"Personal" question(s) to John Jarrold

[John Jarrold]

Charlie Stross is, of course, a writing machine!

But publishers - in the UK, certainly - want to publish authors now, not just fill the SFF shelves with 'product' to add to turnover. The authors are marketed in the same way as the books, hence author websites, signings, interviews, etc. And pseudonyms make that much more difficult, of course. Unlike the late 70s and early 80s, when many SF and Fantasy writers moonlighted under various pseudonyms writing swords and sorcery or space opera to increase their income. It just doesn't happen now. The market doesn't work like that in 2008.

 

[lin robinson]

That's good information John. Very useful in planning ahead.
I plan on working in two fields (well, I AM working in those fields: my plans are to SELL in two fields) and one thing that crossed my mind was using two versions of my name for two different types: Lin Robinson and Linton Robinson.

Does that still fit your advice against two names? Would these be seen as two different people, or merely establish two different tastes by the same writer?

 

[John Jarrold]

I really would advise any writer to stick to one area of fiction in the first place, until there are half-a-dozen books published that have sold VERY well. The book chains HATE authors who move around - even between SF and Fantasy, let alone more widely - and until a writer is very well established (see Iain 'M' Banks) they won't react well. If the chains don't react well to something, publishers, in general terms, don't do it.

Again, there are always exceptions, but as I said that is what they are: exceptions!

 

[Montero]

First off, just wanted to say "thank you" for all the information you've given.

(I am listening to the write the really good book and pick your genre now advice. My question on number of books per annum really was just curiosity - years of being an analyst and wanting to know about all permutations and combinations, love to know all the nuts and bolts of how things work.)

Unlike the late 70s and early 80s, when many SF and Fantasy writers moonlighted under various pseudonyms writing swords and sorcery or space opera to increase their income. It just doesn't happen now. The market doesn't work like that in 2008.

Um - was just wondering whether this meant that Space Opera is dead for new authors? Also, am I right in thinking that Space Opera is authors like McMaster Bujold, David Weber and David Feintuch?

When I said I was writing SF, I meant adventures in space with some interesting aliens, not SF heavy in astronomy, physics or biology.

 

[John Jarrold]

No, space opera is very much alive. But in the time I was talking about, there were pulp space opera and swords and sorcery series being written quickly to fill the shelves. It's the 'pulp' connotation that is dead, the writing of other books by well-known writers under pseudonyms. At a time when Iain M Banks, Alastair Reynolds, Peter Hamilton and other are amongst SF biggest names, space opera is very much alive!

And the authors you mention also write forms of space opera. Just google it for more info, or look at the entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.

 

[lin robinson]

I see what you are saying, John. To me, successful entry into a field pulls me into that field and I want to do a lot more of it. But I could easily see (or is it hopefully envision?) that doing some good sales in one area might be enough to put previously written books in other genres over that peculiar line where people buy them.

When I think of exceptions, I come up with people like Elmore Leonard...but also think of John D. MacDonalds one foray into SF (nobody has heard of it) or Donald Westlake's non-humor novel Kahawa, by far his best book, but again, who's familiar with it?

So, yeah, makes sense.

 

[maguffin]

Hi John
New to the forum. Just wondering since your finger seems to be on the pulse and not trying to follow a trend myself in the SF I am writing at the moment, is there a current vogue in a particular type of SF out there? I ask because I have what I think are some interesting storylines that relate to what many see as the corporate threat to our world but not overtly political, still good SF material, exciting, thought provoking and fun to read. Hollywood seems to be making films that have some very political aims while still trying to be entertaining although my guess is that since we are seeing that now, it is a trend that is probably already dying or dead.

As an aside I used to work in script development here in the UK and in the US and have always constructed my stories that seem to have a filmic slant and structure although not intended, just because I have absorbed that over the years. I presume that makes the books more attractive? If so how much in your honest opinion? As an agent do you sell that side of a book up front?

 

[John Jarrold]

Hi John
New to the forum. Just wondering since your finger seems to be on the pulse and not trying to follow a trend myself in the SF I am writing at the moment, is there a current vogue in a particular type of SF out there? I ask because I have what I think are some interesting storylines that relate to what many see as the corporate threat to our world but not overtly political, still good SF material, exciting, thought provoking and fun to read. Hollywood seems to be making films that have some very political aims while still trying to be entertaining although my guess is that since we are seeing that now, it is a trend that is probably already dying or dead.

As an aside I used to work in script development here in the UK and in the US and have always constructed my stories that seem to have a filmic slant and structure although not intended, just because I have absorbed that over the years. I presume that makes the books more attractive? If so how much in your honest opinion? As an agent do you sell that side of a book up front?

The filmic slant will only be of interest to book publishers if it makes the book better and more readable. Everything else is jam on the bread, and never, ever expected or taken into consideration at a publishing meeting. I attended them for fifteen years with three different companies, and never once heard an editor say 'And it would make a great film so we should build that into our considerations'.

There is no specific trend other than the fact that the genre is far more sophisticated than it used to be, in general. If I look at the names I've mentioned here before of authors who have broken through in the last five to ten years, people like Jon Courtenay Grimwood, Richard Morgan, Alastair Reynolds, Charles Stross and others, there is a pretty wide catchment area there, but the actual writing and the characters are great. You'll see variation in those areas from every author, because everyone is an individual. But the main thing I'd say is: think about a large scope to your novel, not a small story. Big sells. And series outsell one-off novels hugely.

 

[maguffin]

I have experienced when working in development for film producers offering to pick up an option unpublished novels, admittedly small amounts but it did generate interest elsewhere in what might have been a work dead in the water otherwise. Either that or the novel is dumped and it's straight onto the script only. As I said before I don't write with film adaptation in mind, it just works out that way because that's the way I think. I do see visually what I write.
In reply to making the story big I absolutely agree and I have thought about series but I have difficulty with that one as my stories have a tendency to have very definite endings, closing off the story finally.

 

[hlywkar]

What's the word on getting a book published if its their first book?

Should someone send out multiple manuscripts?
Request to send it straight to the publisher?
Or to an agent?

 

[John Jarrold]

I've mentioned before that each editor sees around thirty books a week, and will only take on one or two debut novels over an entire year. So you have to be wonderful. You should look at the books being published in 2008 (by newer writers, not long-term bestsellers), see how yours compares, think which publishers and agents might be interested (authors often mention their agent in the book's acknowledgements) and then check out each individual agent or publishers' website for submission criteria.

And don't head your letter 'Dear Sir or Madam' or 'To Whom it May Concern'. That is both rude and unprofessional. Deal with people as individuals, the way you want to be treated!

Do also look carefully through the threads on this forum, because you'll find a great deal of information on submitting, both to publishers and agents.

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

Hi, John,

I think I've seen in this forum that you never read synopsis. Am I right?

Then, I imagine you want a short pitch in the query letter.

Or are you just interested in reading about the writer, her influences and possible comparisons with recent published authors, and then go straight to the (six, I think) sample chapters?

 

[John Jarrold]

All I'm really interested in is the book. It can be useful if the author says in their covering letter/e-mail, 'I've loved SF/Fantasy for X years, and I think this is in the same area of the genre as...' to get an idea of where they are coming from, but that only matters if I want to see more, and I still turn down over 90% of submissions after reading less than the six chapters I'm sent - most people cannot write well enough for professional publication.

I've taken on about forty clients and turned down over 3,000 submissions.

 

[Havlen]

Well, that's good to know for my next submission. No bothering with all the words, just a bit of "Hey dude, take a look at this, it's like Heinlein meets Tolkien meets Card meets Vonnegut, which really means the words fight each other, so expect lots of explosions" and then I'll be off with the writing sample.

 

[Susan Boulton]

- most people cannot write well enough for professional publication.

I think that is the hardest thing to accept.

I am so used to the rejection slips from queries I don't think twice about them. When I get a request for sample chapters(once in a blue moon I would add) it takes me a day to get over the shock!

 

[John Jarrold]

Well, that's good to know for my next submission. No bothering with all the words, just a bit of "Hey dude, take a look at this, it's like Heinlein meets Tolkien meets Card meets Vonnegut, which really means the words fight each other, so expect lots of explosions" and then I'll be off with the writing sample.

Good thing I recognise irony when I see it!!!

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

Thank you for your answer, John.

In serious tones--no irony--you confirm that you don't wish to be sent synopsis and pitch for a first contact.

You just want to check the writing. And you know from the first page.

I completely understand. What I don't understand is why the "others" want a synopsis (this is ironic).

40 out of 3,040 is 1%. Good grief!

Giovanna

 

[John Jarrold]

That's a higher percentage than most agents...

 

[Dean F. Wilson]

I think the reason why most agents want a synopsis is because they can get a quick idea (by reading say 2 or 4 pages) of whether or not the work in question is publishable. With the volume of submissions they get, it's easy to see why many would want to cut their work-load (afterall, who wants to read the first few chapters of a number of inferior quality books?). That will, of course, mean that some genuinely good books are rejected without being read (crafting a good synopsis is a whole different ballgame to writing a good novel - condensing material is an art in and of itself), which is why, of course, all dedicated authors should submit their work to new places if they're rejected the first time round.

Personally speaking, if I was an agent I'd rather base my opinions on the work itself (in line with John). For one, it can actually cut down the volume of reading you need to do (if you read a synopsis and like it, you still have to read the first few chapters, which may or may not meet your criteria). It also helps not to know the entire story, with plot-twists, etc., while reading the work in order to retain objectivity (not to mention to just purely enjoy the story and where it leads the reader [the agent is, afterall, a reader, and his/her job is to see if a large enough volume of readers will like the work to justify its (potential) publication]).

1% sounds good to me

-D

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

(About the percentage) I know, I know.

But we can imagine that the number of your clients won't increase forever.

Are you thinking about developing your literary agency, taking in other fellow agents, or are you perfectly happy with it as it is?