Do you believe in spend near half the book to actually start the main plot?

So you're saying that agents are smart and publishers are not? And you can back this up how? Where exactly do agents come from? Many come from the marketing or editing departments of major publishers. So, I guess only the smart ones leave to become agents? Or when you said 'tend to be smart' the ones who were authors for example before becoming agents, are the smarter ones and the ones who came from a publishing house in some capacity aren't the smarter ones.

Okay, those reading this thread that feel this statement is a good one, run with it. Spend 170 pages of a 350 page novel introducing the main character in his/her normal life before moving on to the main plot of the story. A question I would have is: Should it really take 170 pages to get the reader to strongly identify with a character? And: Couldn't that be accomplished just as well in the context of the main plot?

I would like to watch the pitch session with even a smart agent when the aspiring author says, "Yes, it took me 150 pages to develop the character, mostly by examining aspects of his normal life, so that when the main plot starts up the result will be much more impactful with the reader because they can better identify with him."

Expanding a plot does not = longer. It means adding depth and complexity. Yes, it does mean more words. And the word count of a novel does make a difference.

Publishing is a business. Odds are that an author's first novel isn't going to sell well. It is rare for one to break even. Having a novel consist of an extra 80-100 pages of content, means that much more out of the pocket of the publisher--one that is already taking a risk. Bookstores look at the length of a book as well. The thicker the book, the more shelf space it takes up. The fewer choices they can offer. While it's not as much of a risk for the bookstore (they can return the book to the publisher) during the time it is on the shelf not selling, it is blocking the chance for something else to be there, possibly selling.

And, if one's idea of adding complexity and improving a plot is "Hey, add a fight scene" then I suspect they're going to struggle a bit.

Expanding a plot by adding complexity--more subplots that intertwine, yes it could end up convoluting the story. But if one can write well, it won't convolute it.

Terry

 

I've read many of times about Publisers rejecting countless books that could've made them lots of money, I've even read about some upholding absurd standards right up until they went out of business. I've also read many positive experiences with agents, and talking with some people who have gotten works published, they tend to agree an agent is easier to work with.

Why does it have to be? If someone prefers to make the reader feel like they're living the character's every day life beore thrusting them into a situation, that's certainly not wrong. As long as it's good, who cares? Just to uphold somekind of standard?

I would like to see an agent reject that book, only to look like an idiot if the book becomes well recieved.

You're assuming the plot NEEDS to be made more complex. That's your problem, all you do is assume based on structure. Just because someone wants to spend so much time on build up means their main plot needs more complexity? Maybe the main plot is fine and the writer just prefers to have a lot of build up, why does there have to be a problem because it's a structure you don't agree with? I don't prefer the kind of structure in movies like "Memento" and "Irreversable" where everything goes backwards yet those two films made it work.

That same argument is applied to long movies. Longer movies means less times shown in a day. However history shows longer films and books tend to sell. For books, Harry Potter, Tolstoy, Tom Clancy, Stephen King, Lord of the Rings, etc. For movies, The Godfather, Titanic, Lord of the Rings, etc.

If people are going to spend money on a book, they'll want to do so for one that will take them awhile. Business is all about taking risks. The vast majority of hit books are not the kind that would be quickly seen as marketable. The Publishers who are smart and take chances keep themselves in business. The ones who don't crash and burn.

Still, if they don't need to, why should they?

 

TWErvin and Ore-Sama let us agree to disagree. When I read what is published most of the time today I have to say TWErvin is right.

Take two hours in your local book store and flip through all the new releases from all categories just the first 50 pages. Things move at a good clip.

I would suggest you try something different and I have seen this numerous times where Authors start everything off with a Hail Mary then give you background once you see what the character is up.

I think this works because we as readers have already invested something in the book so we roll with it. Guys once again just let it be

 

Sounds good to me.

 

A lot of the posts were just tl;dr. I apologize, but I tend it get bored by huge chunks of text that recycle the same verbial conundrum that my immature brain can't process. I'm saying this with all due honesty: I'm a bit slow. However, let me just backtrack and say that I agree with this statement:

I'm going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that Ore-Sama is implying here that while we are basically getting to know our characters better and though it may take 100 + pages for the author to do so, provided that the introduction is "interesting", the plot exists and hints that there is more to come, there shouldn't be a problem with it going at a slower pace. That's how I write.

While I may not believe in spending nearly half the book before actually delving into the main plot, a good chunk (maybe 1/3rds) is spent introducing the characters and hinting at underlying problems that are there, but do not surface or are not explored until much later. After all, once you get to the main plot and it is resolved, there's not much left to do except end it.

As long as an author or writer is good at building up character, and as long as things happen (not just narrative, not just background, but "dialogue" and character interaction, like someone mentioned earlier) then I definitely wouldn't mind 140+ pages of it in a 350 + page book.

 

I will address this final issue and then let readers of this thread determine which course works best for them.

More than a few agents have passed on representing an author whose work has sold well. Just like publishers.

Agents, just like publishers, that have made poor choices go out of business.

An agent is easier for an author to work with (or should be)--she is representing the author and his work. In publishing, editors at publishing houses change--and seemingly more often than they used to, and they also represent the publisher while working with an author. But unless an agent retires and the writer and agent 'mesh' well, by mutual choice it can be a career-long experience. (I only say this because of the represented authors I know, none have outlived/wrote beyond their agent's career, yet, but it seems logical to me. )

I think that this is/was an interesting thread. It compares and contrasts multiple viewpoints on a topic and, as I indicated above, allows the readers to decide what is right for them and their writing/goals.

Terry