Our Bad Book Club is taking on Coleen Hoover -- How is she so successful

[Wifetheif]

My Bad Bookclub is tackling "Ugly Love" by Coleen Hoover. How is she so successful? There are dozens and dozen of writers who publish at this site who are more competent wordsmiths and plotters. Ugly Love is written in first person present. Even the parts set six years in the past! The sex scenes are way less erotic than th average story on l.com. We in the bookclub are puzzling over Hoover's success. According to some of her fans, it reads like fan fiction, quick and breezy. I find it infuriating! Hoover does not believe in descriptive prose. She has been quoted as saying that if she encounters more than a few lines of description when she is reading, she moves on and does not read the passage. The Hell? This novel is set in San Francisco -- not that it matters, we don't even get a street name. It could have been set in Pittsburgh, Boston, Manilla, or Shanghai just as easily. There is illogic that burns! The protag's love interest and brother are both pilots yet they DRIVE from San Francisco to San Diego for Thanksgiving, instead of hitching a ride in seats on their airline. The drive from SF to SD is BRUTAL and takes all day. Imagine how much worse it is on the biggest travel day of the year? The flight is about an hour. It's like Coleen Hoover decided to give her studs a "cool" career but then forgot about any realities of that job. One thing I will say. I am much more confident of my own writing ability. If Colleen Hoover can sell more books than the Bible, certainly most of us can crack the best seller lists as well.

 

[HeyAll]

Luck is an underappreciated part of life

She has a great author's name. It rings.

Some tv shows have bad cinematography but they're popular because people like the plots/characters. Some shows look great, but the plots don't connect with people. Same with her books.

 

[SimonDoom]

Yes, I think luck plays a role. Hundreds and hundreds of new books are published every year. Only a few for whatever reason catch people's attention. Once you DO catch people's attention, you're set, because you're a brand name. Look at the rack on the bookstore at the airport. It's all the same names, all the time. They figure out a formula and keep using it, and that provides people what they want from a book.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

If Colleen Hoover can sell more books than the Bible, certainly most of us can crack the best seller lists as well.

I'm pretty sure that everyone here knows that it doesn't work like that. It's the same in every type of literature, but also in every other type of art. Or you think that Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Beyonce, Justin Beiber, and so on, perform the best music?
Their music and lyrics are simplistic and shallow yet masses all around the world cheer their names and pay money to go to their concerts and listen to their music. Many even hang on every word they say.

Being successful has nothing to do with creating quality art - it's quite often the contrary. But it is a lot about appeasing the taste of your audience.

 

[Nynah]

Hoover's success is really a textbook case of virality. I believe she started out self-publishing her work, but once she was reviewed by an influential book blogger, she got picked up by a publisher and was able to cash in on her success. The advent of TikTok and the COVID pandemic also propelled her to new heights as BookTok took off when everyone was isolating and social media was one of the main ways people stayed connected and shared content. She also writes for a very specific demographic and there are a lot of people in that cohort who have disposable income. Her prose isn't complex and she writes about relatable topics, meaning she can connect with a lot of potential readers.

All in all, it's a pretty potent recipe for success that isn't easily replicated because not only is she willing to write for the lowest common denominator, she also got extraordinarily lucky. Her presence in the literary sphere is oversaturated and she has a lot of critics as well, but her supporters will continue to be vocal as long as she keeps them fed.

Personally, I do not like how she handles the topics of trauma and domestic abuse so I do not engage with her work. There's plenty of better stuff out there to read.

 

[Wifetheif]

Hoover's success is really a textbook case of virality. I believe she started out self-publishing her work, but once she was reviewed by an influential book blogger, she got picked up by a publisher and was able to cash in on her success. The advent of TikTok and the COVID pandemic also propelled her to new heights as BookTok took off when everyone was isolating and social media was one of the main ways people stayed connected and shared content. She also writes for a very specific demographic and there are a lot of people in that cohort who have disposable income. Her prose isn't complex and she writes about relatable topics, meaning she can connect with a lot of potential readers.

All in all, it's a pretty potent recipe for success that isn't easily replicated because not only is she willing to write for the lowest common denominator, she also got extraordinarily lucky. Her presence in the literary sphere is oversaturated and she has a lot of critics as well, but her supporters will continue to be vocal as long as she keeps them fed.

Personally, I do not like how she handles the topics of trauma and domestic abuse so I do not engage with her work. There's plenty of better stuff out there to read.

I agree, I think virality is a big part of her success. She struck the right nerves at the right time. Also like fifty Shades, she writes smut that resounds with sububan white women. In Ugly Love even though one of the protagonists is a man obsesses with a girl whom he has lots of sex with, the ONLY sex POVs in the book are from Tate, our main protagonist. Hoover doesn't even try for the male sexual intercourse view. Either she can't do it or it is a calculated choice. One thing it does do however is make both POV's seem eerily similar. whereas a distinctive male and female voice would have set them apart and been more intersting for the readers.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I'm pretty sure that everyone here knows that it doesn't work like that. It's the same in every type of literature, but also in every other type of art. Or you think that Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Beyonce, Justin Beiber, and so on, perform the best music?
Their music and lyrics are simplistic and shallow yet masses all around the world cheer their names and pay money to go to their concerts and listen to their music. Many even hang on every word they say.

Being successful has nothing to do with creating quality art - it's quite often the contrary. But it is a lot about appeasing the taste of your audience.

I say this all the time and people smear me with dung for it.

 

[alohadave]

She has been quoted as saying that if she encounters more than a few lines of description when she is reading, she moves on and does not read the passage.

Yeah, I'll do that too.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I say this all the time and people smear me with dung for it.

Authors dislike hearing these things, it's true, but I think some other quirks of your personality contribute more.

Many writers are vain creatures, and many like to cling to some illusions created by readers' feedback. Feedback is valuable, priceless even, but it should be taken in proper context.
To be honest, I don't think anyone here, myself included, is immune to the illusionary effect that feedback can create. And here I mean both positive and negative feedback. Both are often unrealistic, especially when it's not critical but rather superlative, or pejorative.
We are quick to make fun of the pejorative feedback, but boy are we proud of the superlative, and we flaunt it with such joy. It's all part of being human though.

But there is one thing that I would like to point out, even though I said that success is about appeasing tastes and not about quality. If some piece of art is appeasing the masses yet also has quality, it will do better than the art that's just appeasing. Good AND popular does better than just popular. So yeah, what I wanted to say was, even if success is about popularity rather than quality, having both does help.

 

[THBGato]

I really liked "Reminders of him" - it was a great redemption arc and I cried a few times reading it. "It ends with us" was okay, I guess, but I wasn't moved enough to want to read the prequel. "Verity" I admired yet also hated; what happens is horrible and disturbing, but I felt it was well done.

If she ever does a lesbian one, I'll preorder.

I don't get the point of an exercise aimed at shooting down people who have done well. Now, to work out HOW they did well and adapt that... that's worth doing.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Authors dislike hearing these things, it's true, but I think some other quirks of your personality contribute more.

No, I don't think so. Those 'quirks' don't come out until after I'm smeared.

Many writers are vain creatures, and many like to cling to some illusions created by readers' feedback. Feedback is valuable, priceless even, but it should be taken in proper context.

Indeed, if there's anything that I've learned since hanging out in the AH, it's that if you ever want to meet snobs, hang out with writers. ; )

Good AND popular does better than just popular.

Not really, no. Popular far far outweighs good. Who sells more, Tom Clancy or Margaret Atwood? (psst: it's Clancy) Who's better? (psst: it's Atwood) Just one example of many in both literature and music.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Not really, no. Popular far far outweighs good. Who sells more, Tom Clancy or Margaret Atwood? (psst: it's Clancy) Who's better? (psst: it's Atwood) Just one example of many in both literature and music.

What I said was that being good does contribute. Popularity, of course, matters far more - we agree there completely. But if we take two artists who create equally popular art, the one that's good on top of it should do better.
Take two directors who both make movies that please the masses, say, Cristopher Nolan and Zack Snyder. Both direct the kind of movies that are popular with the crowd, but Nolan being an order of magnitude more competent director and writer, does make him much more successful.

 

[Wifetheif]

I really liked "Reminders of him" - it was a great redemption arc and I cried a few times reading it. "It ends with us" was okay, I guess, but I wasn't moved enough to want to read the prequel. "Verity" I admired yet also hated; what happens is horrible and disturbing, but I felt it was well done.

If she ever does a lesbian one, I'll preorder.

I don't get the point of an exercise aimed at shooting down people who have done well. Now, to work out HOW they did well and adapt that... that's worth doing.

I don't think i'm just shooting someone down. Hoover has many critics of her writing style and Ugly Love has over a thousand one star reviews on Good Reads. Clearly she is polarizing. Particularly noxious about this novel is that the ENTIRE plot could have been resolved with a phone call, a text message, an e msil or a simple scan of Facebook! The characters are dumber than rocks! Popular doesn't necessarily mean good but it should at least be competent.

 

[PennameWombat]

My Bad Bookclub is tackling "Ugly Love" by Coleen Hoover. How is she so successful? There are dozens and dozen of writers who publish at this site who are more competent wordsmiths and plotters. Ugly Love is written in first person present. Even the parts set six years in the past! The sex scenes are way less erotic than th average story on l.com. We in the bookclub are puzzling over Hoover's success. According to some of her fans, it reads like fan fiction, quick and breezy. I find it infuriating! Hoover does not believe in descriptive prose. She has been quoted as saying that if she encounters more than a few lines of description when she is reading, she moves on and does not read the passage. The Hell? This novel is set in San Francisco -- not that it matters, we don't even get a street name. It could have been set in Pittsburgh, Boston, Manilla, or Shanghai just as easily. There is illogic that burns! The protag's love interest and brother are both pilots yet they DRIVE from San Francisco to San Diego for Thanksgiving, instead of hitching a ride in seats on their airline. The drive from SF to SD is BRUTAL and takes all day. Imagine how much worse it is on the biggest travel day of the year? The flight is about an hour. It's like Coleen Hoover decided to give her studs a "cool" career but then forgot about any realities of that job. One thing I will say. I am much more confident of my own writing ability. If Colleen Hoover can sell more books than the Bible, certainly most of us can crack the best seller lists as well.

Going purely by memory here, prior to her books, Hoover had a quite popular Instagram account that had a large following. Normally, social media following does not equate to publishing success (publishers discovered after handing out huge advances to their eventual dismay), but Hoover's posts were about her working class slash lower middle class life.

Which seems to be much of what's covered in her books. In her case, it seemed that one, her followers picked up her book, and two, that created enough 'notice' to get bookstagram and other book bloggers involved.

This discussion has happened Before here on AH, when discussing "50 Shades of Grey." Well, more like "why that piece of crap?" Probably lots of readers saw themselves, well a dream version, in Ana, and a billionaire falling for her. The (craptastic) BDSM just added spice for readers who were clueless. So probably with Hoover.

And I disagree that because Hoover (or James) can be best seller, anyone can. I don't have that natural 'feel' for creating certain characters that will resonate. Hoover gets plenty of hell for lots of her books, but she has that ability to create those characters, but I highly doubt it's conscious. Or that she 'thinks' about them like I need to.

 

[MrHereWriting]

Maybe she's lucky.

I wish I was born lucky, but instead God made me handsome and it's something I'll have to live with for the rest of my life.

 

[Wifetheif]

Going purely by memory here, prior to her books, Hoover had a quite popular Instagram account that had a large following. Normally, social media following does not equate to publishing success (publishers discovered after handing out huge advances to their eventual dismay), but Hoover's posts were about her working class slash lower middle class life.

Which seems to be much of what's covered in her books. In her case, it seemed that one, her followers picked up her book, and two, that created enough 'notice' to get bookstagram and other book bloggers involved.

This discussion has happened Before here on AH, when discussing "50 Shades of Grey." Well, more like "why that piece of crap?" Probably lots of readers saw themselves, well a dream version, in Ana, and a billionaire falling for her. The (craptastic) BDSM just added spice for readers who were clueless. So probably with Hoover.

And I disagree that because Hoover (or James) can be best seller, anyone can. I don't have that natural 'feel' for creating certain characters that will resonate. Hoover gets plenty of hell for lots of her books, but she has that ability to create those characters, but I highly doubt it's conscious. Or that she 'thinks' about them like I need to.

Yeah her books arr middle class white women problems writ large. She sell the trope that any guy (especially the brooding studly type) can be cured or fixed by the "right" woman no matter how rude and abusive he is.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

ake two directors who both make movies that please the masses, say, Cristopher Nolan and Zack Snyder. Both direct the kind of movies that are popular with the crowd, but Nolan being an order of magnitude more competent director and writer, does make him much more successful.

How do you measure that success?

 

[YmaOHyd]

How do you measure that success?

For those two specifically, you can measure it in at least four ways:

1. Audience turnout. Nolan and Snyder's careers basically overlap and they've made close to the same number of films. Nolan has out-grossed Snyder by $2.9 billion total, and has a per-movie average of $430 million to Snyder's $243m. I don't think you can even point to franchise effects here, as Nolan got Batman and Snyder got Superman, Superman v Batman and Justice League.
2. Critical acclaim and industry recognition. Snyder has won some Saturn awards. Nolan has two Oscars, a Golden Globe and two BAFTAs to go with a CBE and a knighthood; he's also won some of the highest honors at Sundance, the Venice Film Festival, and the Palm Springs International Film Festival. The wins are in addition to eight Oscar, eight BAFTA, five Golden Globe, ten Critics' Choice and five Director's Guild Awards nominations. Pretty clear edge to Nolan here.
3. Ability to get financing. Zack Snyder tried to get another 300 movie made and it didn't get picked up. He's now working for Netflix. He hasn't made a studio project with major theatrical support in nearly a decade. Nolan just moved from Warner Brothers to Universal Studios; he criticized WB's day-and-date policy, announced that he wouldn't continue to work with WB and picked Universal after demanding an exclusive 3-4 month theatrical window, a $200m combined budget and 20% of the first-dollar gross (by way of comparison, 20% first-dollar gross is about what Tom Cruise gets on movies that literally only exist because Tom Cruise wants them to exist, like Top Gun: Maverick). He can pretty much dictate whatever terms he wants, and if he told Disney he'd make a Star Wars movie for them for $500 million Disney wouldn't wait for him to finish the sentence before the contract was ready.
4. Ability to attract talent. Zack Snyder's most recent movie stars Charlie Hunnam, Djimon Hounsou and Sofia Boutella. The one before that starred Dave Bautista and Ella Purnell. Nolan's most recent movie stars [deep breath] Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Robert Downey Jr, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnet, Matt Damon, Casey Afflect, RRami Malek, Kenneth Branagh, Jason Clarke, David Dastmalchian, Alden Ehrenreich, James D'Arcy, Scott Grimes, Matthew Modine and Gary Oldman. His next movie stars [another deep breath] Matt Damon Tom Holland Anne Hathaway Zendaya Lupita Nyong'o Robert Pattinson Charlize Theron Jon Bernthal John Leguizamo and Elliot Page as well as like five other people who'd be close to top billing in a Snyder project, like Cosmo Jarvis and Mia Goth. Nolan's reputation is such that people in the film industry really really want to be associated with him (see point three).

 

[Cagivagurl]

My Bad Bookclub is tackling "Ugly Love" by Coleen Hoover. How is she so successful? There are dozens and dozen of writers who publish at this site who are more competent wordsmiths and plotters. Ugly Love is written in first person present. Even the parts set six years in the past! The sex scenes are way less erotic than th average story on l.com. We in the bookclub are puzzling over Hoover's success. According to some of her fans, it reads like fan fiction, quick and breezy. I find it infuriating! Hoover does not believe in descriptive prose. She has been quoted as saying that if she encounters more than a few lines of description when she is reading, she moves on and does not read the passage. The Hell? This novel is set in San Francisco -- not that it matters, we don't even get a street name. It could have been set in Pittsburgh, Boston, Manilla, or Shanghai just as easily. There is illogic that burns! The protag's love interest and brother are both pilots yet they DRIVE from San Francisco to San Diego for Thanksgiving, instead of hitching a ride in seats on their airline. The drive from SF to SD is BRUTAL and takes all day. Imagine how much worse it is on the biggest travel day of the year? The flight is about an hour. It's like Coleen Hoover decided to give her studs a "cool" career but then forgot about any realities of that job. One thing I will say. I am much more confident of my own writing ability. If Colleen Hoover can sell more books than the Bible, certainly most of us can crack the best seller lists as well.

Perhaps use IMO... Because that's all you're offering... Your opinion. It the author is successful, you have missed something...
I'm not a Taylor Swift fan, but it hasn't affected her sales...

Cagivagurl

 

[Wifetheif]

Perhaps use IMO... Because that's all you're offering... Your opinion. It the author is successful, you have missed something...
I'm not a Taylor Swift fan, but it hasn't affected her sales...

Cagivagurl

Success does not necessarily mean quality. The dreadful movie "The Room" is a success because it has made a TON of money. BUT it is generally agreed upon by movie critics and movie fans alike to be one of the WORST movies ever made. Shuld we all be emulating Tommy Wiseau? He's made more money with his shitty movie than some directors have for box office smashes with Oscar awards. If you make shit that tickles the public's fancy you MIGHT make scads of money. It doesn't mean you or your product is good or has any realation to competence.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

For those two specifically, you can measure it in at least four ways:

1. Audience turnout. Nolan and Snyder's careers basically overlap and they've made close to the same number of films. Nolan has out-grossed Snyder by $2.9 billion total, and has a per-movie average of $430 million to Snyder's $243m. I don't think you can even point to franchise effects here, as Nolan got Batman and Snyder got Superman, Superman v Batman and Justice League.
2. Critical acclaim and industry recognition. Snyder has won some Saturn awards. Nolan has two Oscars, a Golden Globe and two BAFTAs to go with a CBE and a knighthood; he's also won some of the highest honors at Sundance, the Venice Film Festival, and the Palm Springs International Film Festival. The wins are in addition to eight Oscar, eight BAFTA, five Golden Globe, ten Critics' Choice and five Director's Guild Awards nominations. Pretty clear edge to Nolan here.
3. Ability to get financing. Zack Snyder tried to get another 300 movie made and it didn't get picked up. He's now working for Netflix. He hasn't made a studio project with major theatrical support in nearly a decade. Nolan just moved from Warner Brothers to Universal Studios; he criticized WB's day-and-date policy, announced that he wouldn't continue to work with WB and picked Universal after demanding an exclusive 3-4 month theatrical window, a $200m combined budget and 20% of the first-dollar gross (by way of comparison, 20% first-dollar gross is about what Tom Cruise gets on movies that literally only exist because Tom Cruise wants them to exist, like Top Gun: Maverick). He can pretty much dictate whatever terms he wants, and if he told Disney he'd make a Star Wars movie for them for $500 million Disney wouldn't wait for him to finish the sentence before the contract was ready.
4. Ability to attract talent. Zack Snyder's most recent movie stars Charlie Hunnam, Djimon Hounsou and Sofia Boutella. The one before that starred Dave Bautista and Ella Purnell. Nolan's most recent movie stars [deep breath] Cillian Murphy, Emily Blunt, Robert Downey Jr, Florence Pugh, Josh Hartnet, Matt Damon, Casey Afflect, RRami Malek, Kenneth Branagh, Jason Clarke, David Dastmalchian, Alden Ehrenreich, James D'Arcy, Scott Grimes, Matthew Modine and Gary Oldman. His next movie stars [another deep breath] Matt Damon Tom Holland Anne Hathaway Zendaya Lupita Nyong'o Robert Pattinson Charlize Theron Jon Bernthal John Leguizamo and Elliot Page as well as like five other people who'd be close to top billing in a Snyder project, like Cosmo Jarvis and Mia Goth. Nolan's reputation is such that people in the film industry really really want to be associated with him (see point three).

Audience turnout is simply popularity and marketing. Scratch that.

Critical acclaim: you cite industry awards. Industry awards are really mot much more than marketing. I actually believe that critical acclaim does equate into success but not by your examples.

Ability to get financing? That's all business and popularity and nothing to do with talent. Scratch that.

Ability to attract talent: that's all about the money and the billing. Scratch that.

Bottom line: our example here is two directors who make superhero franchise special effect stunt movies. Nothing against that, but inherently these movies are all about spectacle and popularity in the first place so hardly a good example.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Bottom line: our example here is two directors who make superhero franchise special effect stunt movies. Nothing against that, but inherently these movies are all about spectacle and popularity in the first place so hardly a good example.

Dunkirk is a superhero franchise special effects stunt movie? Oppenheimer is a stunt film? The Prestige is a special-effects extravaganza? Come on. Let's not be ridiculous here.

By most measures, Netflix pays stars more than legacy studios. It's not about money. And it's definitely not about billing, because someone like Gary Oldman is not billed at all in Oppenheimer. If it was about money and billing, someone like Bernthal would be making Rebel Moon with Snyder, not taking what's likely to be a minor role in Nolan's Odyssey. This is exactly backwards. Stars are willing to take smaller paychecks and lower billing to work for Nolan. Edit: originally I said by any measure Netflix pays stars more. That's not true, and is the subject of major upheaval in the industry. Netflix and other streamers pay more money in terms of up-front cash dollars, but generally do not pay residuals, largely because according to them they have none to pay out. For the biggest stars, the largest paychecks come from traditional studios willing to offer a percentage of the gross. Those paychecks often involve an element of risk, usually forgoing an up-front payday in exchange for that percentage. Some stars get a piece of residuals as well. Only the biggest can ask for a percentage of first-dollar gross, which is paid out as soon as the film's released, before it becomes profitable. Many actors who have percentages that aren't first-dollar in their contracts don't ever see any money, as Hollywood accounting departments are very good at ensuring films aren't technically profitable. So the biggest potential paydays are still with legacy studios, but the biggest guaranteed paychecks are with streamers like Netflix or Apple. For small roles in big movies, actors are working for paychecks, not percentages, so someone like Alden Ehrenreich would make way more money starring in Rebel Moon than having a small part in Oppenheimer.

Financing for non-franchise projects is about the purest method of measuring who a studio thinks is talented and capable of delivering hits. Nolan, almost uniquely among his generation of directors, can get whatever he wants made by whoever he wants. He got the Batman franchise because WB looked at Insomnia and Memento and thought "yeah, this is the guy we want in charge of our most consequential property for a decade."

 

[Cagivagurl]

Success does not necessarily mean quality. The dreadful movie "The Room" is a success because it has made a TON of money. BUT it is generally agreed upon by movie critics and movie fans alike to be one of the WORST movies ever made. Shuld we all be emulating Tommy Wiseau? He's made more money with his shitty movie than some directors have for box office smashes with Oscar awards. If you make shit that tickles the public's fancy you MIGHT make scads of money. It doesn't mean you or your product is good or has any realation to competence.

I never said it was good, or a quality product...
Success, is success if you achieved what you set out to do...
It appears that venture is successful...

I am totally unfamiliar with the reviewed story... So, not offering an opinion.
Just saying...
Because you didn't like it... That doesn't make it bad.

Cagivagurl

 

[Wifetheif]

I never said it was good, or a quality product...
Success, is success if you achieved what you set out to do...
It appears that venture is successful...

I am totally unfamiliar with the reviewed story... So, not offering an opinion.
Just saying...
Because you didn't like it... That doesn't make it bad.

Cagivagurl

I'm hardly alone "ugly Love" has over a THOUSAND one-star reviews. It also has a tremendous amount of positive four and five star reviews. If it was good or just average NO WAY more than a thousand readers would take the time to one-star it. Some people like shit. Some people praise shit. A decent book would NEVER generate that many negative one-star reviews. It's bad and not just because I don't like it.

 

[Cagivagurl]

I'm hardly alone "ugly Love" has over a THOUSAND one-star reviews. It also has a tremendous amount of positive four and five star reviews. If it was good or just average NO WAY more than a thousand readers would take the time to one-star it. Some people like shit. Some people praise shit. A decent book would NEVER generate that many negative one-star reviews. It's bad and not just because I don't like it.

And yet in many peoples minds it's great...
I don't see what the issue is????
You didn't like it... No worries, move onto the next one.

Cagivagurl