Debuts and Hype

[Larry.]

Cali,

EB pretty much nails my related concerns behind such things. I'm more concerned with the overlooking of other books and with the reactions of disappointment if there isn't "THE debut" to buy. Such an expression, exaggerated as it may be when some utter it, seems to indicate buying a book based on perceived "coolness" merits and not on the story's actual merits.

[Tom the Merciful]

I think Errant Bard nailed the most likely reason.

But there's also the fact that modern time brings something new and different. A lot of authors who are considered classics are nowadays outdated on some points. For example, it's no wonder that somebody who read ASOIAF first cannot get into Tolkien. Archaic language, quite conservative POV and some other stuff may irritate the (modern) reader.
Same with music and movies and (almost) every other form of art. In truth, to really be able to appreciate something modern, you have to know the classics. But that's where consumerism steps in. You are bombed with new stuff and you, firstly, do not have time to read (listen, see) the stuff you missed and, secondly, you are put off by the design. Example: I cannot make my kids watch classic movies. The black and white picture puts them off immediately.

[A wilding]

[quote name='Krafus' post='1370218' date='May 25 2008, 15.02']Honestly, I consider all "Hot New Release" and "This Is The Next Big Thing" claims by publishers to be hype and marketing, and I trust it as much as I trust similar ads on tv - which is to say, not at all.[/quote]
:agree:

Myself, I always wait for the hype to die down and see what those people whose options I respect are saying about it then. With fantasy, this often has the useful side effect that you can read their debut trilogy in one go, instead of having to wait for the remaining books to be published.

Typically I will use a library for my first read of a new author anyway.

[Dumas]

Errant Bard summed up what I think on this subject. Literature is just another medium, though one of the oldest, and I'm sure it's been subject to this 'Next Big Thing' problem in every place and era with a reasonably large literate class.

I generally ignore hype unless the recommendation comes from someone whose tastes I know and trust.

I'm still working through the old stuff so it might be a few years before I get to what's hot now. I just wish it didn't disappear so quickly. I read a couple fantasy anthologies called Flight or Wings a couple years back with some very interesting stories, but they've been impossible to find again. Doesn't help that I'm not even completely sure of the title or editor.

Oh, wait. Thanks to the miracles of the internet, I've found out that it's Flights edited by Al Sarrantonio. Good stuff, but I think I loaned it to a friend who never returned it.

[Korr]

Having debuted a novel this year myself, although without the big-name fanfare, I can say that most of the 'hot new release' stuff is just publisher-generated hype. As far as I can tell, people are increasingly sceptical of new authors -- in some cases rightly so -- and most are spending less on books across the board. The print sector isn't immune to the usual entertainent-industry sequel-itis, either, although rather than direct sequels it usually centres around particular authors, or even just their names.

So yeah, I think it's just a transparent marketing ploy in order to try and gain attention in this increasingly jaded market.

Regards,
Ryan

[gyrehead]

[quote name='Paddiano Ronaldo' post='1370185' date='May 25 2008, 06.45']What's the negative here? So, yeah, reviewers spend energy on trying to decide what is the big new debut, but so what? They're just doing it in the course of their work anyway.
Do people think it's harming the level of discourse?[/quote]

I don't even miss what the negative is, I'm missing why it is something to even look at with question. Maybe I'm unique, but I'm completely missing the idea that what other people read should ever be something of concern? Do people really care that much what other people read? I mean outside of editors, publishers, agents and marketers. I mean simply as other readers.

Sure I think we all fall into the trap of looking at someone and else and thinking "how can they read that?!" and there are definitely books that it can bug for an instant that someone reading that book validates something I might think unworthy. Or an author I think unworthy. But in the end, it really doesn't actually impact me.

Sorry but I think such a general concern seems patriarchal at best. But also rather patronizing. That somehow people aren't reading in the manner that another person thinks. That somehow one person thinks he or she knows better than the masses. Who doesn't think his or her opinion is superior to everyone else's when all is said and done? One's taste is best for that one. It always will be.

To dismiss eagerness for forthcoming books and excitement for possible good books first time out, I think misses part of the joy of reading. And what is an integral part of what makes the human race what it is. Discovery is a huge part of our makeup. Not just as status. Not just in a competitive manner of getting there first. But also the sense of acheivement that comes from seemingly accomplishing something on your own. Even if it is a great new author.

And I think casting aspersions on the process ignores the fact that it obviously serves a need. Many readers seem to like to know what other people thought about a book before they take the plunge themselves. That is just how they roll. Well read. I like being out there and finding things on my own. Not just for the accomplishment of discovery but also because I really have not found anyone whose opinion is close enough to mine to consider theirs before taking my own gamble on a book. And since it does fulfill a need, what is the difference between talking about an upcoming book versus talking up a book that has been out years or decades? How is it more harmful or more shallow or more crassly consumer-driven to talk about a forthcoming or just released debut than talking about a tried and true long in print work?

If someone wants to listen to the hype and buy into it, that is on him when everything is said and done. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head. In fact no one is telling them to even pay attention to the hype in the first place. Or more so than the countless threads found in the same forums that talk about any and all books that also have threads devoted to just one aspect of reading; the forthcoming book or the big debut. If people pay attention to the detriment of older works, that is because those people want to do so. So what is the problem? Why should what other people want and react and like to consider impact anyone else so much that it raises concern that somehow something bad is happening?

I think if you find this actually worries you or generates such concern or even derision, you need to spend more time reading and less about thinking about what others are reading. I'm extremely particular and extremely opinionated and yet it never occurs to me to quibble over what the masses or the sheep are reading as it just doesn't really affect me or anyone else in terms of my own reading enjoyment.

And now I'll take my own advice and go off and read. Maybe some debut that can be talked about and gushed over. Or not. It doesn't matter. I'll still have read it, Still have the same opinion of it.

[Zoë Sumra]

gyrehead - I think the concern over hype is possibly a reflection of the fact that a lot of hyped books/films/whatever aren't, technically speaking, very good. Da Vinci Code, Sword of Truth and Harry Potter are a good examples. (I never got past the first HP book, BTW, so if they get better later, I take this back - and I have only read excerpts of SoT.) Something doesn't have to be technically good to be popular.

As genre readers, I feel we have a duty to be more aware of that sort of attitude than readers of "mainstream" books, if only because our chosen reading matter is derided so much in literary circles as "not really literature". In particular, I feel that we should respect the views of a range of reviewers, editors, etc. who are well-educated within the fantasy genre - if they feel that a fantasy book is worth hyping, it may well be so. (Or not. People's mileage varies widely - but it's worth paying attention in the first place, anyway.)

Regarding debut hype specifically, to answer the thread's original question:
[i]
"Is the "latest" ever really the "greatest?""[/i]

No. I don't think it's ever possible to say that the latest is the greatest, certainly not in the context of a new author, but also not even in the context of a new book by an established author. Say GRRM finishes ASOIAF in the next three years, one book a year, and we all agree that [i]A Dream of Spring[/i] is the best fantasy novel ever written. We can't know that for some years, until the book's bedded itself into the fabric of literature and we've seen what an impact it makes. The recent "movie better than the book" thread degenerated at one point into a slight flamewar over Tolkien and modern criticism of JRRT's style, but IMO the sheer impact of LOTR justifies its status as "greatest" (and the style issues have to be taken in context of era and authorial intent).

[Ser Bruce the Hound KG]

One word agist Debuts and Hype Goodkind

[Dark Wolf]

I think Larry, said a very interesting thing on his blog. A debut will value more after some years. I personally like to see and read debut works, but that is for my personal joy. I like to see with what ideas come the new authors. It's like seeing a new player in your favorite sport, with the difference that I don't consider that should be a "Debut of the Year". Also Larry is right when saying that a debut might be a personal discovery, like his discovery of Milan Kundera's works or my discovery of Arturo Perez-Reverte.
I also don't think that NY times bestseller list or any list has relevance on debut works. As Larry said I belive that a debut might be more valuable after a few years, and a debutant author might sell better in the future and his early work will be reconsidered. So it might take a while until you'll see the new authors on lists. I personally don't enjoy listing too much (I had trouble with my list on wotmania), because I think that every list and every hierarchy has a great amount of subjectivism.
So I personally like debuts, I like to see that they are being debated (for the information), but I will not make any top lists with debutants.

[duchess of malfi]

[quote name='serdog' post='1370478' date='May 25 2008, 17.33']One word agist Debuts and Hype Goodkind[/quote]

Does anyone else remember Newcomb's debut when we were over at the ezboard? A guy joined the board for pretty much the sole reason to hype [i]The Fifth Sorceress[/i].

Ever since I have been pretty wary of the hype; combined with the fact that I (and various authors) are in the middle of so many series makes me generally reluctant to start a new author until either a large number of people have read him/her and seem pleased or someone I really trust puts on their seal of approval.

[Larry.]

DW, thanks for bringing that bit over here, as I see someone above was busy looking at it from an angle opposite of what I intended or was even thinking. Sometimes, a splashy debut leads to a wildly successful career (for music, look at Led Zeppelin, which was big within months of forming), but more often, it takes years or even decades for a talented artist to make it big (took Gene Wolfe around a decade from [i]Operation Ares[/i] to the first volume of [i]The Book of the New Sun[/i]. That is why while I'm willing to reading debuts and to praise as I feel inclined, I tend to look for growth; the first book shouldn't be the author's best, or so I hope!

[Arthmail]

Have you guys heard of this great new author called Robert Stanek? He is being compared to Tolkien and C.S. Lewis! He's the shit.
Hahahaha. Couldn't resist. Sorry.

As for the question, honestly, who cares? I stay fairly well abreast of the industry for someone not directly invovled, i buy books relatively often, and i keep my ear to the ground as much as i am willing.

But honestly, yes, hype sucks. But age is no indication of whether or a book is good. So, if it means nothing, then one should simply be looking for books that are good. If a new book comes out, as Abercrombie's did, and its good, i'll buy it. After years of seeing him on the shelves, i recently bought Guy Gavriel Kay - his Lions of Al-Rassan. It was an excellent read, not without some faults of course, but enjoyable from start to finish.

In both instances, new or old meant nothing in regards to my enjoyment. In the case of Abercrombie, i enjoy reading something from a first time author not because of the hype, but because i think it would be nice for someone newly minted to actually have a chance to quit their day job and write full time. Mainly, however it all comes down to one key point - is it any fucking good?

I own a supplement store. The hype for new supplements is beyond belief. But the thing is, people will try the product and make their own decisions. Ten years doesn't need to go by for a product to be deemed worthwhile, and the same goes for books. If Abercrombie had come out to massive hype, i would have given the book a chance. I gave Goodking a chance. I preferred Abercrombies, but that doesn't mean that i'm only buying one book a year. When i finish his in a week, i move on to something else i have not read.

In my humble opinoin, blathering about hype and railing against it is a twisted form of elitism. As Dan le Sac vs. Scroobius Pip says, you shall not stop liking a band just because they have become popular. Just replace band with book.

[Larry.]

I swear, there needs to be a corollary to Godwin's Law for people applying "elitist" to an argument around here...

The point about a time lapse is merely that it tends to be a filter of sorts, allowing for a wide range of opinions to be gathered in regards to [i]popular[/i] reactions to any given hyped product. Don't see where the "elitist" aspects come into it, but perhaps that's because I'm not concerned with that *shrug*

[Shryke]

It's simply a matter of "New COULD be better".

People are just as excited about a work by an established author. (The hype for ADWD will be staggering) The thing is, people generally KNOW those authors are coming. We know roughly when the next Bakker/Erikson/GRRM will be out. (Later this year/24 hours after the last one came out/around the time the Universe collapses respectively)

A new author, on the hand, comes out of nowhere usually. "Holy shit, I just read this reviewer copy, this book is awesome!!"

And that's combined with the fact that many people like "New" fantasy. I certainly prefer newer stuff to older stuff. I like the style and direction the genre has been heading in, and so each new author is potentially another Bakker to keep an eye on.

[Larry.]

Fair points there. I guess I'm interested in the meta stuff, such as how did this equating of "new" with "better" (in many, if not all cases) come about? Is it a "good" thing? Could there be a danger of a loss of connection between the "old" and "new"? Those are some of the questions that interest me, although it certainly wouldn't be interesting for many (nor should it be!).

[Werthead]

There was a comment on SFFWorld that made me think of this. Someone over there seemed staggered, nay insulted, by the idea that people were being recommended to go try out Peter F. Hamilton, the 'new master of space opera', and not EE 'Doc' Smith, who 'created space opera'. His argument was you have to try the classics before trying the new stuff.

The flaw in his argument is that no-one in their right mind reads and enjoys Smith now. It's horrendously dated and Smith was a big believe in Nazi-style eugenics, which would make any modern reader throw up a little in their mouths as they read the books. There is no real comparison to be made there. Hamilton is a better writer and a better storyteller than Smith ever was. To enjoy Smith, you need to have read it in the 1930s when it first appeared.

That I think is the suspicion that a lot of people hold over 'older' books: that they are old, dated and do not appeal to modern tastes. We may know that is BS. Some books - like Wolfe's or Zelazny's - feel as fresh now as they did thirty years ago. Some you can tell are dated but are still excellent reads (Tolkien, Herbert, LeGuin). Some, like Smith, were interesting back in the day but are no longer relevant. I think this is the reason so many will read only modern fiction and only the 'classics' at the urging of others.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1371373' date='May 26 2008, 15.37']Could there be a danger of a loss of connection between the "old" and "new"?[/quote]

Since we seem to be fond of using music as a stand-in for literature in this thread, I'll just wryly observe that since rock-n-roll was discovered, [i]everybody[/i] stopped listening to Tchaikovsky and Beethoven. It was a shame, really, such brilliance, eclipsed by the likes of Buddy Holly. ;) (Or, for that matter, the fact that Led Zeppelin disappeared from the collective consciousness once Metallica, Public Enemy and all that came after them plugged in their amps.)

Those who are curious will eventually explore a goodly chunk of whatever genre is their chosen area of interest. Others won't. There's really no point in belaboring something that has been proven time and again in the music biz, TBH.

[Sir Thursday]

An argument that probably more relevant to SFF than to any other genre is that new authors provide a new world to explore. When you have an established author, quite often their novels will be set in the same universe, and no matter how nice it may be to keep delving back into it, sooner or later you're going to want something fresh and new. And, in line with comments earlier in the thread about the appeal of discovering something new, what better than to enter a new world with its individual rules where very few have gone before?

Another reason for enjoying debuts more is one that is similar to Werthead's. Personally, I read SFF because I enjoy exploring the 'what if' questions that it is uniquely positioned to answer. The nature of such questions, particularly on the Science Fiction side and in light of the rapid pace of technological progress in society today, is that those ideas that are interesting change with time. One can usually expect debuts to be more topical and up to date than those written even a few years ago, and thus more enjoyable.

One last factor is that authors (for example, Bakker) will often have spent a long time thinking up the ideas for their first novel. While the writing style might not be so polished as later novels, the details and plot will most likely be some of their best material, and future novels will not have so much time to be assembled in the author's head and applied to the page.


Sir Thursday

[Werthead]

[quote name='Sir Thursday' post='1371458' date='May 26 2008, 23.18']One last factor is that authors (for example, Bakker) will often have spent a long time thinking up the ideas for their first novel. While the writing style might not be so polished as later novels, the details and plot will most likely be some of their best material, and future novels will not have so much time to be assembled in the author's head and applied to the page.[/quote]

Indeed. Joe Abercrombie's recent blog posts on this topic were intriguing, or to use the musical analogy even further, a band/artist has all the time in the world to write their first album, and about two weeks to do their second due to publisher pressures.

[Larry.]

I suspect part of the issue here is the lens through which each is viewing this. I'm seeing this more as a cultural issue, one in which "datedness" is itself a very recent cultural development. Perhaps because I'm about to enter middle age (itself only a recent concept), I cannot help but to wonder if there is perhaps [i]too much[/i] of a focus on creating something that will be applicable only to its espirt du temps or Zeitgeist. "Classical music" is fairly well-grounded now, but I wonder if rap will be recognizable as such in 50 years...or even 20. What is behind the desire to shift the language itself so rapidly, much faster than even technological developments can explain? Is there really a "Cult of the New," or is it something else?

I'm posing [i]questions[/i] here, not answers. But here's an observation: by claiming that certain works become "dated" within a generation, is not the unspoken but presumed furthering of that statement implying that the work in question is disposable and thus really has no lasting merit? And if that be the case, then would the overwhelmingly vast majority of the "debuts" in any genre end up being worth as much as a Mister Mister CD twenty years from now?