Single Book/Character of Body Of Work?

[Nesacat]

I've been wondering about this for some time now and am curious to know what you all think about it.

Many writers have large bodies of work but become remarkably well known for either one book, a series of books or a particular character. The rest of their books slip into the shadows although these other works are probably as good or even better but in a different way.

Other writers don't gain the same kind of recognition for any particular piece of work but are reasonably loved for all their work though they may not have the same wide audience.

I was just wondering which, if any, you would rather have happen as a writer and as a reader? Would you as a writer rather be remarkably well known for one book or character or less well known for a wider body of work?

How about readers? Would you find yourself making comparisons all the time?

And if the particular book or character comes along right at the very beginning of your writing career how then would you feel? Would it make a difference to you if it came much later on?

[chrispenycate]

The risk with the "one opus" solution is the deadly sequelitis. Frank Herhert's "Dune" or Anne McCaffery's "Pern", both suffered from this: readers and publishers demanding, writers pressurised into producing yet another episode in the saga, and the whole positive feedback network feeding on itself, and preventing other, perhaps more original, work.
As in music where a hit single can force more of the same, reducing the potential for creativity.
The shiny side of the coin is that more people are talking about the work, even some from outside the genre, more people are reading (and presumably enjoying) it than would be the case for a good, competent, well-rounded variety writer. This specialisation thing compacting down from "I am a fiction writer, a novelist" through "I write speculative fiction", "I'm a hard science fiction author" to "I wrote 'Dune' and its sequels; oh, and some other books and short stories"
But, having created a memorable character (even if that character is a planet or a social system) killing it off is not always easy.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Nesacat

I was just wondering which, if any, you would rather have happen as a writer and as a reader? Would you as a writer rather be remarkably well known for one book or character or less well known for a wider body of work?

How about readers? Would you find yourself making comparisons all the time?

And if the particular book or character comes along right at the very beginning of your writing career how then would you feel? Would it make a difference to you if it came much later on?

On this last point, I think I can answer pretty quickly: If it happened in my early career, and everything else didn't hit that well (or if I feel I wasn't doing better work) then it'd be a horrible feeling. Much as Doyle came to resent Holmes, for instance. If it came later on, I think I'd feel much better, as it would also coincide (I would hope) with my having become a better writer with richer ideas and more complex writing.

Overall, though, I think I'd rather be a lesser-known writer known for a substantial body of work, rather than someone really well-known, but for a single thing (book or character). I'm not particularly interested in fame and fortune, per se; but I'd like my work to have some people who appreciate it and make thoughtful comments on it -- I think that would mean more to me than a lot of popular acclaim, which is often less discerning and critical.