pseudonym questions

From what I understand, you should always query under your real name. The pseudonym comes later in the process. Others with more experience can chime in about referencing your other publications. I'm sure you want to. I'm not sure how to handle the books that didn't meet your publisher's sales expectations.

As for your current publisher, follow up and ask about the contract. Ask if s/he is still interested in the book. Don't assume the worst. They may simply be busy and backlogged. Either way, you want a definite answer.

jeseymour said:

How do I get the attention of an agent, showing my experience, without drawing attention to the fact that the novels were junk? Should I send queries to agents under my name and just put the pseudonym on the manuscript?

Help me start over.

Click to expand...

The following is my opinionated reply.

If your novels are junk, then you REALLY should find a new hobby. Nobody wants to read junk, much less buy it. Using a pseudonym won't change junk into gold.

HOWEVER... I suspect your novels aren't actually junk; you've just failed to identify your commercial audience. If you're writing for fun, by all means write anything you want but don't have your end goal be sales. If that happens, great. But a hobby isn't, by definition, meant to be lucrative.

You are a female writing about a male hit man... your overwhelming audience is going to be male. Did you write with a firm masculine point of view? Would your books appeal to the male reader? (See Lee Childs for the epitome of a masculine point of view that attracts both male and female readers by the drove.)

I don't know why you're not writing traditional mysteries with a female protagonist who lives in coastal New Hampshire. Maybe even period pieces. I don't know why you're not aiming to be the next Charles Todd-like author with a Bess Crawford-esque series. You can incorporate horses, and all the coastal grandeur of where you live. Small villages in the early 20th century maybe. Isn't there an unsolved crime in your area or a famous one? Isn't there a story that you could tackle from a fictional aspect?

I wrote a couple novels that never sold well. When I landed on a series that became popular, there was a renewed interest in those novels and they ended up not only achieving commercial success but winning prizes.

Why not write for your natural audience and wait for your other works to be discovered?

I suspect you have it in you to be a smashing success as a novelist.

Unless your novels really are junk. Then I suggest you take up gardening.

A lot of people have first novels that don't do well. You may be overthinking this.

Anagrams. There are anagram generators online. I'm using it because I don't need my mom to know what kind of icky-sticky man-on-man junk my mind is capable of, yet I don't want to yield my ID completely.

But, pseudonyms, in my opinion, are for the public. For on the book cover. Not for the publisher and agent and editor and whoever else needs to deal with you directly. When doing business, I want to know who I'm dealing with. After all, they might be a fraud, a serial rapist, or a big fish I absolutely need to catch.

Many agencies will want to deal with real people rather than pen names when it comes to contracts. Also, copyright protection is different whether the author is identifiable or pseudonymous. More on this here: ( clicky )

-cb

I fully agree that jeseymour should tell the stories that are in her heart. There are a lot of reasons why her novels published today may not have met their audience.

Veinglory is right. Don't over-think this, jeseymour. Don't hide your past. It will come out with an agent or publisher eventually. Give them your best work today, under your real name, and work out the pseudonym later.

My first books with small publishers were under a pseudonym. The sales were modest, if anything, but I managed to get a few loyal followers among readers and agents under that name. I am querying a new novel, but I tell agents my real name and mention that I had written under the pseudonym. If I get an agent, we can discuss whether I should continue under the same name or start fresh with my real name.

If your current book has been accepted by a publisher but they have not sent a contract, have you contacted them? I don't quite understand that situation.

I'm sure plenty of us look back at our earlier work and cringe. Which just means you've improved with more effort. If your earlier novels weren't that great, can you get your rights back? You can always re-work them. Or if you're saying they're junk just because they haven't sold well, remember that can just as easily be the publisher's fault as the writer's.

And yes, the pen name goes on the manuscript, under the title. Your real name goes with your contact information and also on your queries, contracts, and checks (otherwise, if your bank is like mine, they won't accept the deposits).

Finally, and not knowing if you have or not, I would always get other eyes on the work before submitting it from now on. Critiquers and beta readers are invaluable. There is so much we miss that others notice.

So, it sounds to me like you are actually doing just fine and making progress, too. You have a lot of stories under your pen name so if you're happy with those, why not just continue with that name and try to get the books you've grown past "un-published?" (IF you're sure the writing is even the problem there).

Good luck.

I can see an editor saying she is accepting a novel unless she actually wants that novel. No good editor would ever do this. I don't know the publisher, however, so maybe she isn't a good editor.

At any rate, many a writer has had two three, or four novels flop completely before writing the one that sells big time.

This is one reason I hate it when new writers insist on starting with something like a trilogy, or a series of any kind. When the first book or two flops, publishers often don't give the writer another chance. This is seldom true with standalone novels.

When I started writing, publishers did not expect a writer to write novels that really turned a profit until as late as the fifth novel. With standalone novels, most publishers, even the big ones, still let a writer write three novels before judging them.

At any rate, agents are often the ones who will query your new novels under a pseudonym. Depending on where you live, you can also file a Doing Business As name, and use it as a pseudonym.

What you can't do is keep your real name secret, and still use the credits you built up under a different name. So what? If those credits could get you a new novel deal, you wouldn't need the pseudonym.

Jamesaritchie said:

This is one reason I hate it when new writers insist on starting with something like a trilogy, or a series of any kind. When the first book or two flops, publishers often don't give the writer another chance. This is seldom true with standalone novels.

Click to expand...

James, I can see your point, but it seems to me that publishers, at least in certain genres, are often looking for a series, and an author who says that they can turn one book into several can become more appealing to sign.

Namatu said:

James, I can see your point, but it seems to me that publishers, at least in certain genres, are often looking for a series, and an author who says that they can turn one book into several can become more appealing to sign.

Click to expand...

Stop talking about me behind my back.

MarkEsq said:

Stop talking about me behind my back.

Click to expand...

It's good to see you here, Mark!

Namatu said:

James, I can see your point, but it seems to me that publishers, at least in certain genres, are often looking for a series, and an author who says that they can turn one book into several can become more appealing to sign.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what the writer says. It simply doesn't. I know when I read the first book whether it can be turned into a series, and I probably know better than the writer does.

I also know that if the first book flops in a major way, there will be no series. For new writers, series are made, not born.

Publishers have always loved series because readers have always loved series. Publishers do not like losing money, and they especially don't like losing a LOT of money. This is why they usually want the first novel to be a standalone. This way, they only have to commit to a single novel.

Unfortunately, too many use series for every type or novel that continues. I suppose it's unavoidable, but it was easier to understand what publishers wanted before this usage creeped in.

A trilogy, for example, is not a series. Nor is a teralogy, etc. When a given number of books have one overall story, it really shouldn't be thought of as a series.

Rightfully, a series is one book after another that uses the same protagonist, but where every book is a standalone novel. Whether it's Nancy Drew, or Travis McGee, or Spenser, it's easier to call this a series.

Publishers and readers love series like this. Because every book is a standalone, the publisher never has to risk losing money on more than one book. If the series is selling really well, they will give the writer a contract for several books, but they never have to do this until sales are good.

When a new writer wants to write something like a trilogy, or even a heptalogy like J. K. Rowling wrote, it's a whole new ballgame. Unless that first book is written so it can, if necessary, standalone, a new writer is extremely unlikely to sell any of them. It's just far too much money to risk on an unproven writer.

Publisher know better than you do whether a book can make a good series of any kind. And despite the hype about series, which primarily comes from agents, publishers truly love standalone novels. They love them to death. Especially from new writers, but also from established writer.

New wirters who talk about series in teh sense of five books to complete teh story, or eight books, or ten books, are shooting themselves in the foot. Usually in both feet, and maybe a third time in the rear end.

Write one book. Just one. Make it a standalone. If it's a series like Nancy Drew, or Spenser, or you name it, you don't have to say a thing about a series. You just have to have an MC who can face more problems in more books.

If it's something live a trilogy, on one with more books to finish the tale, you still need to write the first book in a way that allows it to stand alone, if necessary. J. K. Rowling did this about as well as it can possibly be done.

Anyway, every new writer out there seems determined to write a Harry Potter type "series", and with the way they approach it, it just is not going to happen.

Publishers really do love standalone novels. Always have, always will. And as a new writer, writing one is far and away your best chance of breaking in.

I'm a reader who'll jump into the middle of a series. I agree that their being written to stand alone is helpful, and desirable. If I like that book, I'm likely to go back and read what came before it. If I'm lost, I won't even finish.

The "to be continued" style of series is much harder to pull off, and to do so successfully. It's a big gamble on the part of the publisher to accept that from any writer, much less one newer to the publishing world. I don't doubt that publishers love standalone novels. That said, my original point remains. If a publisher seeks multiple novels with the same MC from an author, they don't do so in a void of "hey, write us some more." They want the gist of the story, and, depending on the publisher and author, through the editing process they can have some say in exactly how standalone or entwined each book will be.

Basically, the publisher's not signing an author blind. They've got a first novel in their hands, and if they want more, they've got an idea of what that is. If they're averse to the plot entwined through multiple books, they should be having that discussion with the author before signing.

Namatu said:

Basically, the publisher's not signing an author blind. They've got a first novel in their hands, and if they want more, they've got an idea of what that is. If they're averse to the plot entwined through multiple books, they should be having that discussion with the author before signing.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing this may be genre-specific. Trilogies (and series) seem to me to be common in genres like SFF, MTS, and romance, but less so for lit fic. I know my agent pitched one book (although she mentioned I was writing a sequel), and I ended up selling a trilogy. That suggestion came from the publisher, not us.

Anecdote =/= data, but my sense is that my experience is not all that unusual these days.

Bergerac said:

You are a female writing about a male hit man... your overwhelming audience is going to be male. Did you write with a firm masculine point of view? Would your books appeal to the male reader? (See Lee Childs for the epitome of a masculine point of view that attracts both male and female readers by the drove.)

I don't know why you're not writing traditional mysteries with a female protagonist who lives in coastal New Hampshire. Maybe even period pieces.

Why not write for your natural audience and wait for your other works to be discovered?
.

Click to expand...

So let me get this straight... you think the OP will have success if she just sticks with what women writers should stick to - writing about female protagonists and maybe even period pieces because that is their natural audience? Seriously?

News flash. Women writers write male protagonists in mystery series all the time with great success. Anne Perry, for example, has a very successful series with a male detective (William Monk). Oh, and there's Agatha Christie who wrote about a certain Belgium detective. She must have been writing for her natural audience because that same sleuth became one of the most well-known (maybe the most well-known) detective worldwide.

Sorry to be sarcastic here, but there is nothing that annoys me more than someone (male or female) who makes assumptions about what women writers can and cannot write about and where they can or cannot succeed. I'm sorry that the first 2 books in the OPs series weren't successful, but telling her that it's because she (gasp!) decided to write about a male hit man rather than "to a natural [ergo, extremely limited male perception of an] audience" is pretty obtuse.

Djuna

djunamod said:

So let me get this straight... you think the OP will have success if she just sticks with what women writers should stick to - writing about female protagonists and maybe even period pieces because that is their natural audience? Seriously?

News flash. Women writers write male protagonists in mystery series all the time with great success. Anne Perry, for example, has a very successful series with a male detective (William Monk). Oh, and there's Agatha Christie who wrote about a certain Belgium detective. She must have been writing for her natural audience because that same sleuth became one of the most well-known (maybe the most well-known) detective worldwide.

Sorry to be sarcastic here, but there is nothing that annoys me more than someone (male or female) who makes assumptions about what women writers can and cannot write about and where they can or cannot succeed. I'm sorry that the first 2 books in the OPs series weren't successful, but telling her that it's because she (gasp!) decided to write about a male hit man rather than "to a natural [ergo, extremely limited male perception of an] audience" is pretty obtuse.

Djuna

Click to expand...

No. That's not what I said.

I'm a VERY successful female novelist with a male protagonist in one of my series -- a cop. The majority of my readers of that series are male. I also write another series featuring a female LEO. And I write a television series with an almost all male cast. But I have a background in law enforcement.

I was saying that the OP might want to write to her strengths, her unique setting. I certainly do that with what I write. The city I worked in is almost a character in itself, which practically sold my original novels.

I don't think you used very convincing counter examples. I would argue that the William Monk novels are (or at least were) as much about Hester Latterly as they are about Monk. And those ARE period novels.

And Agatha Christie -- really? Poirot? Last time I checked, those were period novels as well. Your two examples seem to prove my point more than yours.

If you're searching for contemporary series by female writers with male protagonists, perhaps you list someone like J.A. Jance or Karin Slaughter or someone similar who is relevant by today's standards.

I wasn't trying to be demeaning to the OP, and I believe she knows this.

Jes, I read your first book and it was very good! I hope you realize that the market under-rewards small press books just because of lack of print distribution. Even my small book column is restricted in that the books have to be on-the-shelf in OKC.

So what have 2 books accomplished for you: beginning to build a fan base; constructing platform and name recognition. Even reviewers who said no to the first two will know your name now.

Michael Connelly met my sister when Distortion was first out and he said, "tell her if she's selling anything, she's outselling my first book." It took 4 books before he had a following big enough to consider it stable.

Look where he is now!

Lucie