So what are you really looking for in the books you buy?

[Anne Lyle]

Is that a turn-off for people who just want to cozy up with something familiar, like a good old-fashioned swords and sorcery romp, or is there a driving hunger out there for stuff outside the norm?

Yes and yes - I think there are audiences for both, thank goodness. My book is getting a lot of positive buzz, and there isn't an elf or dragon in sight. The nearest I come to traditional fantasy tropes is that iron disrupts magic - hardly original, but it gives my Elizabethans a reason to believe that the non-humans are some variety of faery folk.

They are of course very, very wrong

 

[thaddeus6th]

Awwww. My second book has a dragon.

I don't mind elves/orcs etc but for the differing races I've gone for slightly different human subspecies (some being almost identical but some being a bit freaky).

Anyway, to answer the question: it varies. Sometimes I want a rollicking yarn (Tales of the Ketty Jay, Space Captain Smith etc) other times I want a grim and dark tale of blood and woe (Abercrombie, Martin) and I quite like trying out new authors.

 

[Toby Frost]

Space Captain Smith etc

Yay!

I quite like dragons and what not, but they've got to be done well. I particularly liked Sapkowski's treatment of elves in The Last Wish. The danger is either that they all end up the same, or that writers get a bit obsessed and go into extreme detail. I always wondered how there could be so many different families, breeds and clans of vampire when there were only a certain number of people for them to live off.

 

[Wybren]

First thing in a book store that grabs me is the cover, but I won't buy it unless I have read the first few pages and it grabs me. The only time I did't do this, I looked at a book, read the blurb, saw it was published with the help of a guy that is helping a friend of mine get published and thought " oh well it has to be good then" and I was sadly disappointed. If it I am not in a store, and shopping on line then it is only for books that have been highly recommended by several people who I trust in there book reading tastes or an author I have read previously or a book I have borrowed previously from somewhere and decided I had to have it in my library.

 

[Christopher Lee]

I typically know what I'm going into the bookstore for ahead of time, although there are always exceptions. Covers sometimes grab me, just because they can paint a very vivid image in my already wild, imaginative mind. Generally I just enjoy a good story with real characters to spend time with.

 

[Warren_Paul]

Just like most other people, I am drawn to the cover at first, I'm sure when I get my first book published I will be very fussy with the cover art (If the publisher lets me).

So yeah, I grab the most attractive covers first then refer to the blurb on the back to see if my eyes are just trying to trick me or if the book really does seem interesting.


What I am looking for in books is a different question though, I think first and foremost I am a romantic at heart so naturally lean towards books that have believable relationships in them. I don't mind a tragedy, hell, I've written one, but I love to see the guy get the girl, or vise versa. Granted I also want to see those relationship stories in epic fantasy settings with big battles and magic. Urban fantasy is as close as I get to reading books based in the real world.


As for readers vs publishers, I'm not entirely convinced that the publisher knows what the reader wants or if it is the possibility that they think "this is what a reader should like". There are many examples of books that were turned down by publishers only to become famous later. Granted half those examples I never liked either, so likely I share the same tastes as those publishers.

But then, I'm not a publisher and they have been publishing books as a business for years, so they must know what they are doing.

I imagine they have to think about what would sell, and that means comparing it to what is selling now and in the past. The reader is looking for the next big thing, while the editor would be looking for the secure investment based on proven track record.

 

[Anne Lyle]

I imagine they have to think about what would sell, and that means comparing it to what is selling now and in the past. The reader is looking for the next big thing, while the editor would be looking for the secure investment based on proven track record.

I'm not sure the reader is always looking for the next big thing - often they just want "same but different", which is why genres exist and why they tend to evolve slowly.

Editors are the ones looking for the next big thing, but at imprints owned by huge multinational corporations, their hands are often tied by commercial considerations. That's why the publishers that do well in awards tend to be the smaller, more independent ones like Pyr and Angry Robot, who can take risks with titles that might not impress the bean-counters

 

[Stephen Palmer]

The best editors are the ones who know they can never predict what the next big thing is going to be.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

What I look for in the books I buy are just a couple things: Good story, good characters. Not only believably human characters, but how they interact with one another. Not much more. The world can, but I'm not much of a scenery man.


And as to the second question? Editors are readers as well. I'm sure they're looking for the same kind of things as the consumers are, to a point. It's just that it's an editor's job to wield a fine-toothed comb when they first see a book, usually. At least, as far as their working hours go. Everyone has their own personal tastes, however, and in their own time an editor looking for a book to read wants to find something they feel they can enjoy, whether it's a fantasy/sci-fi novel, a romance novel, classic lit, magazines, comic books, whatever. Still, I'm sure a properly trained critical eye can really never be turned off fully. (I'm sure TE would be able to correct me on this.)

 

[David B]

I'm a sucker for a good cover. However, that's not what comes first. I gravitate to the genre bookshelve that suits my mood.

Next, it's only the spines on display.

To pull out the book to look at its cover it needs:

1. A great title

or

2. A familiar author.

If it's also got the artwork, I let the blurp convince me or turn me aside.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Ultimately, I'm looking for something that will make me *think* You know, where for days afterwards you imagine yourself in that world, facing those same issues, because there was something profound in the experience of it.

I actually get frustrated with the fantasy genre. Too much of it is focused on escapsim; wish fulfillment as protagonists; magic that solves basic problems with deus ex machina; evil hordes that demonstrate nothing more than the writer's inability to consider moral complexities; stories that have nothing really to say.

I'm perhaps a literary snob. I want to be challenged. I want a piece of writing to provide me with an insight I didn't have before.

Sure, I like some fun and light stuff. I have a big Pratchett collection because of that. But what makes Pratchett great is that he's always trying to make a point about something as well.

So why can't more fantasy writers do this? Why is it left to the Gaiman's, Mievilles, and George R R Martin's, to try and give us something of that? Why does it seem so beyond most others?

 

[sabolich]

Ultimately, I'm looking for something that will make me *think* You know, where for days afterwards you imagine yourself in that world, facing those same issues, because there was something profound in the experience of it.

Yes. There is nothing more satisfying than a read that sticks with you for days afterward. It's just very tough to tell going into a book whether that will be the case or not.

I actually get frustrated with the fantasy genre. Too much of it is focused on escapsim; wish fulfillment as protagonists; magic that solves basic problems with deus ex machina; evil hordes that demonstrate nothing more than the writer's inability to consider moral complexities; stories that have nothing really to say.

Agreed. I get sick of Evil Overlords and quests and grand battles just to flash the swords. People make the stories, which is why I like to read--and try to write--books that speak to ethical dilemmas or very strong themes of courage and duty and honor and sacrifice (ex-military here, so those appeal to me). I like exploring what happens when the hero is put to difficult choices, and things aren't easy, and the answers aren't clear. When a book can do that in a satisfactory way, I am far more likely to pick up another by the same author. When I can reread one of my own and get a visceral gut reaction, I know I did it right, which is very appealing to me as an author.

 

[Anne Lyle]

So why can't more fantasy writers do this? Why is it left to the Gaiman's, Mievilles, and George R R Martin's, to try and give us something of that? Why does it seem so beyond most others?

This isn't an issue confined to SFF - most genre fiction is pretty light on "meaning", which is why the literary types look down on it. I guess the issue is that few if any writers can churn out intense, meaningful books in the quantities required for commercial success - I'm not saying that prolific authors are bad, but they are unlike to be "great" in the literary sense.

This is something I'm torn about at the moment - I'd love a full-time writing career, but the last thing I want to do is let quality suffer in an effort to get more books out, because that would just turn away existing fans. (I'm speaking in a hypothetical sense, of course, since my book's not out yet - I'm going by the early reviews, and what they pinpoint as the strengths of my writing. Complex characters and in-depth historical world-building aren't things you can knock up overnight!)

 

[Tiffany]

For a new to me author, I read the books synopsis, then I decide if I'm going to enjoy it.
For an author I have read books by before, I'd simply buy the book & do.

 

[Lilmizflashythang]

I try the first page, if it hooks me, it hooks me. I really try anything.

 

[calyxte]

I simply look to be entertained, and if it makes me think too all the better.

 

[sabolich]

I try the first page, if it hooks me, it hooks me. I really try anything.

Ah, but do you finish it? I bought a book a couple of years ago that had a terrific opening prologue, but from chapter 1 on the writing was awful and the plot was Dullsville, with characters that never hooked me. I'll try anything that looks interesting, too, but I confess to a lot of page-flipping before I spend money these days.

 

[sabolich]

For a new to me author, I read the books synopsis, then I decide if I'm going to enjoy it.
For an author I have read books by before, I'd simply buy the book & do.

CJ Cherryh said something a con last year that really hit home, which is that you'd better be really great at writing cover blurbs if you want to make it as a self-published writer. My book, Firedancer, is published in the usual way, but I think the cover blurb is awful, not really conveying the depth of the book. I'd be delighted for feedback that confirms or overturns this gut feeling. Maybe if enough people agree I can get the publisher to change it.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Although I've yet to publish (still hunting artists) I did the book blurb a while ago. I think I've done a decent job, but maybe I'll read it back and think it rubbish.

I just scanned the blurb and it seems ok. It's not trouser-explodingly good or dire, but I agree that it doesn't convey a great deal of depth. More important, to me, than the blurb is the fact you've got some nice ratings. I often just skip blurbs altogether and read a positive and (if there is one) negative review.

 

[Geddon's Wall]

The thing I look for is a new author and a premise that works.