I'm writing my first book, what are the odds of it being successful?

Other information I've read indicates that 90% of the crap submitted to publishers is indeed crap. The other 10% is in formatted, edited, readable english. 10% of that 10% is actually interesting.

So if you write an edited, formatted, readable, interesting manuscript you are in the top 1%.

Another thing that will apparently help you get published: length. 80-100k words is apparently the ideal, and it makes sense when you think of the economics, anything larger costs more to print and you can't sell it for that much more. Look at the average paperback price. 600 page novels cost $10.95. 300 page novels cost $9.95. Which one has a higher profit margin?

Writing for the writer is definitely something more than just dollars and cents, but we have to do our best to remember the priorities of those who are buying it.

 

Yes, there are multitudes of folks who write what they think are novel manuscripts and ship them out to agents, imagining that the enormous effort to get 300 pages (and sometimes considerably more than that) is, in itself, a good reason why someone out there ought to read it. Most are disappointed to find that no agent invites any pages at all, let alone the entire manuscript, and there is no real good way to know why that's true, aside from hobnobbing with other writers who are willing to share some insights. Of those who are invited to submit a few chapters, most are rejected for reasons they never understand and usually aren't even told. A rare handful are invited to submit the whole novel, and most of those get rejected as well--though with a greater chance of getting a little feedback on where they fall short. Even previously published authors are rejected more often than they're accepted.

Understanding what's likely to get noticed and what's quality writing (when it comes to fiction) are things that usually take a good deal of experience (both writing and reading and studying both writing and reading) to understand with any clarity at all. Applying that understanding to one's own fiction writing is yet another challenge to most fiction writers, as well.

So, the important take-away from all this is not necessarily to be discouraged if being a novelist is one's aim, but to understand that it's quality (not volume) that will get you into the process. Then, with some patience, persistence, further practice (and don't forget networking), the odds start to lean more in your favor.

 

Obviously most of the stuff is unformatted and of low quality, and I think many are good ideas but fail at the English part.

But even when you get to that 1%, which everyone who at least posts here and intends to become a writer should aspire to, what are your chances to support yourself just through writing?

I mean, how much does it boil down to the simple ctaering of tastes for the wide public? Everything is there, good writing, amazing plot, but what about the marketing?

 

Agreed on all accounts Eddyz. Everything I've read points to the fact that even those writers we would deem as 'successful' probably don't make as much as I do at my day job.

Of course, chart-topping best seller authors would make considerably more, but how many of those are active at a time? 20? At best?

If you really want to survive on writing, read James McDonald's posts at Absolute Write forums... he is a regularly published mid-list writer and he does a great job detailing exactly the challenges that full-time writers face.

 

marketing is pretty irrelevant in terms of getting published. That's something you worry about after you've got yourself a publisher.

For the first time author, you can't do a lot more than to simply write an interesting, compelling story, and write it well. There's some luck involved in getting your MS on the right desk at the right time, sure, but all the luck in the world won't help you if you're peddling crap.

 

Wrong, Dermit. That is EXACTLY what the prospective publisher is considering. The decision to pick up a new author's story is ALL about marketing potential and possible profits. Every writer who aspires to commercial success must consider this non-artistic reality of the publishing world when crafting a story.

 

Many of those authors are ones you shouldn't waste time over unfortunately mate

 

slim, to none, for most... only a rare few get to that point, compared to how many try...

i'm not sure what you mean by 'catering[?] of tastes for' but if you meant 'catering to the reading public's tastes, then it does boil down to that... if one doesn't write for the market, one's chances of being successful are drastically reduced from the get-go...

that's the final kicker... really good books can fail with poor marketing and garbage can [and sadly does!] make it to the ny times bestseller list with effective hype...

 

Oh, that thing... I have more than a couple bestsellers which won't make it past my slush pile or my shredder if I would have been the editor.

 

I know what you mean. I just set down a few myself that had fascinating and exciting plots, yet were just poorly written or had too many plot cliches. It's frustrating that I put most novels down half-way or three quarters of the way in. New York Bestseller doesn't mean anything to me anymore. I've read some amazing self published that had me saying "I should have paid for this". There's luck involved no doubt, but good writing and plot should be focused on.

If you guys have ever read articles or blogs from slush readers, you can feel their pain. Imagine reading bad novels all the time and then getting hate mail from the rejected authors. I couldn't do that, I'd go insane! But it puts things into perspective for me and I have a better idea of what they like. I've read countless slushy blogs to try and improve my game a little, I'd recommend that others do the same

 

After reading many novelist interviews and biographies, IMHO it is best to ignore the odds.

What really matters is that you do your best at all times. If you wish to get published, sooner or later you will.

 

On the topic of good language vs bestselling quality, I am of the opinion that grasp of language is secondary to a good story. A good story might be engaging and stand alone with language that some consider less than ideal, but well deployed language without a good storyline will rarely work in the same way.

 

So true. I keep having this rant against The Historian (probably I'm just biased, I'm sick of Dracula stories especially when you come from Romania ) and it's clear it's the well deployed language that made the trick rather than the plot which is plain boring to be honest with you. It made it, but it is rare, just as you said.

 

I tend to agree that there's a middle ground. I read a book series not to long ago that had two authors. One was a better writer, while the other told a better story. Guess whose books I like better? Also the same for books with two authors, but since it's the same story you get to gauge the writing verses perspective.

Good writing can make a bad story interesting, but not engaging.

 

I see your point, NaCl. Of course publishers are going to buy what they believe is going to sell. Their job is to sell books, and that often means catering to the least common denominator.

But I think it's a mistake for the author to spend their time worrying about it, or to try to tailor their craft around the completely unpredictable ebb and flow of a fickle audience. Unless you have psychic powers (and if that's the best use you can come up with for your psychic powers I worry for the depth of your plot), there's no way you can guess what will be the next big thing at the moment your manuscript crosses a publisher's desk.

So why try? Why worry about it? Write what you're passionate about, and write as well as you're able.

Write a book you'd like to pick up and read, because that way you're guaranteed at least one fan.

 

Dermit, we don't disagree. I was simply pointing out that there is a world of difference between "writing" and "publishing". One is a passion while the other is the pursuit if profit - business.

As a writer, my art is not compromised by tailoring my manuscript to certain industry "standards" like 100,000 words, or by starting the work with a strong hook, or by incorporating subplots that play off such public controversy as legalizing marijuana. These things make the book more "marketable" for the publisher and increase the chance that a publisher will invest the money and time to promote my work.

Ultimately, passion is the playground of the writer, while profit is the playground of publishers.

 

Jean Rhys lived in total obscurity, writing all the time as well as fighting alcoholism, and wasn't recognised until her post colonial Jane Eyre prequel classic 'Wide Sargasso Sea' was published. She's got a cult following now (after her death), but as she said herself when she achieved fame in her seventies: It's too late for all that.

 

I think what a lot of people may be forgetting here is that what determines a "good book" is the audience.

Twilight for example:
Who is the MAJORITY of Twilight readers?

Teenage girls.

Therefore, one's writing style must reflect their audience. Stephenie Meyers knew her audience, and, sorry, but teen girls don't want to read something written like Great Expectations. THAT is what makes a writer successful, and that's why books like Twilight are successful: They are great at reaching their audience and giving them what they want.

I took AP LIT in high school and had to read books such as Great Expectations and As I Lay Dying. Do high school students find those book interesting? HECK NO! Why? Different time period, yes, but the audience is completely wrong. Even though these are two examples of classic literature does not mean that every one is going to love them.

 

Actually, she had no audience in mind when she wrote Twilight. It was luck that her book was liked by so many teenage girls. I think all new writers have a very small audience (or no audience sometimes) in mind when they write. Even popular writers like King probably don't consider their entire fanbase as the intended audience. It's extremely hard to please everyone.

 

That's a great point. After getting some feedback on one of my partial manuscripts I was surprised that each person put it into a different genre. I got horror, thriller, and action, not sci-fi as I originally intended. So the story may not appeal to a general sci-fi audience, but then maybe it will for being different.

I think with fiction it may not be as critical to please your target audience as non-fiction where people know exactly what they want to read.

 

Hype builds upon hype, if you get lucky (like J.K. Rowling) than you will get publicity spreading like wildfire. Usually though it is just a hobby.

 

I find that hard to believe. While I agree with your general point, it's hard not to imagine this particular author wasn't writing a young adult paranormal romance with a teenage girl protagonist for anyone but teenage girls. It just so happened that enough teenage girls liked it to draw the attention of others.

 

She mentions in several interviews that she wrote down the premise of Twilight because it seemed interesting at the time. Even as she continued writing it, she claims she wrote only for pleasure. In other words, she wasn't thinking about getting published, and so she had no target audience in mind.

 

Thirdwind,

Well then I guess it is luck that her book got published maybe, but its definately not luck so many teenage girls liked it.

The genre itself has a set audience, and her book epitomised the genre.

 

I agree with Joker here. She's wrote a novel that, whether she planned on it or not, is inevitably going to be adored by teenage girls. Maybe she didn't know it, but that was what she was doing.

It is a pet peeve of mine when people continuously mention that bestselling authors did it all by luck. I cannot agree with that. While it is true the odds are against every one of us, each of these authors had to have done a lot of work to get where they are. An agent did not randomly pick their manuscript out of a pile like a lottery number and say "I'm going to publish this. It's this author's lucky day!"

What some people call luck is what I call "doing your homework." Rowling was rejected twelve times. Just because she adjusted her manuscript twelve times and had it accepted on her thirteenth (there's luck for you. If it really played that big of a role in this type of thing, wouldn't you think the thirteenth time someone would have blown her manuscript to smithereens and tell her to stop trying?) does not mean she is where she is today because of luck.

Marketing and building hype are just how it goes. A huge castle with secret passageways, a half-giant, and a game on broomsticks must have looked great to a publisher.