For our prompt this week, I
want you to think about fake memoirs, author mills, and celebrity inspired book
clubs. Basically write a readers' response to one of the articles you are
reading for this week - or talk about a time when a book or author that made
headlines affected you personally or your work.
My
experience with James Patterson is limited. I have not read Patterson, but I
did enjoy the movie Kiss the Girls. At the library I volunteer at, my primary
responsibility is to do the final steps in withdrawing books from the
catalogue, imprint them with the solemn “Withdrawn” stamp and mark “WD” where
the call letters are before boxing the books for the Friends of the Library
book sale. My library purchases a lot of
best sellers. And, once people are done
with the best sellers, they don’t check them out anymore so they go to the
sale. I withdraw a lot of Patterson
books. They don’t appear to have enduring value. It’s entertainment for the moment, not for a
lifetime.
The
range of criticism that Publishers Weekly reported about Patterson intrigued
me. I don’t think it all boils down to
“jealousy” as Jennifer Rudolf Walsh speculates on page 55. I suspect that some critics may truly be
frustrated with Patterson’s desire to write for the masses. He does not write for the sake of
writing. He does not write because it
makes him or humanity better. He does
not write to inform. He writes to
entertain. His writes with the specific
desire to entertain the masses. So, he
writes with characters, subjects, and in a manner that people connect
with. He is producing a product that
people like and people are buying.
Is
it kitsch? Is it kitsch in written form?
Many
in the art world don’t care one wit for Thomas Kincaid’s paintings. But Kincaid has made a ton of money because
he produces what people want. I don’t
think Sam Butcher enjoyed critical acclaim with his Precious Moments figurines,
but because he produced what people connected with, he made a ton of
money. I am aware of “serious” artists
who consider Kincaid and Butcher’s art to be kitsch.
It
may also be true that the critics of Patterson are also frustrated with those
who buy his books. Why don’t his readers
demand more? Why do they settle for
streamlined stories that have two page chapters, concise sentences devoid of
style, and that lack character and setting development? What does this say
about the readers? And why are there so
many of them who clearly don’t need good writing? Is education being wasted on
the masses?
I am
not surprised that Patterson utilizes co-authors. Zaleski notes on page 48 that
contemporary authors Clive Cussler and Tom Clancy join a long list of others
who have used co-authors. And, of
course, Patterson’s co-authors are not going to jeopardize their livelihood by
detailing how much of the book they actually write. But, why, I wonder, is anyone surprised by
the fact that Patterson utilizes co-authors?
He is writing for entertainment.
The entertainment industry has used writing teams for years. More ideas come out of the synergy of the
group. Teams of writers usually write
scripts for TV shows and movies. And,
because people who produce these entertainment venues want their projects to be
successful, there is always an eye toward what the market wants. The challenge is to produce a story that
people will enjoy, tell their friends about, and most importantly, buy it for
themselves and for others.
Patterson
understands the book industry as a business.
He is doing his part in making sure that his investment in time and energy
is paying off. He controls the
presentation of the product (book cover, position of books in the book store,
marketing on TV, Internet, Newspaper, etc.).
He knows how to interact with the crowds in a way that pleases them. He writes what people will buy and read. He is bringing enormous amounts of money to
the publishers and those who work with and for him.
He
is, in a word, successful. He is
successful is creating the brand that people recognize. He is successful in expanding the brand. And, quite frankly, he is successful in
creating foot and digital (eBooks) foot traffic into the library. His success means that his books will have a
reader. A reader means the library is
fulfilling its mission. Libraries that
fulfill their mission stay open and keep employees employed. Everyone is happy.
Except,
of course, the critics. The critics are
not happy. Is it jealousy of the
success? Perhaps. But, are critics ever
really happy? I don’t know. What I am
happy about is that he is producing books that people read. When they stop reading his books I will withdraw
them to make room for the next big thing.
