If you have a look at the newly
introduced young adult section of the New York Times best-seller list (the
children’s series section remains mixed with both YA and MG), you probably won’t
see anything that really surprises you. In the top spot is “The Perks of Being
a Wallflower”, predominantly due to the recent movie adaptation. Following closely
behind is John Green at numbers two and five, which is once again expected
given his name, Printz Award and huge fan-base. Both books in Veronica Roth’s “Divergent”
series appear back to back, continuing their best-selling streak. No doubt they
shall appear in the series list once the final book is released. Ransom Riggs, Marcus
Zusak, Ellen Hopkins, James Patterson, and Olympian Gabby Douglas make up the rest
of the top 10. There’s absolutely nothing on this list that makes you think “Oh,
what a surprise”, although there are a few here that make me go “Ugh, really”
instead.
It’s a little tougher these days to
make a big impression in YA. Not only is the market still over-saturated with
fad followers and ever-expanding series that suggest the continued flogging of
many a dead horse, the arrival of New Adult and the increasing legitimacy of
self-publishing brings with it more problems. How do you create big enough buzz
for a book to truly make an impact?
In the case of Veronica Roth’s series,
the stars just happened to be aligned perfectly. The book is pretty awful, in
my opinion, but my opinion definitely seems to be in the minority (you can read my review here). However, consider the circumstances. “Divergent” was released
post-“Mockingjay”. The hype of “The Hunger Games” was full throttle, and
expected to increase with the upcoming movie. Of course, the publishing
industry, as expected, is eager to replicate this success for themselves and
look for similar books that can easily be marketed with buzz phrases such as “The
Next Hunger Games” or “If you liked The Hunger Games, you’ll love this!” One of
the most identifiable markers of “The Hunger Games” is the various Districts
that make up Katniss’s world, Panem. Similarly, Roth’s Chicago divides its
citizens up based on five human traits (this made absolutely no sense to me, or
the world-building, but in all honesty, such things seldom matter in the grand
scheme of things). Not only does this give Roth’s publisher an instant
connection of sorts to a huge best-selling series, it also allows for a new
advertising opportunity, one that directly appeals to readers. “Divergent” came
with a very interesting online campaign involving Facebook quizzes that allowed
you to discover your faction. It was a great concept, and there is something
inherently appealing to readers about finding out which group you belong to. The
Harry Potter series has something similar with the Hogwarts houses. All in all,
it was a perfect storm of how to do publishing right, and in July 2012, sales
of the two books surpassed one million copies. Of course, the film is in the works too.
“Divergent” may have played out pretty
perfectly for its publishers, but this formula isn’t a guaranteed best-seller
maker. There are too many dystopian YA novels to count that were released
post-Hunger Games that barely made a splash, even by mid-list standards. The
same thing happened in the wake of “Twilight”, something I covered extensively,
and which was somewhat more successful than the dystopian equivalent. In the
end, it all comes back to the same point, something I have argued for a while. True
hype is organic, not artificially created by those shilling the product. Now,
we are seeing this practice in play, but in a stranger way. I’ve talked about
self-publishing and its connection to the traditional mould before, but I remain
completely baffled as to why groups like Simon & Schuster continue to throw
staggering amounts of money at self-published work in the hope of replicating
its success. We saw it start out with the original million seller, Amanda
Hocking, who sold two YA series, one previously published and one new, for a
couple of million dollars. While her Trylle series did appear of the
best-seller list, overall her numbers have been pretty low. It’s not hard to
see why. People will take a risk on a 99 cent e-book. They’re far less willing
to do so with a $16 hardback. Other big hype gone wrong examples include Tahereh Mafi's "Shatter Me", Josephine Angelini's "Starcrossed" series (pushed as Percy Jackson for girls) and Jessica Khoury's "Origin" (250k first printing. Did you buy it or hear anything about it? I didn't.)
The obvious exception is E.L. James,
but that was already selling well before Vintage/Arrow bought it. The buzz was
already there, but it’s looking increasingly unlikely that lightning won’t
strike twice. Other P2P purchased works, such as “Gabriel’s Inferno”, haven’t
exactly lit up the best-seller charts, and are certainly selling less than when
they were independent of the system. The cost has a lot to do with this. The
hype stops dead if people have to pay 4 or 5 times the original price.
The advertising of these books has
also been unexpectedly honest. It’s still a little hard to believe that
publishing fan-fiction is the new normal here, but even “50 Shades of Grey”
were a little bashful about the work previously known as “Master of the
Universe”. Now, upcoming release “Beautiful Bastard” is being pushed based on
its success as a “Twilight” fan-fiction, previously known as “The Office” (and
the book is far better if you imagine Michael Scott as the panties tearing sex
god). “Over two million views”, the blurb and NetGalley advertising proudly
declares, with the obvious message being “Lots of people liked this, so you
will too!”
Ultimately, all this comes down to an
issue of trust. The relationship between the author and their reader is the
main one, but it’s also about the relationship between the reader and the
publisher, because they’re the ones in charge of how the message is presented. With
self-publishing, that control is predominantly in the hands of the author. If a
book is described as a “must-read” or “the book everyone’s talking about”, then
it will undoubtedly grab the attention of some readers. Sometimes hype is hard
to ignore. I know this as well as any reader and blogger!
Sometimes, an author quote on the
cover will pique one’s interest, although I have becoming increasingly weary of
these, due do the relationships between authors who are friends with each
other, and those who share a publisher. The same applies to the words of other
bloggers. I have those who I trust and who are familiar with my interests and
biases. I tend to wildly avoid bloggers who are lacking in substantial
criticism and primarily offer loud praise. If you have biases or close
relationships with authors who you are reviewing, I want to know that up front,
and this also applies to authors praising the work of their friends.
Just because something is shoved in
our face and lauded as amazing, that doesn’t mean we’ll automatically take the
bait. Au contraire, many will avoid the book as a result. Overall, I think we
all play a role in the creation of hype. True hype is formed by the readers,
through word-of-mouth and recommendations. It’s one of the reasons so many
self-publishing books are doing so well (along with the cheap cost and prolific
nature of many of these authors). However, as many self-published authors
continue to flock to the traditional model, tempted by big advances and the
promise of bookshop presence (who could resist that?), the necessity of hype
continues. It may be even more needed as publishers put down 7 figure sums for
these works. Inevitably, this model will fail. It’s just too big and too costly
to sustain unless every book sells as well as “Twilight” or “The Hunger Games”.
Even with the success of “50 Shades of Grey”, the sale of books continues to
fall. In the end, readers will make or break a book, not hype.
So what is hype for? Does it in any
way serve the consumer of the product being marketed to them? What convinces
you to put down your hard earned cash to buy a book? Are there any figures that
you trust when it comes to hype?
