"Personal" question(s) to John Jarrold

[Hilarious Joke]

Wow, that's amazing!

[John Jarrold]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lime

Dear John,

Do you think that some of the books we now consider classics might not have been published if they were written today?

I ask this question because I've been getting a lot of advice from people that a book has to grab people instantly, characters have to be relatable at the very least, and preferably, likable as well, that you should avoid using metaphors, etc.

However, a number of my favorite books are classics like Dostoevsky's Underground (neither likable nor very relatable, yet a truly one of a kind character), Golding's Lord of The Flies, and Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath (In both of which, the narrators try to say something truly profound about the human condition, and yet, I've heard people call that sort of writing pretentious.)

Or, for instance, lets take Herbert's Dune. Almost everyone I've spoken to who's read it says it takes some time to pick up. And in my opinion, it would probably fall into the category of novels that are more driven by ideas than they are about characters.

So basically, I'm just curious what your take on all this is. Thanks very much. (and I would like to say I think it's really great what you're doing here.)

As Troo says, if you are looking to be published as a genre novelist in 2008, you have to bear comparison with recently-successful writers in the same genre. Not classics - or even genre books from twenty or thirty years ago. Styles change, public taste changes, and timing is all. China Mieville's PERDIDO STREET STATION would probably not have been published if it had come along ten years earlier, because the market wanted Robert Jordan when it came to fantasy in the late 80s. So don't think about Golding or Dostoevsky, think about Charlie Stross and Joe Abercrombie (for instance)...

[Hilarious Joke]

Ah but who knows, we could have a trendsetter in our midsts in these forums. Wouldn't that be something? We'd look back on this moment fondly. Yes, we knew Mr Lime, back when he was wondering whether he should use likeable characters to fit in with the trend. Thank goodness he didn't.

*Reminisces fondly on possible future events from an even further future*

[gary compton]

Originally Posted by Hilarious Joke

Ah but who knows, we could have a trendsetter in our midsts in these forums. Wouldn't that be something? We'd look back on this moment fondly. Yes, we knew Mr Lime, back when he was wondering whether he should use likeable characters to fit in with the trend. Thank goodness he didn't.

*Reminisces fondly on possible future events from an even further future*

Hilarious joke by name and quite funny also

[Mr. Lime]

Thanks to everyone for responding.

Hilarious Joke- lol.

Troo- *sigh* I figured the answer would be something similar. Makes writing the right book seem like a riddle, heh.

Peter Graham-

I stand to be corrected, but I suspect that the nature of the business is such that most professional agents and publishing houses cannot afford to take too many punts on what might be the Next Big Thing

Yes, I suppose that's just the nature of capitalism, eh? Why take a risk on one book and possibly lose money when you have a "sure thing" with another that you know will bring in the $$$.

As for the Jane Eyre experiment... That is pretty astonishing.

John Jarrold- Point taken. I guess I'm just not sure what the "zeitgeist," as Peter says, of modern fantasy is. I mean, Abercrombie sets out to defy cliches, make human characters, etc. But I'm sure there are recently published authors out there who have opted for a more traditional, tolkein-esque fantasy. Eragon, for instance, enjoyed a tremendous amount of success here in the U.S. We also have the Harry Potter series. More like Tolkein than Abercrombie if you asked me. Sure, the good guys were beautifully characterized, but Voldemort was just as one dimensional as Sauron.

[John Jarrold]

I think one of the pleasures of modern fantasy is that it's a broader church than it once was. Sure there's some 'classic' stuff but unlike the late 80s, when I published Robert Jordan's EYE OF THE WORLD in the UK and that post-Tolkien area was the main branch of commercially-successful fantasy, there are other strands - Scott Lynch, China Mieville, George R R Martin, for instance. There are very few 'sure things' in any area of publishing - because you can't second-guess the public, which is a Good Thing - or we'd be selling baked beans. So every decision about publishing a new novelist is taken with a mixture of instinct, awareness of the market and subjectivity. When an editor is REALLY enthusiastic about someone's writing, both personally and professionally, they are the right publisher for the book. We all take on books others turn down - and vice versa.

As always, there is no absolute template...

[Troo]

Fear not, Mr. Lime. If it's in the blood, nothing will stop you writing anyway

Something else to bear in mind is this: Do you want to write and be published by a major publisher, or do you just want to write? Is international fame your goal, or would you be incredibly happy with a small print run from an independent press (or even Print on Demand).

If you're seeking publication, then you have to read new releases voraciously. Research doesn't hurt, either - for example, Eragon wouldn't've been touched with a shitty stick if it had gone to a slush pile somewhere. But the Paolini family were quite canny: They self-published the book, then went on a tour of the USA to promote it. And Americans can be quite suckered by a nice young child who's done something as amazing as writing a whole book by himself.

Readers are willing to overlook the flaws when there's a cute or tragic backstory to the artist. In this case the flap was all about the author being a fifteen year old boy, rather than the book being outstanding. Such a flap attracted Knopf's attention (via Carl Hiaasen - just think, if his nephew hadn't read Eragon, we could've all been saved), and lo the marketing machine kicks in.

Eragon is a triumph of marketing over content. The book has consistently achieved average reviews, mostly of the "Well, it's deeply flawed and derivative, but the author's a kid!" variety, and sales were phenomenal (and subsequently unmatched by the sequel, Eldest), mostly due to the audience curiosity about a fifteen year-old novellist.

Armed with such knowledge, would you want to write another Eragon? No. It's not a good book, and there's no way the chain of circumstances is repeatable. And that's why researching why the new books are published is just as essential as reading them.

[Tirellan]

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

A year or so ago, someone submitted the first three chapters of Jane Eyre to a huge number of literary agents or publishing houses as an unsolicited, slushpile manuscript. They all turned it down. Now, even if we can accept that one of the greatest literary works in the English language, dealing as it does with basic themes of love, injustice, betrayal and morality was considered not to fit the 21st century market, what amazed me was that no-one working in the industry appeared to recognise it for what it was. Isn't that like an architect not recognising St Paul's Cathedral?

Regards,

Branwell

Or more possibly a lot of them recognised it and thought 'I'm not prepared to play silly buggers with whoever sent this in' and sent it back.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Or didn't read past the first page or two. How many people here have even read the book once, let alone often enough to recognize it after reading the first pages -- which are all about the rainy weather and the nasty Reed children and Jane (as yet unnamed) reading a book. None of that conjures up Thornfield and Mr. Rochester and the mad-woman in the attic.

(By the way, Branwell, I've read the occasional rumor that you wrote the book yourself -- also Wuthering Heights. Care to refute that?)

[Anatedhrai]

I'd like to know how Branwell could have written Shirley and Villette though, considering he was dead by then...

(I have read Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights and Villette, in answer to your question.)

[Teresa Edgerton]

The same way that Christopher Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's plays after he was dead, I suppose.

You don't expect the people who come up with these theories to be reasonable do you?

Anyway, I'm sure that Branwell's adherents will be happy to let his sisters take credit for Villette and Shirley if he can have the more famous two. (Although if I were one of his posse, I'd hold out for The Tenant of Wildfield Hall, too.)

[iansales]

Ah, but since Marlowe had been a spy for Walsingham against the Dutch, it seems plausible for him to have faked his own death. And so he wrote the plays under the pseudonym of his good friend Bill.

On the other hand, some people believe Shakespeare was an Arab called Sheikh Zubair, and that Othello is autobiographical...

[Peter Graham]

Tirellan,

Or more possibly a lot of them recognised it and thought 'I'm not prepared to play silly buggers with whoever sent this in' and sent it back.

I have to say I rather doubt it. My guess is that no-one spotting the hoax would even have gone to the admittedly rather modest trouble of sending back even a standard form rejection slip. They'd just have shoved the whole lot in the bin. Or perhaps sent it back in the prepaid envelope with "nice try" scrawled over the front page. No-one likes to look stupid, so they'd want the hoaxer to know it hadn't worked, surely?

Teresa,

I certainly helped my sisters with the concept of Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights, but when it comes to a choice between sitting up at the parsonage, scratching the whole lot out by hand in sub-zero temperatures whilst family members are dropping like flies all around or sitting in the warm, convivial surroundings of the Black Bull getting hammered on Tim Taylor's Landlord and dicing with your cronies - well, mine's a pint..........

I did write Hamlet, Othello and Two Gentlemen of Verona, though...

Branwell

[iansales]

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

I have to say I rather doubt it. My guess is that no-one spotting the hoax would even have gone to the admittedly rather modest trouble of sending back even a standard form rejection slip. They'd just have shoved the whole lot in the bin. Or perhaps sent it back in the prepaid envelope with "nice try" scrawled over the front page. No-one likes to look stupid, so they'd want the hoaxer to know it hadn't worked, surely?

According to the news report I read, at least two publishers returned it and their rejection letters correctly identified it. So it's more likely the others identified it and decided not to pander to some nutter who thought he could pass off a 200-year-old classic as his own work...

[Ian Whates]

Originally Posted by iansales

According to the news report I read, at least two publishers returned it and their rejection letters correctly identified it. So it's more likely the others identified it and decided not to pander to some nutter who thought he could pass off a 200-year-old classic as his own work...

Yes, Ian, that's how I remember it, with one making rather pointed remarks about perhaps not having a certain book open on the desk when writing next time around...

It was still a good story, though!