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

[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?