# What happened to your first book?



## HKayG (Jul 4, 2012)

Was it used as a practice run?
Did you get it published?
Was it a sucess?

I would love to know what everyone has done with their first novel - maybe it'll help me to expect what will come of mine!


----------



## Loulou (Jul 4, 2012)

Hello HKayG,

My first complete novels were written at fourteen and then at twenty-eight.  Neither were any good.  My first novel that I felt had any merit was written in 2008.  Even then I wasn't sure.  So I put it away, went back to it and edited, put it away, went back to it and edited more.  My sister read it at the end of last year and insisted I send it out to agents.  I did and two requested a full read.  The first declined but the second took me on.  I went to London last week to meet with her and an interested publisher.  She said she's interested and loves the book, it just needs more work.  Which is true.  It does.  So I'm rewriting and fingers crossed I'll then get a book deal.  In 2010 I wrote a second one, so I'm prepared. 

So my first novel, should it end up on the shelves, will be my third.  But I very much doubt anyone's first book is their best.  Novels are such huge undertakings.  I think you've to write a few to find your voice, learn the ropes, etc.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 4, 2012)

If I wrote 30 more pages, it would be done. But I mostly hate it for being so rubbish.


----------



## Sam (Jul 4, 2012)

I wrote my first novel when I was 18. It remains in a folder on my laptop called 'Finished Novels'. I completely rewrote it two years ago and it is now a published novel.


----------



## sunaynaprasad (Jul 4, 2012)

I wrote mine in third grade. I don't what happened to it ever since.


----------



## movieman (Jul 4, 2012)

It sits on my hard drive waiting for me to finish it. I actually converted it from Open Office to Scrivener at the weekend and was surprised how entertaining much of it was; the words were clunky, but I think the story can be salvaged.


----------



## Man From Mars (Jul 4, 2012)

I retired my first novel half way through the second draft. It's not even worth editing or rewriting.


----------



## Tiamat (Jul 4, 2012)

I wrote my first novel when I was 21.  After doing zero editing whatsoever--because I was 21 and could do no wrong--I submitted it and was unanimously rejected (sometimes harshly) by every agent that requested to read a few pages.  So I put it aside and wrote another.  And another.  And started another.  I actually read over the first one a year or two ago and nearly giggled myself to death--not because the novel is inherently funny, but because it's just _that_ bad.

So we're gonna call it a learning experience and move on.


----------



## Jon M (Jul 4, 2012)

There were some places where the prose shined, and continues to shine now, a year later, but my first is useful more as experience, and if I revise it later on it will probably be one of the last ones, when I've got nothing else going.


----------



## bo_7md (Jul 4, 2012)

My first, try, at writing was when I was around 16 (I think). I had just read Crime and Punishment and it just got me all fired up and I wrote a few pages (In my mother tongue). I showed to friends and some of them liked it, but just like everything else I got bored after a while and stopped half way.


----------



## Robdemanc (Jul 4, 2012)

Mine sits on a disc and has done for about 10 years.  I promise to finish it one day.


----------



## Winston (Jul 4, 2012)

It was a long, complete, well thought-out work of art.  A few that read it, 'got it'.  Most did not.
It was not the fare of commercial publishers, so agents wouldn't touch it.  

The rejection still hurts, but I now know that just because something is 'good', don't expect that will translate into sales.  After I publish my next 'main stream' works, I'll be in a better position to market my first manuscript.  It deserves better than it got.


----------



## Edward G (Jul 4, 2012)

Winston said:


> It was a long, complete, well thought-out work of art. A few that read it, 'got it'. Most did not.
> It was not the fare of commercial publishers, so agents wouldn't touch it.
> The rejection still hurts, but I now know that just because something is 'good', don't expect that will translate into sales. After I publish my next 'main stream' works, I'll be in a better position to market my first manuscript. It deserves better than it got.


 
If you read popular novels, they are really really bad, for the most part. Not all, but most are really bad to the educated reader. There aren't that many educated readers. It's like music, "Call Me Maybe" is not "The Gunner's Dream" (by Pink Floyd off their last album together, a great anti-war song near the end of the Cold War--that no one's ever heard of).

A writer has to decide right off the bat what kind of writer their going to be. I suppose the goal is to try to hit the bullseye in-between. A fun, interesting story, that is well-written enough to have a provocative theme, provide some meaningful symbolism and irony, and express a moral that has some logical sense to it.

Just remember, we are slaves to the story, not the reader, not the publisher, not the editor. We apply the craft of fiction the best way we know how to accomplish the objective of our artistic impulse.

So, don't be discouraged--press on.


----------



## sunaynaprasad (Jul 4, 2012)

@Edward G  do you think the reason you find certain popular novels bad, because self-publishing is becoming more popular? I've read about that on different sites.


----------



## Edward G (Jul 4, 2012)

sunaynaprasad said:


> @Edward G  do you think the reason you find certain popular novels bad, because self-publishing is becoming more popular? I've read about that on different sites.



I'm sorry, you posted before I could finish editing the post above.

I'm not sure what you mean. The popular novels are poorly written stories, but they are competently written given the craft of fiction. The self-published novels...Well, truth is I try and try to find one that I can give a good review to, but they are so extremely poorly written that I am unable to do that. And I won't review an indi novel if I can't give it a good review. I think the whole "I don't trust editors" vibe you get from indi authors is a big reason for that. 

If one is going to self-publish, then they have to do the things a publisher does or outsource those operations. Most of the time that means outsourcing for an edit and a cover design, and that's just part of the expense of setting up a publishing venture. Most self-publishers, however, don't do that, and it shows.

Personally, I will choose a self-published novel to review any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I hate having to review popular novels, but I just can't find a good self-published novel. But, I believe they exist. I will always believe they exist, and I continue to scan Amazon Kindle fiction by publication date on a weekly basis looking for them.


----------



## HooktonFonnix (Jul 4, 2012)

I'm nearly done with the second draft of my first full novel. It's depressing to hear almost everyone say how your first novel is always just practice, because I'm pouring my heart and soul into it and I love the characters and the story. I am by no means a professional-caliber writer, but I think with enough work and polishing up people would want to read my story. The people I've showed it to already really enjoy it, at least. I just can't see myself working on anything else until this WIP is completed and perfect. If I could only ever publish one book in my life, I would want it to be the one I'm working on now. That's pretty much where I stand.


----------



## ScienceFriction (Jul 4, 2012)

I am currently working on a single novel which also happens to be my first. I have put so much thought and effort into it that I now work on it whenever possible. For me, it seems like my thought process and notes are what keep me fueled to write the official draft. I hope it turns out great, for I put os much effort into it and I do not keep anything I am not proud of.


----------



## philistine (Jul 4, 2012)

I'll let you know when I finish it.



Edward G said:


> If you read popular novels, they are really really bad, for the most part. Not all, but most are really bad to the educated reader. There aren't that many educated readers.



Few people (writers) will readily admit to such a thing, but it's completely true.


----------



## Tiamat (Jul 4, 2012)

HooktonFonnix said:


> I'm nearly done with the second draft of my first full novel. It's depressing to hear almost everyone say how your first novel is always just practice, because I'm pouring my heart and soul into it and I love the characters and the story. I am by no means a professional-caliber writer, but I think with enough work and polishing up people would want to read my story. The people I've showed it to already really enjoy it, at least. I just can't see myself working on anything else until this WIP is completed and perfect. If I could only ever publish one book in my life, I would want it to be the one I'm working on now. That's pretty much where I stand.


That's kind of what I said the first time around, too.  I'm not trying to discourage you or anything of the sort, and your first novel may well be publishable.  Just be aware that nine times out of ten, it's not--at least not without a whole lot more work beyond just writing the first draft.

And even if it's not publishable, if you really love the craft of writing and would like to be published, you'll keep writing, and you'll pour your heart and soul into those projects as well.  Every publisher/agent/writer/writing advocate has said something along these lines:  Keep writing, keep developing your craft, keep learning from your rejections, and one day you'll see yourself in print.

I like to think it's a true statement.


----------



## Jon M (Jul 5, 2012)

HooktonFonnix said:


> I'm nearly done with the second draft of my first full novel. It's depressing to hear almost everyone say how your first novel is always just practice, because I'm pouring my heart and soul into it and I love the characters and the story.


You should love it. You should love every damn thing about it, otherwise what's going to carry you through the days when you really really _really_ don't want to write the thing?

But once you set it aside and fall out of love with it, then you get to see how it actually stands. And it's easy, then, to move on to something else, chalk it up as experience, because chances are you'll be boots-deep in some other story you love, and so it goes.


----------



## beanlord56 (Jul 5, 2012)

Mine's still in the first chapter of the second draft. I'd be further along, but I've changed so much of the story because the first draft's a steaming pile of elephant crap.


----------



## HKayG (Jul 5, 2012)

I;m so glad i could start up a thread that has bought so much conversation and so many different answers.  It's so encouraging to read that a lot of first novels are then gone back to to become succesful, as for the others that use it a s practice i think that is good too!  I have loved reading the answers so far and hope people continue to write on here!


----------



## The Backward OX (Jul 5, 2012)

> are then gone back to



Wow. And Fuhrer says _Filipinos_ can't speak English.


----------



## HKayG (Jul 5, 2012)

The Backward OX said:


> Wow. And Fuhrer says _Filipinos_ can't speak English.



Sorry, can't quite see what i've done wrong there. I can see that the 'then' isn't really necessary. But overall it's still saying the same thing.

*Edit* In fact, the 'then' is necessary.


----------



## bluewolf301 (Jul 5, 2012)

my first book was actually a practice run i thought that if i tried hard enough may have been able to get a chance to realise more in life but it seemed also for me that things happen a bit slower than they seem and its a bit hard pressed with all the presure of life rolling on to you, you feel almost rejected but its just a fact of facing up to life and biting back as they say


----------



## Tiamat (Jul 5, 2012)

HKayG said:


> Sorry, can't quite see what i've done wrong there. I can see that the 'then' isn't really necessary. But overall it's still saying the same thing.
> 
> *Edit* In fact, the 'then' is necessary.


Ox is just being pedantic.  He can't help it.  Just pat him on the head, give him a cookie, and walk away.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jul 5, 2012)

I'm done with the first draft of my first novel and am now in the process of tearing out all the garbage.  It's actually kind of tricky, because at least with the first novel you can say, "This isn't great, but I'll put it in there so that I can keep writing.  I'll fix it in editing."  You don't get to say that when you're editing.

I fully expect to get this first novel published, because I have no desire to keep writing after I'm through with it.  Writing is a lot of work, and it's just not worth the hassle.  I enjoy the story itself, not the actual writing.  I'm going to work at this one until someone accepts it, and that's all there is to it.


----------



## Tiamat (Jul 5, 2012)

Edward G said:


> Just to chime in, and I’m not discounting what you say, but odds like “nine times out of ten” only apply to a group, not to an individual. The individual writer has a 50/50 shot—always: success or failure.


Broken down like that, you have a 50/50 shot at winning lottery too:  win or lose.  But that doesn't change the fact that the odds--which only apply to a group--are not in your favor.  While it's not my intent to discourage anyone, when entering into an endeavor that's going to cost you quite a bit of time and maybe even money, I think it wise to be aware of what you're up against.  Wouldn't you agree?  The vast majority of books submitted will never be taken on by a publisher.  The vast majority of self-published books will never make any reasonable amount of money.  That's good information to have if you'd like to one day make a living as a writer.



Edward G said:


> I think  it’s a true statement, too. But you do realize the landscape has changed in the last five years. Today, everyone is guaranteed publication. Everyone can self-publish and sell on Amazon like the big dogs. No one wants their books spine out on a B&N shelf where no one even knows it exists. Today, selling on Amazon is all that counts, and everyone can be published. The slush pile has gone public.


While true, I'd rather have my book on some dusty shelf in B&N than on some unexplored part of Amazon.  And while there are many self-publishing advocates out there--and I respect anyone willing to do the work necessary to go that route--most writers that I know would much prefer to go the traditional route where an acceptance means at least one professional along the way enjoyed the book.  Traditional publishing, if nothing else, is still a means of separating most of the wheat from the chaff, and as a consumer, I certainly don't want to have to waste money in order to do that myself.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 6, 2012)

Edward G said:
			
		

> the landscape has changed in the last five years. Today, everyone is guaranteed publication. Everyone can self-publish and sell on Amazon like the big dogs. No one wants their books spine out on a B&N shelf where no one even knows it exists. Today, selling on Amazon is all that counts, and everyone can be published. The slush pile has gone public.





Tiamat said:


> I'd rather have my book on some dusty shelf in B&N than on some unexplored part of Amazon. And while there are many self-publishing advocates out there--and I respect anyone willing to do the work necessary to go that route--most writers that I know would much prefer to go the traditional route where an acceptance means at least one professional along the way enjoyed the book. Traditional publishing, if nothing else, is still a means of separating most of the wheat from the chaff, and as a consumer, I certainly don't want to have to waste money in order to do that myself.



I agree with Tia on this one.

The computer age has given writers the ability to sell their books directly to the consumer. However, the quality of writing has not, as far as I can tell, suddenly improved along with it. What this means is you have, essentially, a market saturated by writers who would not have otherwise been accepted for publication.

It's similar to a professional sports team announcing they will no longer hold "try outs" and instead, anyone can join the team, whether or not they even know how to play.

That doesn't mean all self-published writers are bad, of course. Some may very well be outstanding writers. But there's no quality-control.

Because of that, I plan on pursuing traditional publishing routes. I want to know my writing can hold its own against the professionals. I want to try out for the team. I want my book to be on a dusty shelf!


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Jul 6, 2012)

My first novel was a trilogy on the Syphon Filter series. So, yeah, it was a fanfiction thing. Since I was still in my 6th grade then, nothing much came out of it. The notebook where I wrote the whole thing was then since lost. It's now probably part of the soil in one of our country's landfills.


----------



## Edward G (Jul 6, 2012)

Tiamat said:


> Broken down like that, you have a 50/50 shot at winning lottery too:  win or lose.  But that doesn't change the fact that the odds--which only apply to a group--are not in your favor.  While it's not my intent to discourage anyone, when entering into an endeavor that's going to cost you quite a bit of time and maybe even money, I think it wise to be aware of what you're up against.  Wouldn't you agree?  The vast majority of books submitted will never be taken on by a publisher.  The vast majority of self-published books will never make any reasonable amount of money.  That's good information to have if you'd like to one day make a living as a writer.



I'm sorry. I'm trying to hear you but the voices in my head keep laughing: Did you say, "...make a living as a writer?" I admit I'm a bit wasted right now on VO and Cuervo Gold (forgive me, I choose ETOH as my sleep aid.), but I think I still have enough brain cells functioning to challenge this one. Are you really waiting for the Stephen King dream? You know, the one where they give you a quarter-mil for the MS you threw in the trash and your spouse pulled out? That's over. You want to make a million dollars? Then self-publish like Amanda Hocking, make your mil, and then get 2 mil when you sell out to the big six. That's how it works today.

Does anyone really want to argue this point? Let me show you my lottery ticket, by god it's a winner! I just know it.




> While true, I'd rather have my book on some dusty shelf in B&N than on some unexplored part of Amazon.




Why? They're the same thing. Always have been. If you're not on a dedicated cardboard display right near the entrance, you might as well not be there at all.




> And while there are many self-publishing advocates out there--and I respect anyone willing to do the work necessary to go that route--most writers that I know would much prefer to go the traditional route where an acceptance means at least one professional along the way enjoyed the book.




I don't mean to rain on your parade, but if you write romance, you better be good looking. That matters more than how you write. The editor can always fix how you write, and if you're good looking and want to publish romance novels through Harlequin, you'll accept whatever the editor says you'll accept. Horror? Sorry, but you're going to have to wait for King, Straub and Koontz to die. No one will read your novel until those guys aren't making novels anymore. Mystery/thriller? James Patterson has more readers than any person alive who doesn't actually write books. No newcomer can break in--unless they self-publish, micro-publish, indi-publish, or subsidy publish and build an audience first. If you are an unknown author today, you better know how to sell your novel, or no one's going to read it; big six or not. Which means, given the ease of publishing today, you better start your own publishing company.

I admit, it's the alcohol talking (_In vino est veritas_).




> Traditional publishing, if nothing else, is still a means of separating most of the wheat from the chaff, and as a consumer, I certainly don't want to have to waste money in order to do that myself.



I abandoned two popular authors and two indi authors before I settled on reviewing "Gone Girl" by Gillian Flynn. Her writing is exceptional, and she is published by the big six, but there is no reason an indi-author couldn't have done the same--if they were as talented as Gillian Flynn. But an unknown author as talented as Gillian Flynn? What kind of contract do you think Random House would give such a newbie for their first novel? The horrible truth is this: "Gone Girl" would have sold just as well if Gillian Flynn had published it herself. Then she could have sold out the the big six for even bigger Benjamins, Yo! 

That's a fact.


----------



## Edward G (Jul 6, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> I agree with Tia on this one.
> 
> The computer age has given writers the ability to sell their books directly to the consumer. However, the quality of writing has not, as far as I can tell, suddenly improved along with it. What this means is you have, essentially, a market saturated by writers who would not have otherwise been accepted for publication.
> 
> ...



I respect your opinion, and surely you can do whatever it is you think is the right thing to do. But let me ask you this: Let's flash forward to the future and you are ninety and dying. You have this manuscript in your drawer that you never published and no one else would publish. If you die, and it is never published, and you always thought you could have been a writer, what then? What was your life worth? What about your calling to write? Or was it really enough to pump out some kids, marry well, and subsist on Social Security and rental properties? --Just asking.

If I were going to publish someone, and they were new, they would have to have  a facebook with more than 300 friends, they would have to have a blog that people read, and they would have to physically fit the image of the kind of writer who would write their kind of stuff. If they then had articles in magazines, had a kind of lifestyle that is stable to write other novels, and then had a couple of other novels in their drawer similar to the one I was considering, then and only then, if they're writing was competent, pithy, clever, contemporary and cool would I consider giving them a 5,000 dollar advance in exchange for every single right in the copyright bundle. 5K goes by in 6 months. However, when I then spend nothing on advertising, because I'm spending it all on a writer with a known audience, and when the 5k print run doesn't sell out, I give up on that author and go with the next author with >300 Facebook friends, the right look, etc.

That's publishing. You have to have all that just to collect the dust in Barnes and Noble, and you know what? B&N will probably be bankrupt in 5 years. Your book on Amazon is the new world of publishing. You need to smell the coffee in your dreams and wake up.

That's my opinion, and of course I could be wrong.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 6, 2012)

You seem to be confusing Amazon/E-books with "self-publishing", and physical stores like Barnes and Noble with "traditional publishing". That's not how I intend to apply the terms, though perhaps my use of the expression "book on a dusty shelf" is partially to blame. 

I consider Amazon still part of traditional publishing. By _traditional _I simply mean seeking publication through a publisher, as opposed to _contemporary_, or _self_-publishing.

An eBook is just a format. How it was published is the distinction I use. Traditional, or self.

Traditional publishers, or "publishing houses", are no doubt evolving with the times. I'm supremely confident the average publishing houses--having much more experience and financial means than the average self-published writer--are going milk Amazon's financial-nipples for all they are worth. By that I mean: advertising to the consumers and delivering the big-name writers. It's the same money-churning business model that dominates the physical bookstores. 

I see no reason to predict the demise of publishing houses. They'll simply continue to move wherever the market yields the most profits. And fiction will not go away any time soon--the public craves entertainment too much. 

Hollywood needs movie ideas and a large portion of their creative wellspring is the bookstore (physical, or electronic), where writers like you and me and others on this website will be producing the stories from which the next movies are made.

So, forgive me if I don't cower and whimper from your scare-tactics. I'm too argumentative (and aggressively optimistic) to accept your perspective. 

I _do _agree with you that getting published through traditional methods is very difficult. That's fine by me, though! Very few things worth having come easily.


----------



## HKayG (Jul 6, 2012)

Oh my goodness this thread has turned into a debate! Whatever next?


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 6, 2012)

Look what you started, Kay! 

Lol.


----------



## Sam (Jul 6, 2012)

Edward G said:


> I'm sorry. I'm trying to hear you but the voices in my head keep laughing: Did you say, "...make a living as a writer?" I admit I'm a bit wasted right now on VO and Cuervo Gold (forgive me, I choose ETOH as my sleep aid.), but I think I still have enough brain cells functioning to challenge this one. Are you really waiting for the Stephen King dream? You know, the one where they give you a quarter-mil for the MS you threw in the trash and your spouse pulled out? That's over. You want to make a million dollars? Then self-publish like Amanda Hocking, make your mil, and then get 2 mil when you sell out to the big six. That's how it works today.



[ot]Oh my. Another proponent of self-publishing who believes it's easy to make a million bucks by going that route. Let me lay it out for you: The average book (to wit, traditionally published book) sells eight hundred copies in its entire lifespan. Do you know what the average self-published book sells? Fifty. More often than not, forty-nine of those were purchased by family and close friends. Self-published books that make a lot of money are one of two things: marketed correctly, or appeal to the proper demographic. Stephenie Meyer's _Twilight _would have made a million dollars whether it had been traditionally published or not. 

Misconception #1: "Self-publishing is the easy alternative". It's only easy if you're content with fifty sales. Beyond that, you need a working knowledge of everything that a traditional publisher or agent has: marketing, promotion, reviews, press releases, interviews, book signings, book readings, author speeches, and much more. In fact, most of your time is going to be spent trying to promote your book. You'll drive from venue to venue, with a couple of hundred copies in your boot, and you'll sell maybe fifteen of those on the day. When you take into account the price of fuel, a hotel room, and your meals, you might have made about ten pounds profit. That's okay, though. Right? You're building your platform. 

Misconception #2: "A publishing house will do all this for you". Like hell they will. You won't spend as much time promoting as you would with your self-published book, but you'll still spend a significant amount. The money which is supposed to go towards your marketing and promotion will be spent on the house's big names. That being said, a publishing house can open doors that an author will never be able to open on his/her own. 

Misconception #3: "Publishing houses are mean and don't sign new authors". 

Poppycock. If publishers didn't sign new authors, the industry would implode. Do you think Suzanne Collins was one of The Scholastic Press' biggest names when she submitted _The Hunger Games_? Never. New authors are given a chance, regardless of whether James Patterson is still alive, because the publishing industry knows (just as any good businessman does) that new clients have as great or as little potential as anyone. If publishers didn't want new authors, they'd simply close their submissions page.[/ot] 

Apologies to Kay for derailing the thread, but I felt this was something that needed to be said.


----------



## bluewolf301 (Jul 6, 2012)

the great thing with writing is that you can always edit it in any way needed because at least then you know that when you actually finish you can give your self a pat on the back saying "well done you have succeeded in writing a book and out of it you get yourself an enjoyable book 

BW301


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Jul 6, 2012)

HKayG said:


> Oh my goodness this thread has turned into a debate! Whatever next?



It may sound rude to ask the begging question but: Kay, want some popcorn?


----------



## HKayG (Jul 6, 2012)

TheFuhrer02 said:


> It may sound rude to ask the begging question but: Kay, want some popcorn?



Sounds delightful - care to join me? :fat:


----------



## bluewolf301 (Jul 6, 2012)

can i join as well? sounds interesting to have popcorn


----------



## HKayG (Jul 6, 2012)

bluewolf301 said:


> can i join as well? sounds interesting to have popcorn



Yep, grab a seat on our imaginary sofa - sometimes watching people debate is more intersting than watching a film!


----------



## bluewolf301 (Jul 6, 2012)

yeah i agree with you it is a lot of fun watching people debating, i'm thinking of a debate but i'm not sure if i should post it


----------



## garza (Jul 6, 2012)

My first book is the only long piece of fiction I've ever written. It was published about 50 years ago as a paperback supermarket romance titled _Lucille's Faded Love_. It was typical of the genre - really bad.

A first and only for me is a work that may or may not qualify as a book, but is something of which I am proud. It's the _Social Security Handbook_ published by the Belize Social Security Board in 2001. The book was written by me, designed by me, illustrated by me, all pages including front and back covers inside and out laid out by me, and the entire project put on a cd and taken to the printer camera ready after I did a final line edit. I insisted on total control when some of the bureaucrats at BSSB wanted the text to be written in their lingo instead of the plain English I was using. The book was intended to explain to ordinary people how Social Security works and what they need to do to comply with SS regulations to ensure getting the benefits they deserve. There would have been little point in spending the money to publish the book if people could not understand what it said.


----------



## Tiamat (Jul 6, 2012)

Edward G said:


> I'm sorry. I'm trying to hear you but the voices in my head keep laughing: Did you say, "...make a living as a writer?" I admit I'm a bit wasted right now on VO and Cuervo Gold (forgive me, I choose ETOH as my sleep aid.), but I think I still have enough brain cells functioning to challenge this one. Are you really waiting for the Stephen King dream? You know, the one where they give you a quarter-mil for the MS you threw in the trash and your spouse pulled out? That's over. You want to make a million dollars? Then self-publish like Amanda Hocking, make your mil, and then get 2 mil when you sell out to the big six. That's how it works today.
> 
> Does anyone really want to argue this point? Let me show you my lottery ticket, by god it's a winner! I just know it.


I think you would do better to refrain from posting when you've been drinking, because obviously it's not working for you.  I use the words "make a living" and you assume that means millionaire status.  I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was the alcohol jumping to such ridiculous conclusions.



Edward G said:


> I don't mean to rain on your parade, but if you write romance, you better be good looking. That matters more than how you write. The editor can always fix how you write, and if you're good looking and want to publish romance novels through Harlequin, you'll accept whatever the editor says you'll accept. Horror? Sorry, but you're going to have to wait for King, Straub and Koontz to die. No one will read your novel until those guys aren't making novels anymore. Mystery/thriller? James Patterson has more readers than any person alive who doesn't actually write books. No newcomer can break in--unless they self-publish, micro-publish, indi-publish, or subsidy publish and build an audience first.


Really?  Because Audrey Niffenegger hasn't done half-bad at all since "The Time Traveler's Wife" was published.  It was her first novel, and it wasn't self-published.  Gee, wasn't it made into a movie, too?  

But hey, don't let me rain on _your_ parade.  Since you obviously know all the secrets to how to be a successful writer in the 21st century, by all means, head out there and show us all how it's done.


----------



## garza (Jul 6, 2012)

Edward G - What's funny about making a living as a writer? I'm 72 years old. I've never had a job. Putting one word after another since I was a teen-ager has provided me with a very good living all these years and continues to do so.


----------



## Edward G (Jul 7, 2012)

Sam W said:


> [ot]Oh my. Another proponent of self-publishing who believes it's easy to make a million bucks by going that route. [/ot]


[ot]

Excuse me: When did I say it was easy? All you have to do is paste the quote, and I'll take it back. Otherwise, maybe you should take it back.




> Let me lay it out for you: The average book (to wit, traditionally published book) sells eight hundred copies in its entire lifespan. Do you know what the average self-published book sells? Fifty. More often than not, forty-nine of those were purchased by family and close friends. Self-published books that make a lot of money are one of two things: marketed correctly, or appeal to the proper demographic. Stephenie Meyer's _Twilight _would have made a million dollars whether it had been traditionally published or not.



I agree with you on that.



> Misconception #1: "Self-publishing is the easy alternative". It's only easy if you're content with fifty sales. Beyond that, you need a working knowledge of everything that a traditional publisher or agent has: marketing, promotion, reviews, press releases, interviews, book signings, book readings, author speeches, and much more. In fact, most of your time is going to be spent trying to promote your book. You'll drive from venue to venue, with a couple of hundred copies in your boot, and you'll sell maybe fifteen of those on the day. When you take into account the price of fuel, a hotel room, and your meals, you might have made about ten pounds profit. That's okay, though. Right? You're building your platform.
> 
> Misconception #2: "A publishing house will do all this for you". Like hell they will. You won't spend as much time promoting as you would with your self-published book, but you'll still spend a significant amount. The money which is supposed to go towards your marketing and promotion will be spent on the house's big names. That being said, a publishing house can open doors that an author will never be able to open on his/her own.
> 
> ...



I agree with you. I just don't like the fact that you said I said it was easy to self-publish.  I never did. I think it's foolish to go the traditional route, these days. I think it is better--these days--to self-publish (and do it right), build an audience and then sell out.


----------



## Edward G (Jul 7, 2012)

Tiamat said:


> I think you would do better to refrain from posting when you've been drinking,



OMG, then when would I ever post?




> because obviously it's not working for you.  I use the words "make a living" and you assume that means millionaire status.  I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was the alcohol jumping to such ridiculous conclusions.
> 
> 
> Really?  Because Audrey Niffenegger hasn't done half-bad at all since "The Time Traveler's Wife" was published.  It was her first novel, and it wasn't self-published.  Gee, wasn't it made into a movie, too?
> ...



I will try. 

For the record, obviously if you can get a decent contract from a big six, a decent advance, and a movie deal, that's far superior to going the self-publishing route. All I'm saying is you're better off buying a Powerball ticket. I say make you're own luck--and I'm sober now.


----------



## Edward G (Jul 7, 2012)

garza said:


> Edward G - What's funny about making a living as a writer? I'm 72 years old. I've never had a job. Putting one word after another since I was a teen-ager has provided me with a very good living all these years and continues to do so.



First off, I'm under the impression we're talking about fiction here, because non-fiction is a whole different animal. And I agree, a person can make a living. I'd like to read your work, where is it?


----------



## garza (Jul 7, 2012)

Edward G - Fiction or non-fiction, writing is writing. Perhaps some of the people who've been trying without success to make it as a fiction writer should shift gears and try non-fiction.

I can't find any reference to my one fiction book, _Lucille's Faded Love_, anywhere. I suspect it had a short life on the remainders shelf before being transported to a landfill. After all, we're talking about something that was published in 1961. I can't even find any other books with the same title. I suppose mine was so bad it poisoned the well.

One the other hand _Your Social Security Handbook_ is readily available online here. Unfortunately what is available is not the original but is the revised edition of 2004. I do not know who made the revisions, but they made a dog's breakfast of it. Most of my work remains visible, but there are many errors. The revision was needed because of changes in the Social Security Act. I can't help but wish they had called me back to make the changes, or had called in some other good editor. For that matter they could have turned the revision over to Deacon Cal at RC Printers in Benque. The problem, I suspect, was budget. Any editor from outside Social Security would have cost money, and by 2004 BSSB was struggling with some serious problems and the money to produce a proper revised edition probably was not available.

In looking over what's there I can see the covers have been left alone except for the outside back cover which has been changed to make room for two new SS offices. One interesting point I'd forgotten is the notation that the book design is by BFDK. That needs explaining.

In 1995 a Chinese family living next door to me in Belize City asked me to tutor their son in phonics. He was ten years old, two years behind in school, and spoke very little English. In '98 following Hurricane Mitch I moved to Belmopan but continued to coach Luis in language, mostly by email. Once he asked me if, when I was in school, I was the big fat dumb kid. Luis had a friend who fit that description and he had decided that every school had such a kid in class, just as every small town in North America has a town drunk.

So I told him that yes, in school I was the big fat dumb kid, and I started signing my emails to him BFDK. When I was finishing up work on the Social Security Handbook I was told that I could not put my name on it. The intention was to promote the book as something produced in-house by SS staff. So I put my own private joke in the book which was as good as my name for those who knew me. I continue to sign my emails to Luis 'BFDK'.

Inside the book there are some glaring errors in layout and typography. One compromise I had made with the SS staff was in the use of Times New Roman for the text. I had wanted to use Arial, but the staff wanted TNR, and that was one of the compromises I made to be able to keep the language in the book straightforward, and to be able to include the material in the front of the book from the ILO Constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Universal Declaration of Human rights. 

In going back through the book again, it's in better shape than my first impression indicated. Only a little work would be needed to fix everything. 

Keep in mind that the handbook is the size of a folded sheet of A4. 

This is the kind of work that easy to come by and that pays quite well. As I say, I'm 72 and I've never had to look for a job.

Edit - I just noticed. You are in the New Orleans area. I grew up in Gulfport and spent a lot of time in New Orleans as a kid.


----------



## starseed (Jul 7, 2012)

Believe me, writing advertising copy most definitely counts as writing fiction. 

Edit, that was meant for Edward. 

And because I forgot to actually talk about my first book. It is sitting on the shelf, waiting for me to continue its edit. This should be one of the final edits before I begin seeking a home for it. I could spend the rest of my life working on it, but I have other things I want to write. Hopefully some agents will want to take a look at it. 

Of course, this is only my first serious novel. I've been writing "novels" since I was probably nine or ten years old. I think my first major one was about a high school girl who falls in love with her best dude friend and then he gets killed in a liquor store robbery. lol... It was probably less than fifteen pages long, but it meant something to me at the time. 

I just realized... In my current story, a girl falls in love with a guy and then he becomes a zombie. Clearly my desire to torture my female characters has been around a while.


----------



## Loulou (Jul 8, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I fully expect to get this first novel published, because I have no desire to keep writing after I'm through with it.  Writing is a lot of work, and it's just not worth the hassle.  I enjoy the story itself, not the actual writing.  I'm going to work at this one until someone accepts it, and that's all there is to it.



If you're referring to having it accepted by a traditional (as in professional) publisher, then good luck with this attitude.  If you meet a publisher who happens to like your book and you tell them what you have said here, that you have no desire to keep writing and it's not worth the hassle, then they'd not publish you.  Because they'd have no faith that you would do all the required edits (there will be many no matter how perfect you think your book is), no faith in further books (they're a business first and foremost so they would prefer a second and third novel from you) and they'd have no faith that they could rely on you to promote it because you clearly don't like hassle.

I was lucky enough to meet a publisher, a big one, with my agent two weeks ago in London.  She said she loved the book and was interested, but it needs more work.  She wanted to know what else I had written, what other ideas I had, what I'd previously had published, had I any experience of promoting, etc etc etc.  I know one hundred percent, without a doubt, that if I'd said, "Nah, this is it.  I've just written this.  I've no desire to write any more, writing is a lot of work and not worth the hassle," she would have said a flat no there and then.  And I'd have seemed like an arrogant idiot.  But I wouldn't have dreamed of it.

I have agreed to do the edits needed on the novel and will send her it again to read.  I have sent her my second novel and outlined my idea for a third.  I described how I promoted my recent debut play, which sold out apart from two seats as a result.  It might  not guarantee a book deal, but it's a start.


----------



## Loulou (Jul 8, 2012)

garza said:


> Edward G - What's funny about making a living as a writer? I'm 72 years old. I've never had a job. Putting one word after another since I was a teen-ager has provided me with a very good living all these years and continues to do so.



I admire you, because I know what work that must've taken.  

I've been writing seriously for the last five years, and had my newspaper column for ten.  I've just added up what I've made in the last five years from my writing (that's from fiction and columns and travel articles) and it's only about £5000.  So not enough to be anywhere close to a living.  But extra pocket money.  I have had some free/half-price trips due to my travel articles and to be fair if I turned that into monetary value it would be closer to maybe £10,000 in five years.  But no, writing is hard if not impossible to live on.  Unless you hit the 'big time' with a novel or play.


----------



## bo_7md (Jul 8, 2012)

Non-fiction writing if approached professionally is like any other job out there. 

Figures of Newspaper writers and editors salaries and earnings: poewar.com - 2010 Average Salaries for Writers and Editors

Fiction is another story, for example, there are those who go for a single book hoping to hit the big ones and those who write smaller portions and release them continuously. If you make 1000$ of a book then put-out 10--I know it doesn't go exactly the same for every book. In both cases it depends on a lot of factors, some of which are not even related to how good a writer you are.

Having said that, saying that everyone should self-publish just because they can isn't a good advice at all. Someone who has the know-how and the financial ability to provide  the same level of professional editing, design, and advertising can certainly give it a go but a first time novelist, nay. Unless you write Romance, that is a story for another day.

Stop the press: half of self-published authors earn less than $500 | Books | guardian.co.uk

Check how much you earn vs others here: http://salary.com/category/salary/


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 8, 2012)

I find it fascinating how large the divide is between struggling authors and the top sellers. Some authors can't make a living on their fiction-writing alone.

But then you have writers like James Patterson, who earns more than Tom Cruise, Hollywood's current highest-paid actor. (Tom Cruise: $75 million; James Patterson: $84 million). That's _one year _of earnings!

It makes me feel simultaneously inspired, and a little bit sick. Lol. 

What's the secret ingredient that seperates Patterson from the mid-list authors who write comparable, or arguably superior books, but never "make it" to the big leagues?


----------



## Bloggsworth (Jul 8, 2012)

It never got writ...


----------



## bo_7md (Jul 8, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> What's the secret ingredient that seperates Patterson from the mid-list authors who write comparable, or arguably superior books, but never "make it" to the big leagues?



I think it's three things: Simplicity, genre and number.

Thrillers come in second in highest selling genre, after Romance.

I heard a story once about two poets, who started poem-wars of sorts:

He asked a man once about who is better, between him and his adversary, and the man said, "Your poems are too bare and simplistic, they're more suited for the commoners, while his are more intricate and more suited to elite poets,"

and he responded, "By the lord I won, there is only one--elite-- for a 1000 commoner."

I don't know if the point is clear this is a very rough translation!


----------



## garza (Jul 8, 2012)

bo7_md - Those figures are for staff people who have a job. I've never had a job. The better money, though with greater risk, is in freelance. 

Your story about the two poets is instructive in more ways than one.  A staff writer for _Newsweek_ must write for the average reader. A staff writer for _Fortune_ must write to an upscale market. A freelance writer can sell to both.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 8, 2012)

I'm actually thinking of returning to the thing now... maybe rewriting bits and pieces will help it become better. I wrote it without much thought to how it was written, which should mean that my creativity was driving it forwards. The ideas might be better than what I'm writing now.

I'll definitely have a look at it.


----------



## bo_7md (Jul 8, 2012)

garza said:


> bo7_md - Those figures are for staff people who have a job. I've never had a job. The better money, though with greater risk, is in freelance.



I realize that. Here is a quote from the link I provided earlier, that you might have missed. "There is a much greater income variation among people who freelance or own their own businesses." 

That link was merely to show that there is money in the non-fiction market, not to diminish the value of freelance or any other aspect of writing.



> Your story about the two poets is instructive in more ways than one.  A staff writer for _Newsweek_ must write for the average reader. A staff writer for _Fortune_ must write to an upscale market. A freelance writer can sell to both.



I agree. But the story wasn't about who caters to what crowd. It was more about wider reception and higher sales. 

I would expect a grade 3 math book to be less intricate than a university level one. Both are different and are written for a specific audience, I'm not arguing that. I'm saying there are more people who want to buy the 3rd grade book than the University one.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jul 8, 2012)

Loulou said:


> If you're referring to having it accepted by a traditional (as in professional) publisher, then good luck with this attitude.  If you meet a publisher who happens to like your book and you tell them what you have said here, that you have no desire to keep writing and it's not worth the hassle, then they'd not publish you.  Because they'd have no faith that you would do all the required edits (there will be many no matter how perfect you think your book is), no faith in further books (they're a business first and foremost so they would prefer a second and third novel from you) and they'd have no faith that they could rely on you to promote it because you clearly don't like hassle.
> 
> I was lucky enough to meet a publisher, a big one, with my agent two weeks ago in London.  She said she loved the book and was interested, but it needs more work.  She wanted to know what else I had written, what other ideas I had, what I'd previously had published, had I any experience of promoting, etc etc etc.  I know one hundred percent, without a doubt, that if I'd said, "Nah, this is it.  I've just written this.  I've no desire to write any more, writing is a lot of work and not worth the hassle," she would have said a flat no there and then.  And I'd have seemed like an arrogant idiot.  But I wouldn't have dreamed of it.
> 
> I have agreed to do the edits needed on the novel and will send her it again to read.  I have sent her my second novel and outlined my idea for a third.  I described how I promoted my recent debut play, which sold out apart from two seats as a result.  It might  not guarantee a book deal, but it's a start.



Well I'm certainly not going to TELL them that I don't plan on writing again.  My book is fiction, which means I've made a fictional world for it, which means there are plenty of routes to attack if I wanted to keep writing.  I would be sure to tell the publishers about those, though that certainly doesn't mean I'm going to follow up on them.

I guess the big question is, when the time comes, are you going to get a multi-book contract, or just the one for the single story with the opportunity for more in the future?


----------



## Kevin (Jul 8, 2012)

I suppose how much you got paid for your efforts might have an effect on future ambitions.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jul 8, 2012)

Kevin said:


> I suppose how much you got paid for your efforts might have an effect on future ambitions.



Not positively.  If you compare hours worked to money earned, I'm sure the average author earns well below minimum wage for book sales.


----------



## starseed (Jul 8, 2012)

Yeah, but you'd be doing something you love, which counts for a lot more than money.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 8, 2012)

Kevin said:


> I suppose how much you got paid for your efforts might have an effect on future ambitions.



That leads me to wonder: do the highly-paid authors continue to publish books for their love of writing--or for the money?


----------



## garza (Jul 8, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 - If you see writing and its attendant efforts as a hassle, then you need to seriously reconsider any plans you have to be a writer. I'm not trying to be mean, and I don't want to discourage you if you have any desire to continue writing, but the truth is that to write is to expend a considerable amount of mental and, in the path I've followed, physical effort. Those of us who love to write see a challenge, not a hassle. 

You may have reached the point Faulkner reached near the end of _Absalom, Absalom!_ He was tired of the whole business. He'd poured his heart into the book and was reportedly sick of it. (This to my mind explains the Harvard scene at the end.) He recovered and wrote _The Unvanquished_, which I've always felt has a personally symbolic meaning for him. Much of his best work lay ahead.

So don't give up. and don't submit your book to a publisher so long as you have the attitude you have expressed here. You do not need to tell an experienced agent or publisher's rep something like that. The can sense it.

So loosen up. Keep writing, or take a break and start again when you feel ready.


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Jul 8, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> That leads me to wonder: do the highly-paid authors continue to publish books for their love of writing--or for the money?



"Everybody has a price." Once you hit a certain dollar figure that overrides your engine, it comes top of the list, no matter what subject we're talking about.


----------



## bo_7md (Jul 8, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> That leads me to wonder: do the highly-paid authors continue to publish books for their love of writing--or for the money?



I think it's the life style. Once the money starts rolling your mouth starts drooling for the 'finer things in life' and you upgrade your Toyota to Ferrari. Anyone who worked for a long time will tell this holds true. I worked right out of high school and the change in attitude toward items and life-style--comes with every promotion--and is one that creeps up on you, you don't feel it.


----------



## Sam (Jul 8, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I'm done with the first draft of my first novel and am now in the process of tearing out all the garbage.  It's actually kind of tricky, because at least with the first novel you can say, "This isn't great, but I'll put it in there so that I can keep writing.  I'll fix it in editing."  You don't get to say that when you're editing.
> 
> I fully expect to get this first novel published, because I have no desire to keep writing after I'm through with it.  Writing is a lot of work, and it's just not worth the hassle.  I enjoy the story itself, not the actual writing.  I'm going to work at this one until someone accepts it, and that's all there is to it.



Do you not enjoy writing? Of course it's going to be a hassle if you don't enjoy it. 

I don't understand your mentality on this one. This isn't _Misery. _Nobody is holding a gun to your head and demanding that you 'sell out' and write 17 novels of the exact same monotonous tripe as the first one. Thomas Harris has written only five books in the last thirty years. He's gone on record to say that he compares writing to "rolling around on the floor in fits of agony". I just don't see the point of doing it if there's no sense of enjoyment or satisfaction from the process. 

I get up every day and I want to write. I go to sleep and my mind is plagued with ideas and dialogue that I can't scribble down fast enough. I spend every free minute (not much these days) wondering about something I wrote the day before or what I'm going to write that day. I love starting novels, finishing them, and all the things that come in between. I love writing that much that I approach mind-numbingly boring college essays with a smile on my face. I enjoy filling in my dole (benefits form) for crying out loud! 

I couldn't work in a job where I hated getting up every morning to do it. I did it for four years and nearly went astray in the head. I can understand the urge to finish a novel, but I can't imagine that someone who did that could hang up their pencil and notebook for good once they finished. It's like a musician having one hit and never writing another song again. I can't really see the point, but I wish you the best with getting your first novel published.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jul 8, 2012)

I have stories I want to tell, but it's just so darn hard actually telling them.  I like what my writing produces.  I don't like the act of writing itself.  This is why I've only just now completed my 200,000 word first draft after five years of work.

I want to be published solely for the sake of vindication - recognition from experts that my stories are actually worth telling.  I don't care if I don't make a cent; I just want to hold a book in my hands with my name on it.


----------



## Chaeronia (Jul 8, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I have stories I want to tell, but it's just so darn hard actually telling them.  I like what my writing produces.  I don't like the act of writing itself.  This is why I've only just now completed my 200,000 word first draft after five years of work.
> 
> I want to be published solely for the sake of vindication - recognition from experts that my stories are actually worth telling.  I don't care if I don't make a cent; I just want to hold a book in my hands with my name on it.



Sympathise with this.  I struggle with the process a great deal; find it torturous at times.  A lot do, I'm sure, but I lack the drive and imagination (and self-confidence, maybe) that pulls others through.  I spend lots of time away from writing, returning to it only when the notion of not writing (which, like all art, is self-validation) becomes more arduous than the act of doing so.  I'm a dabbler, a dilettante, and I'm comfortable with that.  

That you've completed a mammoth manuscript having a similar disadvantage is quite something.


----------



## HKayG (Jul 8, 2012)

It's amazing what a wealth of knowledge this thread has brought out and it's totally fascinating to read it all.  I think i've learnt far more than i was intending to with this!


----------



## Extinct_Stimulus (Jul 8, 2012)

KyleColorado said:


> What's the secret ingredient that seperates Patterson from the mid-list authors who write comparable, or arguably superior books, but never "make it" to the big leagues?



It's luck. *everyone boos* Oh, come on. _50 Shades of Gray_ is an erotic story adapted from _fan-fiction_ written by a grown woman who first wrote it as "Snowqueens Icedragon." There's got to be millions of examples of this online, yet one makes it to the very, VERY top. How? Luck.

EDIT: Of course, you can boost your chances by publishing something shocking, new, excellent, or just plain sugary enough to make appeal, as an earlier poster said, to the commoners.


----------



## garza (Jul 8, 2012)

Gamer_2k4 -Do you ever sit in a bar and tell 'war stories'? You know, the kind that start, 'This is no lie.' That's the root of all fiction, I've come to believe. Of course, I'm not the one to judge what is or is not good fiction. It's not what I've been writing all these years. I have read a great deal of it, however, and some of the best fiction is made up of bar stories, cleaned up and polished a bit, but in essence just a bar story. 

You want to publish your first book for the wrong reason. A vindictive spirit never sat down with some fellows, took a swallow of bitter, and said 'You think that's somethin'? Once my Uncle Horace was up in the Chequamegon woods...'

There are three reasons for being a writer. One, it's something you love to do. Two, it's something you're pretty good at. Three, it's a way to make a living.

Reason one holds true, I would say, for 99 percent of the people who write. Reason two holds true for a lesser percentage, but even those who love writing though they can't do it very well will keep at it because it's part of them. Reason three holds true for even fewer people, but probably could be true for many more.

Wanting something to be proud of is perfectly okay, so long as you don't plan to rub it in someone's face.

It's 17:46 in Belize and the neighbourhood shop is about to close. Do get that first book published, and see if the satisfaction is enough to send you back to the keyboard for the second one.


----------



## bo_7md (Jul 8, 2012)

I disagree.



garza said:


> You want to publish your first book for the wrong reason.



There are no wrong reasons, it's extremely subjective. For example, some might think publishing for money is wrong while others see it as a valid option. publishing for the sake of publishing isn't wrong it's just another reason.



> There are three reasons for being a writer. One, it's something you love to do. Two, it's something you're pretty good at. Three, it's a way to make a living.



4. To challenge yourself. Sort of like climbing a mountain or hunting an elephant.

5. To vent your anger and frustration. There are a lot of people out there with problems who see a way to vent in writing.

6. An outlet for creative persons. There are a lot of people who have a story or two, Ideas or complete novels, in them. They can't relay the story any other way but to write it. There's a reason shadow writers exist you know.

Also, You can find many acclaimed writers who wrote only one novel and stopped, either due to the tedious process or just that they ran out of inspiration.

Loving to write and loving the story are completely different things in my book.


----------



## Extinct_Stimulus (Jul 8, 2012)

bo_7md said:


> 6. An outlet for creative persons. There are a lot of people who have a story or two, Ideas or complete novels, in them. They can't relay the story any other way but to write it. There's a reason shadow writers exist you know.



I think you could lump this one into reason #5, but otherwise, I completely agree with you. However, if _writers_ expect to become _authors_, I think they have to love all of it.



bo_7md said:


> in my book



Too... much... PUN!


----------



## garza (Jul 8, 2012)

bo_7md - Spite is a bad reason for doing anything, including writing and publishing a book. 


I'm certainly one who sees publishing for money as a valid option. After all, It's how I've lived all these years. My grandfather told me, more than once, to find something I enjoyed doing that woud make me a decent living and I'd never have to work. That, of course, is using his definition of work to mean having to do something you did not want to do to make a living.  


4. I've never understood what 'challenge myself' is supposed to mean. I know what I can do and what I can't do. I've known that all my life. 'Arrogant little snot', I remember overhearing one teacher comment to another when I was about ten.


As for climbing mountains, there are far easier, less painful, and cheaper ways of killing yourself. And I don't believe in hunting elephants. Let them find their own way home.


5. I'm not angry at anyone. I've had a good life. When I see atrocities committed, as in El Salvadore, it's not anger I feel but an absolute determination to do what I can to help those who can yet be helped. If I were to allow anger to take over, I would be of no use to anyone. 


My frustrations begin and end with the little setbacks of daily living, like running out of coffee after the shop closes. I doubt that sort of event is worth writing about.


6. I'm not in the least creative. That's why I've stuck with non-fiction for so long. 

What I've discovered over the six years since I decided to give fiction a try is that imagination and creativity are much over-rated. The real world provides material for news reports and Ministry policy papers, the sort of writing I've used to keep the pot boiling over the years, but the real world also is filled with events that, when looked at properly, can tell us a lot about ourselves and others. You don't need imagination or creativity. Just open your eyes and ears. There are stories all around you.

My first book was a total failure, but that's okay. I had fun writing it, and my other writing was paying the bills and continues to pay the bills. Now after more than 50 years I'm trying again to write some fiction. I'm having fun with the writing, no matter how good or bad the results will be.


----------



## Leyline (Jul 8, 2012)

If, by 'book' you mean novel, it died at around the 20,000 word mark, from utter boredom on my part. Last year I finally succeeded in finishing a first draft -- and that was ghostwriting as payback to a good friend. What he does with the manuscript is his business and none of mine.


----------



## bo_7md (Jul 9, 2012)

garza said:


> bo_7md - Spite is a bad reason for doing anything, including writing and publishing a book.



Not if his book ends up being a master piece, who knows what these creative types come-up with.



> 4. I've never understood what 'challenge myself' is supposed to mean. I know what I can do and what I can't do. I've known that all my life. 'Arrogant little snot', I remember overhearing one teacher comment to another when I was about ten.
> 
> As for climbing mountains, there are far easier, less painful, and cheaper ways of killing yourself. And I don't believe in hunting elephants. Let them find their own way home.



There are certinly far easier ways to kill yourself, if that was the goal. Some people find the satisfaction, you adore writing for, in risking their lives. Understanding that this is what they want to do, is my point here.



> 5. I'm not angry at anyone. I've had a good life. When I see atrocities committed, as in El Salvadore, it's not anger I feel but an absolute determination to do what I can to help those who can yet be helped. If I were to allow anger to take over, I would be of no use to anyone.



You might not be, but others are. People can feel weak and helpless, at times, and they channel that anger into something productive--like writing about it. This is what I mean.



> My frustrations begin and end with the little setbacks of daily living, like running out of coffee after the shop closes. I doubt that sort of event is worth writing about.



I just googled 'ran out of coffee' and I found at least 6 blogs that talk about just that. People might surprise you on what they find interesting. 



> 6. I'm not in the least creative. That's why I've stuck with non-fiction for so long.
> 
> What I've discovered over the six years since I decided to give fiction a try is that imagination and creativity are much over-rated. The real world provides material for news reports and Ministry policy papers, the sort of writing I've used to keep the pot boiling over the years, but the real world also is filled with events that, when looked at properly, can tell us a lot about ourselves and others. You don't need imagination or creativity. Just open your eyes and ears. There are stories all around you.
> 
> My first book was a total failure, but that's okay. I had fun writing it, and my other writing was paying the bills and continues to pay the bills. Now after more than 50 years I'm trying again to write some fiction. I'm having fun with the writing, no matter how good or bad the results will be.



I agree with creativity being over rated, but I think we need to make a distinction about writing itself here. Going back to the running-out-of-coffee example above: If someone writes about running out of coffe, then he is a non-fiction writer; If while he is out buying a cup of coffee he starts running scenarios about a casual person who goes out to buy coffee and finds top secret documents, he is using his imagination; if he goes home and turns all those scenarions into a book, creative.

That or he is a paranoid loon. Now, where did I put my pills?

I think it's great that you have a passion for writing, and I agree that writers should have--to a certain degree-- a love for it, but I understand that some people don't share that passion for writing/editing/reading. To them it's just one of those been-there-done-that kind of thing. 

It's worth noting, at this point, from reading your stories on the forum that you have a healthy amount of creativity--if that counts for anything. 



> Too... much... PUN!



Lol, no pun intended.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jul 9, 2012)

garza said:


> Gamer_2k4 -Do you ever sit in a bar and tell 'war stories'? You know, the kind that start, 'This is no lie.' That's the root of all fiction, I've come to believe.



I'm a decent storyteller, though that's mainly because of my delivery.  (I'm actually kind of a stickler for accuracy in such things.)  Unfortunately, delivery is one of the hardest things to mimic in writing, and I really don't have the patience to learn it.  Pacing, tone, voice, expression - I'm used to these things occurring in a micro level in real life (all conveyed in an instant), and a macro level in stories (a whole scene might have a single tone).

That's really why your approach doesn't work for me specifically.  My stories in real life are non-fiction made interesting by their delivery.  My stories in writing are fiction made interesting by their content.


----------



## HKayG (Jul 10, 2012)

> just googled 'ran out of coffee' and I found at least 6 blogs that talk about just that. People might surprise you on what they find interesting.



Each to their own and all that...


----------

