This illustrates perfectly what I've said about there being no absolute templates for a book that will sell to a publisher. We can discuss certain things to do and not do do, which will give your book the best possible chance, but everyone working as an editor reacts to a book personally as well as professionally, and those reactions have to be perfectly in sync for the editor even to consider talking to their colleagues about a project from a new writer.
Exactly.
But I don't think that Teresa was talking only from a subjective point of view, besides her "I hated that book".
JONATHAN STRANGE & MR. NORRELL and
THE GLASS BOOKS OF DREAM EATERS, in my opinion, won't appeal to the same category of readers.
Subjectivity apart, if we analyse the second, we find that it is
not a pastiche of Victorian novels.
In
THE GLASS BOOKS, the Victorian setting is a series of theatre curtains, a background to a "locale adventure" set in an alternate London, while
JONATHAN STRANGE is
permeated with the culture of the time. One would think that Susanna Clarke has bathed in Austen's and other authors' work and atmosphere for years, but we could take
The GLASS's characters and place them in another period-- with a few changes--and the story would work perfectly. Moreover, G W Dahlquist does nothing to write in Victorian style, or, if he does, he hasn't researched enough.
Readers who loved Clarke's style will probably find themselves annoyed at Dahlquist's (like Teresa), and vice-versa. I am not saying that it is a bad style; just that it is very different.
And
JONATHAN STRANGE is a…strange novel with more than a tinge of eeriness and horror, enhanced by the distance the narrator displays, while in
THE GLASS horror is more linked to the evil human behaviour of powerfully represented villains, but, well, just villains.
Talking of structure,
JONATHAN starts slowly (I almost gave up reading it), but captures the reader in an insidious way, while
THE GLASS begins with a quick pace, as adventure novels do. Well, I can't comment about the ending of
THE GLASS because I am not there yet.
These are the reasons why I don't think that these two books have the same market.
Going back to subjectivity, one could deduce from the above that I don't like G W Dahlquist's novel, but that is not true. I have nothing against a good adventure story, and
THE GLASS BOOKS OF DREAM EATERS is a very good adventure story. I am enjoying it.
Is there a contradiction here? I am one very eclectic reader (like many Chrons); but I am
not the market (we are
not the market).
And this also means that I could be wrong in my "rational" analysis of the market…