Thread: What makes a literary phenomenon?

Since this is a writing site, I thought it would be a good topic to debate. A discussion I was having with garza in one of the other forums prompted it.

Recent phenomenons in the world of literature include Harry Potter, The Da Vinci Code, and of course, most recently, the Twilight books. They aren't the only books of their kind in their respective genres, so what separates them out and makes them outrageous successes whereas the book next to it on the shelf is a mid-list title?

A lot of people point to marketing, but while that is a factor in the later success I don't see it as explaining that initial rush of success. Potter and Twilight were both successful initially, and then marketing efforts propelled them into bona fide cultural phenomenons. I'm not sure about the sequence of events with the Da Vinci Code.

Meyer got a $750,000.00 advance on the first Twilight book, and the editor who bought it says she knew right away it was a best-seller. It went to number 5 on the bestseller list within a month of release, and it wasn't the heavily-marketed cultural icon that it is now.

This question fascinates me. I read the first Twilight when my daughter got into the series. My thought was "meh." It doesn't deserve a lot of the extreme hate it gets (mostly from jealous writers), but it really isn't anything special to me. Along the continuum of published works, I considered it mediocre when I read it. On the other hand, my daughter devoured it with a passion, and she doesn't read nearly as much as I'd like. In fact, the book prompted her to read more and look at other authors (and better books, in my view). So Meyer has achieved a level of success in writing that the vast majority of authors will never even approach. Why? And don't say marketing, because something has to be there first before a publisher will put the kind of money behind a Meyer or Rowling that transforms the work into a phenomenon, and in the case of Meyer and Rowling it looks to me like the marketing blitz came after an initial success that gave the publisher a heads up that things could be huge.

As for Potter - I enjoyed the books well enough, but they are far from my favorite fantasy stories. For YA fantasy, I found Pullman's HIS DARK MATERIALS to be much better. I didn't like the Da Vinci Code at all. I thought the writing was lackluster at best.

So what is it? Some say timing, but there were other vampire-type romances around before Meyer. There were very similar Potter-style works around before Potter (see Jones). There were thrillers similar to the Da Vinci Code on the shelves before Dan Brown. So what is it about these works that has struck such a chord with readers?

Thoughts?

This would have been a far, far better question had it been couched to cover all genres.

By this I mean it may have stimulated some intelligent thought and comment by readers of literature other than phantasy. It may even have generated comment on literary fiction. But as it stands now, this thread is prolly destined to be no more than a slanging match about the writers of such twaddle as the stuff you mentioned.

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

This would have been a far, far better question had it been couched to cover all genres.

By this I mean it may have stimulated some intelligent thought and comment by readers of literature other than phantasy. It may even have generated comment on literary fiction. But as it stands now, this thread is prolly destined to be no more than a slanging match about the writers of such twaddle as the stuff you mentioned.

Perhaps. The fact that you're the only person who has commented, while having nothing of value to say on the subject, certainly doesn't bode well for the thread.

i think it's part of our wanting to escape our dreary lives, these books provide a certain kind of escapism
that we can dive headlong into and forget our cares, troubles, worries and responsibilities
of course it's not realistic, not by a country mile that's why we love it ...

and don't be perturbed by the audacity of the ox, Steerpike
it's a good topic that will hopefully elicit sensible and thought provoking responses
not the 'my dick's bigger than your dick' kind of mentality that can spoil the opportunity for debate

*bows*

I'm the first to admit that I don't have much credential for this discussion but I find myself not at all willing to accept an off-the-cuff dismissal of marketing as important if not primary impetus. It would not surprise me in the least to discover that the initial purchase of all three works was as speculative properties considered to be of high cinematic potential. In what is a sort of inflated derivative market for literary assets. Which resources spark the subsequent commercial wildfires. One isn't likely to find this sort of analysis in the media mythology created for literary phenoms (and I don't have personal knowledge of these particular releases) but this sort of prior acquisition and funding is sometimes alluded to in places like DVD commentaries.

Originally Posted by ash somers

i think it's part of our wanting to escape our dreary lives, these books provide a certain kind of escapism
that we can dive headlong into and forget our cares, troubles, worries and responsibilities
of course it's not realistic, not by a country mile that's why we love it ...

and don't be perturbed by the audacity of the ox, Steerpike
it's a good topic that will hopefully elicit sensible and thought provoking responses
not the 'my dick's bigger than your dick' kind of mentality that can spoil the opportunity for debate

*bows*

Ox doesn't bother me, Ash. His sort are practically a cliche on the internet.

I agree with your comments regarding escapism. Yet these same characteristics apply to any number of works that languish in obscurity, many of which are far better (in my view) than a book like Twilight. So what makes the difference? How does an editor who has Twilight land on her desk know to give three-quarters of a million as an advance because it is going to be big?

Originally Posted by ppsage

I'm the first to admit that I don't have much credential for this discussion but I find myself not at all willing to accept an off-the-cuff dismissal of marketing as important if not primary impetus. It would not surprise me in the least to discover that the initial purchase of all three works was as speculative properties considered to be of high cinematic potential. In what is a sort of inflated derivative market for literary assets. Which resources spark the subsequent commercial wildfires. One isn't likely to find this sort of analysis in the media mythology created for literary phenoms (and I don't have personal knowledge of these particular releases) but this sort of prior acquisition and funding is sometimes alluded to in places like DVD commentaries.

Thanks for the comment ppsage. I do think marketing is extremely important in turning the books into bona fide cultural phenomena. But as best as I can tell, both Twilight and Potter, for example, had already exceeded the average book in terms of sales and become fairly popular before the marketing blitz began. And there must be something else at work. I can see a marketing campaign causing people to buy a book in a series, but if it sucks I don't see the marketing having as much effect in terms of getting people to buy book 2, or 3, or 4, etc., and yet these works seems to grow in sales with each subsequent volume.

As a writer, and particularly as a writer who views a book like Twilight as mediocre at best, I'd like to be able to chalk it up to non-writing factors, like marketing that has duped a generation of teen girls into buying something they don't really like. But that's too easy an out. I can see from firsthand observation that Meyer has somehow hit on something with her target audience that authors rarely achieve, and I'd like to know what it is. I guess we all would

By the way, I keep using Twilight as an example because it is the current phenomenon. The discussion applies to other works as well.

I'm not interested enough to do it, but if one discovered the size of the first edition and the date the property was first purchased for cinema rights (these rights get traded a lot, I think) and the scope of the release, one might glimpse the magnitude of resources pushing it. Wouldn't it be patent, that what you've termed a phenom, especially these particular examples, will require a massive first printing and very wide distribution, to come into existence? Twilight particularly, it wouldn't surprise me to find, being sold as a movie property, at the proposal stage.

The 'Twilight' series is something I've not heard of before. If it's typical fantasy, then I would agree with Ox that it's twaddle, boring twaddle. Rowling I enjoy, not for the magic, but for what's underneath the magic. I strongly suspect that she has a lot of kids thinking seriously for the first time about politics, the true nature of religion, the motivation and methods of much of the mass media, and the structure of society in developed countries. You are going to find in years to come that the kids who soaked up Harry Potter will start to ask questions that may in time create critical changes in the way our institutions work.

I value literature that explores the real world. Fantasy that has no connection with reality, fantasy geared to escapism, is simply boring. There have been very few fantasy writers who have produced books worth reading.

As for marketing, the hype can produce spectacular profits for everyone concerned in the first instance. The measure of a book's real value will be whether that book continues to be popular without the hype in three or four generations. Many of us continue to read and enjoy Horace and Catullus and they've been dead for a while.

It's hard to say. I can't speak on a general scale, but I have my theories about Twilight. I think that the book's content and marketing both play a major role in its phenomenon. I'm pretty sure that 99% of people don't like Twilight for the plot, but mainly for the men. It's purely escapist - every woman wants to imagine that a sexy vampire loves her unconditionally, no questions asked. This sort of fantastic romance seems to be something craved nowadays, and why that is, I can't tell you. All I know is that this fascination with "relatable" (and by that I mean that Bella has no personality whatsoever, so literally anyone can relate, in a weird sort of sense), exciting love stories may have prompted the initial success, but I think marketing propelled it forward. The whole Edward v. Jacob campaign was more than enough to get everyone interested. I was compelled enough to read all four novels to see what all of the fuss was about (when I saw women my age wearing "Team Jacob" shirts and wondering what I was missing out on). Turns out I wasn't missing much. But if you get all of the original fans out there arguing about which side is best, people are going to want to join in on the fun. That's just one example, but if you take a book with a theme that is largely sought after and tie it to intelligent marketing, you're pretty much set (unfortunately, in this case).

As Steerpike says though there are other books which fulfil the main criteria, yet do not get taken up by the public and the marketing tends to come after the initial fillip. These books would appear to have something the others do not. My vote would be for flow and accessibility of language. I am reminded of the massive popularity of Enid Blyton in an earlier age when marketing played a much smaller role. Some people mocked her for her simple language, others tried to imitate it, unsuccessfully, but the appeal to children was the 'familiar' feel of the language used. It is very hard to define (That's why the imitations don't work) but the right language entrances and enthrals, I have managed it orally, if I could only crack it on the page ...

Originally Posted by Olly Buckle

the right language entrances and enthrals, I have managed it orally, if I could only crack it on the page ...

I dunno about entrance and enthral but I've been told by one or two others on this site that I sometimes manage to pull it off - barstool to barstool is the name they gave it - and I've examined what it is I do to make this happen. Far as I can ascertain, it involves no more than writing as I speak. Correction, it only works with dialogue. So, try a few simple phrases - mutter them at the missus, declaim them at the daughter - then copy out what you said, where necessary using both bastardised spelling and lots of appropriate punctuation to get the message across.

That does not sound too far fetched, I think it is where that "Murder your darlings" stuff comes from. It means give up the idea of all the things you would like to appear, or be, and appear and be natural.

Marketing; simple and justfied conclusion, including some humour. O'course.

Originally Posted by ppsage

I'm not interested enough to do it, but if one discovered the size of the first edition and the date the property was first purchased for cinema rights (these rights get traded a lot, I think) and the scope of the release, one might glimpse the magnitude of resources pushing it. Wouldn't it be patent, that what you've termed a phenom, especially these particular examples, will require a massive first printing and very wide distribution, to come into existence? Twilight particularly, it wouldn't surprise me to find, being sold as a movie property, at the proposal stage.

When a first edition Harry Potter book sold for twenty-odd thousand, I discovered only five hundred first edition books were printed.