Thursday, August 31, 2023

write a bestseller


Culture | Pulp fiction

How to write a bestseller

No one knows. But a good guess is quickly. And don’t stint on the full stops

A typewriter printing dollar bills
image: the economist/shutterstock

Danielle steel books deal with “Family. Courage. Loyalty”, as the cover of one explains. They are also about “Wealth. Fear. Revenge. Love”, as the cover of another has it. Ms Steel herself has said she writes “about stuff that happens to all of us”. Though arguably she focuses a little more on the sort of stuff that involves Wealth. Palazzos. Emotions in Capital Letters. A little less on the sort of stuff that involves Tax Returns. Cutting One’s Toenails. Buying Groceries.

But that hardly matters. For her books are also about selling staggering numbers of copies. Ms Steel has written over 200 books—the latest, “Happiness”, came out in August, and her next, “Second Act”, will be released in October. She is one of the world’s bestselling living authors (according to some claims, the best) and has sold over a billion copies. Her novels are a literary sediment, settling on the shelves of holiday cottages everywhere. She has created not merely books but a brand: everyone, whether or not they have read them (and most will claim “not”), knows what “a Danielle Steel” is. And so naturally the literary world ignores her.

Publishing is an odd business. It is worth around $37bn in Britain and America alone, but you would never know this from the literature that it produces, which focuses on books in the brainy vein rather than anything so vulgar as volumes that actually sell. One authoritative history of English literature contains 60-odd mentions of “Shakespeare”; ten on “the sublime”; eight on “blank verse”—but a blank silence for concepts such as “business” and “turnover”.

In another literary history, popular novels—those “jam tarts for the mind” as William Thackeray, the British novelist, called them—are mentioned, but with a wince, under the heading: “Problems of popular culture”. When Gore Vidal wrote an article on bestsellers it opened with the observation that “shit has its own integrity”—and became more dismissive from there.

The book business, however, depends on those despised bestsellers. September is when publishers release the titles that they hope will be their money-spinners. Yet most books will be loss-making. To produce, print and publicise a book costs about £12,000-15,000 ($15,000-19,000), says Mark Richards of Swift Press, an independent publisher. He reckons that it takes around 5,000 copies to break even. Most books never come close: only 0.4% of titles in Britain last year sold more than that, according to Nielsen BookData. Ms Steel’s books, by contrast, have sold 268,000 in Britain this year. Jam tarts they may be, but that is why people gobble them up.

And yet publishers seem to have an almost total inability to predict which books will sell. As Markus Dohle, then the boss of Penguin Random House, a large publisher, said last year, “Success is random. Bestsellers are random. So that’s why we are the Random House.” Editors less sagely select winners than buy literary lottery tickets and hope for the best. Taking credit for a bestseller is, as Jonathan Karp, the chief executive of Simon & Schuster, has said, “like taking credit for the weather”.

The word “best-seller” first appeared in the 1890s, with the first authoritative lists following soon after. Patterns emerged quickly. The writing can be good (H.G. Wells, an English writer, shot to the top of early rankings); but it need not be (just read “The Da Vinci Code” by Dan Brown). Sex sells well, but celebrity sells best. Prince Harry’s “Spare”, published in January, broke records for the fastest-selling non-fiction book.

In 2018 a group of researchers from Northeastern University analysed almost eight years’ worth of New York Times bestsellers and observed a few general patterns. Some elements of bestsellers are similar, says Burcu Yucesoy, the lead author. Aspiring writers should bear in mind that fiction sells better than non-; thrillers and romance sell best of all; name recognition matters (so write lots); and if you must write non-fiction, which does not sell, make it biography, which does.

Writers are often unable to explain their own success in helpful ways. In 1956 Ian Fleming, the creator of James Bond, wrote an essay on how to write a successful book, in which he argued that: “There is only one recipe for a bestseller, and it is a very simple one.” All bestsellers “have one quality: you simply have to turn the page”. This is true—but entirely dodges the question. Jo Nesbo, a Norwegian thriller writer, thinks good prose is like good food: “You can’t tell what the ingredients are necessarily…but you know it when you see it and you read it.” Lionel Shriver, an American author, believes that “if there were such a thing as just following the rules…then everyone would write a bestseller. No one sits down and is determined to craft a story that only five people will read.”

But make your way through New York Times bestsellers, and trends become clearer. Of the top ten bestsellers in one recent week, three were romances; one was a thriller; four were by a single author, Colleen Hoover, a romantic novelist whose first book, “Slammed”, was self-published, proving the unpredictability point. Only one of the ten, “The Covenant of Water”, is a literary sort of book. It has glum characters, too many similes and a tendency to use words such as “gloaming”.

Here comes the sun

The settings of bestsellers are often exotic: Fleming observed that “the sun is always shining in my books.” Ms Steel’s books have titles such as “Five Days in Paris” and “Sunset in St. Tropez”, rather than “A Fortnight in Glasgow”. Their female characters tend to be called names like “Lily” and say things like “I only want you”; their male ones say things like “We’ve got rifles and grenades. They’ve got .50-cals.” Accountants are not overrepresented in their pages. There are certain stylistic traits too: sentences tend to be short. Really short. And repetitive. Really repetitive. Think Hemingway. On holiday.

Almost all bestsellers make the most of any research they have done. A recent Danielle Steel opens with the heroine looking out over Rome, at “Saint Peter’s Basilica and Vatican City, the dome of the San Carlo al Corso Basilica, and to the north, the Villa Medici and the Borghese Gardens”. This is one way to run up a word count. “The Da Vinci Code”, similarly, offers such detailed tours through Paris that the overall effect is less like reading a book than switching on a verbose satnav.

The Economist

Read in browser

Welcome to The Economist

But perhaps the most striking quality about bestselling authors is how prolific they are: James Patterson, an American thriller writer, has churned out more than 340 books (some in collaboration with other writers). Such speed, as Truman Capote once put it, is less writing than typing. “Don’t get it right, get it writ” is a common theme among bestselling authors. Ms Steel says that she writes until her nails bleed. Fleming recommended writing 2,000 words a day and not sullying this with “too much introspection and self-criticism”.

The sentences in bestsellers might have benefited from a little more introspection—or at the very least a second read. In one, a character finds her lover in bed with someone else and observes that “the only thing that struck me was that his face was as expressionless as his buttocks, which stared at me from the bed.” Reread that sentence several times, and you may still feel it has not given up all its secrets.

However, if you really want to write a bestseller, then ignore Ms Steel and other novelists. Because the book that sold the most copies in America in the past ten years was by none of them. It was “Oh, the Places You’ll Go!” by Dr Seuss. Number three was that other literary classic, “The Very Hungry Caterpillar” by Eric Carle. Children’s books not only sell well, but they also keep selling, year after year, building fans across generations.

And, incidentally, they obey the bestseller formula perfectly: sentences of Hemingwayesque brevity; pleasant settings and, of course, excellent weather. Or, as Eric Carle described it: “One Sunday morning the warm sun came up and—pop!” Out of the book came a world-beating, bestselling marvel. 

For more on the latest books, films, tv shows, albums and controversies, sign up to Plot Twist, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter

This article appeared in the Culture section of the print edition under the headline "Pulp fiction"

How paranoid nationalism corrupts

From the September 2nd 2023 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

food affects the mind

 Christmas Specials | Use your loaf

How food affects the mind, as well as the body

It turns out you are what you eat after all

Aglistening roast turkey. Rounds of golden, roast potatoes and parsnips. Pigs in blankets (because what meat-based meal is not improved by a side of sausages wrapped in bacon?). Brussels sprouts. Bread sauce. Cranberry sauce. Gravy. And, to finish, brandy-sodden pudding topped with butter.

Listen to this story.
 Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Countries vary in their Christmas-meal traditions. Poles prefer fish, often carp. A Swedish julbord groans with variety, though herring will never be far off. But the repast served at most British tables on December 25th is iconic, and has been (with goose sometimes standing in for turkey) since the time of the Victorians.

A good meal has a positive impact on one’s mood. Part of that pleasure is immediate. Those who avoid overindulgence and family squabbles will enjoy a postprandial rise in their blood sugar. That will prompt a flood of endorphins—chemicals that act as happy hormones—to rush through their brains.

But the pleasure goes deeper. Animal proteins, such as roast fowl, hams or fish, contain all the amino acids that the body needs including many it cannot make for itself. Tyrosine and tryptophan are needed for the production, respectively, of dopamine, a neurotransmitter that controls feelings of pleasure and reward, and serotonin, another such, which helps regulate mood. Brussels sprouts contain folate, a vitamin without which the brain cannot function properly. And cranberries are high in vitamin C, which is involved, among other things, in converting dopamine to noradrenaline, another neurotransmitter, and a lack of which seems to be associated with depression.

With mental-health disorders rising, a growing number of scientists are investigating how food or nutritional supplements affect the mind. Brains, being the most complex and energy-demanding of the body’s organs, almost certainly have their own specialised, nutritional needs. Welcome, then, to the emerging field of nutritional psychiatry.

An adult human brain, which accounts for about 2% of a body’s mass, uses 20% of its metabolic energy. A host of vitamins and minerals are necessary to keep it going. Even in one small section of the brain’s metabolic pathways, many essential nutrients are needed. The conversion of tryptophan to serotonin alone requires vitamin B6, iron, phosphorus and calcium.

Disentangling the brain’s nutritional needs from those of the rest of the body is tricky. Recommended daily allowances (rdas) are little help. They were formulated during the second world war on the basis of the nutrients needed for the physical health of troops. No such rdas exist for the brain. Not yet, at least.

Compared with other fields, nutritional science is understudied. That is partly because it is hard to do well. Randomised controlled trials (rcts), used to test drugs, are tricky. Few people want to stick to an experimental diet for years. Instead, most nutritional science is based on observational studies that try to establish associations between particular foods or nutrients and diseases. They cannot be used to definitively prove a causal connection between a disease and a particular contributing factor in a diet. But as with smoking and lung cancer, put together enough of these kinds of trials and causal narratives begin to emerge.

It is now clear that some diets are particularly good for the brain. One recent study concludes that sticking to the “Mediterranean diet”, high in vegetables, fruit, pulses and wholegrains, low in red and processed meats and saturated fats, decreases the chances of experiencing strokes, cognitive impairment and depression. Other recent work looking at a “green” Mediterranean diet high in polyphenols (the antioxidants found in things like green tea) found it reduced age-related brain atrophy. Another version, the mind diet, emphasises, among other things, eating berries over other kinds of fruit and seems to lessen the risk of dementia.

Only 10% of adults in America consume their recommended daily serving of vegetables

Scientists think such diets may work by reducing inflammation in the brain. This, in turn, may affect areas such as the hippocampus, which is associated with learning, memory and mood regulation—and where new neurons grow in adults. Studies in animals show that when they are fed a diet rich in omega-3 fatty acids (from walnuts, for example), flavonoids (consumed mainly via tea and wine), antioxidants (found in berries) and resveratrol (found in red grapes), neuron growth is stimulated and inflammatory processes are reduced. This fits with research suggesting that those who regularly eat ultra-processed, fried and sugary foods, which increase inflammation in the brain, heighten their risk of developing depression.

The hanger games

That Christmas feast is often lambasted as an orgy of gluttony. In fact, with its sides of multiple vegetables, its nutritional density may make it among the healthier meals some people eat throughout the year. Only 10% of adults in America consume their recommended daily serving of vegetables, and just 12% get enough fruit. It is a similar story in much of the world. As a result, many turn to vitamin and mineral supplements to make up for their dietary deficiencies.

In 2018, 54% of North Americans and 43% of Asians were taking a nutritional supplement. The most common types are multivitamins, vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids. America spends the most on dietary supplements, followed by western Europe and Japan. One estimate put the global market at $152bn in 2021, with 9% annual growth expected until 2030. But in many places the regulation of the supplement industry is either weak or non-existent and little rigorous research has been carried out on either their benefits or risks.

The story of nutritional supplements starts in 1912 when Casimir Funk, a Polish-American biochemist, proposed that unidentified organic substances were required in tiny amounts to maintain human health. It was a revolutionary idea. And he was correct. Along with macronutrients such as protein and carbohydrates, there were undiscovered components of foods—micronutrients. The first vitamin to be isolated and then synthesised in 1936 was thiamine or B1. Deficiency causes beriberi, a disease that can affect both the cardiovascular and the central nervous systems. The discovery prompted a race to isolate, characterise and manufacture vitamins and ultimately launched the supplement industry.

Half a century after Funk’s discovery, the notion that nutrients might be able to treat mental illnesses took hold. Abram Hoffer, a Canadian psychiatrist, tried treating schizophrenics with high doses of vitamins B3. Then in 1968 Linus Pauling, a Nobel-prize-winning chemist, coined the term “orthomolecular psychiatry” to describe the theory that varying the concentration of substances normally present in the body could treat mental disease. But there was little evidence to support their claims and in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association released a report dismissing orthomolecular psychiatry, highlighting the lack of controlled experiments and concluding that large doses of B3 were “useless and not without hazard”.

The absence of any large-scale, serious studies in the field of nutritional psychiatry left an opening for those keen to promote the potential of supplements far beyond any existing science. Autumn Stringam is one such case. After her first baby was born in 1992 Ms Stringam, a Canadian, was admitted to a psychiatric ward with severe post-partum psychosis. Her family had a history of mental illness, including bipolar disorder, psychosis, depression and suicide. Her prognosis was grim. But then her father, together with a friend working in the animal-feed business, developed a supplement containing a range of vitamins and minerals that they claimed were based on supplements that reduced anxiety and stress in pigs. Ms Stringam credited the supplements with her recovery. Her story spread and the family started selling the pills widely.

There were, however, no trials proving efficacy or safety. The suggestion that the supplements were a cure-all led one schizophrenic to abandon his prescribed medication. He subsequently murdered his father and seriously injured his mother. In 2003 the Canadian drug regulator, concerned about the use of untested supplements for serious mental-health disorders, seized the pills. The episode cemented the idea in many minds that using micronutrients to treat mental-health conditions was pure quackery.

And yet today much science does support the idea that there is a strong link between what people eat and their mental health. Studies have shown that b12 shortages cause depression and poor memory and are associated with mania and psychosis. Low levels of vitamin D are associated with increased risks of dementia and stroke, and are implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders. A recent rct found that high doses of B6—100mg per day rather than the rda of 1.3mg—reduces anxiety. In a study by Robert Przybelski of the University of Wisconsin of geriatric patients attending a memory clinic, 40% were deficient in one vitamin (of five that were looked for), and 20% in two.


So why not simply pop a handful of vitamins rather than bother with a complex, and perhaps expensive, diet? In part because you rarely know exactly what you’re getting. Ted Dinan, a professor of psychiatry at University College, Cork describes the supplement industry as the “Wild West”. Unlike tightly regulated drugs, supplements may contain more, or less, of what they claim. Too much vitamin A can be harmful in pregnancy. There are a variety of health risks from taking beta carotene and vitamin E. High doses of one nutrient can interfere with the absorption of others.

Any testing of the use of micronutrients in mental-health conditions in Canada stalled after the episode with Ms Stringam. And yet some remained intrigued. Julia Rucklidge, a clinical psychologist at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, was approached in 2003 by a Canadian colleague to see if she might be interested in running such trials. She was sceptical: “I had been taught that nutrition is completely irrelevant to brain health.” At the time, she recalls, she was immersed in positive data showing the efficacy of Prozac, an antidepressant, and stimulants such as methylphenidate for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (adhd). She was excited, she explains, to have these new drugs as tools to treat mental-health problems.

Then she was forced to question those views. She had been treating a child with obsessive compulsive disorder for a year with no success. The family did not want medication. One day when they were leaving she remembered she had a box of supplements under her desk for a trial she was planning. She offered them to the parents with the caveat that she had no idea whether they would work. Two weeks later they returned, saying the child’s obsessions were gone.

Dr Rucklidge was sceptical that any improvement was due to the supplements but it nudged her towards conducting more trials. A few decades on and she has shown that supplements are helpful in children with adhd—particularly those who struggle to regulate their emotions. The trial was recently replicated in America. Other evidence of the efficacy of supplements is emerging. The results of a large rct published in September showed that taking a daily multivitamin may improve cognition in those over 65. Researchers followed more than 2,000 people and estimated that three years of supplementation led to a 60% slowing of cognitive decline.

Nutritional psychiatry is still in its infancy. As it becomes clearer which micronutrients affect the brain, the next stage is to determine how they do so. Another new field of research could help with that.

One of the most intriguing scientific developments of recent years is the discovery of the importance of micro-organisms in the gut as intermediaries between what goes into the mouth and what happens in the brain. Researchers now know that microbes form a complex ecosystem in the gut—known as the microbiome. These microbes need micronutrients. A diet lacking in them, such as that consumed by many in the West, may lead to an imbalance in the gut microbiome.

A person’s capacity to deal with stress can be altered by a single strain of bacterium

Could this affect how people think and feel? Evidence is mounting for a link between the gut and the brain in what is termed the psychobiome—part of the microbiome—that does just that. The substances that the various bacteria, viruses and fungi produce may go directly into the bloodstream and infiltrate blood vessels, or they may stimulate the vagus nerve that connects the gut and the brain. The bacteria in the gut produce, among other things, tryptophan, the amino acid thought to have come entirely from the diet.

The sorts of microorganisms found in yogurt specifically, and fermented foods generally, have also been shown by trials to reduce anxiety. Most astonishing to Dr Dinan is the finding that a person’s capacity to deal with stress can be altered by a single strain of bacterium. Studies show that two species of Bifidobacterium and one of Lactobacillus each reduce stress. In a trial on germfree mice, an abnormal stress response was reversed when they were given oral doses of Bifidobacterium infantis. These findings have given rise to the notion of “psychobiotics”—bacteria that, when ingested, may have similar effects to antidepressants or anti-anxiety medication.

The difficulty with developing this new field of research lies in the economics. Unlike drugs, vitamins, minerals and microbes are not patentable. Pharmaceutical firms have nothing to gain commercially from running trials on pills that anyone can flog. It is difficult to trust industry-sponsored research since it has a bias towards favourable findings. Governments, universities and health systems are better placed to run such trials. None of this will replace the need for a good diet. But it would provide food for thought. 

illustrations: cristina spanò

This article appeared in the Christmas Specials section of the print edition under the headline "Use your loaf"

Christmas double issue

From the December 24th 2022 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition

The Economist

Read in browser

Welcome to The Economist