Writing vs. Publishing dilemma

johnhallow · Aug 17, 2012

BBBurke, I see your problem, and I agree that readers and agents don't approach a book the same way.

IMO, if you're happy with your story, forget agents. A good book is a good book. I get that you're terrified of getting your MS rejected (what unpublished writer isn't?), but in the end it's really a matter of how willing you are to stick to your vision. If you feel that the shape of your story adds a certain something to it, keep it the way it is.

If you've written the story you want, and this is how you want readers to see it, you owe it to yourself to ignore your fears and send it out there. The truth is that your fears aren’t unfounded – your book really may get rejected based on how agents think it will unfold. But there’s still the chance that someone out there will enjoy it (in the same way you believe your readers would... and agents are as varied as readers).

People constantly hear about successful authors who got rejected over and over again, but I don't think it really sinks in what kind of emotions they were up against. People don’t stop to think about the fear and uncertainty these authors would have had to struggle through to keep sending their stories out. Many would’ve had to choose between writing a more “commercial” book and getting their story out there the way it was.

So I'll say this: if it’s laziness speaking, go back and revise your story. If it’s genuinely the story you want to tell, start querying agents.

Personally, I write as if the gatekeepers didn't exist. I've made up my mind to write for a specific audience, and so my stories are tailored for that audience. I don't believe in distorting a story due to a meta-element like an inundated agent's aversion to slow beginnings. Especially when their role is to find books that readers will love... not books that they can be bothered to read. Do your job and hope that they'll do theirs.

ETA: This is all assuming you've had your story beta'd by a handful of fantasy readers. If you haven't, do that first and incorporate any changes you think you should make.

quicklime · Aug 17, 2012

BBBurke said:
Lord of the Rings was a trilogy - together they told one story. .

BBBurke said:
[FONT=&quot]1. Quicklime - I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but starting with 'your argument is wrong' is not the friendliest of welcomes. I have an opinion, you may disagree, but that doesn't make me wrong. it isn't an opinion; a trilogy is defined as a 3-book story; LOTR was a single book sliced into 3. That's not the same thing. It was never written to be 3, there is no real resolution, only an extremely unclean break, that's really not a trilogy. That was a slicing by Marketing. That isn't a trilogy any more than me taking The Stand and tearing it into 3 sections means I "Trilogized" it, it was still written as a single book.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In fact, I think rose's post confirms what I said - one story, published as three separate books. but again, definitions matter, and a trilogy is written as 3 books with an overarching story....not any old story cut in 3. Some trilogies have cliffhanger endings that require the next book, some series each book stands alone, some things fall between them. What I was expressing is that the story I'm working on is more of the first than the second. Rose's opinion that she hates 'to be continued' endings and that I should make the first a stand alone is very helpful.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2. I never said I write like the classics. I just referenced classics cause that's the first thing that came into my head. I do think some stories are better with build up - that doesn't mean they are slow, perhaps they just switch tone at some point. But when submitting a chapter or two on a query the build up doesn't come through because the pay off is never reached. Publish-ability is often judged on a small sample and I can think of a number of books that I didn't like at the start but ended up loving. I'm not writing for myself, but for the reader - of the whole book. I don't want to have to write for an agent who is only going to read the first 50 pages and make a decision then. (but I accept the fact that I might have to in order to get published) but if you can't engage the agent in 5, 10, 50 pages, what makes you think the reader is going to stick around for the payoff at page 300 the agent long ago left? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]3. I understand how publishing works. well, no offense, but you're citing examples published around the time my grandfather was in the military....and I'm not exactly young. So then you MUST know those are less than relevant to today's more restrictive world....[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The question I'm struggling with is how much to try to tailor my writing to the publishing side of things vs. what I think ultimately makes a better story for the reader. I realize that a great story no one reads isn't worth much, but if I just try to please the publishing world then I'm sure everyone on here would come down on me for being a sellout, trying to capitalize on the latest trend, etc. (I've seen that happen to someone who said they decided to write YA because it's what's hot, though that's just following the standard advice...). Everyone says to write what you love, then everyone says that if you want to get published you need to give publishers what they want. There's a balance there somewhere, and that's what I'm trying to find. I think this is a false dichotomy. You have to (well, most people have to) write things you have some level of investment in, because simply writing to spec leaves something that is dry and sterile. So Danielle Steele probably can't write a particularly good zombie horror novel if it isn't "in her" just to chase a trend. At the same time, you still, and always, have some responsibility to your reader. And now, competition is fierce and attention spans are short. So there's nothing that says you need to open with gunfights, but if you're boring the reader.....there's someone else who won't, and the reader will find them. I think you feel you either need crashes and chases right off the bat to hold an agent, or you can make your "awesome work of art with a payoff at page 300" but you can engage, both agent and reader, without needing chases and explosions. Duma Key and Bag Of Bones were a couple of my favorite King books, both start out "slow" in that there is no horror for at least a hundred pages in either, but that 100 pages is still engaging. Red Leaves (forgot the author's name) is much the same, from a mid-lister who doesn't have King's record, so this isn't a case of bloat. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The point is, you can get to the action as slowly as you like...so long as you still engage the reader (and this includes agents and editors, who are also readers--this is often forgotten) on the way there. But if that "buildup" is boring them, they won't care about the payoff. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]From your post, I am going to take that you suggest I make the first book stand-alone and try to get that published instead of writing what I believe would ultimately be a better story for the reader. And I appreciate the opinions that you and everyone else have expressed, even though they are not all the same.[/FONT]

My opinion was and still is that the core of your argument is flawed, like the old joke/question "Do you walk to school or carry a lunch?" Your best bet is to write the best story you can, and yes there are caveats, like the fact in this risk-averse world, a standalone with "series potential" is better than a cliffhanger that "forces" the reader to buy another book if they want anything resolved, but there are also caveats to "forcing" yourself to write something that just won't come. I'm not giving advice on which course to take so much as trying to inform your argument, so you can make that decision without leaning on things done over 70 years ago.

On a side note, I like Tom Piccirilli, a sort of mid-list guy. I found a book of his at a rummage this spring and read it. It was the second of three or more books about a guy who was brought in as a driver by his criminal grandfather, then went straight, then got pulled back in. This "middle book" started with him drifting into a job with an East Coast mob family, then ripping them off and taking the money to try to find his grandfather and take the kid his grandfather was attempting to raise, killing gramps if he had to. It ended with the crime family, gramps, Chase (the MC), the kid, etc. all in a bar and a shootout......followed by Chase leaving the hospital, his grandfather picking him up, and them setting out together to find the kid, who the mob family now had. The point was the story had a solid intro, a clean ending, and stood alone. There WAS a greater arc, including Chase and his grandfather finding the child, and a showdown coming, but the book wrapped up neatly with Chase getting out of the hospital and setting off to find her again. Using that as an example, are you sure you aren't simply over-thinking this?

James D. Macdonald · Aug 17, 2012

Beachgirl said:
So the fact that an agent or publisher might read 50 pages before deciding is pretty darn generous.

What they're deciding by page 50 is whether they want to read the full. The decision to buy comes after they've read the whole thing.

Do I want to turn the page? That's the question every reader asks at the bottom of every page.

BBBurke · Aug 17, 2012

quicklime said:
Your best bet is to write the best story you can, and yes there are caveats, like the fact in this risk-averse world, a standalone with "series potential" is better than a cliffhanger that "forces" the reader to buy another book if they want anything resolved, but there are also caveats to "forcing" yourself to write something that just won't come.

Thanks for the suggestions and your thoughtful response. Along with everyone else's thoughts, this has been quite helpful to me.

Writing vs. Publishing dilemma

johnhallow

Hello? Eat my tarts?

quicklime

all out of fucks to give

James D. Macdonald

Your Genial Uncle

BBBurke

Along for the ride