Even before that, people were looking for "The Next Harry Potter". So was the onslaught of Harry Potter getting endless mentions in praise and reviews of drastically different genres. I would pick up a memoir, and it would be compared to HP. (Like your life story is about getting stalked by an evil wizard.)
|The trinity. (from ashworthcollege.com)|
The difference was, however, The Hunger Games was actually a good novel, so to be compared to it is a win/lose situation.
But it's also meaningless.
You don't want to be compared to something successful. That's like Google Chrome saying it's the next Facebook. You don't want to replace something that WORKS. You want to BE the mold breaker. There's a reason that The Hunger Games booted Twilight from its throne. Because it was wholly different. No one compared The Hunger Games to Twilight.
I was reading the blurbs on Throne of Glass by Sarah J. Maas, and a lot of them compared it to THG. One blurb said,
"...watch out Katniss, I think Celaena [MC] could give you a run for your money!" [Taken from physical ARC]Although this was said in the best intentions, I have to say that if someone said that about my book, I'd be pissed. That's pretty much saying, "Oh, your book is good, I guess maybe it could be as good as The Hunger Games..."
On the other hand, Fifty Shades of Grey is now mainstream, despite being of a very niche genre. It, too is getting compared to everything. (I should add that romance novels getting compared to 50 Shades is completely wrong... erotica is NOT romance. At all.)
Prompting this tweet from Elsie Chapman, author of the 2013 Dystopian debut, Dualed:
All authors shouldn't have to go through the pain of getting compared to something else, even if it's good. But if it's bad- that's another story.
Plus, as the saying goes, you can't compare apples and oranges.
So, what do you think? Apples or oranges?