Novel What will make your book stand out from the crowd?

My novel has two guys who like one girl, but with a twist. She doesn't have trouble deciding and what makes her so in love with the one isn't magical infatuation, rather it is their shared history and interests, the things true love actually are built on.

The other guy is infatuated and she experiences reciprocal infatuation because she's never met a guy outside of her village and it's a new experience. It's not revealed if she ever acts on that infatuation.

But then another emotion is brought in, the infatuated guy has some other serious issues I won't reveal ahead of time.

He does find his own true love in the second novel and overcomes the issue he had in the first book.

 

I apologize and have made the necessary correction. Thank you for your understanding.

 

Gosh, this is a depressing thread! Not because of anybody's contributions—in fact, they've all been interesting to read and the arguments have been well thought out and well expressed. But nothing here makes me want to consider traditional publishing. Basically, gimmickry is what works (catching the 'eye' with a self-consciously memorable first sentence, etc.) Forget writing well, spending a lot of time crafting an intricate plot, creating characters who are believable and memorable. Nope. Waste of time. Turn out a story that's more or less like everybody else's, run it through the spell checker and grammar checker, and start sending it out to agents who will grab it because it's the right length for an easy, cheap sale, and contains a teenaged love triangle. Why do we bother? Just churn out forgettable, mediocre shit like everybody else's forgettable, medicocre shit, and you've got as good a chance of publication as the next person.

Sadly, I think that's the way publishing works these days.

I'm not bothering my arse. I'll market my own story my own way. I know I have readers already lined up, not only to buy, but who will tell others about the book. I'll do my best to 'place' the book on Amazon so that readers looking for a particular type of book can find it. I'll write a blurb and choose a cover that reflects what I want to say about the book. I'm not looking for massive sales. I just want it to be available. And it will be mine. That's what I've laboured nearly 20 years to create. MY book. MY story. MY characters. I'm not dancing around trying to get the literary equivalent of Simon Cowell's attention.

Maybe people need to start thinking about writing in a different way. If they want to make a lot of money, they should simply churn out what the masses want to read. Quick, forgettable stuff, like junk food ...cheap, available everywhere, non-nourishing and ultimately bad for your brain. The craft isn't in writing the book, the craft is in selling the book.

People who write thoughtfully, from the heart, and with a unique story to tell need to get over the fact that they're going to be successful authors. Great if they manage it, but the chances are about as good as winning the EuroMillions. People do win the EuroMillions. But it's a VERY tiny percentage of those who buy tickets. And no particular talent is required. Just being in the right place at the right time with the right numbers. That's all it takes.

My attitude isn't narcissim or self-delusion. It's simply accepting a fact. It's the way the business runs.

My philosophy has changed over the years. I try to write well because I'll end up telling my story in a way that moves others. However, I've totally given up on the idea of selling it to lots of people. Do I want to run a restaurant that sells great home-cooked food, but only locals and people who happen to pass by by chance will know about? Or do I want to make billions selling hockey pucks with special sauce, on fluffy sesame buns?

 

I think you may be being a little hard on publishing - most of the books you've read and presumably loved have probably come through the traditional publishing world, and surely not all of those are classics from long ago?

 

Oh you're right. But as this thread's discussion seems to bear out, the LIKELIHOOD of you getting published is slim, unless you pander to what agents want. And pander very very hard. Or write for a specific genre. What we get told all the time is that the quality of the writing matters, and that you need to work your butt off to make it unique and perfect. Then you see stuff getting published that is of very low written quality, very derivative of what others have already done ...and you wonder why you bother.

I've made my choice, and others are free to make theirs.

I haven't unearthed a single agent anywhere (in the nearly 15 years I've been actively looking) who seems to want the sort of thing I've written. I've never been rejected, because I haven't applied. I read their requirements and I realise my book doesn't fall into the categories they want, or fall near their word-count guidelines—or resemble the last book this agent successfully published—I think ...nah, ah. My lifetime is limited. I'd rather write, publish myself, and let the chips fall where they may. I haven't got another 15 years to spend chasing after these people, and cutting my carefully-constructed story to bits so it fits into some quick-read genre, and coming up with some gimmick to grab their attention in the first place. My story is what it is. I'll promote it myself, but my own way.

I must say that I've read very few recently-published fiction books that have left any real impression on me. I've acquired a few authors whom I like a lot, but I've got to say most of the books I read get piled onto the 'give away' stack in the corner of our hallway. I can't imagine wanting to read them again. They just ...I don't know ...lack substance? They're glib enough, but not very nourishing.

 

This is an unfair dichotomy. Yes, you have Taylor Swift, but you also have Bruce Springsteen. Yes, you have McDonalds, but you also have Texas De Brazil Steakhouse. I don't think quality EVER had the mass appeal you're describing. 13 year old Samantha is gonna read about 17 year old Jane making a vampire sandwhich or she's not going to read at all. It has nothing and never had anything to do with the novel YOU want to write.

 

It has a lot to do with trying to sell it to agents who only want certain kinds of writing, though. That's really what this thread is about. How to get your work 'noticed.'

I was never suggesting quality had mass appeal in the past. However, quality nowadays seems irrelevant when it comes to publishing, and mass appeal is all that seems to matter. And mass appeal seems to mean vampire sandwiches, or other genre offerings. Not my thing at all. Nor am I excessively 'literary.' Nor do I want to be.

From my point of view, this doesn't boil down to the quality of my writing, or my confidence in my story. It boils down to time and space. I'm 65 years old, on the 'wrong' side of the Atlantic for the kind of book I've written.

When I first finished my first draft, I had certainly intended to try for traditional publishing. I bought all the yearly compendiums of publishers, etc (from both sides of the Atlantic) and read through them. All of them. I read about all the publishers, and all the agents in the genres even remotely pertaining to my book. NOT A SINGLE ONE would have accepted what I wrote, either because of subject matter or the length of my book. I have cut more than a third from my first draft, but it's still way too long at 210,000 words. Not way too long for a good story, or way too long for a book published by an author with a back catalogue. But way too long for a first-time offer.

Okay, if I cared enough, I could write a shorter book and spend years trying to sell that in the hopes that they would then take on my longer book. No guarantees at all ...except a lot of wasted time. I'm 65 years old. I don't want to spend the NEXT 20 years trying to fool somebody into taking my book on ...and then be told that it has to be cut in half again. No. I've worked hard on this, and I've finally got the product I want after more than 10 years of close editing. My next book is a sequel to the first one, and I just want to get it done.

I don't know what I'd do if self-publishing wasn't an option ...but it is. So that's what I'm going for.

 

We should all just start our own publishing company for those who don't fit what traditional publishers are looking for... lol

 

I don't mean to challenge your self-publishing decision, jannert - totally your call.

But just for the sake of the larger discussion, and so assumptions you've made aren't taken as absolute fact by others:

City on Fire, 900 pages (don't know the word count, but 900 pages is LONG) - debut novel, recently sold for close to $2 million. Sounds like quality writing, based on the comparisons to other authors. Genre not clear. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/11/business/media/city-on-fire-a-debut-novel-fetches-nearly-2-million.html

Time Traveller's Wife, 156K words (not quite as long as yours, but still way over standard), debut novel, huge success, movie also successful. What genre? Not sure what I'd call it.

Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, 309K words (about half of which I would have cut, personally, but...), debut novel, huge success, movie on the way. Again, not sure how to classify the genre. Fantasy, kind of, but... not the traditional sort, for sure.

I'm sure there are others - those are just ones I'm immediately aware of.

So, yeah, it's harder to sell a book that doesn't fit into a specific category, and it's harder to sell a longer debut. And if one author looks at those probabilities and decides to self-publish, more power to her. But it certainly is possible to sell long, hard-to-categorize debut novels to large publishers. It's been done before, and will be done again.

 

I'm a strong believer that the thing which keeps a writer writing is that they feel that they've got something worthwhile to say. A story, then, is not just a means of entertainment, it is a political thesis expressed in narrative terms.
It is the author's responsibility to express his beliefs in a manner that the reader will be willing to listen. So, if all that is being published is books about heroic female high school outcasts, then it is the author's job to figure out how to take that pattern and twist it into something new.

 

I'm a strong believer that when I read books that are political theses expressed in narrative terms, I get cranky. That's not to say that some authors don't write that way, but I certainly don't think ALL authors do.

Sometimes, we just tell a story. I like reading stories!

 

Not my place to respond to this thread, but I have to disagree with your second statement. Don't just jump on the bandwagon like everyone else, be true to yourself first and foremost. I applaud jannert's conviction to push forward with what she has even if it doesn't fit the current trend. I believe her pride in what she has written is more important than simply looking for a fan base.

 

My novel really stands out. It's a vampire zombie YA apocalyptic book.

 

I'm kidding, by the way.

 

Author's job? I'm pretty sure this is a minority opinion.

@jannert, you seem to be paying attention to selective aspects of this discussion and missing others.

There are million dollar sellers like Harry Potter and some publishers and agents may be looking for the next one. There is a current trend of YA romance that other publishers and agents may be looking for.

That doesn't mean no publishers or agents are looking for the next Octavia Butler or wouldn't want to publish The Poisonwood Bible the minute they saw it.

 

I've noticed books in a 'niche' market do quite well.

 

Depends on the niche, probably. Some of them are so specific there isn't much of an audience.

 

I think I'm only making the point that for me, traditional publishing isn't really an option. I HAVE investigated the issue extensively, and discovered that my book just doesn't fit—either side of the Big Pond. The question is: do I want to twist my story into another shape to make it 'fit?' The answer is no. I've been editing for years, and have made many changes (as suggested by my readers) and have done all sorts to make my story work ...but it doesn't fit. I'm okay with that.

I don't think you can totally separate the two issues that have been discussed on this thread. One is how to make your book stand out and remain memorable for the reader—which I think was your original point, @GingerCoffee. The other is how to make your book stand out so an agent/publisher will agree to take it on.

The reader isn't going to remember anything you write if the reader doesn't know the book exists in the first place ...so getting it to 'stand out' prior to sale is important. That notion has diverted attention (including mine) into the pros and cons of traditional as opposed to self-publishing.

 

Yes.

I don't think good books and popular books are mutually exclusive categories.

 

Totally agree. I think because people see things like Twilight they think only 'junk' fiction can be popular when actually a lot of good novelists can be best sellers. Anne Tyler is one I can think of. Won a Pulitzer for Breathing Lessons and was always on the New York Times best sellers list.

 

They aren't. But nor are they a hand-in-hand proposition.

 

That's a rather damning and, I'd say, unfair verdict. So what the masses enjoy are always "forgettable junk food"? Does traditional publishing really only ever churn out such? "Mediocre, forgettable shit"?

While I can understand the advantages of self-publishing, and time is of the essence, to paint all of traditional publishing with the same brush (and it seems, from the tone of your post, a very angry brush?) is kinda unfair. I don't even see how the two are related - there's shit in traditional publishing, as well as gems, and there's shit in self-publishing, as well as gems. How does the method by which you get published say anything of the quality of your work, necessarily? We already know what comes through publishing houses is no guarantee of quality - but to be frank, it does guarantee a certain level of English - not something that could be said of the stuff that's been self-published. Few people are objective enough to critique their own work thoroughly or accurately, which is why much of what's been self-pubbed is junk.

I don't honestly think anyone writes novels to make billions.

For myself, I don't see why options should be closed. Why should I look at what people say about traditional publishing and assume there's no hope for my book except to get it self-published? Seems a self-defeating philosophy. Choose self-publishing for other reasons, sure, but not because you simply assume you'll get rejected anyway. I'd personally try out a few agents first and if no one snaps it up within a few months, then self-publish it. Why not? Set a realistic time limit - I won't wait forever for an agent to lift my manuscript up from the slush pile either - but that's not to say I'll go straight for self-publishing because I assume immediately that no agent would want it for whatever reason.

I think we often see agents as scheming little businessmen/women trying to make life difficult for us inspired authors and they're without an eye for art or colour or personality, or yeah, writing quality - but to be honest, that's probably just a comforting myth us writers have conjured and perpetuated because how else are we supposed to explain away our failures? To think 10 rejected manuscripts were all really, honestly due to our own lack of talent or underdeveloped talent is far too painful. Better to blame the agents and publishers - they just don't know what they're talking about cus they're always trying to fit everything into boxes without regard for true Art. Nah. I have no doubt that sometimes agents have had to reject manuscripts they may have very much liked because they know it won't sell in the market - yes, I'm sure that does happen - but I dunno, I'm not keen on our assumptions that somehow they're these little nasties looking for ways to cause our downfall. They want a good book to sell as much as you want to sell your book - if they see something of quality, I'm sure they'll snap it up.

Of course, stories are highly subjective too, so that's why perhaps a quality piece might slip through the net.

In any case, back to what the masses want - I see nothing wrong with writing for the masses. Not everyone wants to create art, nor should that be the case. I am grateful for some mindless entertainment - such books got me through a very depressing year in London once and got me back into reading. Plenty of similar books nurtured my love of reading and stories as a young child and then as a teen. To call all things made for the masses - or perhaps the things that become popular with the masses, by way implying that's what they want - all "forgettable shit" - I find that rather insulting. To write an entertaining book is no easy feat - to write to genre specifications is also a skill in and of itself.

And the truth is, sometimes an entertaining story is all a writer has - it's the story that inspires that writer, the one that excites them. Not all of them wrote such to make money - a lot of them probably write those kinda stories cus they're the kind they love. I don't think we should assume and speak into bestselling authors' supposed motives for writing less-than-literary books and make it seem like they're beneath us. They're successful - they're doing something right - they've got a book out, multiple books out - they probably have more wisdom to impart about writing than a lot of us on this forum do, I imagine, both regarding writing quality as well as story/novel structure.

I'm by no means faulting you for self-publishing and saying traditional publishing simply isn't for you and nor are you interested in trying. I'm just not so keen on the tarnishing brush on all traditionally published works, nor works created for the masses and/or for entertainment.

 

Really? I quite enjoy The Tale of Two Cities, Frankenstein, Oliver Twist, etc.
Even more recent examples like Stephen King's novels are quite enjoyable to me. A skilled author can encode a theme into a story such that only a skilled reader can find it. The author who handles his theme in a heavy-handed, clumsy way should spend more time mastering his craft.

 

You do enjoy the idea of making a living as an author, do you not? It is not a minority opinion that, to make a living in art, an artist must be making what the customer wants to buy without compromising the author's artistic integrity.

Simply complaining that the artist's work isn't selling is no excuse. The author simply must figure out how to communicate their vision in a way that customers will listen.

 

It's certainly not the mandate you suggested it was.

I think the first place you've gone wrong here is the assumption that the majority of authors make a living writing.

The second place is the assumption that all the authors who do make a living writing, do it by catering to the market. Clearly there are many who do. Writers who churn out book after book, for example, may indeed be looking at the target market's wants and desires.

But the majority of writers are not writing to the market, even if a fair number of them are.