce very belaboured works with long flowing descriptions of nothing in particular.

And because it's hard to give advice to make it better, mostly what you get is negativity. Makes it an even harder road to travel.

mood

Mood,

Great point. I think a lot of us writers are a bit intimidated or confused about literary fiction. But, #2 on Maggie's list is helpful in demystifying what literary fiction is.

And, #2 is a good idea for any genre you choose to write in.

Thanks for publishing my article Karen! I would say that all the rules for good fiction writing in general apply with literary fiction - there *always* has to be something happening, otherwise there's really no story. Good literary fiction is engaging and dramatic. The one key criteria is that it (usually) doesn't fit neatly into a genre template. For those that are daunted by the term "literary" (not me!), the term "contemporary" or even "general" fiction are just as applicable. It's all just marketing though, because a wonderful story, plot, and characrers remain wonderful regardless of the labels you apply to them.

Magdalena

Maggie, my pleasure. You're a wealth of writing knowledge.

Ah, the "one key criteria" info helps clear it up a bit more.

Thanks!

I'm a book junky, and I've read my share of literary fiction -- but it's not at the top of my list of things to read. Why? I'm happy to read any type of poetry you can name -- not that I will always like it, but I'm happy to tackle it -- but the fiction is another story.

It takes energy I don't have a lot of the time to wade through it. If it's really great, and I'm caught up, and I end up reading until one or two in the morning -- then I'm trashed the next day -- and I can't afford to do that either.

That said, well-written anything is a pleasure to read, and, at times, all too difficult to find.

Peggy, I'm with you, unfortunately. :) My fiction reading has been lacking due to the lack of time. I find I'm reading more and more nonfiction on writing and marketing. Then there's my own writing . . . What a web we weave.

Really insightful article, Maggie.

I think "literary" fiction can be hard to pin down, but you've managed to demystify it here. I do love novels which fall under #2, and find my patience failing if they don't. So I'll need to read more prize winners, it seems! :) They do have a rep of being snobby, but if something is great, it shouldn't be hidden away - and unfortunately they often are, simply because literary fiction is seen as being inaccessible to most people. Hence the snobbery. :)

But they can be very difficult to define. Compare something like Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: very different, but both literary in their own way, I'd say. (Then compare those to something like Twilight!)

Thanks for sharing your wisdom. I'm bookmarking to remind myself I am on the right track if my inner critic starts thumping the desk and telling me I'm getting too above myself (or others) with my own novel. :)

Sorry about the deleted comment - I wanted to edit, but it wouldn't let me.

I just wanted to say, in my last comment that should be, I love novels that fall under #1.

#2 is also good. :)

Em, Thanks for stopping by. And, glad you clarified the number.

It seems literary fiction has come down a couple of notches and is becoming more accessible to all - in its variety of stories and authors.

Talking about literary fiction makes me see the need to make time for it again! :)

Glad you liked the article Em, and I agree that literary fiction is hard to pin down - the originality is part of why it's good. But just because it's harder to write doesn't mean it's harder to read. The work of Peter Carey, Tim Winton, and Margaret Atwood to take just 3 examples, is as fast paced to read and accessible as any genre fiction (and Atwood's Orxy and Crake has definite sci fi elements, as Carey and Winton's work is rich with romance). One difference is that it just gets better with each reading - there are nuances and subtleties. I love all forms of reading and agree Karen and Maggie that nonfiction and poetry tends to be faster, but there's nothing that quite compares with being lost in a rich fictive dream - the joy of a seriously engaging story.

The fake plots are hilarious. Still laughing. I agree, there is far too much centered on the author's personal courses in college. My questions are this:

a. The work is 50,000 words? Is this normal for this type of fiction? Sounds kind of low to me, I mean unless I missed the YA tag somewhere.

b. Why don't you expand and clarify the source of antagonism? Why is this society so close-minded? I'm also assuming this is happening in the present.

I think this could turn out beautifully if reworked properly. I know it's hard cramming a book in a paragraph description.

As a child, I wondered what lay outside my own borders. Then my mom thumbtacked a map to the kitchen wall, and I knew.

You're new to this writing business, right? Welcome. It's competitive as hell. A few tips:

1. Call it 50,000 words and then assume it's middle grade. At that length it has precious little chance as anything else.

2. "Notable" is a label the ALA slaps on our books if we're lucky. Very few writers are modest, but all should pretend to be, at least in query letters.

3. Your query should be 100% about your manuscript and 0% about you. Unless you have previously published work or have won prestigious contests. Then your query can be 99% about your manuscript and 1% about you.

4. Get thee to QueryShark and read every. Damn. Entry. on that blog. Yeah, I know that's a lot of work. Like I said-- welcome to the business.

The author was calling The End of Mr. Y notable, not Pensive.

The Alchemist is 45k. Unless your story is on that level of language, resonance, and marketability, it'll never sell at 50k. It's the job of the query to make an agent think it might actually be that good, so you have to make the query letter a masterpiece of concision and vividness. Congratulations on winning NaNoWriMo, by the way.

Oops. Well, okay. But I still want to stick to the Modesty point.

I think it's time we quit complaining about the length of books. Ebooks have established that they're here to stay, and plenty of novella-length books are selling in ebook format.

It's easier for publishers to scale down prices for books in the 50,000- and 40,000-word ranges when it comes to ebooks, because the most expensive part of the book to manufacture is the cover. Thus even short books cost almost as much as long ones. With ebooks, you merely show the cover, no expensive paper with lamination and gold leaf and 3D holograms.

True. not all publishers will lower prices on shorter ebooks, if they publish them at all, but I predict fewer and fewer publishers will reject books solely on length as time goes by.

The point is, even if your goal is to be published only in ebook format, you still need to start with a query.

The Alchemist may be 45k but it's also nonsense soup. This at least seems to have a plot, even if the author is withholding it.

Eh.

Listen to the EE. I never do, but someone should.

That's an interesting point. I usually assume these queries are meant for agents unless the querier comes in and says otherwise, and as I understand it, there's not enough advance money in short ebooks for most agents to consider them. I've stood up for short romance novels here in the past because it was clear (from prior credits or whatever) that the author planned to send it to ebook publishers, but I still suspect the people submitting queries here are more likely to be publishing noobs aiming for an agent and/or print publication with the Big Six--in which case it's worth letting them know how stuff this short is usually received in those venues. I wonder if that's an outdated assumption.

Well, EE says “Now tell us what happens.” But EE, it’s literary fiction. Maybe nothing happens. Here is an example of literary fiction:

An old woman dies. Just to annoy her family, she insisted on burial in county far away. They are poor. It’s a pain in the rear to get her corpse there. It’s a dozen people whining about how much they dislike one another.

It is a great literary masterpiece.

Okay, seriously now. Your sentences are too long for a query—which is a simple business letter. Along with Query Shark you should read Miss Snark. And especially look at Query Shark number 220.

Hope you don't write your novel like your query. We readers are too lazy to decode forty-word sentences. That's so nineteenth century.

If they found Evil Editor, chances are they Googled Awesome Query Assistance and found lots of helpful sites. No need to send them elsewhere.

An old woman dies. Just to annoy her family, she insisted on burial in a county far away.

That alone is more clear information than we got in this query.

Speak for yourself. I have no problem decoding several-hundred word sentences. Even though I am a rodent.

I found this place by Googling "free porn laser eyes muttonchops".

It sounds like she's in a cult. Is she? Is it something like Sea Org from Scientology, where they put you on a boat & you can't leave? Or those ones where they have an old schoolhouse somewhere, and shoot people who leave?

Is the door real or metaphorical?

Why is she called Sister? Is she a nun--or a wife?

I found 150 by going around Twitter crying.

I don't remember how I found this site. I'd read Khazar-Khum's novel about the cult in in the old schoolhouse.

And if we have to quit complaining about novels that are too short to be considered novels, then do we also have to quit complaining about poor grammar? I mean can't we assume the industry has some standards and that the people who submit to our ministrations are desirous of meeting them?

Author, this is your lucky day. Do what Evil says.

Okay?

And if we have to quit complaining about novels that are too short to be considered novels, then do we also have to quit complaining about poor grammar? I mean can't we assume the industry has some standards and that the people who submit to our ministrations are desirous of meeting them?

Just decide whether you're ministrating or complaining.

I would think a querier would want to be informed of any grammar or spelling errors. It's their queries they want feedback on, not their books. (True we give feedback on the plots, but we assume the problem is with the query's presentation of the plot.)

Fixing a few grammar errors is a lot easier than adding 25,000 words to novel that you've finished writing.

Y'all are scaring me today.

When I reviewed a Horrow novel that I won't name, last year I think it was, I commented that the early part of it seemed tacked on and unnecessary. The author later contacted me to explain his publishers had asked him to expand the book, and, specifically, to add stuff to the beginning that would 'explain' what came next.

So yeah. Adding stuff to completed work not always good.

I don't know. I don't think there are enough classes listed at the bottom of the query. I think you should post your whole college curriculum, along with GPA, and favorite coffee shop ;)

Ok. Can we please go to 101. Pensive? If I saw a line up off books on Amazon.com, Pensive wouldn't quite be the eye-catcher. How about facelifting the title?

Good literary title, and Amazon only returns 1,262 hits on a search for that one.

Sounds like a big mess. Start over. Begin by telling me what this is. Linked novellas? Independent stories? An experiment in literary structures? Then tell who the main characters are etc and make it clear why the plots require all 3 stories to be published in one book. Because otherwise my impression is you wrote 3 stories that ended before they reached novel length and publishing them together is merely convenient, not a brilliant literary design.

Only 1262 hits on Amazon? And I was going to suggest that this particular title might be a tad overused. It also doesn't seem to have much to do with the novel as presented.

As the characters and the events in their lives are not that unusual, except perhaps for Raven's situation, the writing needs to stand out in order to attract attention. At the moment, it doesn't. Why should we care about this man who can't connect to a lover? Why should we care if one law student doesn't become a lawyer after all? Engage the reader.

I don't get the first "story." Why would he have a problem with Gabriel? It didn't work out with Grace because he is gay, and when a gay guy marries a woman, it doesn't always work out. Gabriel is a guy, so I don't see any reason why he would push Gabriel away because he pushed Grace away.

I can't beleive that a guy would just decide to join the football team his last year of law school. How bad is their team?

The last sentence in paragraph three kind of bothered me. Duh, she lost something else than her sight when she got raped. It's kind of a huge issue. I get what you're going for, but maybe word it differently.

As it stands, I just don't care about these characters, and that's a bad thing. Make me care about them.

I'm pretty sure you can't call a book ANYTHING, Darkly, without having it be about drugs.

Given the gay love story angle, I would avoid the name Johnson.

BTW, I would totally read GTP #6.

1st Corinithians 13, verse 12!


"For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then shall I know, even as also I am known." (Kings James Version)


By the way, Paul's writing has nothing to do with the plot of this book.

Did I get it right? Wait, this isn't name that Bible verse is it?

I'm going to be nice. This may be an interesting book if the author can write a query that explains how these lives overlap.

And. . . tell us why we should care. Most of these characters sound petty and deceptive.

Furthermore the Japanese man wouldn't be studying law in America . . unless maybe international business law? And, football - really - in law school? Make it a bachelor's degree.

Leaving a lover on the beach after having sex sounds like a loser to me. Does he stay with her out of guilt?

And what happened to Gary? Did he confess to his wife prior to marrying her that he accepted himself as a gay man? He sounds bi-sexual to me and selfish.

vkw

How much of these plotlets take place within the book, and how much of them is backstory? I found that particularly unclear. Does Grace come into the present story at all, or instance, or is she backstory? Does the attack on Raven happen within the story or as a memory or flashback?

Oh, and minor point for the minions - the query itself doesn't say Higen joins the football team in his last year of law school. He might have been playing football all along.

If Gabriel is the linking character, maybe the query could tell us something about him? Maybe centre the query on him?

This reads like a precis of a synopsis.

There's too much and too little at the same time.

Who's the protag in whose life all others are shimmers and glimmers?

And what's snuffing the light?

Yeah, but how many law schools even have a football team?

And yeah, you do kind of need to study the laws of your own country, if that's where you intend to practice...

A literary work...exciting since we don't get enough of these here! Not to mention we hardly ever get LGBT work here...that said, this obviously needs some work.

The main thing for me is the lack of identification with any of the characters...especially since the hook involves Stephen (great name by the way). Then it's like poof he's gone.

Gabriel as a name is okay except that you equate Stephen pushing away from the redhead...which stopped me to verify it wasn't Gabrielle....you never want to stop someone reading your query.

I don't know of ANY Law School with a football team. Who would they play? If someone is in Law School, that means (I think) they've already graduated college and thus used up their eligibility. I strongly disagree with Batgirl that the query doesn't say he's NOT playing football...

"When Gabriel encourages him to try out for the football team..."

You don't try out for a team if you're already playing. Moreover, anyone with any knowldege of law school OR college athletics (even a small program) would know that no one has time to do both...especially someone from another country who's unlikely to have ever played the game before.

Worst of all IMO is the "wide receiver" quip. It's like trying to be clever based off a cliched joke (no offense EE). Kind of insulting actually...and I stopped reading completely to check out the comments to see if this was a joke query. Not good.

Next, come up with a better name than Jack Johnson. In addition to the popular singer, there's also the famous boxer of the same name...who was involved in an historic "rape" case because he liked dating white women.

Lastly, this query reminds me of an artsy movie that vaguely overlaps stories rather than literary fiction which is supposed to focus on a character's development. Good luck with this!

It doesn't matter whether he's been playing football all along or just starting in his last year. College football players practice three to five hours a day, and half their games are on the road. To manage law school at the same time isn't believable.

Where did the idea that it's his last year at law school come from anyway? EE?

Law schools are affiliated with universities that have football teams. And if you don't play football as an undergrad, you still have eligibility as a grad student.

I guess I got that impression from the talk of going to Japan at graduation and his time in law school coming to an end. Sorry if anyone got the GTP wrong because I claimed it was the last year.

I just don't understand what your book is about. You are following three very different characters, going through three very different struggles. What is the connection? Why did you choose to link these three people together?

EE -- I see what you're saying but I beg to differ...and as you know there's a difference between REAL and "fictionally realistic".

"Higen Nishida attends law school in the United States, planning to return to Japan...blah blah blah....When Gabriel encourages him to try out for the football team...."

That is COMPLETELY unrealistic. I don't care if he's in his 1st, 2nd or 3rd year of law school....how the HECK is he going to make a college football team without having played football before?!?! You're saying he played in Japan before attending Law School in the States?!?!? WHERE?!?!?! What position is a Japanese man going to play at 23 never having played the game? Cornerback? Running back? It just makes NO SENSE!!!!

EE & others...you can debate writing with me til the cows come home to roost (LOL) but you're NOT going to win a football debate with me!!!

--- SJP

I don't see how that differs with what I said. In fact you basically repeat what I said in my 8:21 comment.

Also, even in the NFL the position of field goal kicker has gone to people who never played football so it's not unreasonable for the same to happen with a college team.

Furthermore, a college football team can have over 100 players, aplay in the games, but help the first, second and third team players by simulating the opponents in practice.

Amazing. I actually won a football debate with you.

I don't see how that differs with what I said. In fact you basically repeat what I said in my 8:21 comment.

Also, even in the NFL the position of field goal kicker has gone to people who never played football so it's not unreasonable for the same to happen with a college team.

Furthermore, a college football team can have over 100 players, many of whom are walk-ons who rarely play in the games, but help the first, second and third team players by simulating the opponents in practice.

Amazing. I actually won a football debate with you.

I wonder if published litfic authors ever do normal, human things like share their successful query letters. (They have so few readers you'd think they'd be glad to be approached by one.) Maybe ask a few you admire?

I'd reduce each paragraph 50%, get rid of the "scoring" pun in the second one, and reveal the interconnections between your three key characters. And maybe add one sentence to make it all sound hopeful or appealing.

In the Kanto League or the Kansai League maybe? American football has been played in Japan since 1934 (with a hiatus during WWII).

So, yanno, you lose.

Football aside. The fact remains that in law school you have to study your heinie off. You do not have time to be running said heinie around no football field.

(Author, I realize it may not seem very helpful of us to be arguing about whether a Japanese citizen would

1. Play football
2. Bother to study law in a country other than Japan
3. Have time to play football while doing so

But it points out a believability problem. The sex-then-rape is another believability problem.)

"I strongly disagree with Batgirl that the query doesn't say he's NOT playing football..."

Huh? I can't even parse that. It has three negatives, does it end up negative again, or positive?

All I said was that the 'last year of law school' was one of EE's satirical interpolations, and not the actual words of the query.
I completely agree with everyone that the idea of combining a study-heavy program like law with a practice-heavy activity like American football is implausible.

On the other hand, maybe he's studying American law so he can be the expert on business dealings with American companies or something.

IANALSOAFP (I am not a law student or a football player) The point is that this query raises too many distracting questions and not enough intriguing questions.

I wonder if published litfic authors ever do normal, human things like share their successful query letters. (They have so few readers you'd think they'd be glad to be approached by one.)

Good litfic authors don't do all that badly for readers, actually. They're bloody good writers, and not to be sniffed at.

Of course, there are a lot of people who think they've written litfic, when all they've really got is a meandering stream of overly self-conscious prose which lacks any kind of tangible story arc. Probably a bad idea to have the query letter look like this is one of those...

I got lost in the first line. Red headed exception proves what rule?
Gay men can be turned over coffee? Gay men go straight with a red head? In my understanding gay is gay and that's that. If he's bi, write him bi.

If Hig is Japanese he will fulfill family expectations. Make no mistake about that. Also if he's Japanese he's too small to play football at any level in the US. Table tennis is more his game.


I think you need to understand the characters you are writing about and the cultures that shape them.

And a seeing eye dog.

If Hig is Japanese he will fulfill family expectations. Make no mistake about that. Also if he's Japanese he's too small to play football at any level in the US. Table tennis is more his game.


I think you need to understand the characters you are writing about and the cultures that shape them.

This is meant ironically, right? Because you can't actually be this bigoted and ignorant...

I concur with EE. The suggestion that the Japanese are all ping pong playing midgets, enslaved to follow the traditional protocols of the Yamato mind hive, shows sadly little understanding of the characters and the cultures that shape them.

Japan has professional basketball (not to mention sumo wrestling) with plenty of native players well over 6 feet tall. A glance at the randomly chosen New England Patriots roster shows 22 player under 6 feet tall, including some at 5'8".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noriaki_Kinoshita

Hey, I thought litfic wasn't supposed to have, you know, a plot. I thought it was supposed to be about shimmering lucid prose 'n' stuff.

If I was a litfic editor, I bet what I would be looking for would be a much shorter query that doesn't go into this much detail about what happens to the characters but just hits the highlights--"a Japanese student torn between family loyalty and his love for his American boyfriend," "a young woman tries to rebuild her life after a rape and beating that leaves her blind and terrified" (or whatever), and that at the same time showcases your absolute best writing, some of the most shimmering awesome sentences you can do. I'm pretty sure that's what to focus on.

Because if you try to go even more in depth and actually explain how the characters' lives intersect, it will be TOO LONG for a query. This is a great site and all, but people often neglect this aspect when they give advice. You can't clarify everything in a query 'cause it can't be two pages.

This cannot succeed without either focusing on one character or connecting all three characters. A list of characters and no plot won't get it.

I've got so lost in who's contradicting who. I was referring to this statement by batgirl: "He might have been playing football all along."

And this statement by EE: "if you don't play football as an undergrad, you still have eligibility as a grad student."

We indeed may need a Japaneese lawyer to iron this all out, but I think we all agree that this isn't an element of the query which leads us to ask the right kind of questions.

Hope the author rewrites and posts on Phoenix's site!

Yes, EE is right, it should focus on one character. I wasn't exactly saying there shouldn't be a plot in the query, at least if the book has one, I just kind of suspect that it doesn't--the summary is more of a blow-by-blow than the broad lines of a plot and how they come together. I just suspect that they don't really, except in the artsy-movie sense, like Magnolia, where the parallel stories inform each other but don't affect each other; maybe I'm wrong.

But I really do think, to put it more plainly this time, that to be accepted as litfic the prose in this query needs to be better.

Good litfic authors don't do all that badly for readers, actually.

Compared to what? Cereal packets?

Compared to what? Cereal packets?

Having yet another bad day?

Congratulations to you and your writers. You obviously know how to pick winners. Enjoy your happy dance. When life is this good, you've gotta dance!

Congratulations Kristin - this is fabulous news for you and your clients! Wonder what next year will hold? Then again, maybe this year can get even better still :)

Most excellent. Bask in your much-deserved glory. ;-)

Congratulations, Kristin! Reach for the stars!

Congratulations! It made me happy, too, just reading your entry :)

Nothing left to say but congrats!

And to think, the year's only a little more than half-over. Congrats.

That is awesome! Happy for you and the authors both. :-)

Congrats! :)

Congrats! I loved Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet. :)

The covers are ALL awesome. Obviously the content delivers. There are so many layers to creating these amazing stories. Dance and sing!
Readers are thrilled too, though they'll never know the depth of gratitude they owe to you. So I'll say it for all those clueless readers, Thanks, Kristen, for being you.

That is absolutely fantastic, Kristen. Congratulations!

Hope you're going to go celebrate?

Congrats!

Congratulations! :)

Can't wait to see how you top this one! ;-)

Congrats to you and your authors!

Amy

Congratulations!

Congratulations to you all!

Congratulations! It is obvious that you have the skill and knowledge to know a successful novel when you see it. And congrats to all your authors for sharing their excellent work with us!!

That must be a great feeling! Congrats!

Congrats! Having devoured it this week I KNOW Ally Carter's "Uncommon Criminals" deserves to be on that Best Seller list and I'm sure the others do too!

Congratulations! This is fantastic news!

Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet has been on bestseller lists for awhile, now, hasn't it?

YAY!!!

Awesome news--you deserve to happy dance!

Isn't it lovely to read about a 'good news' event:):):) congratulations to everyone involved...

Olga from http://[email protected]

I'm so happy for you. You deserve to do the happy dance!

I'm confused about something. I thought the NY Times doesn't accept self published books on their list. I'm thrilled for Courtney, but how did Unlocked get on the NY Times ebook list if it's self published? Does this mean they will allow other self-published authors on their list now?

I haven't read the other books. But I did read...and re-read..."Hotel" and thought it was the best book I'd read in years. I seriously want this to be number one now!!

Can you pick 'em or what?

Seriously, congratulations to you and each one of the authors for making the list. That's amazing!

C'mon, Milestones!!!! (No, really, it's all right. Keep 'em coming.)

Bess Morgan

CONGRATULATIONS! It couldn't have happened to a nicer agent!

I'm confused about something. I thought the NY Times doesn't accept self published books on their list. I'm thrilled for Courtney, but how did Unlocked get on the NY Times ebook list if it's self published? Does this mean they will allow other self-published authors on their list now?

Some other self-published books have been on the list. (Barbara Freethy, John Locke, Victorine Lieske, Nancy Johnson, Stephanie McAfee.) Others have not. (Amanda Hocking).

Speculation abounds, but I chalk it up to the NYT being squirrely and inscrutable just to get its inscrutability on.

Regardless, I'll take it.