<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: That Old New Weird</title>
	<atom:link href="http://markcnewton.com/2010/01/10/that-old-new-weird/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://markcnewton.com/2010/01/10/that-old-new-weird/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 19:14:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simon</title>
		<link>http://markcnewton.com/2010/01/10/that-old-new-weird/comment-page-1/#comment-2313</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:23:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.markcnewton.com/?p=1820#comment-2313</guid>
		<description>The short answer is we can (and do) publish authors who challenge their readers, we simply can&#039;t pay them as much money as we do those who don&#039;t.

Perhaps surprisingly our sales force often relish selling something that their buyers can really get their teeth into, just so long as editorial haven&#039;t asked them to sell as many copies of it as they did the last commercial &#039;fat fantasy&#039; or the like.

That may sound like preparing for failure but it really isn&#039;t. You simply can&#039;t base a publishing strategy on one-off lit-fantasy mega successes like Strange and Norrell.

You want to challange readers don&#039;t be surprised that some of them choose not to be challanged.

Also it&#039;s worth pointing out that China&#039;s extraordinary and deserved status as a standard bearer of this sort of fiction perhaps outweighs his (still impressive) sales figures.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The short answer is we can (and do) publish authors who challenge their readers, we simply can&#8217;t pay them as much money as we do those who don&#8217;t.</p>
<p>Perhaps surprisingly our sales force often relish selling something that their buyers can really get their teeth into, just so long as editorial haven&#8217;t asked them to sell as many copies of it as they did the last commercial &#8216;fat fantasy&#8217; or the like.</p>
<p>That may sound like preparing for failure but it really isn&#8217;t. You simply can&#8217;t base a publishing strategy on one-off lit-fantasy mega successes like Strange and Norrell.</p>
<p>You want to challange readers don&#8217;t be surprised that some of them choose not to be challanged.</p>
<p>Also it&#8217;s worth pointing out that China&#8217;s extraordinary and deserved status as a standard bearer of this sort of fiction perhaps outweighs his (still impressive) sales figures.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark C Newton</title>
		<link>http://markcnewton.com/2010/01/10/that-old-new-weird/comment-page-1/#comment-2295</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark C Newton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:11:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.markcnewton.com/?p=1820#comment-2295</guid>
		<description>Hi Nate, Thanks very much! Yes, I was a little restrained - you&#039;ll probably see as much in the next book, which is rather different :)

I think sometimes it&#039;s worth looking at the small presses for the more literary genre novels. PS Publishing, for example, have a history of interesting, more experimental tomes - and they can afford to, because they don&#039;t have the sales expectations/requirements of major publishers. But you&#039;re right to an extent about the constraints - however, I&#039;d go so far as to say that&#039;s the case for the bulk of commercial fiction. 

I wouldn&#039;t like to second-guess the tastes of all readers (SF, Crime etc), but I think a good chunk of them like familiarity when they approach a book or series. They like to immerse themselves in a setting or a character, and if they like it, they want more of it.

Tolkien is also responsible, I&#039;d say, for a lot of this in fantasy - and not necessarily in a bad way. It sold millions of copies and had such an impact, so many readers kept on wanting that similar, secondary world, deep experience with a vast story. And it&#039;s like a drug that people are looking for a similar hit. That explains the success of writers such as Brooks, Eddings, Jordan, Feist. Which is not to say those individual novels can&#039;t be experimental or serious.

But you know, I don&#039;t always buy that the SFF readership (the large majority) don&#039;t like to be challenged. Authors such as China Miéville are a success, and that implies there are a lot of readers who like something very weird and different. 

It&#039;s also up to editors to make sure more of these authors come through - but then they have sales teams to answer to. If Simon is still around in the comments, I&#039;m sure he&#039;d explain. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Nate, Thanks very much! Yes, I was a little restrained &#8211; you&#8217;ll probably see as much in the next book, which is rather different <img src='http://markcnewton.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>I think sometimes it&#8217;s worth looking at the small presses for the more literary genre novels. PS Publishing, for example, have a history of interesting, more experimental tomes &#8211; and they can afford to, because they don&#8217;t have the sales expectations/requirements of major publishers. But you&#8217;re right to an extent about the constraints &#8211; however, I&#8217;d go so far as to say that&#8217;s the case for the bulk of commercial fiction. </p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t like to second-guess the tastes of all readers (SF, Crime etc), but I think a good chunk of them like familiarity when they approach a book or series. They like to immerse themselves in a setting or a character, and if they like it, they want more of it.</p>
<p>Tolkien is also responsible, I&#8217;d say, for a lot of this in fantasy &#8211; and not necessarily in a bad way. It sold millions of copies and had such an impact, so many readers kept on wanting that similar, secondary world, deep experience with a vast story. And it&#8217;s like a drug that people are looking for a similar hit. That explains the success of writers such as Brooks, Eddings, Jordan, Feist. Which is not to say those individual novels can&#8217;t be experimental or serious.</p>
<p>But you know, I don&#8217;t always buy that the SFF readership (the large majority) don&#8217;t like to be challenged. Authors such as China Miéville are a success, and that implies there are a lot of readers who like something very weird and different. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s also up to editors to make sure more of these authors come through &#8211; but then they have sales teams to answer to. If Simon is still around in the comments, I&#8217;m sure he&#8217;d explain. <img src='http://markcnewton.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nate</title>
		<link>http://markcnewton.com/2010/01/10/that-old-new-weird/comment-page-1/#comment-2294</link>
		<dc:creator>Nate</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 03:51:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.markcnewton.com/?p=1820#comment-2294</guid>
		<description>Mark,

Just finished Nights and really enjoyed it.  Thank you for pushing the boundaries of both the conventions of the genre as well as its style.  I got the odd feeling that you were somewhat restrained and am hoping that since you&#039;ve popped the publishing cherry, so to speak, you&#039;ll be less so in the future.  

I suppose I&#039;m in the minority (or else the fantasy landscape would be much different), but I have a hard time finding genre novels fresh enough to satisfy me.  

It&#039;s odd that plenty of fantasy is marketed as mainstream literary so long as it&#039;s tied to the *real* world.  Consider Mark Helprin, Michael Chabon, Susanna Clarke, just for example.  

Also, I wonder how many fantasy authors who have been been influenced by such &quot;greats&quot; as Saramago, Borges, Doris Lessing, Algernon Blackwood, Umberto Eco, Thomas Pynchon, H.P. Lovecraft, (and others who dabbled in fantasy or the weird) would or could publish a novel actually set in another world but not constrained by the aesthetic or plot structures of the genre.  

And how big of an audience would there be for such an endeavor?  I&#039;ve heard the SFF readership likened to children accustomed to one particular brand of baby food who can&#039;t be weaned off it.  Maybe this is a pitfall of escapist literature, in that the audience is only willing to be challenged to a certain point.  And yet the genre isn&#039;t &quot;serious&quot; enough for many mainstream readers.  Rambling a bit, but would be very interested in thoughts on this.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark,</p>
<p>Just finished Nights and really enjoyed it.  Thank you for pushing the boundaries of both the conventions of the genre as well as its style.  I got the odd feeling that you were somewhat restrained and am hoping that since you&#8217;ve popped the publishing cherry, so to speak, you&#8217;ll be less so in the future.  </p>
<p>I suppose I&#8217;m in the minority (or else the fantasy landscape would be much different), but I have a hard time finding genre novels fresh enough to satisfy me.  </p>
<p>It&#8217;s odd that plenty of fantasy is marketed as mainstream literary so long as it&#8217;s tied to the *real* world.  Consider Mark Helprin, Michael Chabon, Susanna Clarke, just for example.  </p>
<p>Also, I wonder how many fantasy authors who have been been influenced by such &#8220;greats&#8221; as Saramago, Borges, Doris Lessing, Algernon Blackwood, Umberto Eco, Thomas Pynchon, H.P. Lovecraft, (and others who dabbled in fantasy or the weird) would or could publish a novel actually set in another world but not constrained by the aesthetic or plot structures of the genre.  </p>
<p>And how big of an audience would there be for such an endeavor?  I&#8217;ve heard the SFF readership likened to children accustomed to one particular brand of baby food who can&#8217;t be weaned off it.  Maybe this is a pitfall of escapist literature, in that the audience is only willing to be challenged to a certain point.  And yet the genre isn&#8217;t &#8220;serious&#8221; enough for many mainstream readers.  Rambling a bit, but would be very interested in thoughts on this.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark C Newton</title>
		<link>http://markcnewton.com/2010/01/10/that-old-new-weird/comment-page-1/#comment-2292</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark C Newton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:57:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.markcnewton.com/?p=1820#comment-2292</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s to any future &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;autonomous zones&lt;/a&gt; within the genre.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s to any future <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania" rel="nofollow">autonomous zones</a> within the genre.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Served from: markcnewton.com @ 2012-05-24 20:53:23 -->
