Question about my novel

egem · Oct 15, 2005

Okay so I have this ms, well it is not in any shape right now, but basically it's like 27 chapters hand written. Yeah hand written, can you believe it. Any way it is about an innercity high school and the lives of the teens there. The school is an alternative school and the kids are well....interesting. I really work at a school like this. Anyway, I have little experience with commercial publishers. I write literary stuff short stories and poetry (2 of those mss are sitting on my desk--not hand written). So this novel seems more down the commercial side, but I can't tell. When I write stuff I see Raymond Carver, I have no head for commercial works at all.

Does this sound like a commercial book to you? I'm asking because in the rewriting of this book I have to take it a couple of directions and if I can market it commercially I would like to.

reph · Oct 15, 2005

Having an inner-city alternative high school as a setting wouldn't make a novel marketable (I assume this is what you mean by "commercial"), and it wouldn't keep a novel from being marketable. Other things than the setting would make the difference.

egem · Oct 15, 2005

You are right. I should say a little more. Really the story is about 6 differnt kids that are stuck in this school. It is their stories more or less told by their teacher. It follows the problems of the student's lives. One has little hair cuz he was badly burned by by his mother, a teenage girl that is about to have a baby, a 20 year old that cannot read. The book is really talking about how asking some of these kids to learn is like asking them to eat cake. I don't know how much more I can say that will help. Enough so far?

MacAllister · Oct 15, 2005

Egem--you've got to write the book, first. Then revise it. Repeat, as needed.

Then you worry about what sort of book it is--but sure, it sounds interesting. But until you have a finished manuscript, ready to submit, you're pretty limited in what you can do with it.

You might do well to start researching agents, though, while you finish the book.

reph · Oct 15, 2005

One thing to start thinking about: If the kids in the book are based on real kids you know, be sure you change enough details so that no one reading the book would identify them.

Garpy · Oct 15, 2005

i'll wade in here with another different opinion. If your goal is to write a book that will make money....it's worth taking the time (as you seem to be doing) to take a sniff around to see what direction might be more commercial....before commiting six months of writing time to it. The trick of course is to get it right. From a standpoint of publishing in the UK, I'd say the trials and tribulations of a bunch of inner city kids is reasonably commercial. If you aim the writing style at young adults....make damned sure you're not patronising them too....then I think you've got a fair shot

egem · Oct 15, 2005

Garpy said:
i'll wade in here with another different opinion. If your goal is to write a book that will make money....it's worth taking the time (as you seem to be doing) to take a sniff around to see what direction might be more commercial....before commiting six months of writing time to it. The trick of course is to get it right. From a standpoint of publishing in the UK, I'd say the trials and tribulations of a bunch of inner city kids is reasonably commercial. If you aim the writing style at young adults....make damned sure you're not patronising them too....then I think you've got a fair shot

I was thinking the book would take at least a year or two to finish. I don't think the book could go young adult, but maybe. Thank though I was wondering on the topic I guess. I'm not sure this is all new to me. Most of the circles I run in would boo you for saying writing for money, and that was the nature of this question. People here don't seem to understand the completely different world that lit writing is. Making money on a book is like making rain out of sawdust. It is just weird.

ted_curtis · Oct 15, 2005

egem said:
Most of the circles I run in would boo you for saying writing for money, and that was the nature of this question. People here don't seem to understand the completely different world that lit writing is. Making money on a book is like making rain out of sawdust. It is just weird.

I don't understand why you would want to write a book that isn't commercial. For me, it's not about the money (although that would be nice). I'm more interested in having as many people as possible reading my words. I don't care if they think I'm a genius or changing the world of literature or not -- as long as they read it and enjoy it, I'd be happy.

egem · Oct 15, 2005

Ted yeah this is the base of the argument between literary and commercial writing. I don't know if I can post this here, but literary writers are more concerned about creating a book that will last through generations. That's why it takes so long to write, (House on Mango Street took l5 years and its like 110 pages long) and they don't care if they go with a commercial publisher. Remember Stephen King may not be remembered all that well after he dies. I mean by many people because the schools do not teach him extensively. A few of the books I've pointed to will be remembered even though the authors aren't making any money on them. Their stories are taught in schools right now, and those stories will be taught for many years to come. Someday some kid will be sitting in a classroom reading George Looney. The kid will grow up to be another Stephen King without ever having heard of Stephen King, ironic eh?

Literary publishing is done for different reasons and many of those authors wouldn't go with a commercial publisher. Many refuse to have agents saying only hack writers have agents even though agents would love to have their work.

Think of this: Arthur Rimbaud (I think I have the right poet) in the early 1900s paid a man to publish his work (POD). The guy did it, and Rimbaud refused to pay for the book because Rimbaud all along planned broke into the man’s warehouse and steal several copies of the book. The book circulated throughout Europe and now is hailed as one of the best collections of poetry of all time (by some). You can go to Walden’s right now and buy a copy of Rimbaud's work. I pretty sure the poet never made a dime off the book.

Jamesaritchie · Oct 15, 2005

egem said:
Ted yeah this is the base of the argument between literary and commercial writing. I don't know if I can post this here, but literary writers are more concerned about creating a book that will last through generations. That's why it takes so long to write, (House on Mango Street took l5 years and its like 110 pages long) and they don't care if they go with a commercial publisher. Remember Stephen King may not be remembered all that well after he dies.

If Stephen King follows the precedent of past writers of his ilk, he'll be remembered and read long, long after most literary writers are completely forgotten.

Time is seldom a factor of quality. For every literary novel, for ever classic novel, that took years to write, there are many that were written extremely fast. Sister Carrie was written in fourteen days. This may be extreme, but most literary writers who have been remembered through the generations were very prolific, wrote nearly as fast as most genre writers, and still produced lasting quality.

And as one literary writer stated in Poets & Writers, most literary novels that take five years to write actually take four years of procrastination and one year of work.

Literary writers who have stood the test of time went to the best publisher they could find, and most of the great literary fiction has, in fact, been published by good, commercial publishers.

No no one wants to read is bad fiction, I don't care what the intent of the writer was. And I'd say the odds of a kid reading Stephen King in school a hundred years from now is considerbly higher than the odds of that same kid reading any present day literary novel you can name.

egem · Oct 15, 2005

Jamesaritchie said:
If Stephen King follows the precedent of past writers of his ilk, he'll be remembered and read long, long after most literary writers are completely forgotten.

What ilk are you talking about?

Jamesaritchie said:
Literary writers who have stood the test of time went to the best publisher they could find, and most of the great literary fiction has, in fact, been published by good, commercial publishers.

This is just not true. Many of these authors weren't even Published in their life time.

Let's remember that King is not looked upon very well by the literary community. I read one story by him in my BFA program, and the prof ripped him. The lit community makes fun of him for writing stories that have no construct. I don't. I think is much better than some of the other authors that publish so widely.

As for a time of novel some take a short period of time, but many many literary novels take years and years and years.

LieselGarmach · Oct 15, 2005

egem, I've kind of hunted all around the boards looking for your other posts to get a better feel of who you are, because the first few posts I read were a bit extreme in one direction. That's not a bad thing, either.

I think what you've found yourself in is a quandry of what you want your writing to represent. Basically, it comes down to this: Do you want to write to write what you consider to be excellent literature that may or may be taught to future generations, or do you want to write quality fiction that will be read by many people now and then pushed off to the bargain shelves in a few years solely because the store needed more space for new books?

Once you can make that distinction, you'll figure out how to proceed. Then those here who are much more informed on the processes will be able to help you.

Until you can figure out your desired goal, you're pretty much stuck. What you do need to do, though, is get that longhand writing typed up so that when you get to the next steps, you've got something to work with. Until then, nothing else really matters....does it?

willietheshakes · Oct 15, 2005

egem said:
This is just not true. Many of these authors weren't even Published in their life time.

Name three.

And John Kennnedy Toole doesn't count, as he's at least as commercial as he is literary.

egem · Oct 15, 2005

willietheshakes said:
Name three.

And John Kennnedy Toole doesn't count, as he's at least as commercial as he is literary.

Emily Dickinson, Franz Kafka, Rimbaud, there are others. But I'm eating and not going to go through my lits right now.

egem · Oct 15, 2005

LieselGarmach said:
Once you can make that distinction, you'll figure out how to proceed. Then those here who are much more informed on the processes will be able to help you.

Until you can figure out your desired goal, you're pretty much stuck. What you do need to do, though, is get that longhand writing typed up so that when you get to the next steps, you've got something to work with. Until then, nothing else really matters....does it?

You are right. This is one of the reasons I posted here. I'm stuck between the two worlds of publishing, and honestly right now I don't know if I want to publish my work or not. I've had commercial publishers pounded into my head as a bad thing in many ways, and I don't know if I could go that route. I wanted to see if the book was leaning that way maybe I'd get lucky and accidently write something that could make money

victoriastrauss · Oct 15, 2005

Kafka did publish during his lifetime. Not the bulk of his work, and he didn't become famous until after his death. But he was no Van Gogh.

Trying to support a decision to eschew "commercial" publishing (which really just means publishing for the widest possible readership, whether that readership is the 2,000 people who will buy a literary novel or the 500,000 people who'll buy a thriller) by invoking now-famous writers who didn't publish in their lifetime is a mug's game. For every one you can name, fifty more were well-published. Some even made a good living from it. Nor can you compare present-day self-publishing to the various avenues taken by writers in the early decades of the 20th century, when the publishing industry as we currently know it didn't exist.

Egem, I don't think you're stuck between two worlds of publishing. You're stuck between two ideas of literature.

- Victoria

Birol · Oct 15, 2005

Egem, I think I understand how you are differentiating the commercial and literary writers.

Nabakov, Mann, and others like them were literary, or classical, writers, even in their lifetimes, but it is important to remember that, despite whatever your circle of writer acquaintances are telling you, these individuals did publish their writing for money during their lifetimes. Like the rest of us, they had to put food on the table and, while they may have had other jobs in addition to their writing, they still accepted money from publishers who were interested in publishing their work.

What you need to do is worry about writing the book you want to write, in the way you want to write it. Leave it to the agents, publishers, and readers to classify it as commercial or literature. You just tell the best story you know how to tell in the best way you know how to tell it.

inanna · Oct 15, 2005

Birol said:
What you need to do is worry about writing the book you want to write, in the way you want to write it. Leave it to the agents, publishers, and readers to classify it as commercial or literature. You just tell the best story you know how to tell in the best way you know how to tell it.

Well said. I'll see you that and even raise you one tired old cliche: write from your heart. Your dilemma is legit; I've heard the literati refer to 'commericial' fiction many times with only slightly less derision than when they speak of 'genre' fiction. It's all unworthy, at least to those who consider themselves the elite of the elite, anyhow. I think it's a pretentious waste of energy.

Make your story decisions based on what's right for you, the story and your characters. Write it the way you would want to read it, art and commercialism be damned. In my opinion, that's your best chance of making it come to life.

Dawno · Oct 15, 2005

Egem, you should seriously consider getting a group of beta readers together once your ms is typed up. They should have some experience with YA books as well as know enough about what makes good writing to give you feedback that's more valuable than "I liked it"

James Macdonald has put up a "learn writing" thread in this forum and there's an index to it where you can check specific posts if you don't want to read the whole thing. I think reading from the start is valuable because a lot of the later posts kind of depend on you having read the earlier ones, but the index helps.

There are a lot of great lessons on how to write a commercially publishable book in that thread.

scarletpeaches · Oct 15, 2005

Just as a quick aside - surely anything that sells becomes commercial, even if it is literary, by virtue of its having sold even one copy?

Jamesaritchie · Oct 15, 2005

egem said:
You are right. This is one of the reasons I posted here. I'm stuck between the two worlds of publishing, and honestly right now I don't know if I want to publish my work or not. I've had commercial publishers pounded into my head as a bad thing in many ways, and I don't know if I could go that route. I wanted to see if the book was leaning that way maybe I'd get lucky and accidently write something that could make money

A commercial publisher is nothing more than a publisher with books large numbers of people get to read. They publish more real literary fiction than anyone.

Don't let the word "commercial" fool you. If anything you write is really good, a commercial publisher will want it, treat it with great respect, and get it to more people than any other publisher. If what you write isn't any good, it doesn't matter where or how it's published, no one will want to read it.

There's nothing bad at all about commercial publishers, except usually in the minds of those who can't write anything a commercial publisher wants, or those who simply don't understand the business of publishing.

The ONLY way to know whethe ror not you've written something large numbers of people want to read, and something that can earn money, is to place that book in a position where large numbers of people have the chance to buy it.

Jamesaritchie · Oct 15, 2005

Well.

egem said:
Emily Dickinson, Franz Kafka, Rimbaud, there are others. But I'm eating and not going to go through my lits right now.

Actually, Emily Dickinson did publish a bit during her lifetime, despite what so many say. And the only reason she didn't sell a lot more was because she trusted the wrong person with her writing. She couold have sold everything she wrote. Kafka also pubished some. But trust me, they are the exceptions, and by a huge, huge margin. Exceptions prove a rule, not disprove it.

And far more often than not, the reason these exceptions didn't publish during their lifetiem was either because they did really silly things, like Dickinson, or were in a place and time where they really couldnt, like Kafka.

And you can't really use writers from so long ago as examples, anyway. The publishing world, shoot, the entire world, is completely different now.

Jamesaritchie · Oct 15, 2005

egem said:
What ilk are you talking about?

This is just not true. Many of these authors weren't even Published in their life time.

Let's remember that King is not looked upon very well by the literary community. I read one story by him in my BFA program, and the prof ripped him. The lit community makes fun of him for writing stories that have no construct. I don't. I think is much better than some of the other authors that publish so widely.

As for a time of novel some take a short period of time, but many many literary novels take years and years and years.

For every famous literary writer you can name who wasn't published during his or her lifetime, I'm positive I can name fifty who were.

As for King, not being respected in the literary community is almost a sure sign of a lasting writer. It isn't the literary community that bestows fame and lasting recognition, it's the reading public. Shakespeare wasn't well liked by the literary community of his day, either.

Birol · Oct 15, 2005

scarletpeaches said:
Just as a quick aside - surely anything that sells becomes commercial, even if it is literary, by virtue of its having sold even one copy?

It depends on how you are using the word 'commercial', Scarlet. There is a subset of writers who use the word to mean something that is generated primarily for mass consumption. These individuals tend to treat writers of popular fiction as if their works have no artistic or literary merit. They see 'commercial fiction' to be the equivalent of this week's hot song that is being played the all the popular radio stations and 'literary fiction' to be the equivalent of the music played by a symphony orchestra.

I'm not saying I agree with those individuals, but I have encountered them.

Old Hack · Oct 16, 2005

egem said:
Literary publishing is done for different reasons and many of those authors wouldn't go with a commercial publisher. Many refuse to have agents saying only hack writers have agents even though agents would love to have their work.

Egem, I'm not sure that's true. Most of the writers I know who write literary fiction have agents. Martin Amis, Doris Lessing, Margaret Attwood, Lesley Glaister, and so many more, are ALL agented and wouldn't dream of working without an agent. In fact I can't think of a single good writer without an agent (and before you ask, yes, I have an agent too!).

Question about my novel

egem

reph

Fig of authority

egem

MacAllister

Tired and worried.

reph

Fig of authority

Garpy

keyboard monkey

egem

ted_curtis

egem

Jamesaritchie

egem

LieselGarmach

willietheshakes

Gentleman. Scholar. Bastard.

egem

egem

victoriastrauss

Writer Beware Goddess

Birol

Around and About

inanna

Queen of Typos

Dawno

Shiny!

scarletpeaches

Jamesaritchie

Jamesaritchie

Jamesaritchie

Birol

Around and About

Old Hack

Such a nasty woman