A friend of mine drew my attention to this article from the New York Times about a new “project” from author James Patterson:
He wants to sell books to people who have abandoned reading for television, video games, movies and social media.
So how do you sell books to somebody who doesn’t normally read?
Mr. Patterson’s plan: make them shorter, cheaper, more plot-driven and more widely available.
It’s an interesting idea, for sure. Of course, it sounds like a similar idea from the twentieth century: mass-market paperbacks, which were smaller, cheaper, intended to fit in a pocket, and considered disposable. Indeed, the Times notes this plan is “a throwback to the dime novels and pulp fiction magazines that were popular in the late 19th and early 20th century, when commercial fiction was widely available in drugstores.”
I hope it succeeds, for many reasons. Reading, in my opinion, is a very good thing. Reading fiction is a very good thing in particular. And when I read this—
According to a Pew Research Center survey released last fall, 27 percent of American adults said they had not read a book in the past year
—I think nearly a third of all Americans must lead pretty boring lives. Mr. Patterson, I wish you well.
Tweet: Factoid: 27 percent of American adults said they had not read a book in the past year. Whoa.
Tweet: How do you sell books to somebody who doesn’t normally read? Maybe like this.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I have not received any compensation for writing this post. I have no material connection to the brands, products, or services that I have mentioned. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
It’s an interesting thought, and carries many possible benefits…and some potential hazards, if it catches on.
I’m not convinced that it’s a way to bring people into reading; I don’t think that the love of reading, of building images of setting and character in one’s head, can be directly ‘transferred’ from other, overwhelmingly visual media. There has to be at least a latent vitality of imagination.
My concern is that these books will appeal to established readers, since patterson’s an excellent writer, and that they’ll accelerate the trend that we’re seeing in both ABA and CBA fiction, to a quick introduction of conflict, very often at the expense of characterization. Seeing how characters respond to crisis is seen to be a vital early step, but you don’t really get to KNOW people, real or fictional, in this setting. The knowing takes time.
A parallel can perhaps be drawn from the first two ‘sets’ of Star Wars films. We’re given the chance to get to know Luke Skywalker at his home on Tatooine before he really does anything, and it’s vital to the first three films; the whole morality play hinges on his character.
Moving forward a decade and a half, styles have changed, and none of the characters from the second ‘trilogy are very memorable. They’re entertaining, fast-paced films, but a bit flat. I haven’t seen episode 7, so I can’t comment on it. But none of the second trilogy will, I think, be considered classics.
And there’s the rub. We watch movies, and even more so read to understand a basic question…”Who am I?” It’s not something that can be addressed through faster pacing and tighter plot, and these may indeed be a hindrance.
(Another example, on a reverse timeline, is seen in “The 3:10 To Yuma”. The fifties original was a stock western, and the outlaw Ben Wade was never really fleshed out, though Glenn Ford’s performance was appealing. Contrast this with the 2007 remake; we meet Russell Crowe’s Ben Wade in a quiet moment, as he’s sketching a bird sitting in a tree. The scene isn’t hurried, and we realize early that there is some complexity behind the man who’s chosen a life of crime.)
I tend to agree with you abut the efficacy of this marketing plan. 🙂