Want your novel to succeed? Make it more complex

Members of the computer science department at Stony Brook University in New York say their computer model can determine whether a novel will be successful. Some of their findings were surprising.

Ann Hermes
A bookend holds bestsellers in place on a bookshelf at the Chicago store The Book Cellar.

Can researchers predict whether a novel will be successful?

Researchers Vikas Ganjigunt, Ashok Song, and Feng Yejin Choi, all members of Stony Brook University’s Department of Computer Science in New York, say they have created a computer model that can determine how well a novel will do. The study focused on both critical and financial success, using examples including the “Harry Potter” series and the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel “Tinkers” as models of successful books.

The researchers used the number of times a novel was downloaded on Project Gutenberg as well as awards data and Amazon sales information to help set parameters for "success."

According to the results of this study, the key to writing a successful novel is found in the book's language.

“Thinking verbs,” such as “consider” or “remember,” make a book more successful than action verbs like “run” and “blink,” say Ganjigunt, Song, and Choi.

“There exists distinct linguistic patterns shared among successful literature, at least within the same genre, making it possible to build a model with surprisingly high accuracy (up to 84%) in predicting the success of a novel,” they write.

Interestingly, one conclusion Ganjigunt, Song, and Choi arrived at is that what the researchers defined as “readability” has an inverse effect on the novel’s success, writing, “Less successful novels have higher readability compared to more successful ones.”

Why would that be so?

“We conjecture that the conceptual complexity of highly successful literary work might require syntactic complexity that goes against readability,” they write.

It would be interesting to seek out exceptions to the model proposed by Ganjigunt, Song, and Choi. For instance, how many complex and unreadable novels are critical and financial failures? Plenty, would be our guess. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.