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

I'm not saying she did it all by luck. Of course she worked at getting published. But my point was that she was lucky so many people liked it. There are many other YA fantasy books that could have been just as popular. But it was mere chance that people liked Twilight. There are definitely more people who have worked harder than her but haven't been as lucky. I'm sure they've done their "homework," but it hasn't gotten them anywhere. So, there must be more to success than just hard work and dedication.

Of course it does. But that doesn't mean that every teen girl should have liked it and picked it up. Like I said, it was pure chance so many people liked it.

 

And with things like Twilight, after a while its not even about liking the book. People read it just to see what all the fuss is about, and I'm sure the same is true for things like Harry Potter, or works by other best-selling authors. Its target audience only makes up a small amount of the people reading Twilight...once it becomes a big spectacle like it has done, the target audience changes completely and genre ceases to matter.

 

That's true as well Aaron. I picked Twilight up, and put it down after the first chapter. But yes, I did take a look.

I didn't mean to sound over aggressive either, Thirdwind. Sorry if it came out like that.

 

No, it didn't sound aggressive at all. You stated your opinion, that's all. No need to apologize.

 

I'm new and the question of whether or not I qualify as a "writer" is unsettled at this point.
But I do have an opinion.
The idea that proper style is the only route to success sounds like an idea formed by those who claim "proper style" as their own.
I wonder if a good story would have a chance. After all, the readers out there are not all "writers" with writer's egos.
Strike a cord with the public and they won't care if you followed all the rules set forth by the ruling class.
Long as they can follow your story and, of course, like it.....word will get around.
That's not to say good grammatical form should be ignored, but if everyone wrote the same way....what fun would that be?
One way to stifle competition is to convince them they not up to your standards.
I'm sure no one here would ever do that. Not consciously, anyway.

Go for it, get it out there and see if anybody salutes!

Good Luck !

 

I can't remember if it was in this thread or not but I remember reading this:

Plot will carry your story through moments of poor style better than style will carry you through moments of poor plot.

Rings fairly true if you ask me.

 

I would argue the exact opposite is true. For me, style is always the most important thing; if an author doesn't seem to have an interesting/original/enjoyable style, I don't stick around with their book long enough to get into their characters or plot.

 

Could it be we define "style" in different ways?

Some consider "style" a strict set of rules which must be adhered to.

What would your definition be, if I may ask?


DQ

 

So you would rather read a well-written but boring book rather than a poorly written book with a great plot?

Hmm. I guess I can see how that might be. I think a person has to be at least decent at both to get my attention, but I'd prefer a story with a great plot and reasonable style over a story with a reasonable plot and great style.

 

What he said

 

You have to be good at both (but not great in my opinion)

Good plot, bad style (sloppy, rush what be it) isn't going to work for me. If the style is shocking i'm never going to find out if the plot is great am i?

Great story, bad plot, isnt going to work either. You could have the best knowledge in writing but if you can't tell a story, whos going to read it?

The above in for myself, others may differ obviously.

You need to have a decent combination.

 

But...does one trump the other?

Can a great plot overcome what you might consider poor style?

 

I think as long as it wasn't to the point where it was riddled with grammatical and spelling errors I would be able to enjoy the story with a great plot and poor style. Mind you, I wouldn't call it "One of the greats" but it would at least be readable.

 

This is getting off topic.

 

We would than have to ask on what level is the style bad? If we are talking bad, then sorry i won't put up with it. I'm not talking about outside of mainstream (outside of the box can be good), but if its just bad to read, and flows awkward then NO. I could read another book just like it (plot wise) with better style (its hard to find books that are original these days).


EDIT - Sorry

If you want to debate it PM/message me

 

With all due respect...one of the initial responses dealt with "quality" of writing as to do with success.

I have learned a great deal through this discussion.

Sorry if it bothered you, but the topic is being carried through.

 

that's not really what 'style' is... it's mainly just the writer's 'voice'... it's how you can tell a book written by bob ludlum from one by dan brown, for instance... or tolkien from rowling... not only the choice and number of words one uses, but how they're used... the kinds of sentences one constructs, the comparative amounts and placement of imagery/narrative vs dialog and so on...

 

Ok, as only a novice I'm limited in experience but I know what I like.
I understand your definition and would say I agree completely.

Others, though..as I tried to say, confuse voice with style.

My voice may not have style, but if its consistant and understandable AND readers like it...ergo, we have success.

Right?

 

OK..it appears the interest has worn off.
I thank those who engaged in the discussion.

The original question was a good one and meaningful to many of us, if not all.

Good Night

 

Some very good posts here but because it's late I'm going to give my cynical tuppence worth.

I can't speak for culture elsewhere but I can speak for what we call 'culture' in the UK - it revolves around shows dominated by celebrities, very few of whom have any talent beside looking attractive and having a good TV persona. In many bookshops therefore, David Beckham or Barbara Windsor autobiographies, or something ridiculous written by Jeremy Clarkson, are going to be more prominent in people's minds than buying novels. It is with this - a retarded culture, that most writers are up against when they try to publish.

If you want to make money then, in my opinion, you have to compromise and write something that people want. I'm afraid I don't buy into the idea that good writing or a good story are enough - being famous already unfortunately is, whether that 'being famous' is the result of having creepy-crawlies marching over you or having large (plastic) breasts and an attitude to match. Call me a snob, I'm proud to be so but my objective, and I'd urge others to do the same, is to keep your own style, be the writer you are and don't compromise for the sake of satisfying those whose idea of entertainment will hopefully, soon in the grand scale of time, be over. By this I mean Shakespeare will exist as long as humans exist; the X Factor will not.

I haven't read any Dan Brown and I won't...ever, but he's done something right by getting the backing which I believe accounts for so much of what 'makes it' in any cultural industry. Look at Robbie Williams - it's not talent that got his albums sold - it was marketing through money constantly ploughed into promoting him and as a result, creating demand.

Is literature any different? I'd be very happy to be wrong, but I don't think I am.

So, to the original poster - do it because you love it and forget those who are less writers and more businessmen and women.

 

No offence: but if success is your only goal then it's not likely.

 

That would depend on how you define "success." Would it not?

 

I don't see why a writer can't do both. Be a businessman and a writer.

 

Indeed. It seems like everyone on this board thinks that if it is your goal to get published it will never happen. (Well, not everyone, but I sure hear it a lot.)

This isn't true at all. There are tons of things to write for other than personal gratification.

One of them being the enjoyment of others.

Now if I wrote a book with other people's enjoyment in mind, it would be likely that other people would in fact enjoy it. (That is assuming I am a decent writer.) If other people enjoy it, it might enjoy reasonable success.

On the other hand, if I write a book purely for myself, I will no doubt enjoy it. Others may not. Chances of success are less. Success would require loads of readers like-minded to myself. I like to think that those people are not that common.

Of course, writing for others enjoyment doesn't mean crushing off some half-hearted, cheap, unedited garbage. Time and effort is still required. Skill and research, also required. Clinging to my own ideals, morals, and doing just what I want, optional.

 

If you want to be published - consistently - you have to be both.