187 replies to this topic

[Hark]

I read Knife of dreams before I ever read GRRM, Erikson, Bakker, Hobb or even Goodkind.  I wonder how much patience I will be able to muster for WoT when the next (last) one comes out.

Erikson is currently my favourite author of all time (though Midnight Tides is by far the worst in the series so far).

[Kraken]

Ebenstone, on Jul 26 2006, 15.55, said:

OKAY, OKAY, OKAY....group hug here, let's relax....

Listen, cash hogs or not, God bless them. Somewhere down the line, someone saw some talent and marketability in their work and now they are making bundles of money (in particular Jordan and Goodkind and to a lesser extent Erikson and Bakker). They should. Maybe it's all they got, one series, and they need to milk it for all its worth.

I can't get as passionate about this as some of you are. I don't believe in doing things for the "sake of art." I never understood that idea. I think epic fantasy is in the midst of a rebirth. More and more titles of fantasy are being released each year, in particular look at YA, teen and children's titles. Lots of fantasies there.

I will never blame a guy for making his money while he can.

If we're talking about a guy who's a friend of mine or something, then sure I can be glad for him making money regardless of how he's doing it, but when we're talking about a guy who's taking my money, then I don't think there's anything wrong with expecting a certain level of quality, even if the author may end up less rich as a result. For instance, Jordan is easily "milking" the series, and this did not cause me to go "HOORAY FOR YOUR SUCCESS!", it made me stop buying his books.

Erikson and Jordan are different as far as "cash cows" go, because Erikson is following the plan he set out to accomplish -- the thing is, what he set out to accomplish is an enormous bloated fantasy series. The quality goes down steadily after the second book, but I can't attribute this to him trying to milk out more money or anything. If the length of the books/series is linked to monetary success, it was definitely a decision made at the start and not partways through.

[Ebenstone]

Chataya, on Jul 26 2006, 17.20, said:

But I get upset when someone (authors, publishers) realizes that the reading public, particularly the fantasy reading public, enjoys X, and then they just shovel out mediocre work, not trying to do their best, just doing well enough to make the bucks roll in.  It could be *better*.  We could demand *better* - but we don't, or can't, because we are being held to a standard of mediocrity, rather than good.

Look at any industry though, entertainment in particular. Publishers are out to make money so they go with what's hot and quality is a subjective term. I couldn't get into SE and I haven't tried Bakker yet. I LOVE, obviously, GRRM and Greg Keyes. Look at popular fiction....how many books about the Knights Templar or the Last Supper or Jesus's sex life are we going to have to endure because of the success of The DaVinci Code? How many low carb diet books were out when the low carb diet was "good"? How many books about "plucky urban women trying to ffind Mr. Right do we have to tolerate?

As for quality, look at the number of people who still buy and swear by Jordan or Goodkind? Plus, not all readers are as....selective as some of us are...I'll confess to having loved some of the Drizzt books, but there are those on the board who would say that is sacraledge (I'm an English teacher NOT a spelling teacher.) A few months ago I had started a thread about a YA book I was reading and saying I felt I could do better. Got hammered for it because at least they took the time and effort to write a novel. I guess I feel the same way, kind of. Although I do feel that sometimes they may have some "inside connection" when you look at some of the books that do get published.

[Larry.]

A few observations:

The thing that I've noticed about academic editing (having once been in grad school, certain things come to light more, I suppose) is that the focus there is on clarity and unity of thought.  Now I'm sure this is different to some degree for fiction writing, but the little I've gathered over the years from various sorts seems to focus on editors concentrating on how to best get a writer's voice to appear, especially in regards to a unified, distinct style.  Yeah, sometimes there'll be suggestions of cutting plotlines or characters, but that's often in order to unify the prose better and to create a tauter plot and a more stylized prose (if possible - some people's writing just doesn't tend itself to being stylized).  Of course, it's up to the writer to decide how to do that.  Some beginning/small-time authors wanting to get their works published are more likely going to follow everything suggested than more experienced/more egoistical writers.  That's just the way it seems to go.

And how odd it was to see Bakker's name being mentioned with the 'cash cows.'  From what he's revealed in interviews, he's been working on his story/universe for roughly 20 years.  Yes, it has expanded as he revised and rewrote the plot summaries and drafts.  Originally, he envisioned 3 books, with PoN being one book, Aspect-Emperor the second, and the spoiler-laden title being the third, but as he started to really write the works they just expanded.  This was well before he signed any deal, from what I understand.  Maturity as a writer, the desire to explore different things within this universe - things like that can add to a story, even to those that have been plotted out for years.

But considering that the print runs for the hardcovers in North America haven't been above 30,000 to the best of my knowledge...I doubt he'd call what he's doing a real money-winning operation.  I'd have to ask him to be certain, but I imagine his overall worldwide sales are only in the low 100Ks for the three volumes, but I could be mistaken.  It could be 51 million if it were Goodkind's agent reporting the numbers ;)

Regardless, I think the term 'cash cow' needs to be defined precisely here before we start assigning various authors to it.  After all, some authors are writing rapidly and a lot just to make enough money to supply electricity to their computer for writing more fiction.

[Chataya de Fleury]

Dylanfanatic, on Jul 26 2006, 19.05, said:

And how odd it was to see Bakker's name being mentioned with the 'cash cows.'

Huh?  Who mentioned Bakker and "cash cow" in the same sentence?  We're talking about Erikson and Jordan here!

Arakasi - it was Werthead who said, and provided facts, that the books were getting longer.  Werthead generally is a fact-checking kinda guy, and has some Erikson-cred, as he *did* draw the author-approved Malazan-world maps.

And it was you yourself who originally said he started writing GoTM *seven* years before it was published.  Here, I'll quote:

"Also if you know anythng about the history of the Malazan world, you'd know that Erikson wrote Gardens of the Moon years before it was released. Somewhere around 7 years iirc."

And even if it was ten, like you are now claiming (although will it next be 15??), from what I have been able to find - and from what I remember, as I remember reading tEoTW after it was first published - Jordan's "Eye of the World" was a mass-market hit (after a cautious start by the publishers) in 1990.
http://speculativere...ert-jordan.html

Edited by Chataya, 26 July 2006 - 07:04 PM.

[Werthead]

Easy, people.

Arakasi, according to other interviews and his Wiki entry (which one of Steven's friends did some fact-checking on), Steven Erikson has said he and ICE wrote Gardens of the Moon as a movie script around 1991, then Steven (by himself) turned it into a novel in 1991-92 or thereabouts. The original script had very little to do with the novel, being a comedy involving the Phoenix Inn Regulars. The novel was eventually published in 1999, so the 7-8 year period is the correct one. The nine-year reference may include the period spent writing it as a film script as well, which could take us back to 1990. What does seem interesting in prior interviews (particularly Erikson's 2002 interview with SFX) is that Erikson sold GotM by itself, then committed to a nine-book contract (nine books + GotM), so that Gardens of the Moon was written without any confirmation that there would be a sequel (obviously due to the multiple cliffhanger endings, Erikson planned sequels from the start). Thus, whilst Erikson did write GotM in 1991-92, it only became the opening book of a ten-volume saga in 1998-99 or thereabouts, when not only Jordan but also Goodkind, Wurts, Elliott, Martin etc were all established as writers of long, big series.

I would certainly say that it's incredibly unlikely that a publisher would have committed to a ten-volume series without the precedent of Wheel of Time to show them that a committed fanbase would buy all of the books. Also, and many people are unaware of this, but Steven Erikson continues to hold the record for Biggest Advance given to a first-time fantasy author in the UK (£400K+). Whether this was a motivating factor or not (unlikely, given the advance would not have been offered until after Erikson pitched his idea for the full ten-book series) is debatable.

The Bonehunters is the second-longest volume in the series, shorter than MoI by only a few thousand words IIRC. Midnight Tides is actually the shortest book in the series after GotM, but House of Chains is the third-longest. Whilst MoI remains the longest book in the series, it would not be true to say the series has been "Getting shorter," since then.

[Ebenstone]

I merely mentioned Bakker as a "flavor of the month."  Sorry.

And every author has been working on their work for years before they get published. IIRC didn't GRRM say he had started ASoIaF way back in 1991? And it didn't get published until 1996 even with George's "name" value. Now imagine a new writer with no name value....it's obviously hard to get published, so let em cash in.

And BTW, the way things are structured in publishing, an author get a percentage of the book sales...10-15 % maybe more. Anyway, I'd take the 40 grand for a run of 15,000 books!

[Relic]

Huh, didnt predict this thread turning into a mini flame war  :rolleyes:  :P

Chataya...you seem to be equating the lenght and uhhh girth of Erikson's novels  with this idea of "cash cows" even tho you lack any evidence or proof to back up your claim. Stop it.  :P

Edited by Relic, 26 July 2006 - 07:27 PM.

[Arakasi]

True I got my own facts wrong. That's why I said iirc. Obviously I didn't recall correctly :P  Then again I wasn't the one saying Erikson wrote epic fantasy books only because they're markatable. Its just possible he likes writing big fat books. Sure I do agree that Jordan opened the doors for big fat epic fantasy to be profitable again. But than that applies to everyone from Williams, Martin, Erikson, Bakker and so on. The reason Bakker got thrown in here was that he fit under writing big epic fantasy. Jordan making it profitable applies as much to him as to anyone else. So obviously if this argument is going to apply to anyone it should apply to all. Unless of course the argument than becomes well Jordan/Erikson are bloated and Bakker isn't? But then where does that leave AFFC, a quite bloated book that didn't go much of anywhere. I feel it is safer in these circumstances to give authors the benefit of the doubt and to not apply labels like "they're a cash cow, moo!!" is it not? Unless perhaps you know something about the author that we don't.

And to the length, the series hasn't been getting longer either. I do find the topic of marketable fantasy to be quite interesting. The talk on Erikson's quality I've had before. Nothing more I can really add there. Still, Chataya has been saying some truely outlandish statements here. Among them:

and note how the books just keep getting bigger...and bigger...and bigger. - Umm wrong, as has been shown in this thread.

Erikson and Jordan are just cash cows of a different breed.

Moo.      :rolleyes:

and a keen understanding of the market in that fantasy fans WANT bloated books right now   - Does this generalization also apply to Martin?

Seriously just stop with the silly generalizations and I'd have no problems with it. One minute you're calling Erikson a mediocre writer with a bad editor. That I'm fine with. That's your opinion. Then you're calling him the next some media avante who intentionally writes bloated books to inflate book sales. That is umm stretching it and where I have issues.

Like relic said.

Chataya...you seem to be equating the lenght and uhhh girth of Erikson's novels with this idea of "cash cows" even tho you lack any evidence or proof to back up your claim. Stop it.

[Chataya de Fleury]

Relic, on Jul 26 2006, 20.23, said:

Huh, didnt predict this thread turning into a mini flame war  :rolleyes:  :P

Chataya...you seem to be equating the lenght and uhhh girth of Erikson's novels  with this idea of "cash cows" even tho you lack any evidence or proof to back up your claim. Stop it.  :P

I didn't anticipate a mini flame war, either.

Btw, I am using the term "cash cow" in the business sense, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_cow here is a general definition.  If you want the rest of what basic MBA programs will teach you, here it is:

Basically, the whole "cash cow" concept revolves around the fact that there is a product that people want, and people want it so much that a sense of complacency sets in amongst the purveyors of that product, and so incentive is there to offer slightly inferior product, because the market won't care.

A cash cow is basically in the eye of the beholder, as only the purveyors of the product know whether or not complacency has set in for them...and they certainly wouldn't be telling anybody if it has.


Now I feel like I have explained that three different times.

And that's why *I* feel (and yes, it is my *opinion*) that Martin isn't generating a cash cow - he cares about product quality.  The future may tell us differently, but that's how I feel right now, even though AFFC was filler, it was *supposed* to fill a 5 year gap.

Edited by Chataya, 26 July 2006 - 07:53 PM.

[Relic]

Chataya, on Jul 26 2006, 20.51, said:

I didn't anticipate a mini flame war, either.

Btw, I am using the term "cash cow" in the business sense, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_cow here is a general definition.  If you want the rest of what basic MBA programs will teach you, here it is:

Basically, the whole "cash cow" concept revolves around the fact that there is a product that people want, and people want it so much that a sense of complacency sets in amongst the purveyors of that product, and so incentive is there to offer slightly inferior product, because the market won't care.

A cash cow is basically in the eye of the beholder, as only the purveyors of the product know whether or not complacency has set in for them...and they certainly wouldn't be telling anybody if it has.
Now I feel like I have explained that three different times.

So basically...Malazan fits the definition of a cash cow becuz Erikson was given a contract for 10 books (correct me if im wrong here) and became popular after Memories of Ice? Furthermore, his popularity has led to a decresed quality of writing, or to bloated novels that you claim dont go anywhere?

I disagree  :P

I think Jordan(and even GRRM) might fit that definition, but i dont see how it applies to Erikson.

Edited by Relic, 26 July 2006 - 07:54 PM.

[Larry.]

Ebenstone, on Jul 26 2006, 19.22, said:

I merely mentioned Bakker as a "flavor of the month."  Sorry.

And every author has been working on their work for years before they get published. IIRC didn't GRRM say he had started ASoIaF way back in 1991? And it didn't get published until 1996 even with George's "name" value. Now imagine a new writer with no name value....it's obviously hard to get published, so let em cash in.

And BTW, the way things are structured in publishing, an author get a percentage of the book sales...10-15 % maybe more. Anyway, I'd take the 40 grand for a run of 15,000 books!

No problem - I was just wondering why he was being mentioned in with the others :P

Yeah, I know a great many authors spend some time at least before their first volume is released.  Hell, I remember back 3-4 years ago or so, when I used to be a semi-regular/lurker at Dead Cities (now Frameshift) and hearing snippets about how Scott Lynch was working on a story and that Matt Stover and a few others there got to read a tiny little bit and were loving it - how's that for a small world (not that I'm claiming to know Lynch beyond recognizing his name from other there, mind you)?  So yeah, authors do spend years on it.  Each has his own particular method and story to address/tell.  Some tell it in 300 pages, some in 400, 500, 600, or beyond.  Some portions require a larger story, while others don't (interestingly enough, the word count drops about a third for Bakker's third volume in comparison to the previous two - not counting the 100 page appendices).  'Bloated' (to address another point said elsewhere) is in the eye of the beholder sometimes.  This coming from a reader whose books tend to be under 350 pages ;)

As for the percentage, it's roughly 6-10% for the paperbacks, 10-15% for the hardcovers as an average.  That's after the amount for the advance is covered (typical advance being anywhere from $5000 to $10 million for the expected 10+ million sellers).  And don't forget the 15% or so that the agents receive from that figure.  Oh, and the money is paid in installments, usually 6-12 months at a time.  So a Bakker (using him again as an example here) isn't going to see that $30-40K at once or even in a year's span.  With at least a half-dozen publishers in at least 4 languages (I think it's more now - I need to ask, I suppose) with their own contracts/arrangements (out of which the translators have to be paid), the immediate income would be less than what most entry-level professions pay.  But this has nothing to do with the page count/pacing model other than to illustrate that there isn't necessarily a huge correlation between page count and money - units have to be shipped and a helluva lot of them for an author to make good money.

As for Erikson, he signed for GotM plus 9 others and got a huge advance for a first-time author.  But that was the agreed amount before sales and 60% in, it looks like he's not going to waver on the amount, despite the books becoming somewhat popular, to say the least ;)  Whether it needs to be trimmed or not often deals with a reader's preferences more than anything else - editing isn't very clear-cut, as was mentioned before in this thread.

And mini-flame war?  Where?  Where? :P

[Chataya de Fleury]

Relic, on Jul 26 2006, 20.54, said:

So basically...Malazan fits the definition of a cash cow becuz Erikson was given a contract for 10 books (correct me if im wrong here) and became popular after Memories of Ice? Furthermore, his popularity has led to a decresed quality of writing, or to bloated novels that you claim dont go anywhere?

I disagree  :P

I think Jordan(and even GRRM) might fit that definition, but i dont see how it applies to Erikson.

You read me right - I would claim so on Jordan and Erikson, and not GRRM, but we can certainly agree to disagree  :lol: It's an opinion, after all.

[LadyIsabel28]

Wow - I'm impressed!  Chataya of all people started a flame war in the literature section!

I haven't read Erickson, but I have read Jordan and stopped after Winter Heart cause I really didn't see the point in continuing.

I do read another "epic novelist" Diana Gabaldon (she published book 6 last fall with at least another 2 to go) and while I am passionately in love with the 1st three novels, would think about stopping the 4th one from burning and am okay with the 5th and 6th......I'm afraid that I'm losing the love for the series in general.

She has a great concept and while she's staying true to it, the timeline has spanned more than 20 years and other tangents have cropped up.  I rather think that' bound to happen to anyone who writes epics.

[Ebenstone]

Blagh ragh blah roar bah ragh blagh.....or however it is when Homer loses his mind and starts just yelling. A flame war, a flame war....

I'm coming foward now, when my fantasy series gets published and gets huge, you are damn right I'm gonna pad that f'er with at LEAST FOUR extra volumes, so it'll be like a 34 part novel series that will continue well after my demise and co-written by my children and grandchildren along with Kevin J Anderson's children and grandchildren.

[Chataya de Fleury]

LadyIsabel28, on Jul 26 2006, 21.14, said:

Wow - I'm impressed!  Chataya of all people started a flame war in the literature section!"

No kidding!!!  I'm shocked that it could happen too!  Me...and in Literature, of all places!!!

Quote

"I haven't read Erikson, but I have read Jordan and stopped after Winter Heart cause I really didn't see the point in continuing."

Unfortunately, I am sucked in.  It's why I can't read Goodkind...because once I start reading a series, I can't stop.  I can't.  Unless it's just something that I am squeamish about (Stephen King) or can't read due to personal issues (Bakker), I will continue.  I'll keep on buying the books, because it's *something* to read.  Better than the back of the cereal box.  Better than the nutritional information on my General Foods International Coffee tins.  

Quote

"I do read another "epic novelist" Diana Gabaldon (she published book 6 last fall with at least another 2 to go) and while I am passionately in love with the 1st three novels, would think about stopping the 4th one from burning and am okay with the 5th and 6th......I'm afraid that I'm losing the love for the series in general."

You said it, girlfriend!  Ms. Gabaldon clearly saw that the vacations to Scotland would come to a screeching halt (and become non-tax deductible, as she is now a published author doing, ahem, "research", but that stops when she stops publishing genre novels set in Scotland) and was forced to write more.  The first novel was genius, the second and third were good, readable...and then the "Fiery Cross" and "Snow and Ashes" were both cringe-worthy.  Plotless.  Poor Jaime and Claire.  

On the other hand, when she branched out into something new, but related, in "Sir John and the Private Matter", her concise, fast-moving plot and engaging dialogue again came to the fore.

Ebenstone, on Jul 26 2006, 21.24, said:

I'm coming foward now, when my fantasy series gets published and gets huge, you are damn right I'm gonna pad that f'er with at LEAST FOUR extra volumes, so it'll be like a 34 part novel series that will continue well after my demise and co-written by my children and grandchildren along with Kevin J Anderson's children and grandchildren.

Please remember to do some estate planning...VC Andrews' estate was taxed on the VALUE OF HER NAME, to the tune of $1,000,000 in tax, because novels continued to be ghostwritten under her name after her death.

I kid you not.

Edited by Werthead, 27 July 2006 - 07:21 AM.

[LadyIsabel28]

*nods*  The Lord John Grey stuff is fabulous!  I  :love: hime.....too bad he's fictional and gay *sigh*

[Ebenstone]

Chataya, on Jul 26 2006, 21.29, said:

Please remember to do some estate planning...VC Andrews' estate was taxed on the VALUE OF HER NAME, to the tune of $1,000,000 in tax, because novels continued to be ghostwritten under her name after her death.

I kid you not.

Oh, well that's what you're here for.

[Gerold Hightower]

Erikson's books perfectly well fulfill the cash cow definition. You have to keep in mind that there's a publisher. From their point of view it's definitely cash cow. Those crazy Fantasy readers swallow anything if it's just big enough so let's give them some more of it. Quality doesn't matter.

As for Erikson planning ten volumes from the beginning, I don't see how starting complacent is better than gowing complacent. Jordan at least tried to produce quality early in the series. How far he succeeded would be a topic for another flame war. That both authors are mainly after the money goes without saying.

[Hark]

Different strokes for different folks, but it's stupefying that anyone would have such a low opinion of Erikson's works.