Well, if you've taken the time to learn the craft of fiction for the printed word; and if you have a good feel for what editors look at as salable writing; and if you've polished your skills by writing, editing, and putting aside the half million to a million words that the average writer takes to begin selling, then yeah, finishing that manuscript is the big hump to get over. But if you've just sat down at the keyboard, with your high school writing skills? Uhhh...no.
I was going to say the worst part is trying to get your head out of that first story and starting on the next one. The rest is just chores.
as ed put it so well above, there's no single 'biggest obstacle' that applies to everyone... for many, it's finishing the first draft... for others, it's crafting a successful query... and so on... my own conclusion, after decades of editing/doing rewrites for clients and mentoring thousands of aspiring writers, is that the biggest obstacle to becoming a successful writer of any kind is the inability to write well enough to turn out marketable material... sad to say, for most who want to be writers, it's an unsurmountable obstacle... the awful truth many who try can't bear to face is that few can write that well to begin with and fewer still can learn to do so, if they haven't some degree of talent for wordwork... the good news is that if everyone could, then writing wouldn't be an art form, would it?...
Finishing a draft is a definite hurdle cleared but there's still a lot more on a writer's horizon. Like for me, my biggest obstacle is knowing what IS the final draft and if it's good enough. I've finished a few novels in the past - multiple drafts for each one - and the last drafts on them don't look as good as my first drafts now. You don't just need to finish a novel you need to get some honest feedback on your work.
*Gasp* I am insulted! Honestly though, I think it's more about the story being good enough rather than how skilled you are at writing. There are hundreds of successful books that people constantly say are horribly written.
That's not exactly true. There're different types of good writing - literary and artistic are not the only types. Bestsellers have their appeal just as chick lits have their appeal. As far as I'm concerned, if it's holding an audience, then there's probably something in it we could all learn from! Amongst the traditionally published, the "worst" writers are still far better than the average wannabe-writer, I'd venture. People might pan Twilight and 50 Shades (I've read 2/3rds of the first and the first book of the second) but they're still better than some things I've read by some self-pub authors out there, and they in turn have usually still been better than some of the things I've critiqued. What I'm saying is, the "horribly written" published books are really not the worst out there If you don't write well enough, then no matter how good your story, it's not gonna get through. Who's gonna sit around and wait 200 pages before you got to the point? There's a certain standard you must get to - but there's definitely a spectrum within that standard. Also, of course, us writers harp on about good "writing" - but what we really mean is writing AND story-telling. Structuring and pacing a story is an art in itself and that's not defined by how well you can string up a sentence or an enticing paragraph. If the story is told beautifully but structured wrong, the reader may still put it down - but structure is a lot harder to criticise than writing and word choice, so we will often say "It's badly written" when actually, it's just structured wrong but we don't know it.
This is why editing shouldn't be viewed as a chore, but rather a pleasure. I "told" my story in my fast first draft. Now, I get the luxury of restructuring it till it works for others.
@Mckk Then why do people say it's horrible and bash it to no end if they don't really mean it? Also, I'm not saying that somebody that can barely put together a sentence can get published, I'm just saying that they don't have to be the next Mark Twain skill wise in order for their book to sell.
I never said they don't mean it when they say something is horrible - I'm just saying that the "horrible" that we see is by no means the worst of the lot, and also that what we identify as "horrible" could be different from what's actually making the piece horrible. We are in agreement that you don't have to be the next Mark Twain to be published. I just said that you do still need to be a good writer. You only said "rather than how skilled you are at writing" (followed immediately by citing how poorly written books get published just fine) - it's fairly vague and I understood you to mean that "your writing quality doesn't matter as long as your story is good". Of course I could be wrong, and I thank you for your explanation!
Fair enough. I was vague because I assume that if somebody sends a query letter out that they possess at least some skill in writing. That might not always be the case though. Also, I understand that for first-timers — sending a query letter out to an agent might be a bit more gut-wrenching than the writing process.
If only. Story is way down on the list of things important to selling a novel. Everyone says that they read for the story, but no one turns from page one to page two unless the writing makes them want to know more. The reader arrives at our first page with nothing more then mild curiosity, which will fade quickly unless we turn it to active interest. To quote Sol Stein, a man who achieved notable success in fiction, play writing, screen writing, editing, and publishing: “A novel is like a car—it won’t go anywhere until you turn on the engine. The “engine” of both fiction and nonfiction is the point at which the reader makes the decision not to put the book down. The engine should start in the first three pages, the closer to the top of page one the better.” In reality, people read for the moment to moment reading pleasure we give them. They want to be entertained, not informed, and that's done via the writing, not plot. I say this a lot, but it's true. If we gave a lousy plot to a multi-published writer they would write a readable story because they know how to make taking out the garbage interesting to read about. But were I to take the plot of one of their novels and give it to a thousand new writers, we would have a thousand stories that would be rejected before the end of the first page because they're still trying to use the general skill called writing we learn in our primary education, and haven't yet learned the craft and compositional techniques of writing fiction for the printed word. . Be careful not to confuse writing skill and personal story preference. If the book was successful it hit the target it was aimed at. The fact that people not in that target audience didn't like it isn't meaningful because no one expected to sell to them. And here's something to think about: There are many writers who have been called no talent hacks, who made a nice living through their writing. Obviously, they know something that's not a function of inborn talent that we're missing. Perhaps that missing knowledge was part of what they studied when they were learning to write fiction for the printed word?
The inverse is also true - no one turns from page one to page two unless the story pulls them. This may be true for your readership, @JayG, and if so then I congratulate you for attaining some success by tapping into it. But, like most other blanket statements, it is not universally true. That reading pleasure we give them may be momentary, or it may be something much deeper and long-lasting. I can name several novels that I have gone back to read time and time again because they provided me with something I found nowhere else, and all of them inf0rmed me in one way or another as well as entertained me.
With all due respect, I don't believe that. The number one reason a person even thinks about purchasing a book is if the synopsis of the story interests them. Even if the author writes super amazingly awesome, when someone looks at the back or flap and reads, "This is about a person sitting in a room staring at the wall." I doubt they would be interested enough to buy it. Do you think Tolkien's LotR trilogy would be nearly as successful if he replaced the epic fantasy content with someone going to the store buying groceries? Maybe story isn't the most important thing to writing a book, but I vehemently disagree that it's one of the least important. Regarding the "horribly written" debate, we're pretty much back to square one. If it's really about personal story preference instead of writing skill, why do they say that the book was written horribly instead of just saying "This isn't my preferred genre." If it was really preference then they should say that instead of "He/She can't write their way out of a wet paper bag." (I read that somewhere before, can't remember where though) Also, please don't take my posts as arguing. I respect everyone's opinion, I'm just having some trouble seeing eye-to-eye on certain things.
I think writing the first draft is the hardest thing. You actually have to sit down and do it! It takes time, dedication, effort, and perseverance! Editing is a little easier as it's more organized and specific. Rejection letters, I got a thick skin. But that first draft, it's literally creation and creation seems to be the hardest thing God ever did. He had to sleep after all... so much for omnipotence So, until you finish creating, the hardest is ahead. I know I read a book or two where I just wanted to know what happened next and how it all resolved. Story wise, didn't care about the fancy wording or the characters, I just wanted to eat the end. Did the books fail cause of that? No, I bought them, enjoyed them, and was satisfied. Would they have been better with a bit more them? Maybe, but I don't read for perfection. Hmm.. Dean Koontz, don't care for his characters or how unbelievably lucky they are. He certainly doesn't write a magical prose and his stories are rather... nothing unique. I still enjoyed it well enough. He wrote with a good flow and didn't bore me to tears. Or Terry Goodkind's Chain of Fire. Endless and endless paragraphs of details of clothing and furniture and god knows what else... the character we learn to care about randomly gets killed for no reason... basically, the actual story is a tenth of the books size. Yet I still read it and enjoyed it. There's more to story writing than following rules and perfection, obviously. Or maybe I'm just a reader who doesn't know what he should like.
Actual research says that the average person makes their buy or reject by turning to page one and reading a bit—usually three pages or less. All around them are books shouting "Read me, I'm better!" So unless you replace the mild curiosity that rear cover blurb gave them with active interest, and do it quickly, your audition is over. We can never forget that readers are volunteers, not conscripts.
True. But even then, it's impossible to tell whether the main driver in the purchasing decision is the writing style or the story itself. Having put down Henry James because I felt like I was trying to read through a lens of concrete, and having put down Gabriel Garcia Marquez because I just didn't think the story was all that compelling, my own experience is that a book must have both. Which resonates more with any given reader is, of course, a matter of individual preference. but both are important. If anyone has any objective and valid data to the contrary, I'd love to see it.
That only applies to "cold purchase", trying out an unfamiliar author or a new series. Most book purchases come from a positive experience with another book with a connection to the new book - same author, or a common setting, etc. If the first experience is poor, though, you can say "Sayonara" to any repeat buyers for other books you publish. The bad experience is usually weak writing, but it can also be poorly researched basis material.
Hmm. I'm not familiar with that at all. I've never bought a book based on reading the first page; not saying the info is nonsense or anything, just that the synopsis is suppose to be there for a reason. I usually just open somewhere in the middle and read a random part. That's just me though, I guess I'm a bit different when it comes to that.
Regarding the original question, my guess is that of all the people who finish a first draft of their manuscript, still only a very small fraction end up getting an agent or publisher for the traditional publishing route, so in that respect I wouldn't think the biggest obstacle was just getting the draft done.
Ah, that's probably a fair assumption. But judging from this blog, probably not a correct assumption - you should check it out, it's called Slush Pile Hell and it's basically an anonymous agent posting snippets of some of the worst queries he's ever received and writing a sarky reply to every one of them And yeah, I definitely find the query way harder than writing the book I suck at summarising. I saw a funny picture on FB once that said: "Then Satan said: let them write a synopsis." About sums up my sentiment! EDIT: browsing Slush Pile Hell after linking you to it, and found this - gave me a giggle: http://slushpilehell.tumblr.com/post/63645164406
