Why is this?
Hmmm...
While pondering this, I recalled my recent post about the subjectiveness of writing (if you lack the time or energy to go read that post, briefly: It touches on an agent-assistant who read my manuscript and fell head-over-heels, gushing-style in love with it...before the agent herself read, suggested some changes, and passed on the project for the moment).
After something like that, it would be easy for me, as a writer, to say: Okay, I know this manuscript of mine is really good, because I've had several people who read it and reacted the same way that the agent-assistant in question reacted.
At the same time, however, several others have read it and not reacted that way.
Now, I don't think that a writer should try so hard to please specific individuals that they lose sight of the big(ger) picture. But I also think - in a situation like the one I'm in - "You know what, I can find ways to improve this manuscript even more. I can find a way for this manuscript to hit even more people in the way it is hitting those Some."
Early last week I dove back into The Great Lenore for the first time in...geez, in months - for the first time since last fall, when my former agent had some suggestions for minor changes.
And hey, you know what I'm finding? I'm finding that this manuscript is becoming even more beautiful than before. I am maintaining all the elements that made some readers (that is: my former agent; the aforementioned agent-assistant; a brilliant and vastly-talented writer friend of mine in New York) fall in love with the story, while also improving on elements that made other readers (that is: a handful of agents over the last month) give me the, "If you make some changes, come back to me, but for now I'm not-quite-convinced."
Several weeks ago, I reminded any of you who are at the search-for-an-agent stage that an agent's/editor's job is to find all the reasons why a manuscript might not work. It's tougher for them to see the beauty in something, because their career depends on figuring out what's wrong with a project.
However, what that does to us - as writers - is it gives us a chance to figure out how to improve our project even further.
And I realized: This is likely why we see so many first-time (or early-time) books that are more beautiful and more complete than a writer's later-released works.
In order to get that first novel published, so many things have to go right. So many people have to be on board. And so much time and responsibility fall to the writer - to keep improving the work, to keep pushing it closer to perfection.
I think a lot of writers lose sight of this once they're established and no longer have to edit their books quite as much in order for them to get published.
That's why we see that authors like Bret Easton Ellis or Cormac McCarthy - who still only publish a new book every 3 or 4 or 10 years - seem to maintain a high level of consistently good work. While others (uh, I'll go ahead and not name names...I'll leave that up to you) do not.
Makes sense to me.
Thoughts?
Other Places Where I Hang Out:
↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
(Download A Delicious Sample Of The Great Lenore,
Available From Atticus Books Summer 2011)
Play nice and share with others
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Posts
Great point! A debut novel has to be spit shined to perfection. That kind of energy is hard to maintain especially once the publishing door is open. Then again, the pressure for a second novel to be as good -- better than -- the first has to affect writers the way press coverage can rattle the concentration of an Olympic competitor. It's an interesting point to ponder.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for the follow, pushing me over that 200 mark!
I completely agree and have had that experience recently with quick repeat authors under pressure (contract?) to produce and sell by name alone. They don't have to be good. They have to be fast. But us first timers -- we have to be the better than them, the best we ever will be, or we will never have our work see the light of day. The challenge is to keep that quality up over time because when and if we succeed, everyone around us will count on our speed for them to make money. My comment is more cynical than Nicoles. But I have a few specific authors in mind whose early work wowed me and whose later work disappointed.
ReplyDeleteNicole - I think "once the publishing door is open" is, by far, the most apt way to word it.
ReplyDeletePamela - It's not like cynicism is a bad thing, right? Especially if you have a specific example in mind. No interest in sharing those "specific authors"? ;)
Great post! I agree with everything you said. I can't imagine the pressure a debut novelist must feel when his/her first book is flying high. I'd be unable to fully enjoy the success since book #2 would have to be even *better* (to me, at least).
ReplyDeleteI LOVE Cormac McCarthy because of how well-polished his novels are. I'm willing to wait years between each just for that. Have never read BE Ellis, but it's funny you mention him because I just added "American Psycho" to my Amazon wish list this morning.
Crystal - I think the problem most writers face (as alluded to by Pamela above) is that publishers expect them to publish something new every year to "build a readership." This works for a while, I think, but they need to keep *quality* in mind also. Sometimes, it's better to frustrate publishers by making them wait - and to make sure a novel is perfect - than to roll out a subpar product. [Btw, I would suggest "Less Than Zero" over "American Psycho" - I think it's a more focused work.]
ReplyDeleteI think that makes a lot of sense, actually. People are going to buy certain books because of the name on the cover, without taking into account whether or not this one is actually GOOD.
ReplyDeletegreat post...makes a lot of sense. I have this feeling, though, that unless you make a big splash with the first novel, it is just as hard to sell the second, third, etc.
ReplyDeleteand, you know, publishers weigh the quality of the book with how commercial it is, being that it's a business. We need all sorts of book/stories being published to satisfy the readers who only read for (formulaic) entertainment and those who read for the art of a story...you just gotta hope more readers out there are looking for the Cormac McCarthy's. Then, publishing a great book every couple of years would be more of a reality.
Karen - "Because of the name on the cover" is the perfect distinction to make. And it's not that that's a bad thing. But...there is certainly less pressure on the writer to perform at such a high level.
ReplyDeleteFoldingfields - How very cynical of you! However, tragically, also very true. You make a good point - many times, the second, third, fourth, etc. novel is no easier to get published than the first. Let's all cross our fingers and keep working hard and believe none of us will fall in that category!
That first novel is often the one authors have dreamed about for years. Sometimes the second one just doesn't have the time to properly percolate. Plus, (and this I can speak from experience) when you write that second pubbed novel and it's on contract, you are scared WITLESS that it will be crap, so you are terrified of making an epic fail.
ReplyDeleteBut, oh, the joy of finding an author who doesn't suffer from second novelitis! And there's nothing like pubbing a second novel to make you forgive all the OTHER second novels out there.
Cynthia - You make a very, very, very fair point! As readers, we have to remember that writers often don't have time to let that second novel (as you said) properly percolate, because they're on deadline - something they are certainly not used to quite yet. I think my point of problem lies more with long-established writers who have a say-so in how often they publish a book, but who still allow their works to suffer from under-editing. Also, great to have your perspective - you being someone who can speak from experience - because...well, things always look different from the other side!
ReplyDeleteI sure hope all future novels from Stuart Neville are of the same quality as The Ghosts of Belfast, because that one is top-notch. I'll keep my fingers crossed he's not sucked into the "a book a year" trap (sorry, Stuart).
ReplyDeletePatricia - I have not read the novel you just mentioned, but now I want to check it out. Thanks for the heads-up!
ReplyDeleteI wonder if there's anything to be said about how some people "only have one story in them." I've never been a subscriber to that belief, though...
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that debuts really have to aspire to perfection to get published. Then again, I'm sure that experimental novels that test/play with different styles/ideas would need to be written by an established author in order to be published, regardless of how 'good' it was.
But jeez, you sure are putting pressure on my poor WIP! ;)
Susana - There is no pressure on your WIP except for it to be the best you can make it! All you can do is keep working hard, and eventually everything will fall into place!
ReplyDelete