Debut Novelists

[Suzan]

Could debut novels be the new "staple" in publishing today? I like to think so!
This morning in "PublishersMarketplace": Debut Author, Amor Towles's RULES OF CIVILITY, sold at auction, in a significant deal, for publication in 2011, by Dorian Karchmar at William Morris Endeavor.

[AryaT92]

What do you mean by "staple"?

[Suzan]

What I mean by "staple" is predominant, leading, most important... I guess what has me excited is to see new novelists getting substantial deals. It's as if what used to be a gamble to publishers (new authors) is now becoming less of a gamble and more lucrative. Gives me (an aspiring author) hope and I hope it does others as well! New novelists CAN and DO get published even in this toughest of economies. I love to hear "new novelist's" success stories.

[AryaT92]

I'd like to hope so, I'm currently on sub :D

[Suzan]

That's very exciting, AryaT92!! Good luck and I hope you get great news very soon!!

[gothicangel]

Not too convinced.

Publishers are being affected just as the rest of us by the recession and are being more risk adverse than normal.

On the other hand, you give them an amazing ms they won't say no!

[ChaosTitan]

Debut novelists who receive significant deals are always going to happen, but no, they won't become staples. Publishing can't afford it. For everyone debut novelist who receives a $100k advance, six debut novelists will receive a $10k advance.

There are threads on this board debating the merits/negatives of going with a large first advance versus a smaller one, so I won't start that discussion again. But debut novelists sell every week; it's just the unusually high advances that make people talk.

<--former debut novelist

[Shady Lane]

Personally, I think giving a huge advance to a debut author is a terrible, horrible idea.

ETA: **steps all over ChaosTitan's toes**

[Wayne K]

I think its a great idea as long as the writer was born on March 23rd 1963.

[Ivan_B]

An article I read predicting 2010 in books said the absolute opposite from what the OP hopes: they'll be sticking with the established authors and winning formulae, and not throwing the dice on new authors too much.
I know. Grr. Of course, that's only a prediction, and new and exciting talent keeps the business alive. But on the question of "what's the nature of the majority of books published in the upcoming years?" I'm going with established names.

[kuwisdelu]

New novelists will still be published.

Some will receive big advances, and they will be the exceptions.

Established authors will continue to be the bread and butter for publishing.

Moving on...

[RJK]

When the economy is down everybody takes a more cautious approach. Agents and publishers will go with the known quantities before taking chances on the unknown. That doesn't mean a few debut novels won't get through, just not as many as when money is looser.

[thpate21]

Personally, I think giving a huge advance to a debut author is a terrible, horrible idea.



Why? Just curious

[Shady Lane]

Why? Just curious

Little to no assurance that the author will earn out, in which case the publisher is caught with its pants down, raises the authors expectations and gives them egos the size of their bank statement, could potentially end an author's career before it starts, hurts other authors who have been working their way up steadily.

You wouldn't choose the valedictorian of a high school class when they're still freshman, would you?

[jana13k]

Why? Just curious
Because if the author fails to earn out the advance - at least to the point that the publisher doesn't loose money on the deal, the author may have a hard time getting another contract, even with another house.

I think it's a double-edged sword, and the biggest problem I see is the space of time between selling and release, in which EVERYTHING in the market is subject to change. I have a young friend that sold a YA for a lot of money but it released right after that Viswanathan debacle, so her book didn't do near what the publisher paid for or expected - none of it the fault of my friend OR her publisher. Strictly the fallout of an angry, disappointed readership.

[Libbie]

That's encouraging that a debut novelist got a significant deal. Hooray!

I'm just hoping for enough to pay off my car and student loans.

[M.R.J. Le Blanc]

The only reason big deals for debut novelists is such a news item is because it's the exception rather than the norm. Nothing's changed. New authors are still getting picked up at the same rate they always have, and every once in awhile one gets a really good deal just as it's always happened.

Though I'm kind of hoping I get to be one of the really-good-deal debut authors ;) I'd go Libbie's route and say goodbye to my student loans!

[Wayne K]

I'd take a sausage pizza right now. 3 months on sub is nerve wracking

[Jamesaritchie]

What I mean by "staple" is predominant, leading, most important... I guess what has me excited is to see new novelists getting substantial deals. It's as if what used to be a gamble to publishers (new authors) is now becoming less of a gamble and more lucrative. Gives me (an aspiring author) hope and I hope it does others as well! New novelists CAN and DO get published even in this toughest of economies. I love to hear "new novelist's" success stories.

There's nothing new about it. Such has always been the case. It's still a gamble, but like always, it's all about the book, not the writer.

[HConn]

Personally, I think giving a huge advance to a debut author is a terrible, horrible idea.

It hasn't done me any harm.

And if my books don't earn out, I'll start a new series as Harry J. Connolly, or H. James Connolly, or J.A. Rowling. No big.

[blacbird]

like always, it's all about the book, not the writer.

If this were true, crappy books produced by established authors wouldn't see the light of day (and don't for a second pretend that doesn't happen). If this were true, in fact, publishers would accept blind submissions, with no authors' names attached, so they could judge purely on the quality of the books. If you know of a single publisher who works in this fashion, please enlighten all of us.

caw

[James D. Macdonald]

The book package includes the author's name, because the number one reason any book sells is because the buyer read and enjoyed a previous work by the same author.

[Jamesaritchie]

An article I read predicting 2010 in books said the absolute opposite from what the OP hopes: they'll be sticking with the established authors and winning formulae, and not throwing the dice on new authors too much.
I know. Grr. Of course, that's only a prediction, and new and exciting talent keeps the business alive. But on the question of "what's the nature of the majority of books published in the upcoming years?" I'm going with established names.

That article is right, and would still be right if it were written a hundred years ago. Publishing is a business, and it would take a complate damned fool publisher not to keep publishing books that sell well and make lots and lots of money.

But this in no way means new writers won't be published each and every year, or that some of them won't receive large advance. They will.

[blacbird]

The book package includes the author's name, because the number one reason any book sells is because the buyer read and enjoyed a previous work by the same author.

Exactly my point. Which says what about the statement that "it's all about the book, not the writer"?

caw

[Aschenbach]

If this were true, crappy books produced by established authors wouldn't see the light of day (and don't for a second pretend that doesn't happen). If this were true, in fact, publishers would accept blind submissions, with no authors' names attached, so they could judge purely on the quality of the books. If you know of a single publisher who works in this fashion, please enlighten all of us.

caw

Easy. http://www.panmacmillan.com/imprints/Macmillan%20New%20Writing/

MacMillan accept unsolicted manuscripts from debut authors. But their standard contract stinks so bad that anyone with a publishable MS would be much better served trying to find an agent first. The Pan Macmillan contract includes no advance, 20% royalties, and the same terms for your second book. I suppose it's better than nothing.

[Kasey Mackenzie]

It hasn't done me any harm.

And if my books don't earn out, I'll start a new series as Harry J. Connolly, or H. James Connolly, or J.A. Rowling. No big.

Ditto here, and amen on choosing a new pen name if my books don't earn out. I was fortunate enough that 3 editors loved my book enough to bid on it so we took it to auction and ended up with a 3-book-deal in the lower end of the "good" range. While I DO feel a teeny bit of apprehension at the thought of earning out, on the other hand the publisher is also putting a good deal of promotional efforts, etc. toward helping the book earn out. It IS a double-edged sword of sorts, but I will take the bird in hand, work my butt off to promote the book and make sure the sequels are as good as I can make them, and deal with whatever comes. And I have no qualms with switching pen names if I have to. I made the choice to join the business of publishing, and so I will do whatever it takes (within reason) to be as successful as possible at this career I love.

That all said, I definitely know how lucky and blessed I've been that my book got so much interest in it. As someone else mentioned, for every author who DOES go to auction and get a 6-figure debut deal, there are several others who get a 10k advance.

[djf881]

Could debut novels be the new "staple" in publishing today? I like to think so!
This morning in "PublishersMarketplace": Debut Author, Amor Towles's RULES OF CIVILITY, sold at auction, in a significant deal, for publication in 2011, by Dorian Karchmar at William Morris Endeavor.

I Googled that particular debut novelist. Dude has a BA from Yale, a Masters in English Lit from Stanford, a high position in a financial company, and his father is apparently also a bigwig banker. That's a smart guy with a very good lit-fic manuscript and a lot of connections.

In general, media companies like franchises and brands. They invest a lot of money in maintaining a stable of bestselling talent, and they're very picky about debut fiction.

Also, a lot of the big advances for new writers go to people from prestigious MFA programs who have earned a lot of attention for their short stories. Every once in a while, a lot of heat builds up around a manuscript like "Twilight," but most debut novelists who get big advances come from very distinguished backgrounds.

Big advances for first novels go to people who are writing literary fiction (generally to folks who have won important prizes) or, occasionally to very shiny thriller-type books. If you're writing romance, sci-fi, fantasy, or anything generally released in Mass Market format, large advances for first novels seem to be very rare. And to get a small advance from a well-reputed publisher, you still have to be better than lots of people who are very good.

In the last eighteen months or so, publishing houses have also consolidated a lot. Editors were fired. Midlist authors were cut. Imprints were merged or shuttered. Agents went out of business. That means there are fewer slots for all kinds of books, and a very conservative business culture. The editor who gets blamed for a bad bet probably gets fired, so nobody wants to take chances.

It's a very tight market for fiction right now. And I apologize if I'm sugar-coating things a bit too much; my novel is on sub and I am trying to be optimistic.

[blacbird]

MacMillan accept unsolicted manuscripts from debut authors.

I didn't say "unsolicited manuscripts from debut authors". I said "blind submissions, with no authors' names attached". If it's "all about the book", why does nobody do this? FYI, there are a few contests that do insist on blind submissions, precisely for the reason that they want to judge the manuscripts, and not the authors. But I know of not one single publisher who works that way. Why? Because the marketplace is hugely influenced by BIG NAME authors. If you don't believe this, go to any bookstore, look at the front covers of the books, and see how many are presented with the authors' names in metallic embossed letters larger than the titles of the books.

caw

[djf881]

I didn't say "unsolicited manuscripts from debut authors". I said "blind submissions, with no authors' names attached". If it's "all about the book", why does nobody do this? FYI, there are a few contests that do insist on blind submissions, precisely for the reason that they want to judge the manuscripts, and not the authors. But I know of not one single publisher who works that way. Why? Because the marketplace is hugely influenced by BIG NAME authors. If you don't believe this, go to any bookstore, look at the front covers of the books, and see how many are presented with the authors' names in metallic embossed letters larger than the titles of the books.

caw

Well, the author's name rarely sells debut fiction, unless the author is a celebrity. Obviously, sales have less to do with quality or crappiness than the P&L analysis and the expectation for the book's market performance.

Obviously, nobody thinks established, bestselling authors have to earn their spot in the publisher's catalog with each new book (although midlisters often do). Certainly people with strong sales records have a big advantage over unknowns, although unknowns have an edge on people whose previous books sold poorly.

Publishers will brand the hell out of everything; the author's name, the character, and the imprint if they can. Most readers can't even perceive the declining quality of long-running series. The median consumer of entertainment media is not very discerning.

[blacbird]

Still nobody has answered my question about that statement that "only the books matter", which was the source of my original comment. I think that is one of the most useless platitudes about writing I've ever heard. Everything about the publishing industry screams otherwise.

caw

[Emily Winslow]

Still nobody has answered my question about that statement that "only the books matter", which was the source of my original comment. I think that is one of the most useless platitudes about writing I've ever heard. Everything about the publishing industry screams otherwise.

caw

But with debuts, would it make a difference? I don't see how having my name on my manuscript had any effect. As for why not do it blind, I guess for practicality. Have to call me something; why not know what my name actually is?

[shaldna]

Could debut novels be the new "staple" in publishing today? I like to think so!
This morning in "PublishersMarketplace": Debut Author, Amor Towles's RULES OF CIVILITY, sold at auction, in a significant deal, for publication in 2011, by Dorian Karchmar at William Morris Endeavor.


no.

and I'll tell you why, we hear alot about debut novelists who's book sells for millions at auction. but for every one of those there are 100,000 other debut novelsists who's work fails to earn out it's £5000 advance.

the media gives a false impression of the industry, sensationalising novel writing to the point where I don't like telling people what I do because they immediately assume that I make millions writing books.

new authors who go stellar like that are few and far between.

the staple of the publishing industry is, as it always was, those writers who consistantly produce saleable books, who have a following and who are a reasonably safe bet for publishers. Repeat business is, in publishing as in any other industry, the name of the game.

[SaraP]

I think the whole hype also lulls new writers into a false sense of stardom-in-waiting and may actually work against the industry because it stimulates those newbies into submitting their work without them even realizing that their first draft isn't worth anything. We all hear so much stuff about how agents and editors are bombarded with crap, you have to wonder what makes people submit manuscripts that haven't been polished.

I know I would be among those newbies if I hadn't found this site and I know I still dream about becoming big (don't we all?), but at least my MS isn't out there fattening up slush piles.

[shaldna]

I think the whole hype also lulls new writers into a false sense of stardom-in-waiting and may actually work against the industry because it stimulates those newbies into submitting their work without them even realizing that their first draft isn't worth anything. We all hear so much stuff about how agents and editors are bombarded with crap, you have to wonder what makes people submit manuscripts that haven't been polished..


this.

so this.

[Jamesaritchie]

Exactly my point. Which says what about the statement that "it's all about the book, not the writer"?

caw


Those previous books had big sales. You can't lump every situation into one glob and throw it at the wall.

Of course publishers want big name writers who have a record of good sales. They'd be complete fools not to.

Of course publishers want new writers who already have a claim to fame in some way. They'd be complete fools not to.

But this in no way means it isn't about the book, far more often than not. Those big name writers are big name writers because they write books readers love. Period. There's a lot of disdain out there for big names wrietrs, and it's almost never deserved. Pretty much all the big name writers out there were once unpublished writers with no contacts. They became big name writers because it's all about the book.

And debut novelists get very large advances on a fairly regular basis strictly because the publishers sees very large dollar signs when they read that writer's manuscript.

But what does it matter? You aren't going to get rich on the size of the advance, but on how many copies your book does or doesn't sell. Books from debut novelists often receive small advances, and then make the writers millionaires because readers everywhere love them.

Publishers do take on brand new, unknown writers on a regular basis, but expecting any publisher to not focus primarily on writers who are already big names, who are already selling immense numbers of books, is just silly.

The way to beat this is to write the right book, and become a big name writer yourself.

[job]

If this were true, crappy books produced by established authors wouldn't see the light of day (and don't for a second pretend that doesn't happen). If this were true, in fact, publishers would accept blind submissions, with no authors' names attached, so they could judge purely on the quality of the books. If you know of a single publisher who works in this fashion, please enlighten all of us.
caw

It is a sad truth that publishers, like any other businesses,
try to give the customer what he wants.

The single most marketable aspect of a book is the name of the author. A publishing house would be daft to make acquisitions without taking the major selling point of the product into account.

Now one could argue that selection of books at the published could be made by carefully vetted panels of literary experts who would judge on merit alone and not concern themselves with what people actually, demonstrably, want to buy.
Piffle on the people, they would say.

Instead, acquisition in the book trade is based upon What Will Sell, (which includes the name of the author.)
This puts tremendous power in the hands of the reading public.
Even if I don't agree with the choices the reading public makes, I am damn sure that they should rule.

In practical terms, very popular writers do not submit finished manuscripts for consideration. They negotiate to write 'two thrillers' or 'three Historical Romances' or even 'an approximately 100,000 novel'. They make contracts the way any supplier of goods would make a contract, producing a desired product to spec.

I can't think of any reason folks who write well and reliably should be denied the basic contract rights you'd give to a supplier of desk blotters.

[jana13k]

I see a misconception here in that some believe if you fail under one name, changing to another gets you a restart. Your sell-through follows YOU, the author, not the name you wrote under. Editors will assume (whether it's correct or not) that if you failed under one name, it's b/c of your writing and that since most writers rarely change style and voice, you are not suited to sell well again, regardless of name. If you completely change genre, you might get a pass, but beyond that, editors will ask for your sales numbers for ANY previously published work straight out.

[Shady Lane]

I see a misconception here in that some believe if you fail under one name, changing to another gets you a restart. Your sell-through follows YOU, the author, not the name you wrote under. Editors will assume (whether it's correct or not) that if you failed under one name, it's b/c of your writing and that since most writers rarely change style and voice, you are not suited to sell well again, regardless of name. If you completely change genre, you might get a pass, but beyond that, editors will ask for your sales numbers for ANY previously published work straight out.

Thank you for confirming this for me--I thought this was true, but wasn't sure enough to say it.

[HConn]

I see a misconception here in that some believe if you fail under one name, changing to another gets you a restart. Your sell-through follows YOU, the author, not the name you wrote under. Editors will assume (whether it's correct or not) that if you failed under one name, it's b/c of your writing and that since most writers rarely change style and voice, you are not suited to sell well again, regardless of name. If you completely change genre, you might get a pass, but beyond that, editors will ask for your sales numbers for ANY previously published work straight out.

My agent has told me the exact opposite.

But your comments don't stand up to a sniff test. First of all, writers change their style and voice all the time. Some maintain different pen names for each type of book.

Second: I write a book. My agent submits it. Editors read it and judge how badly they want to acquire it, if at all. Yes, they can look me up on Bookscan, but if they believe in the book, they believe in the book.

Other authors have done it and so can I. Ahem... not that I'll have to.

[Fillanzea]

Even if debut novelists were the Next Hot Big Thing... you're only a debut novelist for one book. You don't want to spend the rest of your writing career *not* being the Next Hot Big Thing. For some of these hot debut novel deals, I think there's a danger of SO much emphasis being placed on the debut, that by the time the author's second book comes out, it's old news.

[eqb]

Other authors have done it and so can I. Ahem... not that I'll have to.

What He Said. I know many authors who have changed their byline--most of them did *not* change genre, though some did--and with success.

If the editor believes in the new project, their concern, and the author's, is to work around the bookstore computers that say, "Oh, Author Alpha Beta? Last time we ordered this number of books from her. The book tanked. So we won't buy any more." Whereas if the bookstore computer doesn't know the new byline, A. Bea, so that trigger never gets hit.

Sometimes the new byline is a completely new name. Sometimes it's just a variation.

[shaldna]

I see a misconception here in that some believe if you fail under one name, changing to another gets you a restart. Your sell-through follows YOU, the author, not the name you wrote under. Editors will assume (whether it's correct or not) that if you failed under one name, it's b/c of your writing and that since most writers rarely change style and voice, you are not suited to sell well again, regardless of name. If you completely change genre, you might get a pass, but beyond that, editors will ask for your sales numbers for ANY previously published work straight out.


I'm sorry, but I have found this to be wrong.

To an extent your history follow you. But there are plenty of writers - many of them established name writers - who have had a flop or two and subsequently changed their name and had sucessful careers.

Remember that readers don't generally pay too much attention to the name on the cover, unless it's a writer they really like or really dislike.

Editors are smart cookies, and they don't generally ASSUME anything. They know thier markets, and if they feel strongly enough about your work to buy it in the first place then it's because they think they can sell it. Changing the name on the cover is like starting over, you once again become an unknown quanity, jsut like any other starting out.

They'll bear your previous sales in mind, but bear in mind that you don't actually have to tell them you sales figures, and if you had a massive flop and acrtually tell your editor 'i only sold fifteen copies' then shame on you. You should have said 'It didn't sell as well as anticipated'

[jana13k]

I never said they NEVER buy anything else, but to blissfully assume that editors never look at your ratings is a huge oversight. And you better have outdone yourself on something new.

I know of four writers personally who cannot sell new work right now in the same genre because of their sell-through. I'm not saying it can't happen, but no one can assume they are immune. That's just a foolish way to do business.

[jana13k]

shaldna - when my agent has taken my books to other houses, the editors have asked specifically for the sales numbers on all of my books. Some editors do ask. My friends have had the same experience. Genre and house mileage may vary, but it is part of the business.

[gothicangel]

I would be surprised if a publisher or agent didn't run a background check before offering a contract.

It might be a pseudomyn of the book jacket, but the agent and publisher know your true identity.

[eqb]

I never said they NEVER buy anything else, but to blissfully assume that editors never look at your ratings is a huge oversight. And you better have outdone yourself on something new.

And no one said they BLISSFULLY assumed the editors never look at your ratings. Of course you have to prove yourself with a work they believe will sell. (That's why I specifically said "If the editor believes in the new project...")

[HConn]

I never said they NEVER buy anything else, but to blissfully assume that editors never look at your ratings is a huge oversight. And you better have outdone yourself on something new.

Personally, I think every writer has to try to outdo themselves on every book, good sell through or bad.

[gothicangel]

A writer is only as good as their last book, as the saying goes.