How I Became a Famous Novelist
Add this book to your late-summer reading: How I Became a Famous Novelist,
Here’s the official press release, with additional commentary:
LOS ANGELES, CA (August 3, 2009) – Filmmaker John August has optioned How I Became a Famous Novelist by Steve Hely through his company Quote-Unquote Films. August optioned the hilarious novel with an eye to adapt and direct. The novel, published by Grove/Atlantic, has garnered excelled reviews across the board and was Amazon’s July 2009 title of the month.
The great reviews include one by Janet Maslin in the NY Times, who quotes so many funny lines from the book that you might worry she’s spoiling it. She isn’t. She can’t.
Hely’s book has an unbelievably high joke-to-page ratio, the literary equivalent of a 30 Rock episode. (Which seems fitting, since Hely is now a writer on that show.)
The book tells the story of Pete Tarslaw, an ambitiously underachieving college grad who writes a shamelessly maudlin and derivative Great American Novel for the sole purpose of upstaging his ex-girlfriend’s wedding. When the book becomes a bestseller, he finds himself sucked into a strange coterie of mega-authors and their attendants.
I wrote that summary, but it omits something that makes reading the book so worthwhile: excerpts from all the other mega-authors’ books, such as Teeth of the Winged Lion by Nick Boyle. It’s hard to write well, but writing badly well is a special talent.
The book also features special publishing-related miscellany, such as this fake New York Times Bestsellers list, which even includes “Great Fish.”
On the title, August said “It’s the funniest thing I’ve read in a really long time. Like Go, it’s about thinking you have the system all figured out, realizing you don’t, then faking it. Characters who do the wrong things for misguided reasons are the heart of comedy.”
Let’s break down my quote.
First, I restate that the book is funny, in case that gets dropped out of any stories based on the press release.
Second, I refer back to an earlier comedy I wrote, because a lot of folks might think of my credits as being more funny-peculiar than funny-ha-ha.
Finally, I try to restate the premise in a way that seems more universal: it’s not a funny book about books; it’s a funny book about a guy on a journey.
Why he bought it himself: “It’s the kind of book I could hear studios saying is too smart. I knew I’d spend many meetings convincing them that it wasn’t nearly as smart as they thought it was. So I’d rather just give them a script so they can see what it is.”
There’s stuff in the book that’s funny only because it’s in a book, such as those great excerpts. The danger is that a studio exec reading it says, “Well, that part’s not cinematic.” And it’s true, some parts won’t translate as a movie.
But the premise, the characters and the plot of the book all translate really well. It’s better for me to show what I can do in a script than focus on what I can’t bring over from the book.
Ken Richman, Esq, negotiated on behalf of August with Anna DeRoy of WME handling the novel.
It’s the first book rights I’ve bought since Big Fish in 1999 — and technically that was Sony buying it for me.
In case you think that this was all Hollywood-insider dealmaking, let me talk you through the process.
In May, I was in New York, working on a yet-to-be-announced project. The hotel I was staying at had USA Today, which I don’t normally read. But I happened to spot this article describing Hely’s soon-to-be-published book, and thought it sounded funny.
So I tracked down Pete Tarslaw’s blog on Google, figured it was probably Hely, and emailed asking for an advance copy:
hey steve hely, can I get an advance copy of your book?
By description, it sounds very, very great.
– John August, the screenwriter
ps. I will also pester you on Facebook.
He sent me the book. I read it the next day. A week later, I met with him at Susina, the coffeeshop featured in The Nines. Lawyers started talking, and eventually we got a deal in place. (So yes, there was Hollywood dealmaking. But it came very late in the process.)
As far as making a movie, that process is just starting now. I’ll be writing a draft, and then figuring out the how/when/where/who.
In the meantime, read his book. It is available pretty much everywhere, but it’s cheap on Amazon ($10.98), and only $8.80 on Kindle. While you’re waiting for the FedEx truck, you can also check out a lengthy excerpt.
Update: Here’s a better link for the excerpt.
Articles
August 4th, 2009 at 4:26 am
Sounds sweet. Will order the book, like, right now.
But I’m wondering: Doesn’t this thing kind of contradict your previous post? Having not read it yet, it’s hard to imagine how a film about a novelist and books would work on-screen.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:11 am
I don’t think the “lengthy excerpt” link works… But MAN do you make a good case for this book!! Dagnabbit… Good thing I love reading more than I love money.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:54 am
John you’re the man! Loved ‘The Nines’ and can’t wait to see this one! The fact that you purchased the novel yourself shows that you truly believe in the material and that’s winning half the battle already.
Cheers!
August 4th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Argh! Hopefully there’ll be an audio version of it very soon, as it sounds wonderful, and I love all things literary, but’s hard to find all but the very best sellers and name brands in literature (Dan Brown, King, etc) all the way out here in South Korea. I’ve depended on Audible.com for most new releases. Maybe I’ll buck up and buy a Kindle at some point. In the mean time I’ll have to do with my dog eared copy of The Wonderboys.
August 4th, 2009 at 8:04 am
“There’s stuff in the book that’s funny only because it’s in a book, such as those great excerpts. The danger is that a studio exec reading it says, “Well, that part’s not cinematic.” And it’s true, some parts won’t translate as a movie.”
I find that true for a lot of novels (and many comics, for that matter). While reading the text will set up a context around certain lines or actions that can’t really be delivered entirely visually. Also, there are some hilarious things only a novel can pull off. In Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, much of the funniest stuff in the book are the long footnotes that describe the background of some briefly mentioned element or line in the story. It’s similar to Hitchhiker’s Guide, but there really is no graceful way to pull that off in film.
By the way, who here owns a Kindle book? I hear more and more about them in the news, but I’ve yet to see anyone actually using one.
I like the premise. I don’t want to mention specific films, but I get a feeling exactly how the story could work as a movie. This sounds something like a fish out of water story mixed with a satirical outsider crashing the party edge. A thief wanders into the village and, through various errors, is mistaken for a prince.
August 4th, 2009 at 8:10 am
Excerpt is brilliant. Will definitely be purchasing the book and looking forward to the movie!
August 4th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Awesome news, John. Congratulations! And as always, we appreciate your commitment to making the whole arcane Hollywood process more transparent by just telling us how things happen (rather than spinning elaborate entertaining stories that leave out all the important details, like many others do).
August 4th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Just got it for my kindle. Was looking for a fun book to read on the plane to Prague: this looks perfect.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:58 am
o btw, happy birthday!
August 4th, 2009 at 10:15 am
What a great set of circumstances. It strikes me as a wonderful opportunity to read the book first and “follow along” as you adapt it. Hope you have time to explain your process along the way.
(downloading my copy to Kindle now)
August 4th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Hey John,
Congrats to you and Steve. Grove is a great press – they’ve done tons for American literature.
Your quote:
“Like Go, it’s about thinking you have the system all figured out, realizing you don’t, then faking it. Characters who do the wrong things for misguided reasons are the heart of comedy.”
is awesome. I love this kind of comedy as well.
I wonder how long Steve took to write his novel… and rewrite his novel? Will look for his blog now. Thanks.
August 4th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Oh wow- direct too- yippee! sounds very fun-post modern- a writer directing an adaptation of a novel about a novelist…
August 4th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Didn’t I just read somewhere that you should never write a screenplay that quotes a lot from books?
Where did I read that? I think it was on one of the screenwriting blogs…
August 4th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Great work. I can’t wait to see you make fun of the publishing world. How ripe for the picking, to use a cliche. As long as you get a few JK Rowling jokes in there.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Sounds cool!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY JOHNNY BOY!
August 4th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
:) I just finished reading this last night (got a copy at BEA and it finally made it to the top of my TBR pile). Found myself nodding and agreeing with so many of the commentaries about how decisions are made — and seeing them pile up on top of each other built the comedy till there was only one final conclusion.
Fun novel (although translating it to screen is going to be…challenging. Much of the fun stuff comes in the “real” stuff before each chapter).
Very cool timing :)
August 4th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
This is fantastic news. I read How I Became A Famous Novelist a few weeks ago and instantly fell in love. I was thinking about how ironic it’d be when the book inevitably got turned into a movie, so now I’m super psyched.
P.S. You should also do an adaptation of The Tornado Ashes Club
August 4th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
@Jason:
The Tornado Ashes Club (the book-within-a-book) is awesome, but my hunch is that doing it as a movie-within-the-movie would probably crash under too many layers of meta.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
This is exciting. I’ve been hearing a lot about this book. Also by Steve Hely, and awesome: http://www.believermag.com/issues/200906/?read=article_hely
I’d also like to say that I love your signature John. That’s how you you’ve made it… (theoretically, I mean. I’m sure YOU know you’ve made it.)
August 4th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Hey, John. What if shortly after the Tornadoe Ashes Club is Published… John August comes on the scene with his Hollywood lawyers and buys the screenplay…?
August 4th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
If “characters doing wrong for misguided reasons is the heart of comedy” how do you explain Ghostbusters to list just one of a million comedies that don’t fit your formula? Isn’t the essence of comedy aggression?
August 4th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Congrats on the “get”. I like that “I will also pester you on Facebook” line… it’s humorous and personal and tells him you’re serious about tracking him down at the same time.
Looking forward to reading the book.
Interestingly, my writing partner and I (a few months ago) tossed around the idea of a screw-up guy accidentally writing a best selling self-help book on a lark. Think I may table that idea for a while now.
August 4th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
After reading the excerpt, I think Steve Hely is going to have to watch his back at book expos.
Does he spoof Cormac McCarthy in the book?
August 4th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Funny, just finished reading this book and I don’t read much. I knew someone would pick it up to make into a movie. Glad it’s you. I guess as a screenwriter, I should have thought to option it, but it sounds like what I thought, it happens before the book even makes it to the shelves.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Just read this book on your recommendation, and I enjoyed it. You said doing a movie within the movie would be too meta, but you must include Pete’s imagined Tornado Ashes Club trailer. Funny scene and ripe for great cameos!
August 4th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Wow. I really don’t care for American Dad or 30 Rock (yes, I know I’m in a VERY small minority among people who have actually sampled those two shows), so you can imagine how excited I was to click on that excerpt link.
But it was fantastic. Laugh out loud fantastic. Laughing so HARD out loud that others came over to see if I was okay fantastic. Damn.
God, when I read the first small passage and saw that the name of his book was the Tornado Ashes Club, I couldn’t stop giggling for a full minute. I don’t know why. Fuck it-I don’t want to know why. It’s just funny.
I want it all, John. I want to hear Pete’s demented narration as he reacts (or fails to react) to the world around him. I want to see how he wakes up. More than that, I want the movie to show me one-minute versions of the wonderfully awful book excerpts whenever he references them (a melodramatic, over-the-top reenactment of The Chronicles of Esteban would make my year).
There are challenges to adapting something like this that I don’t even want to think about, and I don’t know if your movie will work. But given your talent as a filmmaker and the wonderful first chapter I just read, I can tell you I’m already waiting to plunk down my $10.
And I’m heading to Barnes & Noble tomorrow (no Kindle for me yet, unfortunately). You just sold another copy of Mr. Hely’s book (well, I suppose Hely’s hilarious first chapter also informed this decision). I hope your getting royalties. :)
August 5th, 2009 at 12:36 am
I read the first three words of the excerpt and groaned, reaching for my wine: “In strewn banners…” It was “strewn” that did it. But what a delight, scrolling my browser down, realizing that the passage is itself an excerpt from his heinous, titular success. I think a great opening bit would simply be the author, after agonizing for hours at his typewriter (and it has to be a typewriter) arriving, ultimately, at “strewn” like so many New Yorker shorts before him.
Or maybe buying a typewriter should come first. They’re not easy to come by. I called five typewriter repair shops trying to find mine, but none of them carried typewriters. Eventually, I found 3 models at Staples, all cheaper than the portable hard drive I originally went for.
Now the bad news. While the first sentence of the actual story was perfect, the ensuing prose disintegrates into a Lettermanesque monologue–only one without the knowing segues and the charm of being topical. Sure it’s a joke-a-paragraph, but so few of them connect. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr.: “I never dare to write as funny as I can.” The mediocre jokes only lessen the good ones when they arrive–you’re ready for them.
However, when I read it imagining you imagining it as a movie, it worked. I shared your excitement. The part about the bath will play, and EssayAides is a great occupation (not to be confused with EasyAides?). I like Sturges. What if he’s a Cato fan, ending every scene with, “Carthage must be destroyed”?
Sorry for droning on. I’d say it’s a decent book with great film potential. It can even sustain voice over in moderation–better than “The Great Buck Howard” anyway.
Just make sure there’s an “Oh for fuck’s sake!” moment.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:36 am
Sounds intriguing! Happy “conversion”! I am looking forward to see the result! :-)
August 5th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Good afternoon, John August!
Just dropped by to wish you well on your script adaptation of “How I Became a Famous Novelist.” Got here from a post Scott Myers made on his “Go Into the Story” blogspot.
http://www.gointothestory.com/
I’m a fellow pre-pro/undiscovered screenwriter myself. Got 10 feature length spec. scripts I’m currently trying to sell, and I’m putting the final touches on a two part feature adaptation of a biblical story, which I’ve spent about a year on. Yikes! Anyway, I hope your adaptation goes smoother than mine did. I have a lot of respect for the career you’ve carved out for yourself, and look forward to seeing your adaptation of “How I Became a Famous Novelist.” on the silver screen. When that happens PLEASE make sure it shows at the Regal multiplex in Bonney Lake, Washington. Do that and you’re sure to get $10 bucks outta my pocket.
Keep rockin’!
August 5th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Kudos. I saw this on Done Deal. I have to ask if you accept queries. Please don’t be mad. I’d be happy if you visit my blog. :-)
August 6th, 2009 at 9:55 am
@Paul #21
exactly; strong observation… take anything by neil simon
i think the misguided thing is more visible in contemporary comedies, generally speaking
August 6th, 2009 at 10:39 am
@Paul:
Where did I claim I was offering a Grand Unified Formula of Comedy? I wrote exactly one sentence: Characters who do the wrong thing for misguided reasons are the heart of comedy. That’s far short of a template. It’s an observation that comedies almost invariably feature people who go too far in pursuit of something questionable.
You want to say it’s not the heart, fine. It’s the lung. The spleen. Regardless, it’s a key component, and has always been.
Take The Importance of Being Earnest. Take The Clouds, if you want to go Greek.
Frankly, I’m more interested in pointing out what a terrible counter-example Ghostbusters is. It’s a great movie that makes my point much better than yours. At every step, the team is doing end-runs around the law, mostly for reasons of pride and self-interest. We love the characters because they’re misbehaving.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Dangit. You got my mouth watering for a book right at the start of my LA move roadtrip.
What are the chances of borrowing your notes-in-the-margins copy when I arrive on the West Coast next week?
August 6th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
A grand unified theory no, but certainly a premise, a foundational premise, to wit, the particularizing effect of your use of the definite article “the”.
It is not my intention to be argumentative. I quite enjoy this blog. In fact, it is your perspicacious refinement of the written word that compelled me to respond in the first place.
Now, while there is no question examples of comedy employing a “wrong thing for misguided reasons” trope (Dr. Strangelove comes to mind) exist, I remain unconvinced that it forms “the” heart of comedy. How, for instance, would it apply to Being There, City Lights or Working Girl? Or Lysistrata, if you want to go Greek?
I stand by my premise that aggression is the essence of comedy. Whether it’s slipping on a banana peel, satire like that of the novel you have purchased, or the kind of passive aggression employed by many stand-up comedians who act self-effacing so they can then launch into attacks on others.
As for Ghostbusters, I believe you to be mistaken. In fact, I would say Ghostbusters represents the exact opposite of your premise. You have a group of guys who are misfits, the human equivalent of genetic mutations (at least in terms of Ackroyd and Ramis, Murry just wants to get laid) who are pre-adapted for an environment that doesn’t exist. In this context, they appear to be misguided, but, when ghosts descend on New York, they are not only proven right, they are the only thing that stands between the world and the apocalypse. While the authorities get in their way, the comedy really stems from these guys taking their outlandish idea and putting it to the test in a “real world” environment and punishing ghosts (aggression). They essentially do the right thing for the right reasons in a world turned upside down, which is befitting of a movie with such an absurd premise.
Anyway, thank you for your parry. This site has provided me with many insights and continues to offer food for thought in a most generous spirit.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Great! Really Enjoy this.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Uggh. I hate it when people use big, obscure words like “perspicacious” in order to sound uber educated. I mean – dude – you know full well perspicacious is not in the lexicon of 98.9% of the population yet you trot it out as if to make the statement “John smart, but me smarter”.
You can make your points using sentences like “I shall continue to vituperate the esteemed August, inducing him to repartee with the utmost celerity”, but you’re going to sound like a jackass.
My $.02
August 6th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
“perspicacious” is only ever used by a sesquipedalian.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
@Adam
If I had composed a sentence like the one you offered, I would indeed sound like a jackass. As it stands, the word “perspicacious” was not intended to inflate the perception of my intelligence, but because it was the precise word I sought. I could have used sagacious (perhaps at three syllables still too pretentious?) or keen, but neither is as specific to “having or showing penetrating mental discernment” (the dictionary’s choice of words, not mine) as perspicacious. Writing is about making choices after all.
Odd too that you would chastise me for a word used to compliment John.
By the way, being that this is a blog for writers, I fully suspect that the 1.1% of people who would know the definition of perspicacious would include those who frequent this site. Like yourself, right?
I’ll take your two cents and raise you nickle.
August 6th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
@DAVID
Or Herman Melville.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Actually no, Paul. I had no idea what perspicacious meant – you see, I’m a writer-director, not merely a writer, thus, any knowledge I’d have gained by being said scribe is outweighed by the boorish heavy-handedness that is a script ruining director.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
I love how this site is filled with one working professional and a litany of cinematic legends whose works play nightly in the theater of their own minds.
August 7th, 2009 at 12:50 am
@PAUL #34
The Ghostbusters are considered to be “snowball artists.” Dana Barrett views Venkman not as a scientist, but more like a “game show host.” Venkman, Ray and Egon all like working for the university because they don’t have to produce results. They can just do their own thing and be left to their own devices, with the school footing the bill. They are poor scientists. With that setup, their actions don’t take on the color of righteousness, but of opportunity.
If the thesis is “aggression is the essence of comedy,” then how is Ghostbusters, a supernatural comedy about three sloppy scientists aggressively going into business as paranormal investigators and eliminators the antithesis?
And isn’t “aggression is the essence of comedy” just a simplification of “doing wrong for misguided reasons”?
Other thoughts:
“… pre-adapted for an environment that doesn’t exist.”
Ray’s great plan was to lunge at the Library Ghost, shouting, “Get her!”
Egon is “terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought” at the sight of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.
“they are the only thing that stands between the world and the apocalypse.”
Had the Ghostbusters been open about their proprietary technology with the EPA and local governments (Venkman remarks that each of them carries “unlicensed nuclear accelerators” on their backs), had Venkman not antagonized Walter Peck, the protection grid might not have been turned off and the entire third act would have never happened. They do the wrong thing — keep secrets, be douchey — for misguided reasons: profit, popularity, arrogance.
“They essentially do the right thing”
… lie and cheat?
“for the right reasons”
… to get laid, get rich and be famous?
“in a world turned upside down”
… largely by their own doing?
It is not my intention to be argumentative. I merely offer a counterargument to the opinion that “Ghostbusters” represents “the exact opposite of [John's] premise,” with a corollary that the proposed premise is merely a semantical reinterpretation of the original.
August 7th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
@Paul
You’re wrong. John and Bryan are right.
-Justice Eric Sotomayor
August 7th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
@BRYAN
You can’t but be argumentative if you’re offering a counter-argument. Likewise, your understanding of the plot of Ghostbusters is equally incoherent.
August 9th, 2009 at 9:17 am
I believe Paul is really Steve Hely doing some kind of super meta comedy thing due to the occurrence of a Ghostbuster poster throughout the book. Here I just thought it symbolized the Pete chasing down the demons and ghosts of his life.
August 10th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
@JASON
Seriously dude, I’ve never met Steve Hely. I happened perchance to witness his “indoctrination” by a group of inmate volunteers up at Aberdeen Correctional Facility, but it was at a distance of well over fifty yards and I was in a hurry to make it to the gift shop before it closed for the day to buy an Abba-Zaba. At best, I would call it a passing glance. I didn’t even recognize him from his book jacket. Of course, his face was slightly contorted and turned away at a quarter moon.
August 11th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Just finished– what a great, quick read.
John, I’m interested to see how you tackle the three different endings in your script, and which will come to the forefront! Certain subplots resonated deeper with me than others, and those subplots tended to be brushed over in the end without any real growth or closure, to my dismay. (The wedding, to be precise.)
Looking forward to reading about the progress!
August 12th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Read it after seeing this post. I wish I could say something positive. Ok, the first sixty pages or so are pretty funny if you’re sarcastic and or cynical which I am. So I liked that. It even got my hopes up but by the end it was a chore to finish and having just finished it I am currently depressed and angry by it. I wish I knew the proper use of the word solipsistic. Could make money though pseudo Nick horsnby/almost famous or whoever hip however you spell it
August 12th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Two Words: Miller Westly.
He deserves his own movie entirely. Hope he makes it into the movie. I’d like to see Robert Downey or Russell Crowe sink their teeth into him.
Can’t wait, John!
August 20th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Am I a crazed nihilist if I failed to be floored by his brilliance?
August 21st, 2009 at 10:21 pm
When you promote the movie, you should have a “Become a Famous Novelist”-izer that works the way Pete Tarslaw writes. You type a sentence and hit Submit, then it uses a Thesaurus to convert all the “walks” to “amblings” etc (p.74). There was something similar recently about “How to write a sentence like David Foster Wallace.” Or that old standby, Pornolizer.
Checked HIBAFN out from the library and I’m loving it. Very curious to see how you incorporate the various types of terrible writing onscreen.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:49 am
I just finished reading the book today. The first 2, 3 chapters were great since it set up the whole situation within the first 50 pages. I assumed the whole thing was going to be about rubbing things in Polly’s face at her wedding. That quickly came and went with not a whole lot happening except for Tarslaw getting drunk.
Then all the other stuff happened and it seemed like it would just meander. At least the “controversial interview” with Tinsley Honig on “Dispatch” where he said how he really felt about Preston Brooks, which made his book really take off, was a nice twist. Then being suggested to do damage control by apologizing to Oprah was very funny. It reminded me of the whole “A Thousand Little Pieces” fiasco.
Although I absolutely loved the stereotyped portrayal of the Hollywood agent, Miller Westly, that Pete had to deal with when talking about turning “Tornado Ashes Club” into a movie. His dialogue and list of notes was the best.
The only hole I found in the story was when Lucy was editing the book at Ortolan and kept calling Pete about holes in “T.A.C.” Finally he just tells her to do whatever she wants in order to leave him alone. We never find out whether she substantially changed much of the book herself or left it as is. Be sure to take that into consideration when writing the script, John.
And hey, if “Famous Novelist” gets made into a movie, I think Brian Cox would be perfect to play Preston. Eric Bana or Simon Baker could play Polly’s husband, James, since he’s Australian.