|
|
Post by Jaqhama on Jan 8, 2009 15:08:26 GMT
I don't know why pulp died out.
Maybe people lost the magic of imagination when TV/Video and computer games came along?
All the hard work is now done for them.
They have the characters and scenes right before them.
No mental effort there.
(Although a lot of the modern vid games do require some mental effort in regards to the puzzles and traps.)
But I'd sure as hell like to get away from walking in a bookshop and seeing novels 500 pages plus thick.
I can't be arsed to read a 500 page novel.
I'd rather read book one at 150 pages and then book 2 etc.
Pulp is still around...look at Matthew Reilly's novels.
Pure pulp rubbish there and no mistake.
If publishers are selling less books..it's because of the cost of a modern novel.
They ain't cheap.
Most people I know buy their books second hand or at sales or wait until they reach the local library.
Can't blame them.
I haven't bought a brand new, full price novel since...errr I bought Alison's book from her recently.
(Waves to Ali)
I think publishers need to be producing thinner books, by a variety of new authors, over a wide spectrum of genres.
The internet is an excellent source of free to read stories also.
I read a lot of short tales online, at various websites...many of them cry out to be traditionally published...but it won't happen.
Not until publishers stop trying to publish authors they think are highly bankable.
Publishing today for the major players is just a business.
They are looking for a bestseller with just about every author/novel they sign up.
Back in the days of NEL and Sphere..they were just publsihing a multitude of books they thought might sell ok...but taking their profit as a whole, and not from each individual novel.
|
|
|
|
Post by bushwick on Jan 9, 2009 10:34:26 GMT
I saw an advert recruiting staff for Rockstar Games (creators of Grand Theft Auto amongst others) the other day, and it was asking for "Level Designers (scriptwriters)"...and it got me thinking, if the likes of GNS, Laurence James, James Moffat, Mike Linaker, Angus Wells etc etc were starting up today, they'd probably be working for computer games companies. There must be a LOT of work there, what with the huge amount of games that are released. More accessible and presumably easier to crack than the film market...
|
|
|
|
Post by sean on Jan 15, 2009 9:40:23 GMT
I think publishers need to be producing thinner books How on earth would that help? That would just limit choice furthur. |
|
|
|
Post by PeterC on Jan 15, 2009 14:48:01 GMT
I can see Jaqhama's point.
My eyes glaze over when I walk into Waterstones/WH Smith's and see rows of brick-sized books by Klapped-Out King and Koontz etc.
It would be great to see lots of novellas and anthologies/collections that you can read in an evening or even your lunch-break.
Why the high street shops won't give the Black Books of Horror and the likes of Humdrumming a decent go beats me.
|
|
|
|
Post by benedictjjones on Jan 15, 2009 15:45:09 GMT
agreed i'd like to see shorter novels as well (although why would that mean less books?)
|
|
|
|
Post by carolinec on Jan 15, 2009 17:03:05 GMT
I can see Jaqhama's point. My eyes glaze over when I walk into Waterstones/WH Smith's and see rows of brick-sized books by Klapped-Out King and Koontz etc. It would be great to see lots of novellas and anthologies/collections that you can read in an evening or even your lunch-break. Why the high street shops won't give the Black Books of Horror and the likes of Humdrumming a decent go beats me. My sentiments entirely on this one! I've always preferred a "quick read". I guess it's laziness really - or maybe I just find shorter stories, novellas, etc more satisfying. The brick-sized books are an instant turn-off for me. Mainstream publishers nowadays reckon that's what the customers want, but from the number of people I've heard express these same views about wanting shorter reads, I'm not sure they really do know what customers want! Long live the small presses, I say! But on that note there has been some depressing news on the BFS site recently. First, Humdrumming went under, of course, and there are another couple of small press publishers (can't recall which ones off the top of my head) who are "resting" for at least a year. I was hoping there was going to be a revival in horror shorts - but it seems not ...  |
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Jan 15, 2009 17:11:28 GMT
yeah, i'm not sure what you mean, sean? in what way would having shorter books limit choice - i feel like i'm missing the point here, so could you explain?
y'see, i think i get what jaq's saying - if publishers weren't so obsessed with doorstop books, then maybe people would be willing to give a shorter book by a new author a go. it'd be cheaper, comparatively, for the punter and probably wouldn't affect the publisher (book costs being based on unit production cost comparable to sale forecast and print run). in fact, its possible that regular readers might even buy more books per person in the long run, as it would take less time to read! and a shorter gallop to the end might entice those with shorter attention spans who couldn't face 400+ pages.
if nothing else, like him i think i'd welcome it personally.
as to why many high street stores (i assume you mean chains, peter?) don't really stock the smaller publishers - there's another thread on here somewhere that discusses it, but in short it's to do with how publishers reps can squeeze out all bar the big boys' stock with offers of discounts for extra stock, squeezing shelf space, and then using this to insist on how things are stocked and displayed. smaller shops can be more independent, but then face the fact that they don't get the discounts, and so have to balance taking chances against guaranteed off-the-shelf sales.
oh, and about the computer game scriptwriting - although some companies do employ freelancers now and again for dialogue and scenario in some games, when they refer to scripters and scritpwriters in ads, they're usually referring to script languages that programmers use to write the games, shit like java and ones that have weird combinations of letters and numbers as names. don't ask me, i'm happy with slate and chalk...
|
|
|
|
Post by sean on Jan 15, 2009 18:00:47 GMT
Ben / Pulphack:
I didn't say it would mean less books, I said it would limit choice. To say that there should be more books of a certain length, be it longer or shorter, is simply ridiculous. I'm not necessarily defending big fuckoff quadrilogies etc here but to push primarily for shorter, maybe one sitting books is just another bit of dumbing down.
And yes, I do enjoy short novels. What I like is a good book, whatever the page count. Other people's attention spans are not my problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Jan 15, 2009 23:07:06 GMT
oh right, i see what you mean - i didn't get it as i'm not saying there shouldn't be long novels per se. but there is pressure on commercial writers to write long books rather than short, and if a writer is forced to pad a book by an editor in order to fit the word count remit, then everyone loses. if, on the other hand, publishers were to start doing shorter books as well, then those that would fit the shorter length wouldn't be padded - they wouldn't have to be. back in the "golden age" of the sixties and seventies, there were long books and short books. when you saw a big book, you knew the story would deserve the length. i'm not so sure you could say that, now... not when there's only long preferred by editors, at any cost. that was my point, anyway.
as for short attention spans not being your problem - true enough, but it could be argued that nothing but big books, as is the case at the moment, also limits choice. if it would pull in more punters and make publishers a bit more money, then that would perhaps be reflected in the sums they'd have to pay to secure writers they wanted all along the line. which can only be a good thing for the beleagured hack.
of course, then we're back to the argument about whether or not sales would really reflect this, but that's a whole other story.
|
|
|
|
Post by sean on Jan 16, 2009 9:23:06 GMT
back in the "golden age" of the sixties and seventies, there were long books and short books. when you saw a big book, you knew the story would deserve the length. i'm not so sure you could say that, now... not when there's only long preferred by editors, at any cost. that was my point, anyway. as for short attention spans not being your problem - true enough, but it could be argued that nothing but big books, as is the case at the moment, also limits choice. Hell, yes, big books only can limit choice also, and I guess I was thinking more of long novels that were worthwhile rather than empty doorstops. But my comment about short attention spans was maybe a tad glib - it would be my problem if short volumes became the norm! Anyway, we're all doomed. We're living in the decline and fall of literacy, which is a terribly sad thing to witness. |
|
|
|
Post by benedictjjones on Jan 16, 2009 10:07:22 GMT
^I actually meant short novels that ARE worthwhile (i have no problem with big books that are but today it seems a book has to be bigger to get published).
the two short novels that spring to mind for me (both devoured in one sitting) are:
'the death of grass' and 'i am legend'
nothing to do with attention span or quick hits it's just that i think the short novel is becoming a neglected form.
|
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Jan 16, 2009 10:53:50 GMT
yes, chaps, we're just looking at the same thing from different angles... two more short books that spring to mind here are chris priest's 'fugue...' and thomas pynchon's '...lot 49'.
have to say, when i was talking to a business and brand manager at H/C last year, he was bemoaning editorial's angle of 'big is best', moaning about a lot of their authors who are directed to add bulk at the expense of the story. again, big stories not a problem, but on some titles... he did mention some disgruntled authors, but i'd better keep quiet about that. so maybe it will filter down, and the deserving short novel will re-emerge.
and i reckon you're right about the death of lietracy, certainly in terms of books, which are becoming a minority interest in many ways. people do read, but i reckon it's that short attention span thing, and that's why blogs are so bloody popular. short, and mostly pointless...
|
|
|
|
Post by sean on Jan 16, 2009 13:13:56 GMT
two more short books that spring to mind here are chris priest's 'fugue...' and thomas pynchon's '...lot 49'. ...and Pynchon's 'Gravity's Rainbow' is one hell of a good long novel (his latest, 'Against the Day' weighs in at over 1000 pages of small print). Some short novels that I'm fond of would be 'The Time Machine' (HGWells), 'The Man Who Was Thursday' (Chesterton) 'Camp Concentration' (Disch) 'Ice' (Kavan), 'We Have Always Lived in the Castle (Jackson) etc |
|
|
|
Post by benedictjjones on Jan 16, 2009 14:39:13 GMT
^a set of my favourite novels that are weighty rather than short and punchy are the james clavell ones (shogun, tai pan, gaijin, noble house) absoloute BEASTS!
|
|
|
|
Post by pulphack on Jan 16, 2009 19:09:21 GMT
i was very fond of Wilbur Smith when younger, and used to find the longer the book, the more absorbing, as he suited the weighty, wide-ranging narrative. again, Moorcok - King Of The City and Mother London are big tomes and big stories, and i'm very fond of The Black Corridor and Behold The Man, which are shorter. i suppose it's getting a bit away from the initial point, but it's interesting to look at how some writers can tackle the big and the small, adjusting according to the needs of the tale...
btw, sean - have you read The Napoleon Of Notting Hill, by Chesterton? - well worth it if you like The Man Who Was Thursday. Wordsworth's big Chesterton volume has both those and several other long-out-of print novels (as wellas the complete Father Brown stories - the best detective-stories-that-sort-of-aren't ever written, if i can make such a claim) for only 5.99.
(derek isn't paying me for this plug, i should point out!)
|
|
