I'm going to go with an analogy: I have to keep my house to a high level of tidiness in order to keep it acceptable. Two stray items on a table inspire me to put them away; five stray items are ignored, no matter how hard I try to change that fact. If my house gets just a little bit untidy, it slides downhill until it reaches dorm-room chaos, and only then am I driven to clean it. So my household tidiness is all or nothing. That's how I work. But if I enter a friend's house and see five stray items on their dining room table, I don't assume that that means that they don't care if their house slides downhill into chaos. I realize that they are different from me. I think that you are failing to realize that other people are different from you. I assume that FOR YOU, even a stray thought about publication will distract YOU from your other writing-related goals. And if that's how YOU work, that's dandy. But that's not how everybody works. I am perfectly capable of having a top priority of being proud of my writing, AND having other, lower, priorities. Let's look at examples, things that have been hotly discussed recently. Some of the things that I dislike in books are present tense writing, thoughts in italics, and prequels. But what if all of them were all but mandatory? What would I do? How would I balance the maximum priority of writing something I've proud of, against the desire to be published? Well, present tense is purely a preference. I prefer past tense because it's what I grew up reading. I have no principled objection to present tense; that issue is not at the core of my style or principles, and it doesn't even touch them. So if I had to start using it, I would grit my teeth and start using it. This would be an annoyance, but a zero percent compromise. Prologues...meh. I usually dislike them, and they don't come naturally to me, but I've seen a few books where what I would call Chapter 1 was labelled a prologue, and that was fine, and I could do the same. It might be a one percent compromise. Thoghts in italics, for my writing style, would touch the core of my style and principles. For some writing styles, it's a "meh" issue, harmless. For me, it would be harmful. It would be a substantial compromise. I probably wouldn't do it. I can think about all those things, and about whether to make the compromise, and I can maintain a top priority of writing something I'm proud of. If you can't, if any compromise whatsoever for you is like a slightly untidy room for me, if you have to maintain a mindset that you allow absolutely no influences whatsoever, sure, don't compromise, or hold your consideration of compromise until the work is done. But please stop telling us that we're all that way. Please stop telling us what our priorities are. Please get out of the mockup that you've created of our heads, because it's not our heads, and the conclusions that you are having it come to are annoying.
I can actually point to plenty of articles that say the opposite, that boundaries can help fire creativity. I've seen lots of articles about how amateurs shouldn't be motivated by the fame and the money, but that's mostly because that leads to disappointment and isn't enough motivation to get you through to a completed book on it's own. You've got to love what you do to produce a good book. It's not normally intended as an argument to ignore what publishers want. It's not normally an argument that boundaries limit creativity. Plenty of articles tell you not to follow the trends set by number one bestsellers. Don't write a vampire story, just because Twilight sold so well etc. But I've seen publishers says that sort of thing too. They're normally flooded with imitations of the big sellers. So following the big trend isn't what publishers want either. I think that most writers who try to write what publishers want, also want to write something they can be proud of. You seem to think these two things are mutually exclusive. Maybe it is to some people. It's entirely possible to do both at once for a lot of people. Publishers wants are not quite as restrictive as you're making out. There's room for a huge amount of diversity and creativity within what publishers want. Maybe it seems like some people only care about what publishers want, but that's because they don't need to determine their own internal wants on internet message boards. If you write something unique that you like yourself, with no care for what anyone else thinks, that's not necessarily going to be good enough to be published. I think the vast majority of people who submit their work to publishers, like what they've written. They wouldn't have been able to undertaken the massive task of finishing it if they were just in it for the money. But the vast majority of them get rejected.
I wish you luck if you ever try to get published. You're going to need it. But please do the inexperienced members a favor and stop giving advice based on very fuzzy knowledge of general principles without understanding the dynamics of the publishing industry. Because, based on my experience, you don't know what you're talking about.
I didn't say anyone was right or wrong. I just stated something that many other published authors have stated in many articles. The fact that you've even thinking too much into tenses, italics, and prologues kind of suggests that it's true. They are just guidelines, not rules, but that's in a writing sense. To a publisher, they may be preferred or may not, but you shouldn't be worrying about that if you're learning to write, not unless you really want to. That's totally up to you.
Pulled the 'experience' card and avoiding my prior post. Way to run from a losing battle, Ed. And what if I was published? Would there be any difference? The answer is no, because not only is everything I've said fair and logical, but it's also plastered around the web. You people sound stubborn and naive, and you're finding it difficult to just accept the fact that aiming strictly to be published will restrict your creative process. But if you really want to play this dirty, tell me what exactly have you ever had published, Ed. Because to me, it sounds like you're sitting on a high horse -- which is probably undeserved -- and suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with your 'experience' is wrong.
There would be a great deal of difference. You would have experienced the querying process first-hand. Might have gone to some pitch conferences. Would know what editors look for. Would have first-hand knowledge of the process, rather than misapplied generalizations sauteed in wishful thinking. I agree with @BayView (a commercially published writer) - if you don't write with an expectation of being published, that's fine. If you don't care if you ever get published, that's fine. But then don't presume to give advice to those who do.
So you've been to a few conferences and have a couple of buddies in the book business that probably don't know shit because they're business men and not writers. Let's make this clear here. All I said was catering your writing towards publishing will create creative boundaries -- which it does -- and it was you people that said I'm wrong and started going on about publishing and what not. The discussion of limiting your creative boundaries is actually an academic debate, it really doesn't even have anything to do with publishers in the first place. I don't give a shit about publishers, but don't sit there and say they don't have any effect on someone's writing from your high, probably undeserved, horse. And don't bloody put the pressures of publishing on the shoulders of people trying to learn to write, either.
Not responding because your presumption of my experience in the industry is as faulty as your understanding of the industry itself. Have a nice day.
No. You're not responding because now that we're not on your turf any more you don't have a leg to stand on. Come on, tell me what you've had published, Ed.
I genuinely want to know what these creative boundaries are, what it is, exactly, that publishers want me to write. Bugger the art, give me a checklist and a cheque to cash, please.
Dunno. Ask Ed and BayView. Seems they know all about creative psychology. I'm just some inexperienced dumb ass Englishman who can't string a sentence together.
To make phrase my point another way, though: you need to think about what it is you're saying. "Thinking about what publishers want stifles creativity." The issue with that is that you're put 'publishers' in the plural. Ther's no formalised, standard list of what every publisher is looking for, and so it's impossible to cater to all of them at once. I agree that, if one looked at a specific publisher and said "I'm going to write a book for these guys", that would lead to some stifling. Maybe that particularly publisher only publishes present tense, first person, YA paranormal romance. That's pretty damn specific, as far as guidelines go. However, not all publishers want the same thing. You can completely look at the entire market, say "I'm going to write a novel for these guys", and still write without restriction, because the market encapsulates every possible taste. In a nutshell, writing for specific publishers stifles creativity. Writing for the market does not. ETA: I don't know why you put the fact that you're English in italics, here. I'm English, too. Does that give us some kind of special ability that I've not been using?
Whoa heated debate. Um, I'll stick in my two cents for the op. I don't get ahead of myself in the worry department. I'm kinda of an odd author though. Most people on this site ( I think ) have a very clear cut audience they write for - they're one step ahead of me in the game. I'm never quite sure who my audience will be as I'm never quite sure what my story will be until I'm done. It's something to work on for the query. I'm focused on one thing - making the writing good. After that my focus will be finding an agent who can work with my story. And for me that lay/lies? in getting the wording right for my query. I might have to work harder to find an agent because my story is more general fiction or a straddling of genres but - big deal. I don't know if I'll be any worse off than the billionth witch story to pass through an agents hands. My advice is - get beta readers & polish your work until you hate the sight of it. No use worrying about publishing until you absolutely know your book is readable.
You're quite right here, I guess. The plot thickens. Of course. Us English are waaaaaay better writers than Americans. That's why they call it 'English.' I'm still yet to see some proof from Ed about his knowledge of publishers. I mean, he's spouting off a lot 'by the book' crap that anyone can extract from the internet, but were is the proof? Truth is, Ed, I used to think you were quite a wise and respectable person, and always heeded your comments, but now I'm starting to feel you're just another haughty aristocrat that wants to dictate the process of writing.
And you're quite right here. Well, I think this little kerfuffle's over and done with; why don't you pop the kettle on, and I'll nip down to M&S for some Hobnobs.
So while I'm learning to write, I should ignore all those pesky things like writing style? Eh? You know that writing involves writing, right? Also, I'm not so sure that you've stated something that other published authors have stated. You keep veering between worrying about getting published, and worrying about money, and behaving as if they're the same thing. They're not the same thing. Which one did these authors talk about?
Who here, other than you, has said that anyone here is aiming strictly to be published? Please give me a quote. You are taking "I care about getting published" to mean "I don't care about anything but getting published." They are very, very different statements. But maybe the difference is one of those writing things (I think it's called "meaning") that we shouldn't be worrying about while we're learning to write. You seem to be expressing your dumbfounded amazement that we're not accepting that you're right, and amazement that we don't accept that your lack of experience with publishing makes you a font of wisdom on the subject. I'm also curious as to exactly how many large-scale businesses, businesses in any industry at all, you have run. I think that the "stubborn and naive" part of this discussion is not found where you think it's found.
And what is a writing style? Learn from other writers, but find your own voice. Worrying about publishing or money? I didn't start anything about publishing or earning a living from it. I said that worrying about getting published can set boundaries in creativity. This discussion is finished, anyway. Everyone has their own opinions, and it delves into realms that are far to complicated to get to the heart of.
...and that has what, exactly, to do with what I was saying? Given that I was talking about my own decisions about my writing style, your remark seems rather redundant. So you didn't say anything about publishing; you were, instead, talking about publishing. I see. You seem to consider yourself more than qualified to not only get to the heart of them, but to tell all of us your conclusions, and assure us that we need not waste any more time thinking about it. We have your wisdom, after all; why would we bother to think? You haven't mentioned which large-scale businesses you have run?
Who here? A lot of people. And those two lines are practically the same thing, just at a different degrees. Again, talking about publishing. What have I said about publishing? I not once stated I know a great deal about publishing. This all started by people bringing up the whole notion of publishing when I stated that you shouldn't worry about such things when learning to write, and now you're all getting caught up in this publishing nonsense. And I am amazed, because it's perfectly obvious what I started has relevance, yet people seem to be on this publisher hype train. This is a writing forum. Not a publishing forum.
For someone who admits that he doesn't know about publishing, you've had a lot of opinions about publishing as a business. I really think that you would do better in discussions if you were able to consider the perhaps-breathtaking concept that you might not be right about all things. And that one of the things that you seem to be particularly not-right about is what other people are saying to you. Your reading comprehension in this thread has not been good.
Your own decisions about your writing style? What's that got to do with me? Write how you want to write. I don't give a fuck either way. I was refuting the fact that people were saying you should craft your work towards publishers, which is piss poor advice for people learning to write. Not to mention that a piece of great writing does have a much higher chance of getting someone battling against thousands of people in a small fraction of the market. Anyone who says otherwise is damn right moronic. Period. Do you think a cosmetics company gives a shit if you produce another flavour of shampoo? They'd be more interested in a cure for baldness, I can assure you of that. Maybe I am qualified? But how would you know. You're too busy dissecting criticism to twist rational words around. I'd much rather understand business than run a business.
And what opinions are they? I'm not right about everything, but you're not right about anything it seems.
