Novelists who published first work after 40

[pandora9]

Hi

I've just joined the forum. It seems lively, and members appear very committed to their art. Every time I look at the threads I learn something.

I have just made a commitment to my writing, after many years of fighting the demons of self doubt, inner critical voices, and sheer sloth. All I can say is something feels completely different about my process - I am writing daily, stacking up the pages of my first draft of my first novel, and loving it. I'm so excited.

I'm 45, and realise this makes me a late starter! For inspiration's sake, what writers to you all know of that published their first work late in life!

[maestrowork]

Our very own Liam Jackson got his 6-book deal with a major imprint and he's over 40. ;) (sorry for outing you, LJ)

(and I'm under 40)

[cwfgal]

I was exactly 40 when I sold my first novel.

Beth

[James D. Macdonald]

I was just under 40 (36) when I published my first novel.

[willietheshakes]

Well, seeing as we're steadily descending from 40...

I'll be 35 when my first novel pubs next year.

[scribbler1382]

Robert Ludlum was 44 when he published his first novel. I think a few people have heard of him. :)

[hoyateach]

James Robert Waller ("Bridges of Madison County") was in his 60s when he published that book.

Cranked it out in 2 weeks, so rumor has...

[aruna]

I was 48 when my first was published.

I actually think older is better.

[pandora9]

OK. This is good stuff! You are all an inspiration to me. Thanks. I think older is better - for me at least. Congratulations to all of your for your commitment and powers of manifestation.

[Sassenach]

James Michener
P.D. James

[Carlene]

Me too - over 50. Never wrote a word until I was 38. Started with short stories, newspaper/magazine articles, etc. Didn't even start writing novels until I was in my late 40's. I'll write until I can no longer move my hands over the keys or see the computer screen.

Carlene
www.crdater.com (http://www.crdater.com)

[Greer]

Harriet Doerr was 74 when she published her first novel, Stones for Ibarra. It won many prizes, including the National Book Award.

[Cathy C]

I was 42 when the first one came out. Now, two years later, I have three books on the shelf, and three more coming next year. Hang in there and stay inspired! :)

[JoeEkaitis]

50 or 51, depending on whether we make the Christmas or spring release window.

[Torin]

My first book came out in 2001 and I was 43. :)

[azbikergirl]

My first is being published this year. I'm 44.

For a long time, I thought my writing sounded juvenile. Now I know it does. (haha, j/k) Seriously, I think my writing has matured as I've gotten more wrinkles.

[Pencilone]

I'm 42 and still working hard on my first novel!

Good to see I'm not the only one over 40! :kiss:

[nameless]

Age is just a number. Keep on keeping on.

[Avalon]

Pandora, I identify! I'm 44 and working on finishing my first and starting my second manuscripts. This kind of thing has worried me, too! I'm glad to see there are other folks out there with the same experience (and good results, to boot).

(By the way: Jean Auel. She was 44 when Clan of the Cave Bear came out.)

[pandora9]

Well done Avalon! It must be very exciting to be finishing your first novel.

I'm so looking forward to rewriting/second draft of my first. I am learning an unbelievable amount in the writing of my first draft that I will be able to apply. I am attempting to be very disciplined and not rework what I have written until I finish this first draft.

Did you find a quantum leap of any kind between your first and second novel?

[pandora9]

Cor blimey (as they say in England - as least Dick van Dyke did once, I believe) ... That sounds like a useful addiction! Wish I that one, and could drop the nicotine.

[pandora9]

Congratulations on your first novel coming out. What a feeling that must be! I dream of experiencing that one day.

[pandora9]

I love the picture. Not sure about the griffin burger! Congratulations on the book.

I love these stories of success: They are moving to me, because I think I understand how much they must mean to individual - the blood, sweat and tears, and then YES!

[kikazaru]

Helen Hoover Santmyer, while she had always been interested in writing and had small successes, had started writing "And Ladies of the Club" when she was almost 70 and it took her 15 years to finish it. When she was 87 (and in a nursing home) it was published and sold 2 1/2 million copies and became a NY Times best seller.

"Time - our youth- it never really goes does it? It is all held in our minds"
Helen Hoover Santmyer

[Susan Gable]

I was 37. :)

And here's an inspirational quote for you from the book From Where You Dream by Robert Olen Butler.

p. 246: "There are no child prodigies in literature...and the great writers, at age twenty-two, are not going to have the vision of the world, or the emotional readiness, or the developed unconscious that they will have thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, or ninety." (And he said that to a class full of college students who were taking a writing workshop with him. Just after that quote he goes on to tell his students that means it's exciting for them, that they have a lot ahead of them and that they should be patient with themselves.)

Susan G.

[Sheryl Nantus]

I'm 41 and just received my first offer for my first novel...

:)

remember, it's not the years - it's the mileage!

:D

[maestrowork]

You might have tremendous talent at a young age, and with good studies and imagination and mentors, you may write something pretty good (depending on the genres). But life experience is so important. I don't think JK Rowling, for example, could have written the HP series in her 20s. Personally, I wouldn't have been able to pull it off (I write mainstream/literary stuff) 10 years ago (in my 20s) either -- and I had plenty of life experiences by then.

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

I'm 20 and I came up with two gem ideas last month. I was so excited, and then it hit me. I can't write this in the way it deserves to be written. Despite my internet life being mostly made of comedy and error, in real life I am quite a mature 20 year old, but I know that I need more years before I can pull those ideas off.
Writing is unlike most careers. You can keep going and going and going for your whole life. And if practice does make better (I won't say perfect), then keep getting older I say!

[Birol]

If you don't publish your first novel in your 40's, how old will you be when you do publish it?

[aruna]

I wrote stories when I was eight, and if I'd been encouraged more I'm sure I'd have continued to write; if I'd been more confident, I might have tried to find a publisher in my early 20's, and maybe even found one in my late 20's. I might have made a tolerable writer.
But when I think back to myself at 20-30, the ideas I had, my megalomania, my insecurities (yes! no contradiction!), my lack of life exerience at that age, I shudder to think of the kind of books I'd have written. I knew NOTHING. OK, the older I get the more I realise how little I still know, but so much has happened in the intervening 30 years... oh, I'm so glad I didn't embarass myself by starting young!

[KTC]

I am counting on publishing my first novel at 40. It was actually the goal I set a few years ago. I collected life for the first 20 years, percolated for the next 15...writing all the while...and now I'm ready to put it all together. My fingers are crossed as I approach that 40 year old hurdle.

[maestrowork]

Good luck to you, Kevin. That's a very good goal. I set the same goal a few years ago, and so I'm actually ahead of my schedule. :)

[cwfgal]

p. 246: "There are no child prodigies in literature...and the great writers, at age twenty-two, are not going to have the vision of the world, or the emotional readiness, or the developed unconscious that they will have thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, or ninety." (And he said that to a class full of college students who were taking a writing workshop with him. Just after that quote he goes on to tell his students that means it's exciting for them, that they have a lot ahead of them and that they should be patient with themselves.)

I think this is very true.

Beth

[aruna]

I am always very sceptical when "brilliant" young writers get placed in the middle of a media hype-fest. Especially if they are female, beautiful, and, perhaps, even black. And so I was sceptical of Zadie Smith, who was in her early 20's when her White Teeth was published, The book was indeed brilliantly written, but it di dnot satisfy me in the least. She went on to write another book that got pretty much shredded in the press.
Nevertheless, I've followed her career and the great thing is that she KNOWS her limitations. She was one of White Teeth's most outspoken critics, and she wasn't just being coy. She seems to have the appropriate amount of modesty and the will to learn and develop, and has not at all had her head tured by fame, in fact, shrinks from it. I like her enormously and I think, when she's 50, she might prodice some truly great work. But she may need to go into hiding till then!
Here's the latest Guardian article about her:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/generalfiction/0,6121,1562117,00.html

[zornhau]

I think Charles Stross said somewhere that 40 is the age when most careers kick off: you still have the enthusiasm of youth, but now also have the discipline of maturity, oh, and you now have something worth saying.

I too am skeptical about semi-autobirgraphical novels by young writers.

[Anatole Ghio]

While I agree it is difficult for child prodigies to exist in writing, let's not go into the opposite extreme of saying ONLY older writers are capable of writing great works. Yes, life experience does add a degree of wisdom to a writer, but there have been writers who wrote from a younger age, and captured it in a way that bordered on genius.

F. Scott Fitzgerald was in his early twenties when he published his first novel, and somewhere near 30 when The Great Gatsby was written.

Many people who give up their careers to make such a mark, so quickly.

Personally, I feel my writing has only become better as I get older.

[Gravity]

My first novel, Until the Last Dog Dies,came out last year. I was 52 (my previous book, a PA travesty, doesn't count. Believe me). The sequel to DOG, When Skylarks Fall, will be on the shelves next month. The next one in the series, To Skin a Cat (anyone picking up an animal theme here?*G*), will be out next summer. Plus, they want three more, and my agent is presently negotiating the finer points of that.

It can happen. I'm proof.

John

[Susan Gable]

While I agree it is difficult for child prodigies to exist in writing, let's not go into the opposite extreme of saying ONLY older writers are capable of writing great works. Yes, life experience does add a degree of wisdom to a writer, but there have been writers who wrote from a younger age, and captured it in a way that bordered on genius.

F. Scott Fitzgerald was in his early twenties when he published his first novel, and somewhere near 30 when The Great Gatsby was written.


Let's also not forget that early twenties in Fitzgerald's day are not the same as early twenties in this day and age. We've pushed back the age of "adulthood" quite a bit. I'm not saying ALL early-twenty-somethings these days are not "grown-ups," I'm just saying that the social phenomena of delayed responsibility has contributed to delayed maturity as well.

Of course, I also know a few folks in their 40's who could seriously do with a dose of maturity and I despair of them ever gaining any. <G>

Susan G.

[aruna]

There's also Harper Lee.

[zornhau]

While I agree it is difficult for child prodigies to exist in writing, let's not go into the opposite extreme of saying ONLY older writers are capable of writing great works. Yes, life experience does add a degree of wisdom to a writer, but there have been writers who wrote from a younger age, and captured it in a way that bordered on genius.

F. Scott Fitzgerald was in his early twenties when he published his first novel, and somewhere near 30 when The Great Gatsby was written
.

Agreed. Leigh Bracket (I think), Edgar Rice Burroughs and Robert E Howard come to mind from my personal pantheon.

However, novels were a lot shorter back then. How many pages are there in the Great Gatsby?

[Anatole Ghio]

Regarding age: I don't think the culture has anything to do with F. Scott Fitzgerald. I think he was a prodigy, plain and simple. If anything, one could argue the age of maturity is much younger today than it was in his time, since kids today have access to more knowledge and culture than they did back then.

I'm not sure what book lengths have to do with anything. The Great Gatsby is rather short, but his other novels were much longer. I can only guess production costs versus market profitabilty had more to do with it than writing talent.

It was only after world war II when paperbacks became mass marketed, that the novel came into vogue... the short story market consequently went into decline. Novelists were quite capable of writing longer works then, if you ask me.

There was another spate of twenty something writers in the eighties. My understanding is that most of it wasn't worth the hype, but that Bright Lights Big City and Less Than Zero were novels worthy of the attention.

Okay, back to the regularly scheduled programming...

[MitchJ]

I just turned 40. My first novel is in the works, and I'd love to get it published. But, whether that one goes to press or not, I'd like to be published by 42.

[triceretops]

I was 36 with my firs book, but now, at 53, I want to recapture that moment.

Tri

[Diana Hignutt]

I was just two months past my 40th birthday when Empress of Clouds (which I now count as my first published novel) was published.

Diana Hignutt

[christa]

Although I'd lived the role of journalist, editor, freelancer, etc., it was with the joy of becoming a published author that all of life experiences culminated.
I've been a writer since age eight or nine. Oh heck, I'm sure I was born a writer. Yet not until age 50 year did I hold my (first) published book in my hand. When I was younger (30-35) I felt like a failure because I thought to be a "real" writer was to be published by, oh, say, about age 30. I fell into a deep depression. I knew my book was "within" but when was it going to come out? By then I had kids and a lifestyle and a bad marriage, I wasn't writing much beyond the occaional thank-you letter to my grandmother who kept sending the kids pajamas. (Pajamas? hell, they needed shoes!)
As the years went on, writing opportunities "fell" into my lap and through a series of doors opening, I continued the journey to becoming published. My writing became honed, my discipline regemented, my voice stronger. My life experiences gave weight, credibility, maturity to my words.

I think a true writer is born loving words, and he/she will find a way to get them out--eventually. A gifted writer is not gifted because he writes well. His gift is loving words. Writing well is learned, disciplied. Younger folks sometimes don't have the time or patience for that--they are busy living. Others oftentimes push themselves into a "writer's maturity" with a relentless drive. Either way, if you are a writer--you will write sooner or later.
In my youth I wrote poetry. Now I never do. I write non-fiction. I think all the poems over which I scratched then, and all the prose I belabored into volumns of notebooks as a dreamy girl--it all paved the journey's way.

[zornhau]

Regarding age: I don't think the culture has anything to do with F. Scott Fitzgerald. I think he was a prodigy, plain and simple. If anything, one could argue the age of maturity is much younger today than it was in his time, since kids today have access to more knowledge and culture than they did back then.

I'm not sure what book lengths have to do with anything. The Great Gatsby is rather short, but his other novels were much longer. I can only guess production costs versus market profitabilty had more to do with it than writing talent.

It was only after world war II when paperbacks became mass marketed, that the novel came into vogue... the short story market consequently went into decline. Novelists were quite capable of writing longer works then, if you ask me.

There was another spate of twenty something writers in the eighties. My understanding is that most of it wasn't worth the hype, but that Bright Lights Big City and Less Than Zero were novels worthy of the attention.

Okay, back to the regularly scheduled programming...

Disagree. Longer books are more complex, require more arcs to and more characters, and are harder to sustain.

Short novels - virtually novellas - from the 1930s gave writers the chance to finish novels quickly and get feedback, or achieve sales, then move on.

Yes, some of these guys were geniuses, but they probably flowered earlier because they didn't have to start off with 100K doorstops.

[marcusgee]

I was one of those types used to think he was a literary genius because I write my first novel in high school. Ah, how the intervening years have proved me wrong! Still, getting an early start helped me hone my style--so by the time I shopped my ninth novel around, I finally had the chops to pull it off. Bantam just released it last May, at my ripe old age of 36!

That said, age shouldn't be an impediment to writing, whether you're older or just a kid. We non-geniuses need time to work on our craft, and the sooner you start, the sooner you'll your work will be good enough to catch a publisher's eye.

[Jaycinth]

Now I don't feel so ancient! I started my first 23 years ago, and put it in a drawer because it had no depth of experience. I pulled it back out 3 years ago and I've been working on polishing it ever since.

[Mike Martyn]

As for me, I never even wanted to write but the muse had other ideas. She bonked me on the head last October and by now I've written a first novel which I''m in the process of ripping apart and rewriting, I'm a quarter way through writing a second novel and I have the germ of an idea for a third perking away in the back of my mind.

Though I haven't been published, I couldn't have gotten this far without the help of everybody on this board.

I did try writing when I was in my early twenties but it was crap. What I'm writing now at 54 is arguably crap as well but at least it's a more prolific and a higher order of crap!

For me it's just life experience and perhaps the fact that in the intervening period as a lawyer I have written millions and millions of words on behalf of clients many of them the most astonishing fictions! http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif

So good luck to you.

[scribbler1382]

Just wanted to thank everyone for their posts here. While they certainly weren't directed to me personally, they nevertheless buoyed me when I needed it.

At 8:32 am EST today, I turned 43 years old. It's true that I've had some success in my "career" with short stories, but the published novel has still eluded my grasp. So much so that i stopped writing for several years out of frustration. About a year ago I started writing again. AW was a huge factor in that. Thanks to everyone (even the members who make me crazy :) ).

There used to be a bulletin board service back in the 80's called GEnie. Anyone who was a member knows how important that service was to us as writers. When it died, it was a very sad day, indeed. Ever since then, I've been looking for a new touchstone...a new community to call home. I'd pretty much given up. Until I found AW, that is.
Here's to the writer in all of us. Long may he scribble. :Cheers:

[Anatole Ghio]

Disagree. Longer books are more complex, require more arcs to and more characters, and are harder to sustain.

Short novels - virtually novellas - from the 1930s gave writers the chance to finish novels quickly and get feedback, or achieve sales, then move on.

Yes, some of these guys were geniuses, but they probably flowered earlier because they didn't have to start off with 100K doorstops.

Well now, this is tantamount to saying that size does matter!

I am not willing to priviledge novel writing over short stories, as this would be a disservice to some of the masters of short story writing of the past: such as Chekov, Carver, Bradbury, Hemmingway, or Fitzgerald.

To argue these great writers did their best work in novels, or that they were inferior writers in their short story writing, would be a misjudgement in my view.

There is a real art in economy, and not everyone can do it... that's why I believe one art form is not better than another one, they are just different.

[LightShadow]

39 and a half, and I'm sure I'll be in that post-40 crowd when I get published. but hey, life begins at 40!

[Jamesaritchie]

Disagree. Longer books are more complex, require more arcs to and more characters, and are harder to sustain.

Short novels - virtually novellas - from the 1930s gave writers the chance to finish novels quickly and get feedback, or achieve sales, then move on.

Yes, some of these guys were geniuses, but they probably flowered earlier because they didn't have to start off with 100K doorstops.

I don't think 100K qualifies as a doorstop. 100K is actually a fairly short novel. 250-350K would be more in doorstop territory.

Writers have been writing novels much, much longer than 100K for about three hundred years. In many ways, the longer the novel, the easier it is to write. You have more room to develop plot, character, and story. There's more room for mistakes. Shorter is usually harder, in my opinion.

[Jamesaritchie]

I believe Tony Hillerman was 48 when he published his first novel, and he's done more than all right.