In my last post, I made a reference to NaNoWriMo and my hope that the next "Janet Evanovich or Mary Higgins Clark" might cross my desk when submission time comes.
I was surprised to find two comments on the post asking me if I was poking fun at NaNoWriMo or at Evanovich/Clark. I read and consider all comments and emails I get, and these comments left me wondering: Have I given readers of Mysterious Matters the wrong idea?
I know that I'm not above the occasional snotty or sarcastic comment about trends I don't care for and books I think are stupid or poorly written.
But what kind of editor/publisher would NOT want the new Evanovich or M.H. Clark on his list? An incompetent one, or a snob.
I want to find and publish great books, and I want them to sell. And sell, and sell, and sell. I don't turn my nose up at commercial or mass-market fiction; I embrace it. I have acquired (bought) books that weren't necessarily my cup of tea because I thought that readers would love them. I can't speak for all editors, but I can speak for many: I don't sit in an ivory tower pontificating about literature and "quality." I edit and publish genre fiction whose chief goal is to entertain. Sometimes it also enlightens and touches; those are added bonuses. But the key - as an editor and businessperson - is to publish books that sell, books that people want.
People clearly want Evanovich and Clark; by extension, I want them too, although we could liquidate every asset we have at my company and still not have enough to pay those ladies 1% of what they can demand as an advance. I think Michael Korda at Simon & Schuster acquired Clark, and Susanne Kirk at Scribner's acquired Evanovich. The success of these writers is probably far beyond what either editor dreamed. I'm not sure who was responsible for signing up Patterson at Little, Brown; given Patterson's position at J. Walter Thompson, I think it equally likely that Patterson acquired an editor rather than the other way around.
So, to make up for what may have been perceived as a dismissal of them, I thought I might opine about what has made these writers and their books so successful.
First, Mary Higgins Clark. I remember buying WHERE ARE THE CHILDREN? when it came out. I finished it in a sitting or two. The suspense was exquisite, and the follow-up, A STRANGER IS WATCHING, was strong, too. Over the years, Mary has developed a winning formula: Professional woman, usually of Irish descent, becomes enmeshed in a plot that leads to attempts on her life. Clark basically took the old Gothic tropes and modernized them. Her books don't have profanity or sex or overt violence. They're the kind of books that mothers can share with their daughters or their own mothers. The heroines are independent and intelligent, but not cynical, jaded, or anti-relationship. They often have men in their lives, and they're trying to balance their own needs with the demands of a relationship. Most of us would be quite happy if our daughters turned out like a Clark heroine, who usually emerges victorious through her own resourcefulness, though occasionally, like the Gothic heroines of old, a knight in shining armor shows up to save her life. The stories are engaging; the settings are interesting; the suspense is good; there's just the right amount of romance.
It doesn't hurt that Mary herself is an incredibly gracious, lovely, and down-to-earth person. I have been in her company three times over the last thirty years. About 8 years elapsed between our first meeting and our second. And she remembered my name. She'll sign books for as long as people are willing to wait; the smile on her face is omnipresent and genuine. She is simply a Great Lady, and her fans recognize that. Being able to write a book a year, more or less, has not hurt, either- she stays in the public eye.
Second, Janet Evanovich. Stephanie Plum is (or long was) a likable character: plucky, determined, and constantly in over her head. I think she appeals to readers because the average reader can feel slightly superior to Stephanie. We read about her exploits, and we ask ourselves why she keeps doing the same dumb things over and over again. She's not really a person; she's more of a Falstaff character whose job is not so much to get the job done as it is to provoke laughter. And people in a stressed-out world like to laugh. Need to laugh.
Janet was very savvy about readers' desire to follow a series - the whole One for the Money, Two for the Dough... up through the latest installment (I think it's #17) isn't the least bit subtle about the order of the books. But Evanovich doesn't take her readership for granted; a new reader can pick up any book in the series and not feel lost, because Evanovich fills in the backstory. To me, this speaks to a commitment to keep picking up new readers with each book, not resting on the same readership for years at a time.
Where Janet really hit paydirt, though, was with her savvy introduction of very strong secondary characters. People who've long since tired of Stephanie's antics still buy the books for Grandma, for the never-ending love triangle with Ranger and Morelli. Stephanie hit the streets with a half-Italian, half-Hungarian character just when the diversity movement in the U.S. was picking up steam; I also think that, for some reason, the United States likes to laugh at New Jersey, and Evanovich used that to portray New Jersey in the stereotypical way that people wanted and expected. I don't think these stereotypes have changed much over the last 25 years. (When in doubt, make a Jersey joke. TV writers do it all the time.)
Third, James Patterson. He's the writer for the person with limited time. Those two-page chapters allow you to pick up the book and speed through it in one sitting if you'd like; or you can pick it up when you have five minutes here and there and feel as though you've accomplished something. There is no better writer for an airplane, I think. When you need to keep your mind off the insanity of air travel or the snoring, drooling slob in the seat next to you, Patterson's books do the job. The suspense was superb in the early books like ALONG CAME A SPIDER and the Alex Cross books following it; and Patterson also threw in a hell of a twist at the end.
I can't say that I love Patterson's business model of turning himself into a factory in which he generates the ideas and others write the book; and some of the recent books have been truly awful. But if I were his editor I'd be delighted at the instant best-sellers he delivered to me 2 or 3 times a year.
Comments