In three pages there is no story. The inciting incident has probably not happened yet. Story is the framework, the roadmap. And Story, with that upper case S, is fact-based and inherently dispassionate. "This happened...then that happened...and after that..." is Story. And it's exactly as exciting as any other history book. But gossip is emotion based and always has an audience. Excitement is emotion based, and the reader comes to us for the entertainment of being made excited in exactly the same wat the protagonist is, and for the same reason. They're not looking to learn that the protagonist was made angry. They want to be angry, for the same reason as the protagonist. Look at it this way: it's easy to make ourselves cry because we know the story as the protagonist does and feel the same. And we enter the scene already knowing what will make us cry. But making someone we'll never meet, cry—someone who is of a different age group, background, and gender, and doing it with nothing more then the words we choose and where we place them in the narrative, is an absolute bitch. That takes more then sincerity dedication, and a plot. It takes writing that sinks its fangs into the reader's throat on page one and never lets go. And you ain't going to get a level of skill that precise by accident. It takes study, practice, and perhaps a bit of mentoring. Having a publisher say yes to your manuscript submission isn't the result of a lottery. Publishers call over 75% of what they get in submissions amateur. They look at all but three of the remaining twenty-five as unprofessional. In fact, the vast majority of submissins are rejected before the end f the first page often before the end of the first paragraph. And how much story is there on te first page? The techniques the pros use aren't that hard to learn (though perfecting them takes time and practice), and yiu can find them fee at your local library's fiction writing section.
You're missing an important point. We are that "unfamiliar author or a new series." That publisher/agent who's reading your submission, is worse than making a cold purchase. S/he has 1000 or more manuscripts from hopefull unpublished writers to read to find one—hopefully ours—to say yes to. When they get to ours they've probably read a dozen or more that day, already, and expect ours to be just another piece of crap that will be rejected in a paragraph. That means they're in a hurry to find a reason to reject it. Not the best frame of mind in which to read our golden words. When they get a submission from someone they've published, and who's made money for them, sure their attitude is better. But sadly, that's not us. We probably end up with an experience more like Bernard's.
If there's no story in the first three pages, I've probably already put the book back on the shelf. It may not be the story that's going to drive the book, but it had better be a story. I've put down far more books because the first three pages didn't interest me than because they were poorly written.
I guess I'm the other kind of reader. I give a writer a lot of space before I decide his book is dull. I never make a decision in three pages - that's just not fair. Hell, I gave Stephen King over three hundred pages of The Stand before I decided he just wasn't going anywhere and it would take him forever to get there. That's kind of typical for me. If a book is long, I'll read at least a hundred pages, unless the style is so off-putting I know the writer is crap before then.
Absolutely. Reasonable people might disagree on what should be studied, but there is no question that you have to work your socks off to get to where you can reasonably expect someone to pay to read your stuff. We were talking about what holds a reader's attention, not what publishers look at to make their accept/reject decision. I think that's an important distinction, because by the time the reader is hefting a tome at B&N, it's already survived the agent's screening process and the publisher's screening process, and it's been professionally edited. So, the kinds of amateurish errors that publishers are finding and using as a basis of rejection do not come into play when the reader is making his/her decision. If we are going to talk about what publishers consider important, then, yes, the first thing they will look at - and, for that matter, the first thing that agents look at - is whether the writer is competent. But I still say that, even after the writer passes muster for competence, there are still the additional hurdles of an interesting story and an engaging style, and failing on either count will earn the writer a rejection.
Publishers want people to buy their books, so you can bet that they're focused on catching and holding that reader's attention. And we can never forget that the publisher is our true customer. What else can we talk about? Unless we convince the editor we submit to that they can make more money with our book than any of the others on their desk we lose. The editor is our customer. The reader is theirs. And as part of their business decision they look at how much editing they'll need to do. If two stories are equal so far as a reader's interest and one requires less editing, that one wins. And editors don't teach writing. No one is going to look at your work and say, "Well, the writing sucks but the idea is great so I'll fix it." I know that's every new writer's fantasy (along with sending their great story idea to a favorite author to fix for half credit, and having them say yes) but it is a fantasy.
I don't read book flaps or back covers, so that isn't a factor to me. I will read anything where the writer holds my interest, regardless of the specific story being told.
The book shelves of the world are full of best-selling novels whose writing sucks. I've been amazed by how bad some of the books I loved as a teenager actually are when I read them again with the benefit of another twenty years of life and writing behind me. Certainly any book that publishers will want to buy and readers will want to read probably needs at least competent grammar and spelling. But there's a lot more to 'good' writing than that, and many best-selling books would have swathes of red ink across them if you gave them to an English teacher to read. And, all that said, I'm sure there are writers who could release a book with a great story written in text-speak today and still end up on the best-seller lists.
All sorts of people say that, but I just don't believe it. They may be badly written by that critic's specific literary standard, but I strongly suspect that they're written to a certain level of consistency and polish that the average untrained writer is not yet capable of. To switch to another art form, if I look at the logo and artwork found on an average grocery store product, I'm very rarely going to see that as "art". But it still has a clear professional level of design and polish. I may have contempt for it, but I can't do it. It is a skill beyond me. And I think that the same is true of the skill possessed by most published authors--I may respect it or I may have contempt for it, but I do not yet possess it. Data? No. Me? I narrow to a group of possibilities based on genre, character types, and other factors, but I buy a book based on the writing in the first page. I very often reject a book based on the first paragraph, and it's not un-heard of for me to reject it based on the first sentence.
Data? No. Me? I narrow to a group of possibilities based on genre, character types, and other factors, but I buy a book based on the writing in the first page. I very often reject a book based on the first paragraph, and it's not un-heard of for me to reject it based on the first sentence.
Of course. But that wasn't your original point. You said: We do have to convince the agent and the editor that our book will sell. Each will look at the basic writing first, because it's easy to spot red flags that scream "Amateur!" and trigger the discard reflex. One will not press on to see if the story is good if the writing is not. However, if the writing does pass muster, then the story must, too, or else there is still no sale. Just because it comes later in the review process does not render it less important, because it's another trigger of the discard reflex.
Again, I'm not saying that someone who can barely write a sentence can get published. The writing itself has to be at a certain level for an agent to keep reading, but it doesn't have to be Twain or Hemingway level for an agent to consider it. The rest pretty much falls on how good the story is.
For me, writing the first draft was fun. I could let it all rip, let the story pour out. It was like watching a movie that went on for three months, one that I could keep pausing, so I could sleep eight hours or have my dinner. Hitting the 'play' button again was great fun each time. The story just happily did its own thing, without much discipline enforced on it. Then....uh-oh....the second draft loomed. This was more like homework, I admit. I still haven't quite finished it, with three chapters to go yet. I am cursed with too many hads, was's, buts and thens too -little beggars, they get everywhere...I have to root them all out. That's less like homework and more like weeding lettuces, but it's got to be done.
I've had nightmares -way back in the past -about being attacked by mutant weeds. Don't ever underestimate weeds....Believe me, it can get hard. LOL!
• The book shelves of the world are full of best-selling novels whose writing sucks. You're confusing personal taste and writing skill. They were able to convince a publisher to say yes and invest money in bringing it to market, and that's no easy task. And after that, the people whose shelves they're on had to be convinced to buy it. I'd love to be able to write that badly Of course they would. English teachers have zero knowledge of the techniques of writing fiction for the page. they teach nonfiction technique to prepare their students to be responsible and productive adults that employers will find useful. In fact, it's our training in our primary education that is the primary obstacle to getting a yes from a publisher. The vast majority of new writer postings fall into two categories. Roughly half are transcriptions of the author speaking the story as a verbal storyteller. That's an approach that can't work because verbal storytelling is a performance art that cannot be reproduced via words on a page. The other half are fact-based and author-centric reports listing the various events that take place in a scene the reader cannot see. Don't get me started on English teachers,
JayG, I like your signature: "The plot lives on the paper. The story lives in the hearts, desires, and fears of the people living that plot. Tell the story not the plot." Brilliant.
This is how I am a lot of the time. The first draft is definitely the funnest part, while editing is the chore you have to do to make it nice and tidy. It isn't going to stop me though, not by a long shot.
Hello all. I'm back after a long hiatus. Sorry for that. There's good news though. I've been writing instead of browsing forums and facebook-ing all day. I've worked out most of my process. Yesterday I finally reached my goal of writing at least 3000 words per day. I'm making excellent progress on the first draft of a novel. No writer's block, (doesn't exist really) no problems, everything is going smoothly. Here's my question: Most (if not all) writer's advise taking a break between writing the first draft and editing the first revision. This advice applies to me especially since I no longer edit while writing a first draft. But I don't want to take time off from writing. And I have so many ideas and notes for what needs fixing, I want to get started on the editing process as soon as my first draft is finished. What alternatives are there for taking a break between drafts? I've had several ideas, but none seem 'ideal'. 1) Start editing immediately after finishing the first draft. Pros: Ideas are still fresh, momentum is maintained. Cons: Distorted perspective, no clinical detachment. 2) Start immediately on a new novel, finish the first draft of the new novel, then return to the first draft of the previous novel. Pros: Perspective is completely reset, revision can begin with maximum detachment. Cons: Ideas and inspiration may be lost while working on the new story. 3) Write short stories or merely 'exercises' rather than work for publication. Pros: Flexible break duration, ideal detachment and perspective. Cons: Time is 'wasted', ideas may be lost while working on new story. Any thoughts, suggestions, comments or insights would be greatly appreciated. I'm less than a month away from finishing the first draft of my current novel, so this question is right on the horizon! Thanks
This isn't exactly answering your question, but it's all I got. I edit as I go. But people have their own styles, I don't believe there is a universal 'best' way. I get a story draft out there, but as I go to write it I revise as I go because it affects the story downstream. If I were to wait and start revising at the end, the cascade of changes would need to be redone again and again. If I changed something, I may have to make changes downstream because of it. Then if I changed the next thing, I'd have to do the same, changing some of the things I already changed once. I am currently working on the sci-fi contest entry so my novel is on a short time out.
Yep, taking a break is good. Then you can go back with a fresh pair of eyes. It's up to you, of course, but how about thinking ahead about what you wanna write next; plan or make notes (if that's what you do). I wouldn't personally write the complete second book before editing the first, but you could always make a start on it. Switch it up - write some short stories if you get inspired. Take a complete break, if you want. Then get back to the editing business. Be flexible would be my biggest advice.
Hey, welcome back TD!! Good to hear from you! I am usually an advocate of taking a break once the first draft is finished because I want to clear my mind of what I was thinking when I was writing and, in a sense, put my editor's hat on and start fresh. I usually take a break of at least four weeks. But something you mentioned caught my attention: "I have so many ideas and notes of what needs fixing." To me, that would be a game-changer. If I already know what I want to tackle, I think I'd want to get right at it. But when I take a break, I usually start scoping out my next project. Good luck and keep us posted.
