Mainstream? What mainstream?

[alexandraerin]

CNN.com headline: More authors turn to Web and print-on-demand publishing.

The article seems to focus on how a few authors have managed to attract enough attention through POD to get some mainstream success, but that to me is missing the point. Still, the article highlights that the two authors that they profile both received a cold reception from the traditional print industry and was told that their books would not appeal to a wide audience.

I used to believe that the advantage of internet-based publishing and marketing was that it allowed marginal authors to reach marginal audiences, but I'm starting to rethink what I think of as marginal and mainstream. I feel like in the eyes of the publishing industry, there is a narrow pool of people, a subset of the general population, that they think of as "readers", and they study how to reach out to these people and capture their attention (and money). And yet when there's a blockbuster phenomenon, it's generally a book that captures the imagination of people outside this group.

You see these phrases a lot in reference to such books: "I'm not much of a reader...", "My kids were never really into books before..."... taking that into consideration, I don't think the world divides as neatly into "readers" and "non-readers" as all that. People... most people... will read if you give them something that appeals to them, but the "mainstream" publishing industry doesn't seem all that bothered about doing that if you're not one of the people already pigeonholed as a reader.

I mean, there's the oft-repeated assertion that it's hard to get people to read on the internet, which is ridiculous when compared to the fact that the internet is made largely out of words.

People read, is the bottom line.

To put it simply, I no longer believe that the traditional publishing industry does appeal to the mainstream, except by accident... I don't think they know how to.

I have an idea for a post brewing, inspired by yuki_onna's post about the importance of representation in fiction, about the benefits to authors of representing mostly-overlooked groups in their stories and worlds... and really, that all kind of dovetails together with this, with publishers rejecting a work as being outside "the mainstream" and then being surprised at their appeal. "The mainstream" they're talking about is much like the so-called "Moral Majority" in America: a lot smaller than its name implies.

They say there's not much money to be had in writing, but I believe there is honestly a killing to be made in reaching outside what's being called "the mainstream", whether it's by writing more inclusively or more daringly or more experimentally. Many people who aren't "readers" simply don't have anything in front of them that they'd care to read.

Comments

Self publishing and mainstream

[bobhunt.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with you alexandraerin. It seems to me that "mainstream" is something defined by so called experts in the field. Unfortunately these so called experts are not seeing things the way the average person does. Take movies as another example. So often I see these so called critics state that this movie is great or that movie is a piece of junk. My wife and I have found that when the critics think a movie is great, we end up hating it and when they think it's junk, we end up loving it. What do the critics know anyway? They're paid to criticize.

I wrote a book myself called "One Four Man Up." and went through the same procedure as other authors have, trying to find an agent who would get my book published. It was a total waste of time. Most didn't even respond to my letters and I gave up. Twenty years later I learned about self publishing, found Infinity Publishing and for $500.00 got my book published. It's available on Amazon, Borders and the publisher's website. The point is, my book is good and those who have read it loved it. It has gotten nothing but 5 star reviews.

The book is a true story and tells about my experiences in Vietnam as a Marine tactical aircontrolman, the combat I was involved in, the friends I lost, and most importantly, the Post Traumatic Stress Disorder I endured for 20 years. It took a very special event that brought me full circle to turn around my hatred and discontent towards the average American for the way I was treated after the war. This is a poignant story, and anyone who has been to war, or who has a son or daughter in Iraq or Afghanistan would want to read this book. But the so called mainstream experts said it would never sell and no one would want to read it. So what do they know? Nothing!

In my opinion, we, the readers and average, everyday working people need to take over these issues and shout our approval's and disapproval's loudly and clearly on the internet. Get some websites going where real people can tell it like it is and voice the real opinions of real mainstream the way the American people did in the last presidential election. For me, well, I'm sick of others telling me what is good for me and what isn't and making such decisions for me as to what I should watch at the movies or read in my own home. I refuse to listen, always have been that way and always will. "Mainstream" is what WE make it, not what they make it.

truly believe you're missing the point.

[akailaughingman.livejournal.com]

"I don't normally read" folks are just following the crowd. These crowdfollowers are what makes blockbusters into blockbusters -- not normal movie goers, who see what's up every single week.
These are the people who only watch Superbowl Sunday (and not for the commercials).

I don't think they're looking for "something that appeals to me". These are the moral majority, the bland to the point of ticky tacky folks.

Yes, there is a market share of "I don't like anything, but will try this anyway" ... but that seems pretty small.

Q for the readers: how many of you read much?

Re: truly believe you're missing the point.

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

These are the moral majority,

First, I really don't think that phrase means what you think it means.

As for the bigger picture... yeah, we all want to believe that we're the ones using our discernment and free will and everybody else is a bunch of sheep, but the fact is that Hollywood is lousy at predicting what the blockbusters will be and the publishing industry is lousy at predicting what the bestsellers will be... it doesn't seem that way because all the hits have got big studios and big people backing them, but so do all the misses, and a lot of the biggest hits are actually outliers in some way: "nobody but geeks reads fantasy", "nobody goes to see pirate movies", etc.

So why did the crowd go for Harry Potter and Pirates of the Caribbean?

Because that crowd was made up of people who those things appealed to.

As those franchises grew into phenomena, people who don't normally check out the book shelves and movie listings became aware of them, but if they didn't have broad appeal they would have dropped out of sight and disappeared.

[nomananisland.livejournal.com]

It's something I've been thinking about a lot lately. I discovered Tales of MU in the summer of 2007, and was really happy for a number of reasons. One, because it was the first time I'd seen really good fiction online, and it made me aware that traditional publishing wasn't the only means of publishing. Two, because I found an author with a level of creativity that appealed to me after years of finding most published works derivative and stale. Three, because it opened up the Internet as a place to explore my own creativity.

I believe that AE is correct -- when people find something that appeals to them, they'll follow it. That's why I read her stuff. And I'm right on board with the interest in Tolkienish/D & D style fantasy creatures, comic book heroes, and sci-fi adventures. AE writes in all my favourite genres, but subverts and twists them in new directions.

As a founding editor on Web Fiction Guide, I began to wonder what led to mass appeal for a story. Ten percent of the catalogue had magic stories. Ten percent had vampires. Some were well written, others less so -- but none grabbed my attention the way AE's writing has. There are a small group of stories that I would say I like as much or better, because they do new things with old tropes, or are particularly well-written or creative. But none have the level of popularity of Tales of MU, even if they're "better" written (I put "marks" because that's subjective, and not meant as an insult).

I'm sure AE has been analyzing why MU is more popular than Tribe, Void Dogs or Star Harbour Nights. I know I think about it, because I think all of them are better in some way (except Void Dogs, it's about the same level of awesome). And I think it comes down to mass appeal. Fantasy/magic is popular (think Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter) in a way that sci-fi isn't -- as text. Star Wars and Star Trek are popular in film, but I don't think any science fiction writing is really grabbing a big audience lately. I don't know the last big sci-fi writer that did grab a large audience -- Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land had a cultural impact, but that's the only example I can think of.

Superheroes are surging lately, so Star Harbour might catch on more. But MU has other appeals beyond fantasy -- it incorporates college life, gender issues, sexuality, kinks -- it touches on subjects mainstream writing avoids, niches people probably have been waiting to hear about. So some chapters affect some people more than others, but the story has a large audience because sooner or later they get the big thing that appeals to them in their niche, and the rest of the story is quality while they wait.

So I think Tales of MU succeeds in a way other online fiction doesn't because it has mass appeal - in that it appeals in different ways to many different people. The people writing vampire fiction will attract vampire fans, if it's good -- and the magic stories will get magic fans. But MU gets kinky fans, magic fans, college fans, geek fans, gamer fans, writer fans, D&D fans, Potter fans, Tolkien fans, erotic fans... See what I'm saying?

[heliophobe.livejournal.com]

You see these phrases a lot in reference to such books: "I'm not much of a reader...", "My kids were never really into books before..."... taking that into consideration, I don't think the world divides as neatly into "readers" and "non-readers" as all that. People... most people... will read if you give them something that appeals to them, but the "mainstream" publishing industry doesn't seem all that bothered about doing that if you're not one of the people already pigeonholed as a reader.

YES. THIS.
Reading doesn't have to come in the book format either. My little brother "isn't much of a reader", rarely reads a book for fun but yet is somehow incredibly well informed about current events. Why? Because he spends an hour a day or more reading online news articles, digging up sources of information and just generally.... reading.
But that kind of thing doesn't often count to reading zealots.

[vox-vocis-causa.livejournal.com]

The big publishing houses aren't really interrested in blockbusters, they are more interrested in publishing "safe" books that they know will sell something. This is especially true for fantasy/sci-fi. That's the reason you see so many books by the same few authors, no matter how bad they are, and why two thirds of the fantasy/sci-fi section at a given book store is LODR clones and Star Wars novels.

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

You can bet they'd be interested in blockbusters if they knew how to predict them with the same reasonable certainty that they can predict a profit from their stables of safe authors and subjects... but that's my point. They don't know what the "mainstream" tastes actually are, they only know what will appeal to the tiny little corner they've staked out, surveyed, measured, and quantified. When they say "this book wouldn't appeal to readers", they're only talking about a small subset of the market.

And just to throw in a little edit-for-clarity... if that's their business model and it works for them, then it's fine, but then they shouldn't represent themselves as the Guardians of the Gate of either quality or of mainstream appeal. And that's assuming it actually works all that great as a business model. Ignoring large segments of the potential marketplace is a funny way to make money.

[vox-vocis-causa.livejournal.com]

I agree, but the point is they are really only interrested in a sure thing. Using you as an example: the same things that make your writing good, and things like Tales of MU and Star Harbor and Void Dogs so much fun to read, the same "other appeals" NOMANANISLAND was talking about are the same things that esentially make those stories unpublishable in a mainstream sense.
My favorite example is Harry Potter, I've only read the first one and I didn't care for it, I can think of a half-dozen children titles off the top of my head that were far better and didn't sell nearly as well. But Harry Potter did fantastically well for a variety of reasons, mostly because it was bland, easy to read and inoffensive to pretty much everyone.

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

I understand your point... I'm just not seeing where it actually is a point. You're essentially repeating and rephrasing what I'm saying like it changes something about my point.

The "mainstream publishing" is tracking and marketing to only a small fraction of the potential. There are vast swaths of people out there whose interests and needs aren't being catered to by them. Therefore, 1) the idea of "mainstream" is very much a mischaracterization and 2) there is plenty of room for alternative markets to grow.

And also, I think that while many people who don't read much else overhype the quality of the Harry Potter series, you're dismissing it unfairly. The shelves are full of things that are bland, easy to read, and inoffensive to pretty much everyone... but none of them can touch HP's numbers. The first book received an initially small publication deal because it seemed to fit the mold of so-called mainstream appeal... but it broke the mass market because of things unique to it that publishers don't select for.

If J.K. Rowling had gone to a publisher and said "I have a seven book series in my head that's all about how the way to defeat death is to learn to accept it" instead of "Look! Baby wizards!", she'd still be living in an unheated flat.

[vox-vocis-causa.livejournal.com]

I agree that the term "mainstream" is often mischaracherized. My only point is that the mainstream may not represent the majority of the potential market; but it is the single largest segment of that market.

Harry Potter, which should be respected for its huge cultural impact, broke all kinds of sales records and has been read by maybe some 40 odd million people; and even it has only scratched the surface potential readership. Only the Bible comes even close to reaching a majority of people.

Of course there is room for niche markets, but does a book published by the author that prints 200 copies constitute the mainstream? Probably not.

[alexandraerin.livejournal.com]

Nowhere am I arguing that a book that sells 200 copies is the mainstream.

But the CNN article mentions two authors who went from small press/POD to success that can only be characterized as "mainstream" after the publishers who are supposedly representing the "mainstream" told them they lacked the appeal needed to sell to the "mainstream"; they only got larger book deals when it became apparent that the publishers had misjudged their appeal and relegated them to "niches".

J.K. Rowling's personal story is similar... her allegedly bland, allegedly generic little fantasy book wasn't "supposed" to have the appeal that it did.

What the publishers are addressing is the largest single segment that anybody's bothering to address. There's no natural boundary that marks this segment as a unique beast distinct from the rest of the market... decades of habit and convention have simply codified and solidified what they think their market is. There are mountains of wasted opportunity there, as J.K. Rowling's unpredicted runaway success (particularly among "non-readers") demonstrates.

that isn't how it used to be...

[akailaughingman.livejournal.com]

at some point, sci-fi mags were the hot thing, and then there wasn't such a sense of "safety" and "gatekeeping"... because you generally read all the stories, and the editor could afford to give you something odd or unusual.
It's purely an artifact of publishing books...
Yeah, sure, at this point, everyone who's read a science fiction book is probably somewhat unlikely to have read Analog or Amazing...