# Expectations for first novel



## enchantedsecret24 (Jul 7, 2013)

Hi guys, how is everyone!? I haven't posted anything in forever, but I have been super busy with work, college, and writing in any free time left. I have been working on a book which would be a YA fiction novel and I was just wondering what realistic expectations I should have.

For starters I have now 39.5 thousand words which I am really proud of that number. That is just part one though, I have just begun part two of the novel. I am feeling really good about it and having a lot of fun which of course is nice, but realistically, should I probably not even attempt to publish this book?

I have always written poems and short stories since I was a little kid, but this will be my first full on book. I know once it is finished there will be tons of editing that needs to be done. I can already think of scenes that need switched or taken out completely. I was thinking maybe I can just publish my first with kindle publishing, just to see what happens?

What are your suggestions? Should I even attempt to send it out into the big scary world of publishing and hope that I can get lucky? Or should I probably just use this as practice and continue on to bigger and better things? Suggestions, comments, advice would be much appreciated! Thanks


----------



## Robert_S (Jul 8, 2013)

A good critique is essential. Send it to a publisher, but expect a rejection. Hopefully, they will send it back with a critique. Read it thoroughly and try to see what they see.


----------



## Grape Juice Vampire (Jul 8, 2013)

^This. The best way to know where you're going wrong or what you're doing right is to find out.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 8, 2013)

There's no reason - zero - why you shouldn't try.

Not going to kid you. Getting published is incredibly difficult. Getting your first ever attempt published harder still. But in theory your first book has as much chance as your second, fifth, eleventh, etc. Sure, the more you write the better you'll be technically, but your ability to come up with ideas and be inspired - that does not get better just because you're on your twentieth attempt. Who knows, this book could be a masterpiece. It could make you millions. It's happened before, it'll happen again. There's no reason to assume just because its your first attempt its not going to break through.

The key thing though is to manage your expectations. This is especially important for beginners. Again, not going to kid you. The likelihood is that probably wont happen. Statistically, most writers don't get published at any point in their whole lives. Statistically, even those that do don't get rich or famous. Statistically, this novel will probably crash and burn.

Of course, a lot of these 'statistics' are because beginner writers will write something, send it out and get rejected. They will get rejected because their first attempt is rife with technical errors, their pacing is wrong, their characters are wooden, they don't send it to the right people, the list goes on. Your best bet is to do the following once you've 'finished' the writing and editing:

1) Get the manuscript and put it under your bed. Don't look at it for at least a few weeks. Try to forget about it during this time. This is to allow it to cool. You'll see why.
2) When you're ready, get it out and read it again. Read it all from start to finish without stopping or making changes.  Read it very slowly. Ideally you should arm yourself with a pencil or something. Circle or underline any immediate issues that you didnt notice before, but dont stop reading.
3) Fix the stuff you found. 
4) Put it under your bed for another few days and repeat 2/3.
5) Allow somebody who knows what they're talking about to read it. Can't emphasize the importance of being selective here. Do not allow your girlfriend, parents or anybody who loves you to come anywhere near it. They will lie to you even if they try not to. It can be hard to find the right person, but its important to be careful. They dont need to be a writing expert, but they do need to be reasonably well read and in the position to give you honest feedback.
6) Review their criticism. Consider whether it necessitates further work. If it does, repeat the previous steps.
7) Once you have vetted the manuscript for content errors, now's the time to prepare it for submission. Read up on proper manuscript formatting techniques. These are generally standardized - double spaced, 12pt TNR, no colors or dumb stuff. Prepare your synopsis, cover letter, all that fun stuff. Remember to follow vetting procedures for these also. 
8) Research agents (if traditionally publishing) or self-publishing routes otherwise. Ask questions and decide what route you want to go. Vet all potential agents through predatorsandeditors.com and check their submission guidelines. Alter submission package as required to fit their requirements. 
9) Submit manuscript
10) Wait for rejection letters.

While the old chestnut of 'think positive' can work in certain arenas, its pointless in publishing. Pointless because the odds are so sorely stacked against you you will be causing yourself undue pain to invest in an outcome. Once you've mailed your book, expect nothing. The best you should hope for is good critique as Robert said. In my view, rejection accompanied by good critique is actually a highly successful outcome. A renowned agent taking time to critique your work should be seen as a huge compliment, and every syllable treasured like the word of God himself. If and when you get it, use it. Make the changes if you can stand to. And keep trying. Don't give up on your book until you have solicited every agent from here to Angola.


----------



## Sandy (Jul 8, 2013)

I'm so glad to hear you're enjoying working on your novel and definitely encourage you to continue.  There's no reason not to try to find a publisher -- after all, it's the ultimate prize for every writer!  I absolutely agree with Luckyscars that the odds are very high (I think I read somewhere that it's like one in 100,000), and that you should take great care in revisions before you submit.  

Oh, and never, ever, pay upfront fees to agents or publishers. Ever!   There's a whole industry of leeches feeding off your dreams and  ambition. 

Keep your expectations modest but your dreams high, and I think the best advice I can offer is to just keep writing... one book after the other... because each moment you spend writing you'll get better and better.    The worst thing that can happen is hearing the word "no."  No harm done!  You can always self publish, caress it lovingly, put it on the bookshelf and do it again.

Of course, the best thing that can happen is "yes."  The word dreams are made of!

Best wishes and enjoy the journey!


----------



## Myers (Jul 8, 2013)

luckyscars, I'm not at that stage yet, but my wife stores all the shoes she will never wear again under our bed. Is there somewhere else I can put my manuscript?


----------



## Apple Ice (Jul 8, 2013)

I personally think this post is a to show how well you're doing and for some more encouragement. Which is fine. But I think you know yourself it's always worth trying. So yes, try.


----------



## dale (Jul 8, 2013)

enchantedsecret24 said:


> What are your suggestions? Should I even attempt to send it out into the big scary world of publishing and hope that I can get lucky? Or should I probably just use this as practice and continue on to bigger and better things? Suggestions, comments, advice would be much appreciated! Thanks


of course you should send it out. of course, you should expect at least 1 rejection, also. maybe all rejections. i fully expect my 1st novel to be published somewhere.
i'm just more concerned with the "where".


----------



## Sintalion (Jul 8, 2013)

You absolutely should. It's next to impossible, but take the advice of the users above and get it done. You'll feel so good about being able to write a story to completion, even if it burns. It all helps you build confidence and a thicker skin. Writing is sort of like driving. Even if you almost hit a wall the first time, you'll feel even better, and make fewer mistakes, the second time. 

Realistically, expect to get the novel done for yourself. Do everything you can to come out the better writer, and have an open mind when it comes to rejection. Because it's your first "child" you might feel a little more frustrated when something goes wrong or a negative comment is made (and you might be extra reluctant to change). It's not always easy to hear that you've poured out 39k words and someone tells you they can't even get past the first page. 

But it helps.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Jul 8, 2013)

enchantedsecret24 said:


> I was thinking maybe I can just publish my first with kindle publishing, just to see what happens?


I just wanted to note that even if you decide not to try traditional publishing, you'd still want to set the work aside and revise it extensively before self-publishing. If you publish in whatever form too quickly, seems to me there's a good chance you'll look back at your work in a year or two, when you have grown and improved significantly, and see a lot of problems that you did not see at first, that can no longer be changed. I wonder if it would even hurt your chances with future novels, if agents were to search your name and find a somewhat immature or unpolished piece. Whatever you send out into the world, better make sure it's something that will make you proud.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 8, 2013)

When writing, the one expectation you should have is that it will take a long, long, long, long, _long _time for you to be 'finished' with your novel. I plan to be working on my current WIP for the next five years at the very least, since I'm certain the concept is good and with time and effort I should be able to make a half-decent story out of it. 

Spend a long, long, _long _time over your novel. Polish it until you're sick of it, then clean up the sick and polish some more.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jul 8, 2013)

Publishers don't like first novels because the author has no history of success.  But if you throw out your first twenty and try to get the twenty-first published, you still have no history of success, and you're no better off in the publishers' eyes.

If your first novel is of publishable quality, there's no reason to not get it out there.  While there's no question you'll be more experienced in later attempts, there's nothing that says first novels can't be good, either.

Get it published.


----------



## movieman (Jul 8, 2013)

lasm said:


> I wonder if it would even hurt your chances with future novels, if agents were to search your name and find a somewhat immature or unpolished piece.



If you're worried about that, use a pen name.

There's no reason not to self-publish a first novel these days, so long as it's at least competently written. You might not think it's great, but it may be just what ten thousand readers are looking for.

I would say the main thing with a first novel is to get it finished as well as you can, because that will teach you a lot more than just writing a first draft. If you don't publish it, at least find a few people to read it and give feedback.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 8, 2013)

Cadence said:


> When writing, the one expectation you should have is that it will take a long, long, long, long, _long _time for you to be 'finished' with your novel. I plan to be working on my current WIP for the next five years at the very least, since I'm certain the concept is good and with time and effort I should be able to make a half-decent story out of it.
> 
> Spend a long, long, _long _time over your novel. Polish it until you're sick of it, then clean up the sick and polish some more.



I don't completely agree with this. I do agree that an author should put in a serious effort to make their manuscript as error free as possible, but spending years polishing a single work, is a bit too Gollum-like for my comfort. Spending years seeking technical perfection may make you a skilled polisher, but it's not going develop your storytelling skills at all. 

Don't get me wrong, I spent two and a half years on my most recent book. Two years writing the first draft and six months with the re-write and three edits. I solicited the input of people I respect and trust, but, in the end I decided that any more time spent trying to perfect Chase was going to come at the expense of my next novel. There are still imperfections in Chase, and I'll go back at least once and make more changes to clean some things up (an advantage to self-publishers--I can make any changes I want at any time and upload them to the Kindle and POD files), but obsessing about that book won't get me any closer to finishing my next (which I started last Friday). I believe in the relentless pursuit of perfection. In my opinion, however, I'm striving to become the perfect writer (I said it was a pursuit, not an attainable goal...) not to produce the perfect book.

But, of course, that's just one guy's opinion.


----------



## OurJud (Jul 8, 2013)

I have my own thoughts about self-publishing, especially in e-book form, but I shall keep them to myself as I strongly suspect it would make me a few enemies.


----------



## Sandy (Jul 8, 2013)

I hope all of this is not dampening Enchanted's enthusiasm and excitement - the thrill of humming right along with a by-gosh genuine novel for the first time is exhilarating (right, guys?) and everybody works at a pace that's comfortable for them, the type of project they're doing, the resources and time they have and the obstacles of research and fact checking they encounter.  But this is supposed to be fun, engaging, challenging, carrying a dream in your heart.  So yes, zoom forward to the end of the draft as happily as you can and don't look at what comes next as some sort of grueling punishment.  Editing is fun, too!  This is where you see your work as a whole piece for the first time and get to really make it something you're proud of.  A month or two, a year or two, whatever you prefer, but mostly take delight in what you've done.

As to publishing?  Sure, traditional is a real challenge with the gauntlet of agents and editors and all that goes with it - but gosh, the prize is so alluring!  Again, the worst, possible thing: no sale.  This is not fatal!  The alternative: self publish, admire your effort, and try again!


----------



## Sandy (Jul 8, 2013)

Terry D said:


> ...but obsessing about that book won't get me any closer to finishing my next (which I started last Friday). I believe in the relentless pursuit of perfection. In my opinion, however, I'm striving to become the perfect writer (I said it was a pursuit, not an attainable goal...) not to produce the perfect book.



So well said!  And I bet your goal is more attainable than you say!


----------



## Jeko (Jul 8, 2013)

> I don't completely agree with this. I do agree that an author should put in a serious effort to make their manuscript as error free as possible, but spending years polishing a single work, is a bit too Gollum-like for my comfort.



Of course, the length of the process is relative. I wouldn't say that you have to spend years polishing a work, but I would say that a writer should always expect to be in for the long haul if they're looking to get lucky traditionally published. 

If you want to develop your writing, I agree that editing won't help you much. Not to say that you can't write other stories while you edit. But if I ever finish something I think I could actually sell to the big wide world of publishing, I would want to give myself every chance possible, and I'd happily spend years doing so. Maybe it's because I'm young.


----------



## movieman (Jul 8, 2013)

Cadence said:


> If you want to develop your writing, I agree that editing won't help you much.



I somewhat disagree. Anyone who sets their mind to it can write a first draft of a novel (vast numbers do it every year for NaNoWriMo). The hard part is producing a complete draft that others want to read, and ideally a writer wants to get to the point where their first drafts are already close to that stage.

The big problem is that most first novels suck, and no amount of editing can fix them. So spending years trying to fix something that's fundamentally broken and needs to be redone from scratch is probably a waste of time.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 8, 2013)

> The hard part is producing a complete draft that others want to read, and ideally a writer wants to get to the point where their first drafts are already close to that stage.



The process doesn't aid artistry, storytelling or creativity as much as actually writing does, as Terry D pointed out. Editing is more of an exercise in perfection.

A good first draft? That's like sketching a picture with crayons. 



> So spending years trying to fix something that's fundamentally broken and needs to be redone from scratch is probably a waste of time.



Rewriting is part of the 'editing' process for me - it's included in the 'long haul'.


----------



## tepelus (Jul 8, 2013)

Write your book to completion and edit it to the best of your ability. Then, get a few beta readers to go over it and edit it again by using their critiques as a guideline to improve your work even more. You don't have to agree with everything they say, it's your work, but also take a closer look into the things you don't agree with and see if there is some truth in what they say. After you get to the point where it's a matter of moving a comma here, replacing a word there, you're ready to start querying agents, or if you so choose, to self-publish. No work is perfect, but it should be as good as you can make it. You're putting yourself out there as a writer, you don't want to hurry to publish when your work isn't ready. Your first work may never be a best seller, but it should be good enough for people to want to buy your next book. Do your best, and have fun writing.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jul 8, 2013)

Cadence said:


> The process doesn't aid artistry, storytelling or creativity as much as actually writing does, as Terry D pointed out. Editing is more of an exercise in perfection.
> 
> ...
> 
> Rewriting is part of the 'editing' process for me - it's included in the 'long haul'.



If rewriting is part of editing, shouldn't that help quite a bit in storytelling and creativity and all that? I feel you're obliviously using two different definitions of "editing" here.



Cadence said:


> A good first draft? That's like sketching a picture with crayons.



That is to say, it's rare but can be done.


----------



## movieman (Jul 8, 2013)

Cadence said:


> A good first draft? That's like sketching a picture with crayons.



Harlan Ellison used to write stories in a book store and stick each page up on the window as he finished it, for passers-by to read. I'm no Harlan Ellison, but I'd like to think that I can produce a perfectly readable first draft after a few more years' practice.

I certainly have found, when editing old novels that I hadn't touched for years, that by the fourth draft I'm putting back in at least half the things I removed in the second; the story wasn't bad, only the words had to be changed. The new novel should be at least a competent first draft that just needs tidying.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 8, 2013)

Many authors, particularly those who cut their literary teeth by writing for the old pulp magazines and, and for more modern grind-it-out markets like Harlequin Romances learned how to write clean, publishable copy in just one draft. The pay was so poor, and the competition so fierce, that they had to wrap up each project quickly to keep food on the table. 

I never make substantial changes to plot or characters on my second trip through a book. I'll trim scenes and work on SPaG, but I never change the story.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 9, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Of course, the length of the process is relative. I wouldn't say that you have to spend years polishing a work, but I would say that a writer should always expect to be in for the long haul if they're looking to get lucky traditionally published.



I don't think time ought to be much of a consideration.

The steps I gave in my above post are, in my opinion, always to be followed, but that isn't the same as saying one should 'be in for the long haul' in all cases. Some books - admittedly few, but some - require a very short period of being worked on - perhaps just a few weeks or less. Others do require a year or more. But five years? Five years seems a godawful amount of time to dwell on a single project. I would probably suggest that if you are going to invest such a long time on polishing and submitting a single book then either your book is extremely long and/or complex or you just work extremely slowly. 

But again, time is not a particularly important consideration here. It takes as long as it takes.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 9, 2013)

Cadence said:


> A good first draft? That's like sketching a picture with crayons.



Poppycock. 

First drafts don't have to be bad at all. As a matter of fact, if I ever believed my first draft to be 'bad' it would be difficult for me to bother to rewrite. 

A first draft, like a second, third, fourth and fifth draft... should be as good as it can be. It's as simple as that. Personally I can never understand why so many people get it into their heads this idea that 'first draft = rambling trash' or 'first draft = lets get the sex and violence in now and to hell with grammar' or 'first draft = a glorious excuse to write like a drunken ape'.

Every draft, I repeat, EVERY draft should be as good as it can be. 

Now it is correct that there are fundamental differences between most writers' approach to the first draft compared to that of later rewrites - Otherwise there wouldnt be much point to rewriting. It is also true that rewriting generally offers improvement, chiefly because it allows the writer to focus more on technical and structural details and 'missing pieces'. But your comment that a good first draft is like sketching a picture with crayons is entirely misguided. 

When I write my first drafts I always try and approach it as though I am writing the finished product. Why? Because if I go in with the mindset that 'this is the first draft so it doesnt matter' then guess what? It sucks, that's what. With writing, as with most things, attitude is everything. If you don't think positively and hold yourself to the highest possible standard your quality will suffer. So I write as well as I can, as efficiently as I can, and try to get everything down as well as possible with the view that the better it is the less of it I'll end up throwing away later.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 9, 2013)

> First drafts don't have to be bad at all.


Of course not, Enid Blyton and A.A. Fair would send first drafts off to the publisher. Come to think of it, maybe Cadence has a point.


----------



## Sam (Jul 9, 2013)

Cadence said:


> A good first draft? That's like sketching a picture with crayons.



This is one of the biggest misconceptions in all of writing. You don't suddenly lose the ability to write well because it's a first draft. It's a nonsense concept engendered by a handful of popular authors making sweeping statements that all first drafts are crap. There is no evidence whatsoever to complement their ramblings. The quality of a first draft is predicated on the quality of the writer and not on some arbitrary notion that first drafts are invariably doomed to mediocrity. 

Like Terry, the only changes to my first drafts are to trim a scene, rework a sentence, or clarify an arc. The story remains exactly the same. It was written the way I wanted it to be written, and not strewn together willy-nilly because, after all, first drafts are inevitably bad and so why would I bother? Or because I wrote seat-of-the-pants. Allowing yourself to believe that first drafts are going to be horrible regardless is a cop-out. If you put the work into any first draft, there's absolutely no reason to fall into the trap of thinking it will be bad.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 9, 2013)

> I feel you're obliviously using two different definitions of "editing" here.



I guess I am. There's the editing 'stage' and actual 'editing', which happens in the editing 'stage'. I think.


Interesting to see how a lot of people misinterpreted that I was saying the first draft of anything is crap. I'm not quoting Hemmingway. My attitude is that the first draft of anything is inferior (to any extent) to the final product, so I decide to sketch it out rather than try to make it as perfect as possible. I start, like Terry D, with the story. Get the story right. Then I can make it read nicely and be exciting and whatnot.

You _can _sketch a picture with crayons (as Gamer_2k4's link points out). I'd rather use a pencil, though. And you can still make amazing things with just a pencil.

I'm not saying it has to be bad. I'm saying it doesn't have to be 'good'.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 9, 2013)

> Five years seems a godawful amount of time to dwell on a single project.



Tell that to J K Rowling; she spent five years on HP before she even started writing the story.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Jul 9, 2013)

If you think it might be good enough, there is nothing wrong with sending it out. The worst that can happen is that it doesn't get accepted.  While you're waiting for replies, be working on that next novel.  Good luck!


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 10, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Tell that to J K Rowling; she spent five years on HP before she even started writing the story.



I think you need to pay a little bit more attention...



			
				Me in the same post said:
			
		

> It takes as long as it takes.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 10, 2013)

And do remember that the whole point of this post is advising a beginner writer on what their expectations for writing a novel 'should' be. The reason I said five years was a long time was because it is. You mention J K Rowling as though the time she took to write HP proves that five years is a healthy time for a beginner to allocate to one single piece of work. The reality is that is not a sensible or healthy piece of advice.


Let me put it this way. My first attempt at a novel was a magic-realism story about a farmer in the Oklahoma dustbowl who wakes up one morning to find a fishing boat has magically appeared in his field. I don't even remember the story, only that at the end he dies from a snakebite. I spent a whole nine months on rewriting and reattempting it before I realized the whole thing just wasn't that good. And when I realized that it was a huge relief and I moved on. If I had taken the advice that good practice was to spend five years polishing the proverbial turd before making the decision to scrap it I would probably have lobotomized myself with a spoon by now.


I'm not saying one should not be dedicated. I'm not saying one shouldn't spend five, ten, twenty or more years on a single work if (and only if) they believe in what they are doing (which was clearly the case with Rowling). What I am saying is that your 'advice, which was...



> When writing, the one expectation you should have is that it will take a long, long, long, long,





> _long time for you to be 'finished' with your novel._


_

..._is bad advice. It is bad advice because it suggests in a manner of absolutism that one _absolutely must_ invest a 'long, long, long, long, long time' in order to reach any kind of valid conclusion about whether a project works or not. In fact what is needed is not time itself. Rather it is efficiency in use of time. Three months spent carefully reading, reworking and evaluating is far more beneficial than three years spent stubbornly polishing the proverbial turd.


----------



## enchantedsecret24 (Jul 10, 2013)

Oh how I miss these arguments!  Like I said I have not been on here in forever, but wanted to post this question because I was just curious as to what you guys think abou a first novel. You guys have all helped very, very much and I really appreciate that! I guess like most of you said, the only thing I can do is try. If i fail, oh well, I haven't lost anything I suppose. 

I am having a lot of fun with the novel and right now that is all that matters. I would love to actually complete the story, (for once),so hopefully I can at least make that happen! If I can do that, then to me that is a huge accomplishment in and of itself, so the publishing I will wory about much later I guess. But dog gone it I will try! It has been my dream since I was a little girl, so I don't think I will ever give up on writing and trying to write something great enough to be published. It really would make my dreams come true! Thanks again guys, you have all been really really helpful!


----------



## Jeko (Jul 10, 2013)

If one expects the process to take a long time, and it takes less time, they are usually pleasantly surprised. If one expects the process to take a short time, and it takes more time, the process can become irritating, stressful and lead to disappointment. 

I _always _expect things to take longer than they should. That way, I am rarely disappointed by how long they take. My father is the same; in the company he manages, he does not treat risks as 'risks'. He treats them as things that 'will happen'. 

Do you understand, luckyscars, that my advice is not to give absolutes. I used to think I could write and edit a novel in a year. Maybe someone can. But I realized that I couldn't, and the realization hurt me and made me give up on the project because I suddenly thought that I would never get it done.

Now, I expect to be working on my current WIP for five years. It may take two. If it does, I will be pleasantly surprised.

This reminds me of a quote by Carol Joyce Oates: _Keep a light, hopeful heart. But expect the worst._


----------



## Sintalion (Jul 10, 2013)

I think what folks are eating at here is that you need to have realistic expectations set for yourself. There's a gut instinct every writer has that needs to be listened to. It's the same one many students  when there's a paper due at 9AM. You know exactly how long that paper's gonna take to pound out (call it: first draft); some just wait until there's only that amount time to write it. 

Myself, I have been a time manager since I was small. I consider myself extremely good at judging how long it'll take me to complete a task, whether it's an obstacle course or writing 1000 words. I set goals within my timeline as frequently as I believe I need them and try to complete them early because I know I work best under pressure. I know how much I can write while juggling work and moving and whatnot. I have a very positive mindset and do not get upset if something takes longer or goes awry; I just adjust and keep going. 

It works for me. Cadence has a different mindset and that works too. 

What they have in common is being realistic to us as individuals. If a writer wants to consider time, they need to look within themselves and ask: how long is it going to take _me_? You probably have an idea, whether or not you want to admit it. Only you know your situation- how familiar you are at editing, how much time you can dedicate, how long it takes you on average to write 1000 words, how much research your idea requires, etc. As long as you are realistic with yourself, it'll be hard to be disappointed.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 10, 2013)

Cadence said:


> If one expects the process to take a long time, and it takes less time, they are usually pleasantly surprised. If one expects the process to take a short time, and it takes more time, the process can become irritating, stressful and lead to disappointment.
> 
> I _always _expect things to take longer than they should. That way, I am rarely disappointed by how long they take. My father is the same; in the company he manages, he does not treat risks as 'risks'. He treats them as things that 'will happen'.
> 
> ...



The problem is not that your view is necessarily false. To say one way or another is not my place. I personally don't care how long it takes you or anybody else to write a book. If it takes you five years, that's just fine. I can conceive of spending that long on something - I just don't expect it. And moreover I don't think it really matters. It's done when it's done.

The problem is you stated that one _should _expect writing to take a long time. The problem is you injected the notion of a time frame. I regard this as bad advice because there is little or no correlation between the amount of time it takes to complete something and its quality. I particularly regard it as bad advice because it was precisely that kind of illusion I was laboring under when I spent nine months in my previous example. Bad advice. I should have trashed it the moment I realized it wasn't working. If I had I would have saved myself probably seven of those months that could have been used on something better. The OP's question was on managing expectation for a first attempt. For some reason you felt the need to bring in the idea that it somehow matters _how long_ something takes, that the longer you spend on something the more 'finished' (and therefore better) it will be. I don't find that to be good advice.


----------



## Sam (Jul 10, 2013)

Cadence said:


> If one expects the process to take a long time, and it takes less time, they are usually pleasantly surprised. If one expects the process to take a short time, and it takes more time, the process can become irritating, stressful and lead to disappointment.
> 
> I _always _expect things to take longer than they should. That way, I am rarely disappointed by how long they take. My father is the same; in the company he manages, he does not treat risks as 'risks'. He treats them as things that 'will happen'.
> 
> Do you understand, luckyscars, that my advice is not to give absolutes. I used to think I could write and edit a novel in a year. Maybe someone can. But I realized that I couldn't, and the realization hurt me and made me give up on the project because I suddenly thought that I would never get it done.



I wrote and edited a 250,000-word novel in six months. To this day, it's my favourite. 

It's very doable.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 10, 2013)

> I wrote and edited a 250,000-word novel in six months. To this day, it's my favourite.
> 
> It's very doable.



Wow. 

How long did it take yo to write your first novel (unless that was the first novel)?



> I don't find that to be good advice.



And I've just realized that I, with respect, don't care. I care whether the OP values my advice - I do not care whether you do. 

Thanks for the discussion, anyway.


----------



## Sam (Jul 10, 2013)

My first novel took a year to write and has never been edited. I printed it out, banished it to a sock drawer, and never looked back. I wrote the second one in eight months and spent three months editing it before doing the same. That novel I spoke of was my third one. It took four months to write and two to edit.


----------



## Writing Fanatic (Jul 10, 2013)

If you don't believe you can, will, or your novel is good enough to be published, it won't.  But if you believe, and work at it with all your heart, there's a good chance you'll be published.  The only advice I have for you is to believe you can publish it, and it will be good enough.

As for 5 years being a healthy length to write a novel... I disagree.  It's just in how your writing style is.  I wrote my first novel in 3 months.  Granted, it was much worse than if I had 5 years.  But getting caught up in years and years of writing a single novel is not good.  I've heard of people spending 13 years on one novel - that's no good either.  There isn't a standard you should write by.  How long it takes, is how long it takes.


----------



## Jared77 (Jul 10, 2013)

Like what luckyscars was getting at....make sure the book is GOOD.  Otherwise, there's no point in sending it out.  I don't want the publisher spending time reading a bad book when they could be reading MY book instead.  haha.  (slightly kidding, i've barely even started mine yet....)


----------



## dale (Jul 10, 2013)

Writing Fanatic said:


> If you don't believe you can, will, or your novel is good enough to be published, it won't.  But if you believe, and work at it with all your heart, there's a good chance you'll be published.  The only advice I have for you is to believe you can publish it, and it will be good enough..


yeah. what i plan to do after i finish mine, is click my heels together 3 times and chant..."you will get published....you will get published...you will get published."i hear that works. i think it may be my best bet to get some new red slippers, though. the ones i have now are a size too small.


----------



## movieman (Jul 10, 2013)

Sintalion said:


> I think what folks are eating at here is that you need to have realistic expectations set for yourself. There's a gut instinct every writer has that needs to be listened to. It's the same one many students  when there's a paper due at 9AM. You know exactly how long that paper's gonna take to pound out (call it: first draft); some just wait until there's only that amount time to write it.



That's a good point. Deadlines help a lot when you're trying to get something finished.

If I remember correctly, I started my most recent novel in 2005, and it had been lying around waiting to be finished for years. Then I got a coupon for free print copies that had to be used in the next two months, and I completed it and had someone read it and finished revising it from their feedback and copy-edited it and created a cover and formatted it all in that time.

Without that deadline, it probably wouldn't have been finished by 2015.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 10, 2013)

> As for 5 years being a healthy length to write a novel... I disagree.



I only said that I expect to spend 5 years, and I've already made it clear that I always expect things to take longer that they actually do. I write very, very slowly. I can do 250 words in an hour in an average day. I could easily write more, but I wouldn't be happy with it, so there'd be no point.

'long' is relative, depending on how long you feel something is when it's not long - longer than that. Ultimately, from my experience and the research I've done, novice writers always expect the process to be quicker than it actually is. 

The example I gave is not a bar or a benchmark, or a universal estimate. Every writer is different. Some take months, some take years. I take years.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jul 10, 2013)

You are dead right Cadence, different folks, different strokes. I recently read something about the author of 'A Suitable Boy' spending ten years on a book, on the other hand Errol Stanley Gardener could turn out one a week at his peak I believe. It takes as long as it takes.


----------



## mlcampbell (Jul 10, 2013)

Don't stop writing. Realistically, it'll probably get rejected, but that's not a sign to quite.  Learn from mistakes, but never get rid of the novel.

I have a stove, figuratively speaking, loaded with rear burners and only a couple front ones.  I have a lot of stories on those back burners, though.  They're simmering.  Sometimes I move one from the fore burner and replace it with one on a back burner.  What I tent to find, though, when I open that pot is that the contents inside are very different from what I started with.  They have changed.  The ultimate cause of their change is me - I've changed.  We grow not only in age, but in experience and knowledge.  As you continue to learn, experience, and write, you'll find that you'll always have something new to add to an old batch, which could really bring out the flavor.


----------



## talentless_scribbler (Jul 18, 2013)

Olly Buckle said:


> You are dead right Cadence, different folks, different strokes. I recently read something about the author of 'A Suitable Boy' spending ten years on a book, on the other hand Errol Stanley Gardener could turn out one a week at his peak I believe. It takes as long as it takes.



Difficult stuff there... Watching a quality TV show, I have a new found respect for the writing staff who must churn out enjoyable stories week after week. Rod Serling mentioned writing on a deadline being one of the most useful skills he learned. Or take Stephen King -- the kind of guy who wrote so often he needed to create a fake name just to publish more!


----------



## movieman (Jul 19, 2013)

talentless_scribbler said:


> Difficult stuff there... Watching a quality TV show, I have a new found respect for the writing staff who must churn out enjoyable stories week after week.



To be fair, it's generally not one person writing the script in one week. It's probably been through multiple drafts over several months, with multiple writers writing different episodes at the same time.


----------

