My reaction was to raise a brow, and then shrug. No skin off his back if it flops, right? Doubtful it won't sell - curiosity is probably on his side. He's John Grisham, he can get away with stepping outside his author label. I wonder, though - how successful do you have to be to do something like this, without worrying about damaging your sales/image/credibility?

The only big-name-writer "brand name" that exercises any kind of appeal to me is Stephen King. Writers like Tom Clancy or any number of romance novelists have never grasped my imagination---not even Dean Koontz or Clive Barker on the horror side have done it.

For the most part, even established authors making good incomes do not get such latitude. Most of them, even ones with pull, can get a novel published in a completely different genre, but usually do so under a different name because publishers will not chance the problem with name recognition. They also do not wish to see an author's reputation tarnished by a bad book. It hurts their bottom line.

I'm sure that for people like Grisham, the publishers are more than happy putting out a book with his name on it, even if it is something different for him. They likely think that the worst they will do is break even, and even if they lose money on it, they keep in the good graces of an author who makes them tons of money on other books. That doesn't happen with just any writer, even good and established ones.

I remember a while back reading that Stephen King was planning on writing a romance. Now that's a real 180 degree turn from the suspense / horror that he writes, and I doubt any such book would do well. In this case, no doubt, it's an ego trip, otherwise he'd use a pen name, but he can make the rules.

The Testament had so little lawyering in it, it hardly felt like a lawyering novel. Well, maybe. I read as much Grisham as I read of almost anyone for a few years, but then I kind of lost touch with his books.

I lost touch with a lot of things at that time in my life, and most of them have not come back.

quote:

---

J.k Rowling is nothing more then the by-product of a fad..In 3 years Harry Potter wont be remembered.

---

*Hollow laughter*

See you in three years. We can meet at a Chapters and scour the shelves for errant copies of Harry Potter books that were accidentally not returned to the publisher due to lack of sales.

That said the books have at least another 5 years of healthy sales because there are 2 more films coming out, over the next 3 years. After the last 2 movies release you may start seeing a decline in sales, but I firmly believe that Potter has become firmly cemented into our cultural identity. Not to mention the theme park coming on line in 2009 or 2010.

Ben

quote:

---

'm interested to hear Hatracker voices on the topic of 'author brand,' in general and in terms of what you plan or hope to do in your own writing careers. Thoughts about Grisham's move are also definitely welcome.

---

Then I came across a perspective by author Judith Tarr that changed my mind. Her take was that taking on pseudonyms is almost a necessity because the sales of one's books taper off after a while. Unless the book is hugely successful (aka Harry Potter), when a writer writs a second book, the publishers tend to order 70% of the total number of the first book sold, and then use 70% of the total sales of the second book as a guideline for the third book, and so forth. Here's the rather ugly link for that:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3KZNEYMNQVM3A/ref=cm_blog_dp_pdp/102-

While I think brand names are still important, I now wonder if their success has to do with the kind of books you write, or that you might have to reach a certain critical mass before you make it over the hump to have a successful brand name.

I've never read a lick of John Grisham. I suspect he's gotten tired of writing the same books. Is it a good career move for him? Maybe not, but maybe what's more important is his happiness as a writer, and he just wants to experiment.

Stephen King's Eyes of the Dragon was a dabble into fantasy that did not work for me. If he had written a sequel, I would not have bought read it.

On the other hand, Piers Anthony's Firefly was his dabble into horror, and I liked it. unfortunately, many of his fans did not.

Michael Chreighton has never committed to a specific genre. So, he can freely write about anything.

Robert Jordan, Tad Williams, and Frank Herbert were always encouraged to write what series had sold best for them.

As well as John Sanford, Robert Jordan is a psuedonym. Robert Jordan was really James Oliver Rigney Jr -- and claimed that he wrote all genres under a different assumed name because he was saving his for his Magnum Opus. John Sanford is really Pulitzer Prize winner John Roswell Camp, Putnam asked him to create a psuedonym for the release of Rules of Prey because Fool's Run was going to come out near that time, and they didn't want Henry Holt (the publisher of the other novel) to ride the success of Rules of Prey.

If you see Bernard Cornwell's name on the cover of a book (even one that doesn't bear the name Sharpe) you're going to expect that it's historical. If you see Dean Koontz, you expect Suspense. John Saul: Thriller. Robert Jordan: Fantasy. David Gemmell: Heroic Fantasy. John Sanford: Crime Suspense. Robert Heinlein: Science Fiction. Steve Perry: Space Opera. Robert Parker: Detective. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: Mystery. And, though he has written other types of stories, when you hear Stephen King, you think Horror.

I think that certain authors write what they love, and others need to explore. The passion of the former will always draw fans as much as the courage of the latter.

LOL. In the end, the point is moot. Have you ever read a book by your favorite author that you don't like? I know I have.

quote:

---

I will not deny Ms.Rowling can write a "good story" however comparatively to other books in the YA genre the Harry Potter books are nearly unbearable.Compare them to the likes of Peter S Beagle, C.S Lewis, T.A barron,etc...Harry Potter will never be a classic because it is not of the same caliber.

---

I think this kind of a mind-set is illuminating, in how it highlights how little people change as time goes by. I'm not some kind of wild Rowling apologist, but we do seem to forget at times that two of the english languages most highly esteemed authors, Charles Dickens and William Shakespeare, wrote works that were embraced by the unwashed masses and derided by the educated establishment.

quote:

---

Without divulging who I am,I will be remembered in three years you can find my Series in the Fantasy section at any "Chapters",Borders, etc.

---

I'm not going to debate the veracity of your claim, but I have my own personal doubts that a professional author would be so sloppy as to post in public forums using grammar quite as sloppy as yours, or go about proclaiming himself to he the prophet of writing.

quote:

---

I'm not going to debate the veracity of your claim, but I have my own personal doubts that a professional author would be so sloppy as to post in public forums using grammar quite as sloppy as yours, or go about proclaiming himself to he the prophet of writing.

---

Amen, Jayson. I wasn't going to say it, but I'll second it.

However, Ezekiel, if you agree to send me the title of one of your works, I'll agree to buy one and read it.

Ben

edit: *published works

[This message has been edited by TheOnceandFutureMe (edited September 26, 2007).]

My objection was describing JKR's work as "filth" which seemed a bit strong imho.

Accessibility has to be considered a component of any works survivability. Given the general decline in recreational reading and the dramatic decline of reading "classical" literature I'd say book with easy accessibility stand a better chance of surviving the test of time than the more traditional classics. I enjoy Dickens and Dumas, but I know even when I was in high school (20+ years ago) most students still opted for the cliff notes.

I understand and even agree to a point that very correct grammar and punctuation are not essential for forum posting. Noone wants to spend time proofing their forum posts, especially given the flowing free form nature of posts.

That said when the lack of grammar and punctuation is egregious enough to, in this case, give the opposite impression of what was intended, well at that point a lack of attention to punctuation and grammar does become an issue.

Right now I am in London, you could say I'm a "traveler". I am a published writer, and I love this site, it has a wealth of information on it. As I have previously stated I merely said something that would provoke you into a debate and you have responded. I also wish to apologise to anyone who has viewed me as pretentious, prideful, etc.

Therefore I wish to give a sincere compliment to everyone who has posted on this thread, Thanks for keeping me on my toes!

Edit:

Nevermind, I got the email. Thanks - I promise to try at least one!

As to the real matter at hand, I like it when authors jump around, and I think we should do it. The trouble is when your someone like Grisham who everyone expects lawyer books from. He has type cast himself. I think it would be harder for him change genres than me. Not that I have a book on the shelf, but I think that if my first was high fantasy and my second was absurdist Sci-Fi then people would know to expect a range from me.