Nabokov's White Fire?

You mean Pale Fire, sir. And yes, Nabokov was the master of the unreliable narrator.

I don't know about the market, but when the story calls for it, I certainly don't mind my narrators to be confused, deluded, and capable of horrible decisions, Barb. Makes 'em a little more human.

I don't know about the market, but when the story calls for it, I certainly don't mind my narrators to be confused, deluded, and capable of horrible decisions, Barb. Makes 'em a little more human.

Agreed on the humanity, Cor-- and you know, sometimes, there's definitely such a thing as knowing too much about the market. I generally ignore it and write what I want, but it's when others come in with, "Well... do you think the market will accept this?" that I start with the self-doubts. And of course, had it slap me repeatedly across the back of the head with the last MS, which straddled genres a little too much for either genre to want to take a chance on it. (Romance and mainstream-- although I never called it a romance. If anything, I called it a love story. Big diff, IMO.)

This one, however, is pretty much fully mainstream and as such, I think I can take more character risks with it and not even come close to some of the risks other writers take.

when others come in with, "Well... do you think the market will accept this?" that I start with the self-doubts

I hear you, and you should know that my contribution is the worst-selling book in the mostly successful series to which it belongs, so take my advice with a grain of salt. Or a saltlick. But as a reader, I appreciate risks that the author is willing to take to make the story more interesting and resonant.

My problem is that it's generally not the general reader who isn't willing to take the risks, it's the publishing industry trying to second-guess what they will or won't accept.

But then when they do take a risk -- Outlander, The Eyre Affair, even Harry Potter -- people gobble them up. You'd think they'd learn...

Random question:

Since we're all Buffistas, I'm making an assumption about our reading tastes that maybe I shouldn't. Most people here do read a fairly wide range of books, right?

I was working at the bookstore last night, and mentioned the musical theater history book I'm reading to my manager. She gave me a rather funny look and then said, "You read such different books! I've heard you recommend to customers titles on everything from early Christianity to the Time Travelers Wife, then science books, and now musical theater?"

Doesn't everybody do this?

Corwood, thanks for the correction (it's been a while) (and if anything, it's ma'am, not sir ... although a lot of people never get it straight).

Doesn't everybody do this?

Sadly, no. But like attracts like, which is why so many of us, are somehow drawn together. We're all curious sorts, I think and open to new experiences. So while many of us are no doubt broadly read, we're also constantly expanding each others' universes.

Personally, I'll read almost anything, up to and including the back of the cereal box.

My fiction tastes are pretty narrow--mysteries, fanfic, space opera--but my non-fiction tastes run the gamut of what has caught my fancy. I own books on architecture, Egyptian history, early Christianity, etc. I guess I skew towards history of people, places, and thought.

and if anything, it's ma'am, not sir ... although a lot of people never get it straight

D'oh! I didn't realize. Many apologies.

Personally, I'll read almost anything, up to and including the back of the cereal box.

My parents didn't let me bring a book to the table at breakfast, not even schoolwork, so cereal boxes were the only thing to read. I got really good at sounding out the various ingredients on the side of the box.