# Would you finish writing a trilogy if a publisher didn't accept your first novel?



## Lorna

I haven't got to this point yet, but this a question that's been playing on my mind. I've been working on a trilogy for over two years and since February this year have been focusing on writing the first novel and getting it up to a good enough standard to start looking for an agent / publisher. I'm hoping to complete it by the end of the year. 

If you were in a similar situation and your novel was rejected by a good number of agents / publishers would you take this as a message that your project was a waste of time and begin something else? Or would you decide that even if your novel does not fit in with the current market and those agents / publishers tastes your work still has value, self publish and press on?

My thoughts at the moment would be that after careful reassessment for fundamental flaws - plot holes etc. I'd do the latter.


----------



## Philip Overby

Personally, I tend to shy away from wanting to write a series for my first couple of books.  I just have an aversion to doing that even though some of my earlier efforts (that were aborted) were planned series.  I tend to want to go the way of Joe Abercrombie (although he did write a trilogy), and do stand-alone books set in the same world.  Characters can make "cameos" from other books, but they're not all tied together.  That way if several publishers don't like one book, then I won't have two or more other books in the same storyline that would be essentially useless.  

I'm all for series though.  I enjoy reading series and I'd like to do my own eventually, just not for my first major outing.

If self-publishing is your thing and you have the passion to really try to get it out there, then I'd suggest going that route if other publishers pass on it.


----------



## TWErvin2

*Lorna*,

I can relay to you, my experience, that might help you as you move forward.

I've written one novel (a SF novel) that has made its way out of the slush pile with two large publishing houses. It's currently with one now, on the managing editor's desk (well in the electronic queue) awaiting a full read and decision. (Glaciers move faster than many things in traditional publishing). I don't write trilogies, but more along the lines of series. I wrote the first three chapters of the next novel in the series (the first novel is standalone), to keep the same voice and tone, etc., and to make it easier to pick up the project. It's easier if something is started than beginning anew after a long time away. I also have an outline/information of where the 2nd novel will go.

With my first published fantasy novel (Flank Hawk), it took several times getting out of the slush pile before it was finally accepted by a publisher. It too was written as a standalone, but with the potential of a series. I had the idea and information for the next novel in a file, but I did not start writing it (Blood Sword) until after the first novel was accepted. While waiting for Flank Hawk to find a home, I worked on writing short stories and some other projects. And I did not begin Soul Forge (the third novel in the _First Civilization's Legacy Series_) until Blood Sword was accepted for publication.

I felt that if the first novel in a planned series couldn't sell, there was little reason to expend time and energy on other novels in that world/with those characters.  I could work on something new, realizing that if I found success with the new project, those other novels might eventually find a home with that publisher, or another publisher, once a successful track record/readerhsip is established.

Some folks will certainly chime in here stating that you should self-publish, especially if you cannot find a publisher. That's a viable option, and nothing wrong with it. It is an opporutnity that has much more potential than it did even four or five years ago.

If your heart is in writing a trilogy, I think that is something to consider as you move forward. You're going to spend _a lot_ of time writing and revising and editing. If your heart isn't in a project, the chances of having the motivation to finish it, especially if there is not guarantee that a publisher will pick it up, is going to be difficult to keep up.  You're going to probably read and revise and edit the first novel at least six or eight times.

Good luck as you move forward. If you write a compelling story, one that readers will find interesting, it'll eventually find a publishing home. If it doesn't, you can give it that home via self-publishing.


----------



## Chilari

In principal, I'd like to think I'd keep writing, but I think in practice I'd be demoralised. What I'm working on now is designed to stand alone, but there are two additional stories that would follow if it is a success. I don't want to put all my eggs in one basket, partly because I'm worried I won't finish this story, partly because I don't know if it will sell, and partly because I always have plenty of other ideas and concepts and if I lose passion for it in favour of another story I don't want to leave readers hanging. So my plan, I think, is to allow the space for a sequel without making it look like there will definitely be one.

Having said that, I haven't actually decided yet whether to try traditional publishing first or self-pub straight away. I would ideally do some research into them before making that decision. So the whole question might become moot.


----------



## yachtcaptcolby

This is one advantage to self-publishing: if you want to write a trilogy, you write the trilogy and put it out there. No waiting for someone to notice your first book, decide to take a chance on it, and like it enough to offer to publish the rest of your work. Granted, there's a lot to consider when self-publishing (finding an editor, finding a cover artist, laying out and designing your final product, marketing yourself...), but if you want to just write what you want to write and get it out there, it's the way to go.


----------



## Lorna

Thanks for your replies everybody. What sensible people you are. 

@Phil



> Personally, I tend to shy away from wanting to write a series for my first couple of books.



Perhaps if I'd come to this website and listenened to what sensible people do instead of deciding to go on the crazy mission of creating a whole world two years ago I would have been more cautious and not ended up in in a possible predicament. 

@TWErwin2



> (Glaciers move faster than many things in traditional publishing).



This really puts me off the idea of traditional publishing. I have seen sites with 5 month waiting lists, I'm guessing this is the case even if you go through an agent. Eek. I am a seriously impatient person. 



> I had the idea and information for the next novel in a file, but I did not start writing it (Blood Sword) until after the first novel was accepted. While waiting for Flank Hawk to find a home, I worked on writing short stories and some other projects.



This seems like a good idea. My only problem is after taking a month or so off this damn series I get pulled back to it. I really struggle to write anything else with as much passion.



> You're going to spend a lot of time writing and revising and editing. If your heart isn't in a project, the chances of having the motivation to finish it, especially if there is not guarantee that a publisher will pick it up, is going to be difficult to keep up. You're going to probably read and revise and edit the first novel at least six or eight times.



@Chilari



> but I think in practice I'd be demoralised



That is the opposite of my problem. I can't put the bl**dy thing down. If impatience is my worst quality, I'd probably say motivation's my best (hang on a moment, or is that obsessiveness?)

I know if this novel didn't get taken by a publisher it would be many years (if ever) before I wrote a different novel and attempted to get it published again, knowing how much work's gone into it, and how much I've given up (horse, car, social life) to buy the time to write it. I don't think I'd be able to move on and put my heart into anything else until the series was complete either. 

@yachtcahtcolby



> if you want to just write what you want to write and get it out there, it's the way to go.



Now self-publishing's beginning to sound more appealling... (My main issue with self-publishing is formatting. I just know I'd make a huge mess. Plus I can't even persuade people to buy raffle tickets. However am I going to market a book?). 

I think at this rate I'm going to home print it, home bind it, stick a copy in my local library and call myself published. End of.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Lorna, if I had sent my very first Fantasy novel to a publisher just to see it getting rejected, I would not have cared: I would have continued to write the second novel and then the third, because I love my story, I love my characters, I love my worlds and I write for myself first, and for possible publishers second.

In fact, I am glad that I never sent my first novel to any publisher...

Let's say that they would have accepted and published it, in the version that it was back then. Today I would feel terrible, because my first novel has evolved a lot and today it's much better than it was when I finished it!!

I think that we should not feel a hurry to publish our works =)


----------



## Zero Angel

I'd say the answer to your question is another question:

Are you writing to sell your work or are you writing to tell your stories?

If it is the former, then no, if it is the latter, then yes. 

I personally would finish. I don't write stories I'm not interested in, and from the sound of your posts, you feel the same way with your stories. If you don't get picked up, then make sure that you think it is a quality work and publish yourself.


----------



## JonSnow

Sheilawisz said:


> Lorna, if I had sent my very first Fantasy novel to a publisher just to see it getting rejected, I would not have cared: I would have continued to write the second novel and then the third, because I love my story, I love my characters, I love my worlds and I write for myself first, and for possible publishers second.
> 
> In fact, I am glad that I never sent my first novel to any publisher...
> 
> Let's say that they would have accepted and published it, in the version that it was back then. Today I would feel terrible, because my first novel has evolved a lot and today it's much better than it was when I finished it!!
> 
> I think that we should not feel a hurry to publish our works =)



I have re-written the first half of my first book at least a half dozen times over the past decade. And each time, my writing gets better and my story deepens. For new writers, I think this is fantastic advice. Don't rush it. Finish it, and try to publish it when the work is ready (if it ever gets to that point) to be published. But then again, I am writing for the pure satisfaction of creating something. If I never get published at all, I won't be let down. If I do, it will be gravy.


----------



## Steerpike

I would keep writing it.  If I finished the first one it means I believe in the story. A novel could bounce around for a couple of years getting rejections before selling. So unless you jump to another project,  you'd be well into the second book, or even finished with it potentially, before you know whether the first will sell. It seems to me the best course is simply to go by whether you believe in the story. If so, then you write it.


----------



## Devor

I think it would depend on whether you had any faith in the story or finished it just to finish it.

If you write the second and third book, it should help you to revise and market the first.  But if it's just a writing exercise that you have no faith in, then it's best to move on.

Of course, some things fall in between, and after the hurdle-and-reality-check of writing the first book, it might be a good idea to set the series aside, try something else for a bit, and get a little perspective.


----------



## Penpilot

Personally, my preference is to write stand alone novels with the potential to be expanded. I remember reading some where on the interwebzzz, the always reliable interwebzzz,  that a completed series of books is a more attractive package than the first in a series by itself. The eason is that everything is there. The publisher won't have to wait for the author to finish the subsequent books ... if they finish at all. 

Now if it were me, I'd only complete the first book, but I'd spend time scribbling down all the ideas I want to put in the rest of the books and sketch out an outline of the plots. If I do an outline with enough detail, it's almost as good as writing the books without spending the time writing them. That way if the first book gets picked up, I could just jump back in to the series without any doubt as to where its going. 

The reason I like to write stand-alones is because, for now, I think it's better for me as a writer to continually build stories from scratch. I want to focus on writing a good book before I move up to writing a good series. But that's me and my approach. 

Another thing to consider is, who says the next books in the series have to be totally dependant on the first one. There's always the option of writing the next books in the series as stand-alones. If the second book sells then you could say I have a prequel and a sequel ready.


----------



## Lorna

@Shielawitz



> getting rejected, I would not have cared: I would have continued to write the second novel and then the third, because I love my story, I love my characters, I love my worlds and I write for myself first, and for possible publishers second.



@Steerpike



> It seems to the best course is simply to go by whether your believe in the story. If so, you write it.



That's how I feel about my story. I believe in it. I'm going to give it the best chance I can by making sure it's totally up to scratch before I attempt to publish it in any way. But I'm going to complete it. If it doesn't fit the market now, that doesn't mean somebody won't pick it up in 10 - 20 or even 100 years time and appreciate it. I think if it delighted or inspired anybody I'd be very happy.


----------



## The Dark One

No.

With the caveat that I wouldn't give up if a publisher passed...but if lots of publishers passed? Life's too short and it's time to listen to what the experts are telling you.

A few months ago I had an article published in the New South Wales Writers' Centre magazine called: "The Importance of Being Rejected: The Destiny Police and the Digital Future" My basic point was that rejection serves a quasi-Darwinian purpose in that it forces you to lift your game again and again to finally become the writer you are capable of evolving into. 

When I completed my first novel (in 1997) I thought it was so obviously a work of pure genius that I simply assumed that my life would change profoundly as soon as the first publisher saw it. Over a hundred rejections later, I can honestly say I have improved out of sight as a writer - and how do I know? Because I can't open that first book these days without vomiting blood. It had some great ideas but the writing was appalling - I have improved enough to recognise how dreadful that first book was.

That's why self-publishing has a bad name in some circles. I don't deny there are some great self-published books (it's so hard to get trad publishers to pay attention, so why not self-publish?), but so many frustrated authors are self-publishing rejected first drafts - just because they can - and despite the fact that they have not yet evolved into the writer they are capable of becoming.

If it were me, I'd be polishing that first story and trying to get some professional feedback before wasting too much precious writing time on projects that are yet to be vindicated by a first volume acceptance.


----------



## Lorna

> A few months ago I had an article published in the New South Wales Writers' Centre magazine called: "The Importance of Being Rejected: The Destiny Police and the Digital Future"



Eek, that's got a totalitarian ring. 



> Life's too short and it's time to listen to what the experts are telling you.



I'm happy to take the advice of other writers. But not to let those in charge of the market ('The Destiny Police') determine my fate or the fate of what I write. From the current best sellers and a good half of what makes it onto the shelves, this is not judged by literary quality but what is marketable to the masses. For example _Fifty Shades of Grey_. 

I think it is a writer's obligation to hone their skills by reading good quality literature, listening to the critiques of their peers and not trying to publish in any way until the work is of a publishable standard. According to the traditions of Ancient Britain, it takes 12 years to make a Bard. From what I've read on this site, on reflection I'm inclined to believe this is around the time it takes somebody to get their writing up to a standard where it is of value to others. It's every writers duty to develop their potential to its fullest before they publish their work. So perhaps I'm being too hasty with my novel. 

I must say, the direction of this conversation is now pushing me further toward making self-publishing in the distant future my aim. I've got a few friends talking about forming a co-operative...


----------



## Lorna

On the other hand if I wanted to go with a traditional publisher I would only choose one whose values I agreed with. I'd make sure I knew exactly what they stood for and have read as many works by their authors as possible before I submitted.


----------



## The Dark One

You _do_ realise why I call them the Destiny Police I hope... 

In any case, there is no more valuable advice than the advice of a publishing professional telling you, in detail, why they're not publishing your work.  Presuming, of course, that they're a publisher you admire and that you believe your work belongs in their stable...when they start to actually spend real time talking or writing to you - as opposed to just the dreaded card with a box ticked (Not suitable for our list at this time etc) - that's when you're getting close. Really think about what they're saying to you and whether you're prepared to put in the extra work to achieve what they're asking of you.

Just because a person writes for 12 years plus doesn't guarantee they're improving. They might be making the same mistakes again and again. I can think of two unpublished writers I know (they're not on this forum so they won't be reading this) - they've both been writing for 20 years plus and, while they both have some skill with words and setting up premises, neither are any good at telling a novel-length story which has the power to engage a reader and keep their attention. And quite frankly, they're not interested in learning how because they fear that taking advice will somehow spoil the purity of their muse.

That's fine...as long as you don't care whether or not you have an audience.


----------



## Lorna

@ The Dark One

Finding a publisher where their work fits and receiving professional feedback and help must be every writer's dream. I imagine this takes a combination of talent and luck. It sounds like you had both and hit the jackpot. 

But what about people who are talented, open to critique and desire to improve but haven't found their niche? Is it only professionals who can aid writers up onto the rung of recognition or is there a way of getting there by learning from one's own experiences and the experiences and work of others?


----------



## Devor

Lorna said:


> But what about people who are talented, open to critique and desire to improve but haven't found their niche? Is it only professionals who can aid writers up onto the rung of recognition or is there a way of getting there by learning from one's own experiences and the experiences and work of others?



If you want to do well, you've got to find critiquers who know what they're talking about, and you'd be crazy to ignore them.  The reality is that such people are _hard to find_, picky about who they work with, and drowned out by wannabes.  A good critique talks about scene structure, pacing and character development.  A lousy critique talks about word choice, showing-not-telling, and whether or not you write in the style they like most.  Why?  A good critiquer knows that you need to do enough rewriting to make discussions about your sentence structure worthless, and once your scene is structured well, it's easier to address those issues with a _line edit_ than a critique.

In a nutshell, you've got to find people who think more like editors and less like High School writing counselors.  A writing counselor tries to nudge you into thinking about it differently and doing something better.  An editor just wants to fix it.  And you should be a good enough writer to see what he's doing, or why he wants you to change something, without having everything explained at length.  Believe me, the explanations would never end.

Self-Publishing can be great, but The Dark One is dead-on about the value of listening to people who know what works and what doesn't, even and especially the people rejecting your story.  If they send you a detailed description of what's wrong with your story, pay attention.  Good advice is hard to find.


----------



## Lorna

@Devor



> A good critique talks about scene structure, pacing and character development. A lousy critique talks about word choice, showing-not-telling, and whether or not you write in the style they like most. Why? A good critiquer knows that you need to do enough rewriting to make discussions about your sentence structure worthless, and once your scene is structured well, it's easier to address those issues with a line edit than a critique.



Thanks for this. I've just realised that at the moment my critiques fit into the lousy category.

Whilst finding someone professional to critque your work would be a gem these are also qualities writers can work on, critiquing others and critiquing their own work, right?


----------



## Devor

Lorna said:


> Thanks for this. I've just realised that at the moment my critiques fit into the lousy category.
> 
> Whilst finding someone professional to critque your work would be a gem these are also qualities writers can work on, critiquing others and critiquing their own work, right?



I guess that's a "Thanks" that could serious, sarcastic or bittersweet.  I'll assume the best.

I'm ambitious so I try and write for the "Wow" factor.  I try and imagine a moment that would make the readers go "WOW!" and build the scene around it.  Sometimes I get that "WOW!" and sometimes I don't, but it helps.

I find posting in the Writing Questions and World Building forums more helpful to me than the Showcase because they help me develop my own idea of what a good story looks like.  When it comes to prose, I think you're going to learn more by interacting with prose that's _better_ than yours.

If you want to learn how to write, grab a book off the shelf that you have criticisms about, open to a chapter where there's a lot going on, _and rewrite it to make it better_.


----------



## Ankari

@Devor. 

I think I'm with Lorna in that I give the wrong critique on these forums.  If I understand this properly, you actually suggest that I critique the story elements itself, rather than the writing technique.  My question are:

1) Based on feedback I've received when I do address story elements, the authors tend to stiffen their spines and defend their story.  How do you suggest I circumvent such tension?

2) If the word choices are truly distracting, is it wrong to critique it and suggest an alternative?

3) I sometimes find that certain mini scenes within their submissions are missed opportunities that require expanding.  Is it wrong to address what I feel as missed opportunities and allow the author to write as they please? 

4) And finally, do you have an example of a solid critique?


----------



## Lorna

@ Devor



> I guess that's a "Thanks" that could serious, sarcastic or bittersweet. I'll assume the best.



I'm not being sarcastic. Admittedly I had an "oh s**t!* moment but I'm grateful for your comment as it will help prevent further mistakes. 

Perhaps it might be helpful if there was an article on the showcase on the qualities of a good critique and some examples to prevent well meaning people such as myself giving poor critiques and possibly having negative effects on people's work?


----------



## Devor

I probably say this stuff often enough that I should just make a big post or article about it.

People do get defensive, and others really do need to work on their prose skills, so I didn't mean to post a blanket criticism of every critique everywhere.  But if you're really working towards getting something published, you've got to talk about story elements first, and then look for people to do a full line edit rather than debate every phrase.

I can come up wifh some examples when I'm not on my kindle.


----------



## Lorna

> But if you're really working towards getting something published, you've got to talk about story elements first, and then look for people to do a full line edit rather than debate every phrase.



Ok, cool. I'll do some reading up on story elements and prioritise these the next time I critique something.


----------



## Penpilot

Ankari said:


> I think I'm with Lorna in that I give the wrong critique on these forums.  If I understand this properly, you actually suggest that I critique the story elements itself, rather than the writing technique.



I'm not Devor but I've come across some of the issues you've faced in the various writing groups I've been in. My basic approach to critiques is start from the big picture issues like plot, character, and logic of the world, then work your way down. If the big picture issues are plentiful, and in your opinion significant enough to require a big rewrite, there's not point in telling the writer they missed a comma. Also the little problems may be just symptoms of the larger issues that will go away once the big stuff gets resolved. 



Ankari said:


> 1) Based on feedback I've received when I do address story elements, the authors tend to stiffen their spines and defend their story.  How do you suggest I circumvent such tension?



This is a tough one, probably one of the toughest for me. The standard approach for me is find the good stuff in their work, mention these first to acknowledge there are good things in the writing and that you see them. This establishes to them what they're doing well. Only then do I start in to the problems. Usually I try to phrase things in the form of a questions like, What do you think if instead of X the story does Y? I try to avoid telling them what they should do but instead provide options of what they could do and why. I try to get them to think about a suggestion and process it, but at the same time give them opportunity to easily say No. And finally, it's kind of silly but I find it works, is never say "You did this wrong" or "You missed this". It's confrontational to the person when phrased that way. Use phrases like "The story missed this opportunity."

This approach is good for people you really don't know. But once people get to know each other and are comfortable, things can be more blunt. You can just start saying stuff like "What this character is doing is actually kind of dumb." 



Ankari said:


> 2) If the word choices are truly distracting, is it wrong to critique it and suggest an alternative?



Usually I just say the word choice was jarring and didn't work for me. I don't tell them what word to use unless they ask. Finding that new word and knowing when to take a suggestion to change and when not to are skills they should develop.



Ankari said:


> 3) I sometimes find that certain mini scenes within their submissions are missed opportunities that require expanding.  Is it wrong to address what I feel as missed opportunities and allow the author to write as they please?



I never say they require expanding. I say they could be expanded and explain what they gain from expanding and leave it at that. Never tell the author how they should write their story, because sometimes there's a method to their madness that you just don't understand or see. 

These are things I've gleaned from my experience. I don't know if they work for everyone, but usually they help me. By the writer's responses I can usually tell if the writer is ready for a critique of any sort. Some people are not ready to receive a critique no matter how nicely or logically you present things. I can usually tell by their attitude and this look they get. It tells me no matter what I say they're not going to really listen. 

My two cents.


----------



## Zero Angel

I think PenPilot's got the right idea here for the most part. Saved me the effort of writing it myself =]


----------



## Devor

Lorna said:


> Perhaps it might be helpful if there was an article on the showcase on the qualities of a good critique and some examples to prevent well meaning people such as myself giving poor critiques and possibly having negative effects on people's work?



I don't want to sound arrogant, but I'm going to quote my own critiques.  I wrote seven short critiques for the Legendary Sidekick Trigger Challenge, and the stories they're reviewing are all on the same thread as the critiques.  Don't take it as me saying "These are the best critiques ever!" but rather, "this is how I try to do critiques when I write them.

They're here.

These are short, so bear that in mind, but I've tried to talk about story elements.  I do talk about their prose, but in a you've-a-pattern-of-this sort of way.

Also, the link in my signature connects to my Mythic Scribes articles, the latest of which does talk about some of these things as well.

Again, this is just what I try to focus on when I do critiques.


----------



## The Dark One

Lorna said:


> @ The Dark One
> 
> Finding a publisher where their work fits and receiving professional feedback and help must be every writer's dream. I imagine this takes a combination of talent and luck. It sounds like you had both and hit the jackpot.
> 
> But what about people who are talented, open to critique and desire to improve but haven't found their niche? Is it only professionals who can aid writers up onto the rung of recognition or is there a way of getting there by learning from one's own experiences and the experiences and work of others?



Talent and luck? Of course, but more important than luck is persistence...in everything. Constant rejection can be soul destroying, but you simply have to keep believing that you really do have what it takes (if that's what you really do believe in your heart of hearts). And what it takes is a hell of a lot of dedication to the ideal of being commercially published. It's like being a knight on a quest - totally giving yourself over to the cause, no matter how many years you have to spend alone in empty rooms tapping away and staring into the screen...sending off submisions...reading rejections...tracking down more potential publishers and agents and trying to establish a relationship...trying to learn from your mistakes and starting all over again...year after year after year.

Amateur writers groups (in my opinion) can only take you so far. The trouble is that people develop relationships and can't be completely honest with each other, which means you gravitate towards the people who say nice things about your work and avoid the people who say uncomfortable things. The uncomfortable things aren't necessarily right, just because they're uncomfortable, but there's a better chance that they'll be honest opinions as opposed to opinions moderated to avoid hurting your feelings.

Praise encourages you to stay the way you are. Criticism challenges you to change. If you're being praised by amateurs but being knocked back by professionals, you need to find people who tell you your writing is crap because the people praising you (in all likelihood) are preventing you from getting published.


----------



## SeverinR

I agree with Zero.

Write for your enjoyment. If the first sells, great maybe the second will sell. If not you still enjoyed writing it.

Write for money or fame, you will fail most of the time.
Write for your enjoyment, you win everytime.

You improve with every paragraph you write, so nothing is wasted


----------



## Devor

SeverinR said:


> Write for money or fame, you will fail most of the time.
> Write for your enjoyment, you win everytime.



I think I've seen many, many successful creatives say it's important to put the audience first.




SeverinR said:


> You improve with every paragraph you write, so nothing is wasted



That isn't true by default.  You can definitely fall into the trap of training yourself to write poorly if you aren't heeding the right feedback and trying to improve.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

Devor said:


> I think I've seen many, many successful creatives say it's important to put the audience first.



Important... for what goal? I can think of ways I could put the audience first that would make me absolutely hate to write. If I hate doing it, I'm not going to do it.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I say you are your own audience. Write the story you'd want to read. 

I'd certainly finish any story I'd want to read... Stand alone or series, it wouldn't matter.


----------



## SeverinR

Devor said:


> I think I've seen many, many successful creatives say it's important to put the audience first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't true by default.  You can definitely fall into the trap of training yourself to write poorly if you aren't heeding the right feedback and trying to improve.


1st: while what you said, might be true, what I said is true also.  If you write trying to sell the product, you will fail alot. If you write to entertain yourself, you probably won't fail and will probably do it better then trying to sell what you think people want.

Because writing to what you think the people want, tends to fall in a rut, or become cliche.  You become a carbon copy of what came before you.


2nd; true, you must get the right feedback to improve how you write in the future and how you edit. 
Read-heed-feed-proceed.
Read to see how others do it,
heed the advice of others that have done it.
feed your knowledge
Proceed to write and use what you learned above in the writing.


----------



## Rosered

Sheilawisz said:


> I am glad that I never sent my first novel to any publisher...
> 
> Let's say that they would have accepted and published it, in the version that it was back then. Today I would feel terrible, because my first novel has evolved a lot and today it's much better than it was when I finished it!!
> 
> I think that we should not feel a hurry to publish our works =)



Well said, Sheilawisz. 
In those days when I was a snip of a novice, I sent sample pages and synopsis of my sweeping epic off to a big mainstream publisher, believing that they would snap it up. I loved it, so why wouldn't they? Yes, that's how naive I was.
When they asked me for the whole manuscript, I was overjoyed.
The trouble was, it was a first draft and I hadn't even finished it. Didn't bother to do any editing and, when I look at it now, I squirm with embarrassment.
I did manage to get a "rave rejection" but blew my chances with them for an eternity.
Ten years down the line and the story has taken on a mind of its own while my writer's voice has really matured. Characters and environments are well developed and I'm glad it wasn't published then.
Like a single malt, give your work time to mature to improve the quality.


----------



## Darkfantasy

1) You should be writing it because you love and it's a story your yearning to tell.
2) Just because one or two Agents refused it doesn't mean others will, plus your story not be 1 one ranking right now but in ten tears time a plot like yours could be hitting the ten most wanted list!

Are you writing for the market? If so then No and writing for the market is an impossible goal anyway, it's always changing. That can be good and bad.
If you write becuase of the story then continue if the Market is strong for your type of work it could swing your way in a few years.

Don't worry, thoughts like this will pollute your mind and you'll go crazy, like me. Just chill out and enjoy your writing.

All the Best
x


----------



## Lucipher

I don't think I would


----------



## Butterfly

Why?

One publisher is that... just one. Who's to say that once it's finished, the next publisher on the list won't say yes?

Mind you, I think they are more likely to say yes once the entire trilogy is actually finished, and if it's been edited enough.


----------



## Zero Angel

Butterfly said:


> Mind you, I think they are more likely to say yes once the entire trilogy is actually finished, and if it's been edited enough.



Is this true? It seems to be a recurring sentiment on this thread. It's better to go in with the entire series finished? Everything I've read about querying and such assumes that the *first* book isn't finished, let alone the entire series (although that also includes nonfiction with fiction). 

Does anybody have any data on this or personal experiences?


----------



## Steerpike

Fantasy publishers like a series. That said, they are reluctant to extend themselves on a new unproven author for a book series. There are exceptions, of course, but I think the best thing you can do is have a complete first novel, but one that is susceptible to being developed into a series


----------



## Ireth

Zero Angel said:


> Everything I've read about querying and such assumes that the *first* book isn't finished, let alone the entire series (although that also includes nonfiction with fiction).



I have to wonder why anyone would query an unfinished book -- not simply an unpolished one, but literally a half-finished manuscript. It's one thing to have a synopsis or blurb of where you want the story to go, but you may find that the story changes as you write, and then the blurb/synopsis you wrote will be useless. If the story changes too much from your original vision, then the publisher may not want your story after all.


----------



## Butterfly

I echo Steerpike's statement. It's about the investment of money, time and trust. After all, as a relative unknown, I don't think it likely a publisher would have absolute trust in an unproven author. Finish at least one book and it proves that you have the staying power to get through one book, add a half written second book, and have detailed plans on the third and you are much closer. Even I think just as likely to be trusted as if you have finished the full three.


----------



## Zero Angel

Ireth said:


> I have to wonder why anyone would query an unfinished book -- not simply an unpolished one, but literally a half-finished manuscript. It's one thing to have a synopsis or blurb of where you want the story to go, but you may find that the story changes as you write, and then the blurb/synopsis you wrote will be useless. If the story changes too much from your original vision, then the publisher may not want your story after all.



I believe the idea is so that you get paid before writing.


----------



## Steerpike

Zero Angel said:


> I believe the idea is so that you get paid before writing.



Works with nonfiction. Fiction, not so much.


----------



## MichaelSullivan

I would not take this as an indication it was a waste of time. I would put it out self-published and see if you can get an audience that way.  I wrote all six books before publishing any of the them, and while I don't recommend that approach it worked out well for me ;-)


----------



## MichaelSullivan

Steerpike said:


> Works with nonfiction. Fiction, not so much.



For a first book...very true. But most publishers want a muti-book deal and will routinely sign 3-books even though book 2 and 3 are not written.  Once you've been with a publisher, your NEXT project can, and usually is, sold with just 3 sample chapters and an outline.


----------



## Steerpike

MichaelSullivan said:


> For a first book...very true. But most publishers want a muti-book deal and will routinely sign 3-books even though book 2 and 3 are not written.  Once you've been with a publisher, your NEXT project can, and usually is, sold with just 3 sample chapters and an outline.



Ah...that's good to know. I suppose with the first one complete you've shown you can finish a novel, and if they like it well enough they're willing to take a chance on future work.


----------



## The Dark One

MichaelSullivan said:


> For a first book...very true. But most publishers want a muti-book deal and will routinely sign 3-books even though book 2 and 3 are not written.  Once you've been with a publisher, your NEXT project can, and usually is, sold with just 3 sample chapters and an outline.


This is another example of how things are different in Australia. Publishers used to want (routinely) a multi-book deal, but not any more. They want to know that you've got more books in you, but (in most cases) they only want a one book deal to test the water.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Steerpike said:


> Ah...that's good to know. I suppose with the first one complete you've shown you can finish a novel, and if they like it well enough they're willing to take a chance on future work.



Right. I gather this really, really depends on your rep and reliability. I know one writer who can spin up a first chapter and synopsis, and says he gets about a fifty percent acceptance rate based on that alone. But he has scores of books to his credit, and a long history of reliable sales. Not so sure it would work for a newer writer.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Fundamentally, I suspect the answer to this question depends on your career plans and goals.

If you are absolutely set on traditional publishing, you're probably best writing a novel which could become a series, and submitting it. You might even talk about where the series can go next in your submission letter, but the first book probably ought to be complete unto itself. If you're a new writer, publishers often want to be able to "try one" without being tied into producing more books if the first one tanks. If it does mediocre sales, your sequel might not be picked up, and it's not unlikely that you'll have trouble selling sequels to another publisher instead.

If you're open to other methods, then you have much more latitude. I might be happier to start on a sequel, knowing that even if I submit the first book around and it's rejected, I will still be publishing it and any sequels myself, through my own imprint. Today, no book is ever truly dead, even if rejected by publishers, unless the writer chooses to make it so. (Keeping in mind, of course, that sometimes the editors rejecting a book are right, and the book simply isn't ready to be published; caveat scriptor?)


----------



## julidrevezzo

Actually had this happen--once or twice. My first outing, I wrote the first book, and sent it out. It didn't get published. The second time I got up the nerve to submit I wrote the series of manuscripts, first, (WOOHOO!) then submitted the first book. I'm very happy I did that, just for the personal satisfaction to prove to myself I could pull off a series. There's a third title--I wrote the book, and submitted it, got a revision letter (woohoo--I'm in revisions with it right now). However, then I told the publisher  that I had an idea for a second book. Guess what? Never got beyond the first chapter of book two. So, I guess for me, the moral I learned was write the whole darned thing, _then_ tell the publishers it's ready. LOL


----------



## WyrdMystic

The Dark One said:


> This is another example of how things are different in Australia. Publishers used to want (routinely) a multi-book deal, but not any more. They want to know that you've got more books in you, but (in most cases) they only want a one book deal to test the water.



That's because publishing the debut for an author is essentially a gamble for any house. They don't want to pay for the rest if the first doesn't make it. I would of thought though they would still try and get the exclusivity for x books in the contract and just pay an advance for book one.


----------

