posted
Entertainment Weekly has named JK Rowling as Entertainer of the Year, and I sort of thought, that doesn't make sense to me. When I think of entertainer, I think comedian, singer, or even a writer that goes out and acts scenes from their book. She wrote, did two book signings, and went home. Although I liked the book and could call parts entertaining, I wouldn't call HER entertaining. It seemed more like EW named her Entertainer of the Year as a way to boost sales. Which leads to my question:
Do you, or would you, ever put something in a novel, simply to sell more? And I'm not talking about good writing, plot, or story. I'm saying, would you include an element that may not have too much to do with everything else, just to boost sales?
...and...
Have you seen this in anyone's writing? Have you read a part and thought, 'that had nothing to do with anything, it's just there for sales value. Like a sex scene that doesn't advance plot or character development.
posted
I'm still concentrating on selling something. But, sure, I'd be willing to put something in to make it sell better, if I could figure out what that was.
Pre-"The Godfather," Mario Puzo was a struggling writer with a couple of poorly-selling novels to his credit. One of them figured a mob-related character as a minor character. An editor suggested something like that more central to the novel might sell better. So, after some writing and some painstaking research (but not any actual interviews with mob figures), Puzo produced "The Godfather," sold it to hardcover, sold it to paperback for a huge advance, sold movie rights...and the rest is history.
It's worth it...but you shouldn't lose sight of producing good product. "The Godfather" is a terrific read.
posted
Never. I would never sell my art so cheaply as to bastardize it by inserting something (Coca Cola-it tastes great and makes you popular) in it simply to make huge amounts of cash.
Call me old-fashioned (Although Intel make state-of-the-art processors--insist on one in your computer) but I have principles.
posted
I can see why they picked Rowling as Entertainer of the Year. Her book have entertained millions. And so have the movies of her books. While she herself may not be a triple threat or anything, her stories are the source of many avenues of entertainment.
As for the other subject, the first novel I started writing (four years ago) was SO terrible, because I kept throwing things in that I thought would make the book "more marketable." Trouble is, I never got the chance to market it, because I never got beyond 30 pages, because I couldn't make myself write, because the book absolutely blowed.
quote:Do you, or would you, ever put something in a novel, simply to sell more? And I'm not talking about good writing, plot, or story. I'm saying, would you include an element that may not have too much to do with everything else, just to boost sales?
Wait, you can only be an "entertainer" if you cheapen what you do and only do it "to boost sales?" So that's what all actors and musicians do? I think many of them would object strongly.
Since novels (I HOPE) entertain, I consider calling a novelist an entertainer perfectly appropriate. And I rather object to your implied definition of the term.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 26, 2007).]
posted
I normally think of "direct" entertainment as an entertainer, such as actors and singers, maybe comedians. So their scope is broader than mine. I don't think there's anything wrong with this. Steven King stressed that at its heart, writing is entertainment. We can talk about art and literature all we want, but at some level fiction writing is an entertainment business.
And the final book of the Potter series just came out, so it's a good time to say thank you to an influential entertainer.
And maybe she's just paving the way for one of us to be Entertainer of the Year someday.
quote:Wait, you can only be an "entertainer" if you cheapen what you do and only do it "to boost sales?" So that's what all actors and musicians do? I think many of them would object strongly.
Since novels (I HOPE) entertain, I consider calling a novelist an entertainer perfectly appropriate. And I rather object to your implied definition of the term.
Okay first, chill.
Second, I didn't say that to be an entertainer meant cheapening what you do for sales. I was asking if anyone thought that some do that TO boost sales, or if you would consider doing something like that.
I wasn't defining the term entertainer. I was saying what my opinion of an entertainer is (since words can often take on meanings other than what they straight definition is). I don't see Rowling as an entertainer. She sits at home writing. I do see someone like Charles deLint as an entertainer. He goes to book signings with his wife and they play music and such. He does readings. Rowling rarely does signings or readings.
Feel free to disagree with me, but tell me why, don't just get so emotional.
posted
I am chilled, thank you kindly. I can disagree with someone's opinion or statements without being taken to task. You asked.
You certainly seemed to use derogatory terms to describe what someone would do to entertain.
quote:Do you, or would you, ever put something in a novel, simply to sell more? And I'm not talking about good writing, plot, or story. I'm saying, would you include an element that may not have too much to do with everything else, just to boost sales?
To me the above describes something that degrades a work. JUST to boost sales and NOT good writing, plot or story.
Maybe you are being a tad over-sensitive and emotional. I was answering your question. If you want to change the question, that's fine too.
And it is rather hard to discuss the issue without agreeing on some definition of what an entertainer is. You made the statement (or appeared to) that an entertainer would put something in their writing only to achieve sales. Now in this latest post you SEEM to be saying that only public performaces are entertaining? Well, here we can agree to disagree. If my novels or stories entertain, then I am fine with being called an entertainer. I have no problem if you don't want to be thought of in those terms.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 26, 2007).]
quote:Do you, or would you, ever put something in a novel, simply to sell more? And I'm not talking about good writing, plot, or story. I'm saying, would you include an element that may not have too much to do with everything else, just to boost sales?
I thought I was pretty clear, but let me try again.
Let's say you write a story close to your heart. Then you realize that if you put in a graphic sex scene (or violence, if that's the case) that really has nothing to do with the novel but could boost sales in your market, would you do it? Why or why not? And I'm not judging anyone who would or wouldn't. My issue with the Entertainment Weekly article is that it seemed to me that they picked Rowling to capitalize on the success of Harry Potter more than actual merit. We can disagree on that, but that was my opinion.
Sure, we can disagree on what an entertainer is. To me, the idea of her being an entertainer didn't jive. For others, it might. I'd like to hear your opinion (I really would, i enjoy your opinion in mosts the posts you make).
posted
1) I would define an "entertainer"" as: someone who causes entertainment to occur.
And I would define reading for enjoyment as a form of "entertainment."
Therefore someone who causesreading for enjoyment to occur, (and none more so than JK Rowling) must, logically, be an entertainer.
And since she's well known and entertained hundreds of millions she seems a fitting candidate.
2)
quote:My issue with the Entertainment Weekly article is that it seemed to me that they picked Rowling to capitalize on the success of Harry Potter more than actual merit.
That's an interesting point. And one worthy of consideration. There might be some truth in this, however, it might only be coincidental. Because there's a strong argument that she's the best candidate. Especially if they've held off giving her the award until now--since she's "finished" with the world we've enjoyed and been entertained by for over a decade.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited November 27, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited November 27, 2007).]
posted
Well, sorry, I think we just got off on the wrong foot, so to speak, in this discussion Matthew.
I suppose I just don't see how putting in something gratuitous to increase sales would relate to being an entertainer. I know of plenty of actors who would never do that kind of thing to a performance.
I honestly don't know. I've considered writing something to sell to Ellora's Cave which would require putting in more sex than I'm usually comfortable with, so maybe I would. I'm not much of a purist when it comes to writing.
I think that considering the amount of entertainment and pleasure the Rowling has brought to the world selecting her as Entertainer of the Year is reasonable, but I can't pretend to know their motivations for doing it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
