This is a short, cute video. It's a plug for the Literacy Foundation but I thought the video fit with writing children's stories. The world still needs writers to write the books and readers to read them. There is always room for more fairy tales.
Showing posts with label readers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label readers. Show all posts
Monday, November 18, 2013
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
What Matters Most: Readers
by Deren Hansen
The notion that the national book culture we once enjoyed—a consensus about the books everyone who considers themselves literate should have read—is withering under the assault of disruptive businesses and technologies isn’t simply an exercise in good–old–days revisionism: it’s actually one of the last gasps of the cultural monopolies created by trade publishers during the last half–century.
Through a complex web of bestseller lists, influential reviewers, English professors, and book clubs, trade publishers have attempted to create the commercial equivalent of a required reading list. The publishing ecosystem expends a great deal of energy trying to create a sense of urgency by making readers feel they are behind or missing out on the literary cutting edge.
While it is true that shared references are a cornerstone of culture, the idea that a book’s importance is best measured by the number of concurrent readers is one that benefits principally trade publishers and booksellers.
Tracy Hickman has been telling conference audiences for several years, “It doesn't matter if you're published. Being published is nothing. It is everything to be read.”
In the past, writers had to play the commercial lottery of getting published because it was the only game in town. Unfortunately, that system fostered an all–or–nothing mentality: your book was a failure if it wasn’t the talk of the nation.
Rejecting a manuscript because it wasn’t, “sufficiently commercial,” meant the trade publisher believed the book wouldn’t sell in the volume they needed to turn a profit. But that judgment took none of the needs of readers or writers into account.
An author needs readers, but he or she doesn’t need every reader. In fact, it is not possible to write one book that will appeal to every single reader. What is possible, thanks to the recent explosion in publishing opportunities, is to write things that will be read because the distance between writer and reader is now much smaller.
Deren Hansen is the author of the Dunlith Hill Writers Guides. Learn more at dunlithhill.com.
Through a complex web of bestseller lists, influential reviewers, English professors, and book clubs, trade publishers have attempted to create the commercial equivalent of a required reading list. The publishing ecosystem expends a great deal of energy trying to create a sense of urgency by making readers feel they are behind or missing out on the literary cutting edge.
While it is true that shared references are a cornerstone of culture, the idea that a book’s importance is best measured by the number of concurrent readers is one that benefits principally trade publishers and booksellers.
Tracy Hickman has been telling conference audiences for several years, “It doesn't matter if you're published. Being published is nothing. It is everything to be read.”
In the past, writers had to play the commercial lottery of getting published because it was the only game in town. Unfortunately, that system fostered an all–or–nothing mentality: your book was a failure if it wasn’t the talk of the nation.
Rejecting a manuscript because it wasn’t, “sufficiently commercial,” meant the trade publisher believed the book wouldn’t sell in the volume they needed to turn a profit. But that judgment took none of the needs of readers or writers into account.
An author needs readers, but he or she doesn’t need every reader. In fact, it is not possible to write one book that will appeal to every single reader. What is possible, thanks to the recent explosion in publishing opportunities, is to write things that will be read because the distance between writer and reader is now much smaller.
Deren Hansen is the author of the Dunlith Hill Writers Guides. Learn more at dunlithhill.com.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
How to Follow Trends
by Deren Hansen
Nearly a year ago, agent Mary Kole shared a note about trends on her KidLit blog.
She pointed out that you'll always be late to the table if you write to trends because it takes about two years to go from manuscript to publication and what's hot now is practically guaranteed to be dull by then.
The best, and most consistent advice is to write a story you love instead of chasing the market because there will always be a market for a good story.
So as we write, driven only by the pure flame of inspiration, can we safely ignore trends?
For the most part.
I've talked before about meeting the market half-way. In order to meet the market, you must have some sense as to where the market is and where it seems to be going. For example, if you were an auto maker, would now, with the price of gas rising, growing concerns about our dependence on foreign oil, and a strong green movement, be a good time to introduce a monster truck whose fuel economy is measured in gallons per mile? By the same token, in a market glutted with vampire stories, should you really try to do one more? Or is there, perhaps some other under-appreciated paranormal type that sucks away your life (like lawyers) with which you could do something fresh?
In terms of market awareness, there's some value in being aware of trends. But there's a big difference between being aware and following.
So is there any time you should actually follow a trend?
Only when you're currently shopping a manuscript and can use the trend to help position your piece. If, say, you've written about sparkly, salmon merfolk and their eternal battle with the were-bears, and if you learn that an editor wants a paranormal fish story, you should waste no time crafting a query that says, "I've got just what you 're looking for!"
Deren blogs at The Laws of Making.
She pointed out that you'll always be late to the table if you write to trends because it takes about two years to go from manuscript to publication and what's hot now is practically guaranteed to be dull by then.
The best, and most consistent advice is to write a story you love instead of chasing the market because there will always be a market for a good story.
So as we write, driven only by the pure flame of inspiration, can we safely ignore trends?
For the most part.
I've talked before about meeting the market half-way. In order to meet the market, you must have some sense as to where the market is and where it seems to be going. For example, if you were an auto maker, would now, with the price of gas rising, growing concerns about our dependence on foreign oil, and a strong green movement, be a good time to introduce a monster truck whose fuel economy is measured in gallons per mile? By the same token, in a market glutted with vampire stories, should you really try to do one more? Or is there, perhaps some other under-appreciated paranormal type that sucks away your life (like lawyers) with which you could do something fresh?
In terms of market awareness, there's some value in being aware of trends. But there's a big difference between being aware and following.
So is there any time you should actually follow a trend?
Only when you're currently shopping a manuscript and can use the trend to help position your piece. If, say, you've written about sparkly, salmon merfolk and their eternal battle with the were-bears, and if you learn that an editor wants a paranormal fish story, you should waste no time crafting a query that says, "I've got just what you 're looking for!"
Deren blogs at The Laws of Making.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)