/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3662143]

Why was this fella so popular? He prolly made a lotta money by writing mediocre kids books, how can I make a lotta money by writing mediocre kids books?

[Anonymous No.3662159]

by being jewish

[Anonymous No.3662222]

The books were highly formulaic. If you read them as an adult, you can easily see what made them popular.

First of all, there's a nuclear family. Usually a older sister/younger brother or younger sister/older brother who antagonize each other loosely. The parents try to correct them and make them get along, but only usually with ineffectual "stop it, now"s. This dynamic was used over and over to Stein's advantage, because any scary shit that happened in the first few chapters (necessary to keep the kiddos' attentions) was always thus:

End of chapter one: "...a gruesome hand came out of the bush and grabbed her shoulder."

Start of next chapter: "'Boo!' her little brother yelled, laughing and throwing the rubber glove at her shrieking face."

I perhaps wrote those examples a bit too well, but you get the gist. That brings up the next crucial element--that it cannot be well-written. Any time you want to add literary flourish or use a word like "flourish", you've got to dumb it way the fuck down. We're talking Hemingway without the iceberg.

Nothing is more repulsive to a lazy reader than a bunch of words they don't know. Keep it to a horrific minimum and they'll keep reading.

Now, onto the arch-baddie. The kiddos come into very loose and vague contact with the baddie throughout the first 60% of the book. The small glimpses they get are easily explained away (ignored as jejune imagination) by their parents and/or teachers. The kids are always on their own, without the aid of any adults, and this is a crucial element to the story. The minute the kids are in league with the adults, the minute you've ruined your story for a YA readership. They can only really identify with a story that has adult characters who are either smug, uncaring, unaware, inept, or bad. The worst of all is to have an adult who listens--that is career suicide.

[Anonymous No.3662245]

>>3662222
These small glimpses of the baddies accumulate (with the main characters doubting among themselves, as well as the adults being unworried about it) until all the events finally become undeniable, concerted proof that there is a baddie. Then, the baddie appears and the kids do final battle.

This final battle is only won by the kids because the baddie has some fatal flaw that was hinted at in the very beginning of the story. There's an off switch on the robot's back, or the monster is allergic to the girl's perfume. Whatever it is, it's always there.

With said flaw, the kids design to ruin the baddie and do so usually without the parents knowing at all, then everything returns back to uninterrupted normalcy. The last few pages, some serious error related to (supposed) vanquished baddie pops up, usually unbeknown to the kids.

[Anonymous No.3662267]

>>3662245
ARE YOU RL STEIN???

[Anonymous No.3662276]

>>3662222
>>3662245
Thanks for the long reply. Huh, I guess what it comes down to is you have to pander...

You seem like you know your shit, can you think of good children's series that doesn't resort to that? How about Wayside School and Unfortunate Events? Though come to think of it I think Unfortunate Events was pretty formulaic for a while.

[Anonymous No.3662279]

>>3662267
No, but I did used to write episodes of Eureeka's Castle with him.

[Anonymous No.3662298]

>>3662279
notsureifserious.bmp

[Anonymous No.3662308]

>>3662276
Unfortunate Events was formulaic from the get-go. There is nothing more overused in YA fiction than the orphan kids who have to go live with the wicked relatives. Cinderella and Snow White and older than that, you know.

I forgot to mention in my Goosebump scenarios that there's usually a new house, new neighborhood, new neighbor, or new item that is the inciting event. This "newness" is an easy trope to utilize because of you think the neighbors for 6 years are monsters, too many questions arise about why they weren't suspect before. Naturally, the new neighbors you automatically think are goons are ideal, or that new clock or dummy your dad bought has crazy magic powers.

[Anonymous No.3662319]

>>3662276
i dunno Harry Potter was full of caring and understanding adults and she was way more successful than RL Stine, for both children and adults.

[Anonymous No.3662328]

The art for the covers, Tim Jacobus owns my nightmares. He really challenged my horror imagination if that makes sense. Sort of like when you used to walk down the aisle of horror movies in rental stores.

[Anonymous No.3662332]

>>3662319
I'm talking specifically about Goosebumps, but since you mention it allow me to draw to your attention that the major battles had the kids on their own. The general idea is not to have an adult step in and take charge, because an adult stepping in and taking charge is too much like real life and it repulses the kiddos.

With Goosebumps, it was a denial of sympathetic, listening adults. With HP the idea was more that the adults were there for guidance but they had an inherent sense that the kids needed to do it themselves (even at the peril of death--creepily enough).

[Anonymous No.3663864]

Here's how to do it, OP.

>rip off Hunger Games, BUT in 30+ books

>rip off Animorphs book covers

You are guaranteed money because the actual content won't matter.

[MH No.3663916]

>>3662328
>>3662328
Agreed, kids WILL judge a book by it's cover, so they made the art scary as shit to make it seem that the book is that way