Imprisoned by your fans
Tuesday, December 28, 2010 at 5:00AM in Tess Gerritsen by Tess Gerritsen
The amazingly multi-talented Steve Martin (actor/writer/comedian/musician) doesn't need me to leap to his defense. But that's what I felt like doing, claws bared, when I read this article in the New York Times a few weeks ago:
In the history of intellectual chatter, the events of Nov. 29, 2010, at the 92nd Street Y will be archived under disaster. Or comedy.
That night, a conversation betweenSteve Martin, the writer and actor, and Deborah Solomon, who writes a weekly interview column for The New York Times Magazine, resulted in the Y’s sending out a next-day apology, along with a promise of a refund.
Mr. Martin, in Miami for a book event, said in an e-mail on Wednesday that Ms. Solomon “is an outstanding interviewer,” adding that “we have appeared together before in Washington, D.C., in a similar circumstance to great success.”
But Sol Adler, the Y’s executive director, saw it differently. “We acknowledge that last night’s event with Steve Martin did not meet the standard of excellence that you have come to expect from 92nd St. Y,” he wrote in an e-mail to ticket holders. “We planned for a more comprehensive discussion and we, too, were disappointed with the evening. We will be mailing you a $50 certificate for each ticket you purchased to last night’s event. The gift certificate can be used toward future 92Y events, pending availability.”
What was Steve's big mistake that night? What terrible misbehavior did he engage in to so enrage his fans? Simply this: he had the audacity to be himself and talk about his latest book -- which is about art. The audience came expecting to hear the wild and crazy guy they knew from his film and TV career. They wanted to hear tales of glitz and glamor and movie stars. They wanted their trained monkey. They didn't want the Steve Martin who talks about art, which is what he is clearly passionate about, and what his book is about.
When he didn't deliver exactly what they expected, this audience was so disappointed, so incensed, that they pitched a tantrum worthy of spoiled brats and demanded their money back.
Now, if this were an audience who paid big bucks to hear Lady Gaga sing in concert, and instead had to watch her read the Manhattan phone book in a monotone, I could understand their disappointment. When you pay for music, you expect music. When you pay for dinner, you expect food.
This audience came to hear an interview with Steve Martin, and they got an interview. But the man is known to have many facets; he is not just a wild and crazy guy, but an author who wanted to talk about his latest book. A book about a serious topic. Over the years, through his comedic movies, Steve Martin has been branded as a funny guy. But that branding has locked him into such a tight cage that if he dares step one foot out of that cage, the public cracks their bullwhip to drive the prisoner back to where he belongs. In the cage for wild and crazy movie stars.
This, fellow authors, is the downside of branding. Every time you write a book that reinforces your brand, you have welded in another bar of your cage. Once that cage is locked and sealed, you're going to have a hard time getting out of the thing again.
Only a few authors have been able to do it successfully. John Grisham has managed the feat, occasionally releasing a sentimental novel between his usual legal thrillers. Stephen King has escaped branding, too, partly because he has regularly produced non-horror, literary fiction throughout his career.
For most of us, though -- writers who aren't as prolific as King, or who don't wield the clout of Grisham -- a large part of our success is tied up in branding ourselves. We start off wanting readers to think of us as the crime thriller or romance go-to gal. It's only later, when we get a hankering to try something else, or when our chosen genre starts to lose its audience, that we realize that being branded isn't always such a good thing.
My own brand has skittered around through my career. First I wrote romantic thrillers, then medical thrillers, then science thrillers, then crime thrillers. With an historical thriller thrown in. The one part of the brand that's stayed constant is the "thriller" part, and that's allowed me a bit of leeway. Readers will forgive you for moving between sub-genres. But try making a really big leap -- say, from serial killer novel to sweet sentimental novel -- and your audience is going to howl. The way they howled at Steve Martin.
If you truly want to slip out of that cage, you may have to do it in disguise with a pseudonym. Which means starting over again as a newbie writer trying to find your first audience. Or you'll have to find an understanding publisher. Or you'll have to publish it yourself as an E-book, an option that more and more authors seem to be leaning toward.
Good luck to you. May you escape the wrath of fans who'll never forgive you for craving a little variety in your art.
Reader Comments (39)
Somebody complained so everyone got a gift certificate? What have we come to? This culture allows one person to complain about Christmas and suddenly a town can't have a nativity scene.
And no, I don't think the fans are to blame for an author's "cage". The finger is pointed directly and correctly at the publishers.
it actually was more than a few members of the audience. One of the Y spokespeople said:
“We heard from our audience members, who were vocal about their admiration for Steve Martin and their displeasure with the program, at the event, and afterward by e-mail and by phone,”
Did you know Steve Martin recently wrote a children's book? I bought a copy for my grandson at the same author event where I met JT this fall. Martin himself was not at the event (wouldn't that have been fun!), but the illustrator lives in Cincinnati, and he was there signing books. (I'm collecting signed children's books for my grandson, who is nearly six, and is reading at a high school level already. I think he has a shot at appreciating them.)
But I digress. The point is that Mr. Martin is a widely talented person. He can play the banjo well enough to hold his own with almost any musician today, he's a prolific writer, and he's an excellent dancer. Why limit the poor guy to only one of his many gifts?
We as a society--although not we as a group of intelligent, reading enthusiasts--tend to categorize and pigeonhole people. I guess it's not just today, but has been happening for centuries. It's too bad. We overlook some wonderful aspects of our fellow humans when we slide over the parts of them that make each of us unique.
http://www.amazon.com/Late-School-Steve-Martin/dp/0446557021
My question is about the Y, and the way they publicized the event - I wonder if they could have been more clear about what the audience should expect. Or perhaps the Y's event people weren't given enough information.
At any rate, if you're a successful enough artist that you have a 'brand', and you decide to do something different, some of your fans will be bummed, and some of them will behave badly about it. But ill-mannered fans kinda go with the territory, unfortunately, and their behavior can be just as unseemly when they're thrilled about what you've done. The good news is that they're a relatively small (albeit noisy) subset of the audience. The rest of us are just interested to see what our favorite artists will come up with next and enjoy following their creative journey, even if we're not completely delighted with every stop along the way.
the NYT article may not present the full picture, as you pointed out. It has to be embarrassing for Steve Martin, though, to be the one dragged into the press as the boring guy who made the audience demand a refund.
From what I read about the Y event, the audience was lead to expect not Steve Martin the wild and crazy guy, but Steve Martin the author, whose latest book was indeed about art. What incensed so many people was that the interview concentrated on the SUBJECT of the book, rather than the hows and whys of Martin's writing of it. In other words, it was a discussion of art history, rather than a discussion of one author's process, research, perspective, etc.
A minor distinction, perhaps, but one that made all the difference, apparently.
As for the plight of branded authors not being allowed to work outside of the corner they've painted themselves into, well, as the expression goes, "That's the price of the ticket." If you're lucky enough to HAVE a brand, it means you've already escaped the worst ghetto of all: anonymity. If nobody knows you, nobody's buying you, so you're free to write whatever you damn well please. But try feeding your family on the advances you get.
Those six-figure book contracts branded authors get to write the same thing, over and over again, may indeed be a bargain with the devil, but they're also the answer to a lot of people's prayers.
One man's prison is another man's paradise.
you're absolutely right that authors who have any fan base at all are lucky ducks. But as one who's bounced around among genres,I'm astonished by how much vitriol I find in emails from thriller readers who discover I used to write romance novels. They write to tell me how disgusted they are with my past, as if I have personally insulted them by having that in my resume. It's one of the odd things about certain fans -- they can be possessive to the point of being unable to accept us as complex human beings with breadth as well as weaknesses. Nothing enrages such fans more than when we fail to conform to their expectations.
When Stephen King wrote "Misery", he knew exactly what he was writing about.
And boy do I respect Steve Martin. He's one of my favorite artists. What a brilliant career. And his banjo work is terrific.
Personally if I'd seen someone's name and thought "wow, a chance to hear them speak? fab!" and then it hadn't been what I'd expected - perhaps a band performing an unheard forthcoming album instead of their greatest hits, or someone talking about a new project that I hadn't been aware of, maybe Stephen Fry talking about his youthful time in prison rather than his recent time on TV- I'd have been privileged to be there and to learn something new!
But that would be the case if I had mistakenly expected something different. In this case it sounds like the event was "not as billed" - the promoter expressed dissatisfaction too. Maybe in that case the promoter misunderstood what they were getting, and so advertised something different? That WOULD be the promoter's fault, and perhaps an apology and a credit would be appropriate (although it may also be mollycoddling the purchaser). However, it's still not Steve Martin's fault, but that of the people who promoted the event and sold the tickets...
As for fans who aren't happy when an author/personality goes in a different direction, I would simply ask them what their favorite food is... and then to imagine that that is the only thing they could ever eat, from now on. No changes, no variety, nothing else. Most people see that analogy and instantly realize that no, they wouldn't want to be stuck with just one choice for the rest of their lives any more than an author wants to be stuck telling just one story, or even just one type of story.
I honestly think most fans mean well when they're writing with such enthusiasm or criticism--they think they're helping, or encouraging, and maybe they just don't realize how they come across. As for the truly vitriolic? Well, some people are just having a bad day and need to kick someone else's cat. It's human nature.
I needed to write those books. I was getting burned out. The paranormals may not have done as well as my romantic suspense, but because I took a break from my "branded" genre, my RS are better all around--I regained my love for writing. But the one thing that truly irks me is when people assume I'm just jumping on a popular bandwagon. I have been writing paranormal stories since I was a teenager. I have loved Stephen King since I was 13. I love dark, scary, borderline horror stories. I had the idea for the Seven Deadly Sins series long before I sold my first romantic suspense.
Fortunately, I did discover fans who will read anything I write, and I love them for it :)
Fuck that audience and their expectations.
As to branding . . . it works for many people. And good on them!
I've made the current choice to write what I want rather than keep writing what might be expected. Perhaps that's shooting myself in the foot professionally, but it's a matter of personal choice and preference. If I do get published traditionally again, I might use a pseudonym -- I don't know -- but that's moot. I'm enjoying myself right now; I'm exploring and writing things I've never considered writing before. If my only readers are the few like Lil who like to watch a writer explore, that's fine.
But I know it's not a recipe for international success.
I recall, though, starting one book Tony Hillerman wrote that I just couldn't finish, not because it wasn't well done-- it was. I just could not read a story set in Vietnam, too many really bad memories. It had nothing to do with its not being set in the southwest or on Diné or Hopi.
This has been a very revealing discussion of fandom. I hope writers write what they like. I hope you will continue to write what you like.
I also agree with Gar. I'd consider myself very lucky indeed to have fans who recognize (and buy) my brand. That's a great problem to have.
Hope you had a lovely Christmas.
Laura
I feel bad for JK Rowling because there are full-grown adults who are going to pitch a tantrum the minute she writes anything outside of Hogwartz. "NO! I WANT MORE HARRY POTTER!" Look, kiddies, Harry and Hermoine and Draco and the like are adults now, with screaming brats of their own, and since Harry and Draco work for the Ministry, do you really want a 700-page book where Draco is dodging staff meetings by hiding among muggles in the nearest pub sucking down Bass and Dewars while Harry spends 200 pages filling out a 1099B form so he can get time off for the Quittich World Cup and listening to sobbing phone calls from Dudley that his wife has left him for the guy that laid their concrete? Because that's the story that's left.
Or would you rather Jo come up with something new and exciting?
It's like when a singer or a band goes off the beaten path. Do you really think Ian Gillan LIKES singing "Smoke on the Water" night after night with Deep Purple after almost 40 years? Do you really think DeNiro's standing on the set of a Fockers movie going, "Boy, I wish I could be playing a Cosa Nostra thug again!" And just how many scripts do you think Samuel L. Jackson's probably tossed because a hopeful director inserted the word "motherf****r" in every other line for him? ("Um, Mr. Spielberg? I really don't think Bishop Tuta says 'motherf*****r' every other word. I could be wrong, but I don't see the audience buying it if I am.")
Yes, it's human nature to pigeonhole people, but you know what happens when the artist accepts it and plays along? They get stale, boring, and eventually forgotten.
So bravo, Mr. Martin. Bravo.
I love Steve Martin, and all his varied talents. I like the cage analogy, Tess. We can definitely put ourselves in one that gets increasingly more difficult to break out of. But I enjoy writing suspense novels, and my passion is to write a better book each time at bat. Only the reader can tell me if I accomplished that with Chill Waters. Some nice reviews.
You are right about Stephen King writing literary books as well as horror novels, but many people think that all he writes is horror. Which is very sad. Like yourself, he is a wonderful writer no matter what he writes. He's the Poe of his time.
Well, Ms. Rowling, if you're reading this, we've called you out. Now get cracking. I wanna see Draco drown his sorrows in Scotch and have an affair with the Starbucks girl while Hermoine starts playing The Stones "Mother's Little Helper" over and over and over...
God, and I thought Deathly Hallows was dark!
The Y owes him and his interviewer a profound apology.
What you say is of course true, Gayle, but fans are not all created equal. Of course, mine are wonderful. -:) And I mean that. Tess' too.
Happy New Year! Wishing us all a creative and happy year in 2011~