You say your voice and themes are very different from the other book's? You keep writing, of course, and you kick that other book's ass.
You say your voice and themes are very different from the other book's? You keep writing, of course, and you kick that other book's ass.
I think it'll depend on the popularity of the other book and similarities of your book with it. For example if you were to create similar chars to hugely popular Harry Potter and his friends, then it'll be hard to sell it (not impossible) despite your unique voice and style. But I feel that the book which is similar to yours is not that popular, so I don't see any problem.
Publishers/Literary agents in the UK all seem to ask for you to know your market and what are your potential competitors. They won't go into competition with their own book.
Of course you keep going! Many would advocate reading similar types of your ms that are already published, so that you see how it is done, and what works and what doesn't. However, I am from the school of thought that these books could influence you too much. I have said before that my novel will always be compared (or at least dumped in the same basket) with Hitchhiker's, but I point blank refuse to read it, because I want to know that my ideas are just that, my ideas.
yours is better lol - Hitchhikers was originally a radio play and thats how it works best as either radio or audiobook. Yours works much better in print than Hitchhikers its easier to read and flows better. I am trying not to let mine being so far compared to Eragon and Lord of the Rings go to my head Sometimes your book being like another one will be what helps it sell, Artemis Fowl and the Dark Materials were both marketed as the new Harry Potter, because readers were desperate for the next installment.
Originality is a chimera. Those who singlemindedly quest after it will accomplish nought. Publishers know this. What they look for is a good story, well written. Granted, publishers look askance at "bandwagon" novels tryingto capitalize on a current trend. That doesn't mean they will shuffle them all directly to the rejected pile. but their expectations for any new manuscript from an unknown writer will be low. The number of good submissions in that category will probably not be much higher than usual in that category, but there will be many, many more submisions that are an insult to the trees killed to print the manuscripts. Pity the poor submissions editor with a stack of vampire romances weighing down her desk! However, it takes quite a while to write a book, particularly a first book. By the time your novel finds its way to a submissions editor's attention, the fad may well have passed its peak. That is undoubtedly a good thing! Write your book. Your voice, your perspective, your characters, will make or break the novel. Not big, splashy tricks, like writidng a dragon story from the perspective of sentient stonework in the nearby castle, but subtle things like an unexpected optimism where another story would find only depression.
And hanging on to a trend (like vampires) that popular at the moment can actually increase the chance of getting published.
Hey SerraSwift, I’ve worried over this same discussion as well. I’ve believed that since it was done before, it couldn’t be done again. But despite the chaotic pool of publishers, you still have a chance. Publishers and readers out there look for books that are similar to what they have read. That is probably how genres came to be. And besides, I’m sure publishers want books that are similar to their fat, New York Times bestsellers. So screw it! Write your idea. It is your own point of view. It is your side of creativity. A lot of people in the world could come to love your book. Tayleea91
Any chef or good cook will tell you getting a dish right is a question of balancing the ingredients, having a good palate and how the dish is presented. Now that means before cooking you need to know what ingredients to use and how to use them. A good palate comes from experience, especially trying dishes prepared by other chefs and good cooks, that together with being able to recognise the ingredients used and what effect that had on the finished results. Finally, when the dish is finished cooking, it has to appeal, in appearance and aroma; in other words what it looks like on the plate. Writing is bit like that. Twenty cooks can make a cake but not all the cakes will taste the same, nor will all the cakes look the same. Just as twenty writers can write about any subject and none of the books will read the same. Even dishes that have been presented over and over again can be made to have a touch of originality about them. Again the same applies to writing, no matter how many war stories, romantic comedies, vampire sagas or thrillers are penned by a myriad of scribblers the chances of two having exactly the same ingredients presented in the same way are as rare as finding a pair of mating Dodos. What ever you idea for a story is remember, it will be your vision your presentation and your voice that will give it, its originality. Finding excuses not to do something is an art in itself.
Ron Aberdeen, that is so true! Some people, unfortunately, are gifted with that specific flaw. Tessie91
that makes no sense, unless your book is already written and ready to submit... if you're just starting to write, it's more likely the current trend will have fizzled out before you finish writing/revising/editing/polishing and start querying for an agent or publisher... plus, even if you were to miraculously get an agent on the first query and she/he sold the book instantly to a publisher, it would be 18 months to 2 years after you sign the contract, before your book would be in print and released to the bookshops... so don't ever even consider trends 'of the moment' when deciding what you want to write... just write whatever it is well enough that it doesn't have to fit any fleeting fad... love and hugs, maia
I am in incredible debt to all of you! I went to bed last night filled with a gnawing doubt, scared to death I'd have to axe my project. However, after reading all of your comments and advice, I am feeling so much better. I was focusing (rather obsessively) on the minute similarities between my book and this other author's. But there are also such vast differences between us, ones that make our books seem like salt and pepper. (And it's true, hers isn't well known, so it's not like I'm competing with Harry Potter or Twilight.) Thanks to all of you, I am going to continue my revisions today, with a happiness I haven't felt since coming across that other author's book. I really appreciate all of your comments and insight! -Serra
While explaining the narrative voice to a friend I discovered I'm completely biased towards third person objective and, at most, third person subjective limited. Do you see all options as equal? Or you know the one you like and dislike the others for being inferior, limited to specific cases, outdated, or any other reason.
When reading to be honest it doesn't bother me usually, if the story is engaging the delivery is unimportant to me. I love writing first person present tense it allows me to become the character. I use a passive voice when he is providing the reader with information. I struggle reading past tense when I have had a mammoth editing session because i correct the tense lol
I prefer present tense but when I started writing my novel, I was strongly advised against this choice. Almost everyone will tell you that as a new author getting published for a first novel, present tense will narrow your chances. so I write in past tense and I avoid reading present tense because it screws with my head when I go back to writing my story.
My motto is a bit of a cliché: "Show, don't tell." I can't stand being told too much information by the author, especially how the characters are thinking. I prefer to work it out for myself by seeing how the characters act in the situations in which they find themselves. It is difficult to do correctly, especially when trying to reveal back story, and I've seen plenty of authors resort to really unrealistic, out-of-character conversations in order to get information across. I think I prefer regular exposition to this kind of thing. However, finding a good way to tell the reader things they need to know through actions and realistic dialogue is a much better way - it can just be difficult to do, so many authors won't bother.
I think third person past tense limited is the best choice. To me, it is the most "invisible" way to write, which I think is important. It also seems to have the best odds of getting you published, so there's that. It just feels like the most natural way to tell stories and it lends a believability to your story (you are saying what already happened, so the listener/reader really can't argue with it). First person can also be okay sometimes, but I never go with present tense. That said, I believe there is a (much much smaller) market for non-standard tenses.
And if you had to tell someone about points of view and narrative voices, would you transmit that general preference for third limited? Or your mixed feelings would allow you to explain it all more objectively. That's just what I do. I explain the topic and use expressions like "non-standard tenses". I'm not sure I'm happy with that; maybe I should present all options and let people choose. Even if they choose the wrong one.
I'm not really bothered when reading, as long as it's engaging. As for my writing, well it varies, although I mostly use first person past tense. But it depends on what I'm writing, I usually just go with what I think suits the story the best.
Narrative voice is not an arbitrary decision. There are excellent reasons for selecting third person past tense for most stories, and a good case can also be made for first person past tense if the writer wants to accept its limitations and even make use of them. The rest are rarely wise selections -- there may be occasiuonal exceptions, but more often than not, the odd duck choices are a grave mistake. It's not a bias as much as understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each POV choice.
I agree completely. I write 99% of my fiction this way. I don't mind first person if the story calls for it, but despise present tense. It seems forced to me.
I think present tense sounds forced, too. It's like the writer is consciously trying to be arty. I don't really get why someone would want to write in first person present tense. Is it just to give the reader the idea that the action is happening right now? That, if the character is in the middle of a swordfight, say, he's taking time to describe each thrust and dodge as it's happening? As a reader, I'd be thinking: "Shut up and fight, moron! You can tell us about it later!" I've written in first person, but I don't usually like it. I'm limited to the character's voice and vocabulary. That's fine if he's just like me, but if not, not. So third person limited works best for me.
Well, if one wishes to capture the character's thoughts and focuses at the time of the event, it definitely makes sense to write in first person present, rather than reminiscing in first person past. For example, if one is using the tone of description in order to subtly indicate the character's mindset, using first person past would completely undermine this. One could say that on the one hand you have the character going through the action being the narrator, and on the other hand the character after it, so that the changes in the perspective of the main character will have already happened to them by the time they're narrating, and therefore won't have an effect on the narrative itself as much. The closest thing with FPP is to have the character change their mind while reminiscing, but firstly it would be fairly unrealistic if they simply adopted the same viewpoints as they had held before, and secondly it's actually quite different. Of course, if the character happens to die, it can also be useful to use FPP, unless one wants them to be narrating this while dying, a la Frankenstein, or something of the sort. Regarding first-person, it's quite similar; in first person, just about everything develops the main character's personality. Descriptions are not only descriptions of the outer world, but also of the character's inner world. Everything; the tone, the imagery used, the objects of focus; everything develops the character. It's pretty much brilliant if the story is centered in large part around an internal conflict; if not, then there may not be much use. On the other hand, there's also things like Clark Ashton Smith's 'The Hashish Eater', where the effectiveness of the poem relies to a large extent on the viewpoint of the main character, although it's hard to give more detail without spoiling it. Nonetheless, it could not have had the same power had it been delivered even in limited third person.
In my case it was just the way it spilled out onto the page intially lol Now its a gut thing that my story works best that way - have tried other ways and parts of it in past tense would be a bit flat and lack the warmth it brings to the scenes. Plus my anonymous and honest adult reviewers have all commented they didn't notice it until they went to edit it, my teen readers did and asked me not to change it, they love what it gives the story. It really aids with the dialogue, because of the first person my book has a huge amount of dialogue with a variety of people. And I am finding in the second its very good when writing the effects of the spells - he can push things out. Plus I find it the most fun to write its so interactive for me as a writer, I manage to inject more passion and love into it when I am the character typing To be honest not sure many readers care about it, I know I don't normally.
