Publishing question - first timers push out one book? or three?

[Brian G Turner]

I'm quietly confident precisely because I am (obsessively!) polishing my writing skills – getting better all the time.

Same here - I hope! I found myself in the ridiculous situation of having an ensemble of protagonists, which has been hugely challenging to write.

However, reading books such as "Save the Cat" has helped me look at the ensemble in terms of individual conflicts and growth to be resolved - at least in the first book - which has been a great help recently, not least in terms of consciously understanding what my subconscious has been pushing for, and editing accordingly.

It's still going to be book 1 of 6 though - all I can do is learn when I can in terms of writing and publishing, and ensure when I feel finally ready to pitch, that I have as polished a piece as possible.

And hopefully book 2 in an early writing draft at that stage - and possibly even book 3 partly written while waiting on third-party editing and the submission process rumbles forward.

Point is, I have a series, I intend to see it published, so I'm keeping with that plan.

I like the idea of having the sequels readied to some degree to help with deadlines when published - and I figure a publisher would be happier knowing books 2 and 3 are already in the process of being built for potential 1 year staggered release windows.

I could be wrong; I could be misjudging the issue.

But the more I can get written and plotted and developed, the closely the continuity through them as well.

However, it's tough. With sci-fi in particular, I'm told. We only need look around us at Chrons – there are some tremendous authors who haven't been able to break through because of publishers not willing to take chances on unknowns.

Don't look at who doesn't make it - just those who do.

I consider aiming to be a published author to be a lot like training to be an olympic athlete. It takes a lot of time, a lot of training, a lot of effort, and the determination to succeed.

Again, I could be wrong, but better to look at what published authors are doing right and try and match their level, as opposed to being distracted by other people falling aside - you never know what they might be doing wrong. That's why learning the craft involves being aware of how things can go wrong - to avoid them - as well as how things can do right - and try to keep in line with that. IMO.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm taking a pragmatic approach. This is my first attempt at writing anything, let alone a novel, and I've had a lot of insights into so many things, mostly by alpha/beta readers here on the Chrons: everything from punctuation, through pov, and now focusing on how to structure it and make it work, keep it exciting throughout. And story arcs, overarching, that's the new one to give me nightmares. I haven't quite decided if it's a two book or three book series - it is going to depend on feedback on the sequel - does it need more, I suspect it does - and how long the current part I'm working on goes to. If it's comfortably at 40000 I'll make it a third, as there is more to say.

I'm hoping to sell it, but if not, I'll stick it up on an online platform, wave goodbye to it as at least (I hope) a credible first attempt and keep going at the next - as a learning tool it has been fab. And hope that the odd person picks it up and enjoys it, that would be a bonus.

I'm also thinking if I do get to that point, the agents have to look at you as, at least, a sticker, and that can't be a bad thing.

 

[Dante DiBenedetto]

This is a tricky one. Instead of claiming that I know the answer, I'll simply put in my two cents from personal experience.

The first novel I wrote was around 120k words, and took me approximately six months to write. I was working at the time, and whilst recovering from an operation, I busted out a third of the book during those two weeks.

I thought the book was brilliant. Several of my friends and writers gave similar feedback. My editor enjoyed it, but said it wasn't easily marketable, especially for a first-time author. This ended up being true, so I moved on.

Book number two was only half-way finished when work/personal life halted the project. It only took a month to finish half the manuscript's first draft. My editor thought the quality had vastly improved, and said it had good potential. The second book was a deriviative of the first, though, so that project is on hiatus.

Come book number three, my latest endeavor with novels; so far, so great. My craft has improved tremendously, and honestly, going back to read the first one is almost painful because I spend 80% of the time editing myself.

With this set of experiences, I would like to say that a debut author who has only written one novel doesn't stand as good a chance as an author who has written several. Not because the book won't sell or attract a following, but because more practice will lead to a better book. Also, writing books becomes substantially easier and quicker after you've done a few.

That being said, I would like to think that a debut author that only has one book available on the market while they've written several will probably fair better than an author who has only completed one book, ever. They may get lucky, but there's a good chance to hit one-hit-wonder status, if not simply being neglected near the bottom of the mid-list.

I'd imagine an agent/publisher would be hesitant to take on a published author whose book sold poorly, or barely broke even.