Is it better to sit on your first few books?

[MountainLark]

A hypothetical.

1) Let's say, against all odds, you've written a banger of a first novel. Only problem is, it took you eight years to write it.

Another hypothetical.

2) Okay so your first novel wasn't a banger, but hey, it was your first attempt and it had some good bits. So what if it repeatedly got "to", "two" and "too" confused? Spelling is a social construct, anyway. You rush to get it published, and get turned down. Several, several times. In a fit of pique you self-publish on Amazon, sell an undisclosed amount of copies to your relatives, and become a professional BookTuber.

Final hypothetical.

3) Your first novel is not just a banger, but a masterpiece. It's just that it's written entirely in Second Person, omits the letter "F" -- but only on every other page -- and serves as an allegory for the candidacy of "Pigasus" during the 1968 U.S. presidential election.*

What do all three of these have in common? They're all first novels, and they're all -- in theory -- a hard sell.

The first one because, while it might bring some return, it's not bankable for the foreseeable future. Yes, there's lots of authors who only had one or two books inside them, but it seems that, all things being equal, publishers prefer someone who can put in the shoe leather and have a steady, if not prodigious, output. (I'm looking at you, Steve King and Brando-Sando.)

The second is DOA because the author didn't concentrate enough on their craft and got themselves into print, anyway. And now it's on the Internet, which means it's there.....forever. Now I realize the norms are shifting, but I still think this would count as a possible strike against being picked up by a Big Name Publisher.

The third is hard because Literature is never recognized during the author's lifetime. But seriously, super experimental/controversial books are more than some publishers are willing to gamble on. Especially if the plot involves pigs.

Why am I nattering on about this? It's all a setup for my actual question:

Is it advisable to just SIT on your first few books?

Pros:

• If you're the sort that takes forever, at least you'd have a couple extra works onhand when asked, "What else are you working on?"
• If you're trigger-happy to publish, you instead patiently hone your craft and not face embarassment later on when you see how far you've come.
• If your work is too niche, you'll be able to possibly get more reach once your more mainstream work gets out there.

Cons:

• While sitting on a couple of books, you throw out your back.

Would love some more thoughts on this. Sorry for the over-the-top format; I've been suffering from insomnia all week which makes me a bit dotty.

*Yes, this really happened.

ML

 

[Chris P]

I've heard it said that a writer needs to write one millions words before they are ready to publish. That's of course a vast overgeneralization, but I think it illustrates that many writers will end up sitting in their first books whether they plan to or not. I know most of my first million words are just sitting on my head drive!

It would also be unfortunate to sit on something for years that might be an instant best seller/ cult classic/ whizzbango. I'm tempted to default to the advice I learned here to get the first book querying to agents and get going on the next book immediately. Then repeat once the second book is querying, and so on.

 

[Maryn]

I echo Chris P... Chris P... Chris P... Chris P...

The odds of one's first book being really great and fully marketable are not all that good, because the author has not, in all likelihood, written literally a million original words (rewrites don't count) or, as an alternative, put in ten thousand hours honing the craft. For many of us, that kind of sustained effort, with classes, qualified critique, revision, honest beta readers, etc. is the best, maybe even the only, way to reach your peak as a writer--and as a rule, it's writers at their peaks who get agents and sell books.

It also seems to me that the author is rarely able to judge the quality of their own book. I love my books, but I honestly have no idea if they're any good. What do I have to lose if I submit and move on to the writing the next one, unless I know it's not a good book?

Whether I should sit on them might be different for me than the next person. I'm way, way past my million words. I've taken the classes, and taught a few. I've participated in an active, genre-specific critique group for more than two decades. This is as good as I'm going to get, so I might as well do with each book as I will. Some of my work is quite niche, and it's interesting to me to note that the niche is often filled with books I know aren't as good as mine.

It boils down to whether there is any possible advantage to you sitting on your existing book(s). If you know the book you've written's not a great book, you definitely should sit on it, because you're using up your one chance with each agent or publisher who sees it. If you know you're getting better, maybe you should, because your next book will be better--but the existing book might already be good enough.

Maryn, with a Gallic shrug

 

[Lakey]

1) Let's say, against all odds, you've written a banger of a first novel. Only problem is, it took you eight years to write it.

(glancing at the calendar) Why is this a problem?

 

[Fuchsia Groan]

(glancing at the calendar) Why is this a problem?

I feel this. I’m currently revising a novel for publication that I’ve been working on since 1987. (I “finished” it many times. The current draft bears almost no resemblance to those versions.)

But I’ve also written a book in three months. Taking a long time to get one book right doesn’t say anything about your writing speed in general. Maybe you’re a slow writer, or maybe Endless Novel was just a tough concept, or maybe you used Endless Novel as a learning experience and became a much faster writer of future books.

 

[Woollybear]

I'd only add that my stab at a third novel-length story is wildly different and hopefully better than stabs one and two, and some other writers might find the same. So, sitting on the first novel seems like a reasonable way to go. (I didn't; I self-published with no regrets, but sitting on it and learning new skills on #2... #3... #4... could work out really well.)

Plus, given enough time, your manuscript will eventually legitimately end up as historical fiction.....

 

[Tavia]

I think sitting on a first novel is normal but not universally necessary. It depends on what else the writer’s been doing with their life up till now. Their resources, circumstances, work ethic, mindset, social circles, savviness in sifting google search results for advice vs. BS.

Speaking purely for self publishing, because that’s where my experience is, I also don’t think publishing an imperfect first book has to doom a career. There’s a minimum quality level that I think ethically one should reach if one is asking money for a book, absolutely. But learning, growing, and improving with each book is a very normal trajectory in self-pub. The caveat is that one does need the type of mindset that wants to improve, not despair, after disappointing results.

As a hypothetical addendum to hypothetical 2 in the OP— perhaps joining the Booktube community gives our hypothetical author a better understanding of how tropes work, how to make a book absolutely addictive, and hey those other authors appear to be hiring something called a copy editor. Book 1 sank, maybe the sequel does too, but the next series does a bit better. And the third series does a bit better too.

And if in retrospect it’s actually that bad, there’s always another pen name

 

[MountainLark]

I've heard it said that a writer needs to write one millions words before they are ready to publish. That's of course a vast overgeneralization, but I think it illustrates that many writers will end up sitting in their first books whether they plan to or not. I know most of my first million words are just sitting on my head drive!

So roughly 10 novels of 100,000 words. -- or 100 short stories of 1000 words? That sounds about right, even though I'm poor at math.

It would also be unfortunate to sit on something for years that might be an instant best seller/ cult classic/ whizzbango.

It would be. Especially as some topics/styles fall in and out of fashion.

I'm tempted to default to the advice I learned here to get the first book querying to agents and get going on the next book immediately. Then repeat once the second book is querying, and so on.

I've not heard this before. (But perhaps I've just not been paying attention....?)



ML

 

[MountainLark]

I echo Chris P... Chris P... Chris P...

Heh!! Heh!! Heh!!

The odds of one's first book being really great and fully marketable are not all that good, because the author has not, in all likelihood, written literally a million original words (rewrites don't count) or, as an alternative, put in ten thousand hours honing the craft. For many of us, that kind of sustained effort, with classes, qualified critique, revision, honest beta readers, etc. is the best, maybe even the only, way to reach your peak as a writer--and as a rule, it's writers at their peaks who get agents and sell books.

True. Although I'm astonished at the amount of people who can churn out reams of material for decades, yet don't measurably improve -- and (more rarely) those who appear to pop out of the womb with a high level of talent. Like all populations, I suppose there's a curve.

It also seems to me that the author is rarely able to judge the quality of their own book. I love my books, but I honestly have no idea if they're any good. What do I have to lose if I submit and move on to the writing the next one, unless I know it's not a good book?

Excellent point. Who knows what will connect with an audience? I once read that Mark Twain was convinced that his best work -- the one he would be remembered for -- was his historical novel, The Personal Recollections of Joan of Arc.

Whether I should sit on them might be different for me than the next person. I'm way, way past my million words.

Congrats!

I've taken the classes, and taught a few. I've participated in an active, genre-specific critique group for more than two decades. This is as good as I'm going to get, so I might as well do with each book as I will.

As I approach a certain age, I'm beginning to understand the constraints of a lifespan. It's daunting but comforting.

Some of my work is quite niche, and it's interesting to me to note that the niche is often filled with books I know aren't as good as mine.

Niche can be nice. I suppose it helps to find one that fits...

It boils down to whether there is any possible advantage to you sitting on your existing book(s). If you know the book you've written's not a great book, you definitely should sit on it, because you're using up your one chance with each agent or publisher who sees it. If you know you're getting better, maybe you should, because your next book will be better--but the existing book might already be good enough.

So very true. There's a saying that goes something like, perfect is the enemy of good.


Best,

ML

 

[MountainLark]

I feel this. I’m currently revising a novel for publication that I’ve been working on since 1987. (I “finished” it many times. The current draft bears almost no resemblance to those versions.)

Wow! The initial spark must've really left an impression, for you to keep at it like that.

But I’ve also written a book in three months. Taking a long time to get one book right doesn’t say anything about your writing speed in general. Maybe you’re a slow writer, or maybe Endless Novel was just a tough concept, or maybe you used Endless Novel as a learning experience and became a much faster writer of future books.

Also wow! That is super fast -- at least, to me. And you're correct about getting faster. I used to write 200-500 words a day, and now I'm up to 500-700. Still glacial, but improving.

ML

 

[MountainLark]

I'd only add that my stab at a third novel-length story is wildly different and hopefully better than stabs one and two, and some other writers might find the same. So, sitting on the first novel seems like a reasonable way to go. (I didn't; I self-published with no regrets, but sitting on it and learning new skills on #2... #3... #4... could work out really well.)

Good to hear about the self-publishing route with no regrets. And yes, sitting sounds do-able, as long as one is learning.

Plus, given enough time, your manuscript will eventually legitimately end up as historical fiction.....

My 1990s-era novel is rapidly approaching that. Ooof...

ML

 

[MountainLark]

I think sitting on a first novel is normal but not universally necessary. It depends on what else the writer’s been doing with their life up till now. Their resources, circumstances, work ethic, mindset, social circles, savviness in sifting google search results for advice vs. BS.

Super good points!

Speaking purely for self publishing, because that’s where my experience is, I also don’t think publishing an imperfect first book has to doom a career. There’s a minimum quality level that I think ethically one should reach if one is asking money for a book, absolutely. But learning, growing, and improving with each book is a very normal trajectory in self-pub. The caveat is that one does need the type of mindset that wants to improve, not despair, after disappointing results.

True, true.

As a hypothetical addendum to hypothetical 2 in the OP— perhaps joining the Booktube community gives our hypothetical author a better understanding of how tropes work,

I suppose it would, seeing as I still can't wrap my head around how that community views and interacts with what they call "tropes". But that's for another thread, perhaps... EDIT: see this link to see what I mean: https://www.acriticalhit.com/how-tv-tropes-changed-the-meaning-of-trope/

And if in retrospect it’s actually that bad, there’s always another pen name

Right??


ML

 

[Nether]

What do all three of these have in common? They're all first novels, and they're all -- in theory -- a hard sell.

Not really? A first novel can be as hard to sell as a fifth. And unless you tell an agent something was your first novel, they wouldn't necessarily know it. Even in terms of mistakes, since you need to have something pointed out before you can fix it. My first three manuscripts didn't use chapter breaks until an indie publisher who full-req'd (this was prior to my arrival at AW, and thankfully the discussions stopped there -- other AWers have complained about this particular publisher, so I never followed up with them) pointed it out, at which point I had to google it.

Technically, a completely unpublished author can have a better chance at publication than a second book queried/subbed by an author whose debut novel sold badly.

The first one because, while it might bring some return, it's not bankable for the foreseeable future. Yes, there's lots of authors who only had one or two books inside them, but it seems that, all things being equal, publishers prefer someone who can put in the shoe leather and have a steady, if not prodigious, output. (I'm looking at you, Steve King and Brando-Sando.)

I feel like that's often less a matter of somebody only having a book or two in them, and more a variety of reasons -- such as bad sales on the first book or two, which might have nothing to do with the author.

Is it advisable to just SIT on your first few books?

Meaning what? Obviously you should try querying your first few books. If they aren't picked up on query, then you have decisions to make. Waiting instead of pubbing can make sense to keep your debut author status and get additional opportunities.

However, I'll mention I have twenty-six manuscripts I'm effectively "sitting" on -- only one of which I really attempted to query, and did so badly. (Some were edited, but at least fifteen are unedited finished first drafts.) I'm going to probably wait until I query all of those -- or almost everything (because there might be another 26 manuscripts by the time I get close to querying the first 26) -- before I might self-pub. Mostly because trade-pubbing can be a huge deal, besides giving you greater access, letting you learn more about certain processes, etc.

In the meantime, though, I'll be sitting on some manuscripts.

Cons:

• While sitting on a couple of books, you throw out your back.

Geez, then I must be giving myself a hernia right about now.

I've heard it said that a writer needs to write one millions words before they are ready to publish.

I'm at over two million, so I guess I'm finally ready!

That's of course a vast overgeneralization

Oh...

 

[frimble3]

How about a compromise?
You've got your first book ready to go, you wait until you've written the second, then look for an agent for the first?
That way, if interest is shown, you've got the second, so less pressure on you.
Also, if it's intended as a series, the second book gives you a chance to adjust things between books.

 

[MountainLark]

Not really? A first novel can be as hard to sell as a fifth. And unless you tell an agent something was your first novel, they wouldn't necessarily know it.

I don't have to tell them it's my first? Huh!

Even in terms of mistakes, since you need to have something pointed out before you can fix it. My first three manuscripts didn't use chapter breaks until an indie publisher who full-req'd (this was prior to my arrival at AW, and thankfully the discussions stopped there -- other AWers have complained about this particular publisher, so I never followed up with them) pointed it out, at which point I had to google it.

As in, there weren't chapter headings with titles, or numbers, or that there weren't a requisite amount of spaces between scenes within a chapter, or...?

Technically, a completely unpublished author can have a better chance at publication than a second book queried/subbed by an author whose debut novel sold badly.

Which is something I'd rather avoid.

I feel like that's often less a matter of somebody only having a book or two in them, and more a variety of reasons -- such as bad sales on the first book or two, which might have nothing to do with the author.



Meaning what?

Meaning some people only feel the need to only write a couple books, or even one. There was a burgeoning need to say something, they said it, and that's all they felt they needed to say.

Obviously you should try querying your first few books. If they aren't picked up on query, then you have decisions to make. Waiting instead of pubbing can make sense to keep your debut author status and get additional opportunities.

((Nod))

However, I'll mention I have twenty-six manuscripts I'm effectively "sitting" on -- only one of which I really attempted to query, and did so badly. (Some were edited, but at least fifteen are unedited finished first drafts.) I'm going to probably wait until I query all of those -- or almost everything (because there might be another 26 manuscripts by the time I get close to querying the first 26) -- before I might self-pub. Mostly because trade-pubbing can be a huge deal, besides giving you greater access, letting you learn more about certain processes, etc.

Twenty-six?? Is this like a Sue Grafton series, one for each letter of the alphabet? (joking -- that's actually quite impressive.)

In the meantime, though, I'll be sitting on some manuscripts.



Geez, then I must be giving myself a hernia right about now.

Hehe.



ML

 

[MountainLark]

How about a compromise?
You've got your first book ready to go, you wait until you've written the second, then look for an agent for the first?
That way, if interest is shown, you've got the second, so less pressure on you.
Also, if it's intended as a series, the second book gives you a chance to adjust things between books.

Bingo. This sounds do-able.

Not a series, though. Although, it could be....? (I really enjoyed writing about my first novel's characters and am weirdly missing them; that being said, I think it's good for my brain to take a break and attempt something new.)

Thanks,

ML

 

[CMBright]

I don't have to tell them it's my first? Huh!

If it is your first published, you are a debut writer, even if it is your fifth novel written. If you have books published, that needs to go in query letters.

 

[frimble3]

Bingo. This sounds do-able.

Not a series, though. Although, it could be....? (I really enjoyed writing about my first novel's characters and am weirdly missing them; that being said, I think it's good for my brain to take a break and attempt something new.)

Thanks,

ML

Good, so all your literary eggs are not in one multi-volume basket!

 

[Nether]

I don't have to tell them it's my first? Huh!

Certainly not in the query. It's something that will probably come up on a call when they're deciding whether to offer representation (at which point they're interested anyway), but a lot of unpublished authors have more than one book.

As in, there weren't chapter headings with titles, or numbers, or that there weren't a requisite amount of spaces between scenes within a chapter, or...?

I *think* they mostly wanted page breaks (which I'd forgotten were a thing since I never used them), but that's when I started setting my chapter numbers using headings (or as headings?)

Twenty-six?? Is this like a Sue Grafton series, one for each letter of the alphabet? (joking -- that's actually quite impressive.)

They aren't all connected, no.

Manuscripts 1-3 are the first three books in a series (which might someday go out 11-14 books). YA horror or urban fantasy, although I'd kinda envisioned it as transitional series (ie, starting younger then getting to a more conventional YA).

#4 is an adult fantasy, that iirc critters felt was YA given the ages in the first chapter. Had planned a sequel or two.

#5 is an adult horror, which I might sequel.

#6 is another adult fantasy. I'd wanted it to be a trilogy, but I'm thinking it'll just be a one-off.

#7 (SLS) is a YA horror meant to start a series, probably 4-6 books in all, but not doing sequels until something happens with the first.

#8 is a mess (kinda). Adult horror-drama.

#9 is potentially upmarket horror.

#10 is a YA slasher (thriller/horror)

#11 and #14-25 are part of a YA horror anthology series. Although a few are indirect sequels, most of them are effectively standalone with either references to other works, use of shared locations, use of shared supporting characters, etc. However, at least two (LP and DHSDH) have no real connections to speak of (where, iirc, I didn't even reference the town's name and the characters don't visit the town proper) and several of the others are tangential. I'd like to do direct sequels as well, but it doesn't make sense just yet.

#12 is a supervillain thing that critters have questioned if the content is too explicit for YA and the tone might be too old.

#13 is a MG fantasy (FGI). Planned to have a few sequels if it sells.

#26 is a YA slasher/thriller. Would sequel.

So, basically 2/3s are somewhere around the realm of YA horror

The alphabet thing is kinda out the window, though, since a few letters are duplicated. A few of the titles are alliterative, but that's not a consistent thing.

 

[susanthebookish]

Is it advisable to just SIT on your first few books?

I know that when I wrote my first book, I knew NOTHING about how it works to get published, or even how to write a proper novel. It was a whopper, WAY over 100,000 words, and it's even worse because the MC was fourteen. I tried a little bit of querying, but I didn't really know how to query, either. But the experience was really eye-opening for me, and I started doing a lot of research on how to write a book and how to query, and this time (my second manuscript), I feel much more prepared.

 

[Jean P. R. Dubois]

I've heard them referred to as "Trunk Novels" and a lot like other art forms, such as drawing, your earlier work may not be worth publishing. If you get super famous, you might be able to release them as a special insight into your early years but they will look and feel much different than they would once you learned the craft. Sometimes, if the idea is strong enough, you can take the core concept and re-write the whole thing, but it may not be worth the effort.

I listened to a podcast where Brandon Sanderson talked about it. Even he has trunk novels that he will never release because they are just not relevant any longer and have aged poorly, requiring way too much window dressing to fix. It's like going back in time and looking at your old highschool photos. You may not look as bad as you thought you did at the time, but your outfit, hairstyle, and makeup wouldn't look good on you now.

Then there are super successful first novels, Twilight, Harry potter, etc. the thing is you can't really generalize it in a broad way. What you need are outside, unbiased opinions. Your family and friends will always couch their opinions, even if they give you constructive feedback. That doesn't mean you shouldn't get their input, it can still help get you to a state that you are more comfortable sharing it with strangers.

Things like writing groups or critique partners or beta readers are where you will get more honest reviews of your MS. The more people you get feedback from the better, since opinions are intensely personal regardless of affiliation, you will need to look for common trends in feedback. If you consistently get told your punctuation is terrible, you may need to look at that (Guilty). Or if everyone says chapter 5 is boring, and they glossed over it and don't see how it ties into the overall narrative, you may need to revisit it or *gulp* kill your darling. But if one person read it and they are the only one to comment that they couldn't connect with your character or the setting was offputting, that may not be something that requires intense scrutiny on your part.

Above all, you need to take in all your feedback without taking it personally or pushing back against it too hard. Don't rush to get published before you get outside input. It's a recipe for failure that will come with no growth as a writer. We all need critiques from someone not close to the material to see how it sounds to them. We see our story in a much different light than someone else because we know what happens, who dunnit, how they got there, where they are going. We need to communicate that in a way that makes sense to someone with no background on your story or world. That's an aspect that is missing from your Hypotheticals.

 

[mccardey]

This is all the way back in the 90s - and also in Australia - but my first novel (MG) got picked up very quickly and sold lots and lots of copies and had posters in school libraries and book bins in book shops and letters from children and everything. It was lovely. So no, I don't think trunking the first novel should be an expectation. I do think you can learn a lot in writing your first novel, but I also know lots of writers whose first novels did very well.

I'm always a bit unnerved by the idea of assuming that first drafts are going to be crap or that first novels are trunk novels. They can be, but they needn't be, and I don't think it's always the best expectation to go in with. Life's short, yanno? Being prepared to trunk a novel that doesn't sell is a good thing to keep in mind - but writing it with the expectation that you'll trunk it, is probably not so good.

Don't hate me for this - I'm just answering a question that was asked.

 

[lizmonster]

I sort of sold my first novel? It was part extensive revision of one I hadn't finished, and part a merging with what had originally been a sequel. It was my first finished novel-length work, in any case.

I wasn't young like mccardey, though - I was 50 when it sold.

But yeah, I do think it varies HUGELY by author, and by project.

 

[Kpopalypse]

I just put stuff out there when it meets my own personal standards, that's all. I don't worry about if other people think it's any good or not, I figure that's why there's critics who get paid to determine that sort of thing. Let them earn their money.

I'm sure my writing now is way better than a decade and three million words ago, or at least I'd hope so. It feels like I've improved, but maybe that's not true and I've actually gotten worse? One thing I have definitely learned however, is that it's not always very easy for me to tell what's going to resonate with other people. Trying to second-guess my audience is impossible, everyone is so varied in their tastes. I can only remain true to myself and my reasons for writing and hope that other people appreciate it, knowing that no matter what I do, a certain percentage never will!