Novel
writersblock said:
My first novel is ready. I wrote it, rewrote it a few times and revised parts of it. Then I had it professionally edited and incorporated the editor's comments and critiques. Now I am satisfied with the outcome.
Here's the snag: The manuscript was read by two editors, a couple of agents and one traditional publisher. Each of them loved certain parts of the book and disliked others. Thing is, each loved / disliked different parts. For example, person A said chapter so-and-so is fast-paced and the character interesting. Then, person B said the very same chapter is boring and the character just doesn't ring true.(That particular character is based on real person, so it has to be realistic!)
The only common view these well-meaning folks have is that I am a good writer. I guess that's already somethong, huh?
But I am at a loss. Who do I listen to? Person A, B, C, or, to my own gut feeling? Problem is, if I incorporate all of the changes suggested, not only would they be contradictory, but I would also, in the end, lose my own voice.
I can only surmise that reading a book is as subjective as viewing art: some people will have an affinity to it, and others won't. I am satisfied with the book's premise and with the message it conveys, so I've decided to bite the bullet and go the self-publishing route. I intend to work hard to promote the book once it's out.
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts and opinions. Do you think I am doing the right thing? Does anyone out there has had the same experience, went on to publish anyway, and succeeded?
My gut reaction is that you aren't giving your novel much of a chance to succeed. Self-publishing is usually a knee-jerk reaction, and almost never leads to a worthwhile destination. You can promote the book to death, and you will still probably have fewer than 100 sales all told. There are thousands of novels being published each year by commercial publishers, so why buy a self-published novel?
Different editors will have different reactions to a novel. It means nothing. Just who are the editors? Do they work for commercial publishing houses? If not, I'd ignore everything they have to say.
But I will say this, just because a character is based on a real person in no way, shape, or form means that character will ring true on the page. What's on the page is NOT the real character, it's a paper character you wrote, having filtered him through your own mind, your own skill, your own talent. A character based on a real person can be just as unrealistic, just as boring, just as cardboard, as any other character.
Do not ever think that because you base a character on a real person, that character must be realistic.
You can say the same thing about plot. Just because something really happened in no way means it will make a good or realistic plot for a novel.
You're also seeing one of the main reasons I'm against having a novel edited by "professional" editors. Far more often than not, a "professional" editor is just a person who charges you money for doing something you can probably do as well or better yourself. And certainly something that good agents and editors who work for publishing houses can do much better than anyone else.
I'm not saying all the "professional" editors out there are no good, but by and large, I'd trust my local garage mechanic more than I'd trust the vast majority of them.
Reading a novel is certainly subjective, but when you get enough opinions from the right agent and the right editors, it stops being subjective. A consensus forms, and this consensus will tell you where you went wrong.
Part of selling a novel is finding the right agent, the right editor, and the right home. You can't do this if you self-publish. About the only thing self-publishing assures is that your novel will go nowhere, will be read by almost no one, and the vast majority of your time for the next couple of years will be spent trying to market something no one wants to read.
Write the novel the way you want it, then send it to good agents and legitimate editors who work for mainstream publishing houses. And listen to what these agents and editors say, not to anyone else. If they ask for changes, make them. You may have to go through twenty agents and twenty publishers, but this is simply how it works.
Your novel certainly is not perfect. It does have flaws. Different agents and editors will consider different things flaws, and some will think one thing works, and others will think that same thing fails. This is normal. But if the novel really is any good, if it really is publishable, you will find an agent and a publishing house who will take it and help fix the flaws.
And remember that readers do not buy books because of the premise or the message it carries. People buy books because that book tells a good story in an entertaining way, and is filled with good characters.
Throw out the opinions of the "professional" editor(s). They're meaningless.
And don't give up so easily. If it really is written the way YOU want it, if it's the best job you can do, then send it to one good agent after another, and even to the few good publishing houses that will look at it without an agent. Keep sending it out until there's nowhere left to send it.
And in the meantime, get to work on a second novel. First novels almost always are unpublishable. Rather than spending the next year or two self-publishing your first novel, and trying to promote it when very few people in this world want or need self-published novels, your time will be much better spent writing the next novel or two.
Give your novel a chance. I don't think you've done this. When you've gone through twenty or thirty agents and twenty or thirty legitimate publishers, it's had a chance. And if none of them take it on, you can bet there are serious flaws that means you shouldn't want to self-publish it.
While this novel is making the rounds, get to work immediately on a second novel.
