At Dusk I Reign
Sage
I wouldn't say that the majority of people who work in the publishing industry are incapable of writing a novel.Like sending out rejection letters, perhaps?
I'd think it, but I wouldn't say it.
I wouldn't say that the majority of people who work in the publishing industry are incapable of writing a novel.Like sending out rejection letters, perhaps?
I probably should have chosen my words more carefully. Especially with you around to slap me down. Of course most people can write a novel - all that's required is discipline. Perpetrating art on an unsuspecting public, however, is a whole different kettle of frogs.I would only refrain from saying it if the sense of "incapable" being used were the moral one—that is, I would say that they are not incapable of perpetrating a novel. And I suppose that they would be no less capable of generating the requisite physical form of a novel than the celebrated Infinite Monkeys of Stratford-just-off-Avon, so that objection can be removed as well.
But writing one…?
Indeed, learning isn't the problem. There are writing workshops around the world which are busily engaged in teaching people how to write. The majority of those who attend such workshops will never write anything worth reading though. Why is that? I'd suggest it's because while theory can be taught, the 'innate talent' you so deride cannot (I'm not one of those who believe that simply writing about your cat makes you creative, at least not in any meaningful sense). Still, we've crossed swords regarding this topic elsewhere so I won't bother you further with my obviously antiquated views. I just thought your reply deserved a response as I tend to lose track of posts. I blame age, lack of sobriety, and the voices in my head which too often distract me.Most deficiencies can be overcome by perseverance and a will to learn; any that remain afterward can generally be taken care of by a decent copy editor. Barring organic brain damage, the only people who "can't" learn are the ones that believe they don't have anything to learn. And those people will indeed be incapable of writing a novel—regardless of whether or not they possess any (putative) innate talent.
Bloody hell, Ravana, choose an avatar already even if it's one of the default options - I feel like I'm in Legoland.
I figure a lot of people have the same problem I do. Inability to complete things/fear of rejection/too busy. That seems to have always been my problem. Plus I have what I call "creative ADD" in which I see something new and shiny I like and thus abandon something I've written 200 pages of.
just like most people can train themselves to paint well, or to play baseball well.
I'm taking a wild guess and to assume none of us here are best-selling authors.
Many of us could be one day, who knows for sure. My big problem is that I have a fear of sending stuff out to publishers. For short stories it's a bit easier. I'm going to start doing a lot of more of that. But overall, in my whole life, I've actually only probably sent out a half a dozen manuscripts for any type of publication.
The only print publications I have are two poetry anthologies I was solicited to write something for. I have a handful of online publications, but those were years ago, so I don't even remember where they were published.
All in all, what are your thoughts about submitting novels or stories? Do you have some fear of failure like I do? Are you confident and send stuff out all the time? Do you have trouble completing anything (like me) therefore you have nothing to send? Are you a widely published author and you can share some tips for me to become widely published?
I know most of the major fantasy publishers Del Rey, Bantam Spectra, and some others require solicited manuscripts from an agent. Unless that's changed. TOR I believe accepts unsolicited manuscripts but more often than not, you'll be in a humongous slush pile.
Me? I think I'm going to try the small press route. Most of my novels are kind of quirky so I'm not sure how well they'd stand in mainstream fantasy. But you never know. I may give the big boys a shot within the year!
Many publishing houses will at least look at "unsolicited" manuscripts, even when they say they don't. Unless you're already established as an author (with several short publications to your name), you shouldn't bother with an agent… assuming you could get one to bother with an unknown (and if you can, there's a good chance the agent isn't going to be very good… or scrupulous).
The best approach for a first novel is probably to send a query letter, along with publishing history, synopsis and first chapter. This is far more likely to get looked at than sending the whole thing in a box… not to mention easier on your stamp budget. If the publisher is interested, they will then solicit you–at which point it no longer falls into the dreaded "unsolicited" category.
Yes, you will be in a humongous slush pile, in nearly every situation–even if you are agented: all an agent does is try to send the manuscripts that, in their experience, a given publisher might be interested in… but that just means those submissions go in a separate, slightly smaller and marginally higher-priority slush pile.
My take on small presses is that you have to be very careful and attentive to detail, in order to make sure you aren't going to be ripped off–if, say, your contract calls for you to pay for part of the press run, or if you are going to be paid in a couple crates of copies which it then becomes your own job to distribute. (That's ignoring vanity presses, where you're paying for the whole thing.) Or they might accept the manuscript and take their own sweet time actually getting it to a printer… and then not offer you a kill fee for hanging on to it for years and then deciding they don't want it after all.
Also consider your goals: having a book published by a small press may net you very little in the way of exposure, or credibility in terms of convincing other publishers later that you're worth taking a chance on. (And vanity press publication will likely backfire, for the last of these.) That having been said, there's nothing wrong with small presses per se, only that you have to make sure of exactly what you're dealing with.
If you want to succeed in getting published, a thick skin is an indispensable necessity, as you will be rejected more often than not–a simple case of arithmetic: even if every single one of your stories gets accepted eventually (unlikely!), odds are it will have passed through several hands before it finally gets picked up.
The most important "tip" is: do your research. Make sure that your target publishes the sort of thing you're trying to sell them. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and theirs… and you do not want to obtain "name recognition" of the "Oh, god, not him again!" variety.…
I think that's pretty much true. I mean, maybe not everyone can be a *great* writer, one of the folks whose words are remembered for hundreds of years... But I think most folks, given enough time and effort, can train themselves to write well enough to tell enjoyable stories, just like most people can train themselves to paint well, or to play baseball well.
Some people are farther away from that goal than others - a 450 pound couch potato with no athletic background at all is much farther from being a competitive triathlete than someone who's stayed in shape all her life. But either *can* do it - one is just beginning from a more advanced position than the other. Likewise, someone who never reads, never writes, and has a poor grasp of spelling, grammar, and storytelling could become a pro-level author - it would just take a lot longer (and therefore require a lot more effort and discipline) than someone who had already built up those skills.
What we perceive as "talent" is more and more being shown to simply be skills whose foundations we have already put a lot of work into. Not always true, maybe - but it seems to be so more often than not.
I'll agree that there's some level of genetics involved. If you're born with above average intelligence, you will have an easier time tackling certain pursuits. Likewise, if genes favor you with good reflexes (higher fast twitch muscle counts), or a body type which stays in shape more easily, you might have a better than average response to some athletics.
But there's something to be said for hard work, too.
Genes can give someone an ability to pick up skills more rapidly; but they don't give the skills themselves (at least not in almost all cases). Trying not to sound equally cocky here - I was lazy through school, mostly because I was bored to tears. I was an auto-didact, did most of my learning on my own, and needed very little attention to school work to test very well. On the flip side, I was *never* talented physically (decent body shape, really poor early athletic focus). Despite that, I worked at martial arts hard enough for long enough to own one of the best schools in my state, very well known for the quality of instruction (something to do with having NOT been a natural, I think), eventually won a batch of medals from assorted nationals, and went on later to teach combatives courses to the US Army infantry.
Hard work trumps genetics.
You said that you "know for a fact that 85 percent of the people I know couldn't play baseball well if they hit two thousand balls a day for their entire lives". I suspect you'd be wrong - IF they were being taught to do so, training in an effective manner. With many skills, it's not enough to practice hard - you need to practice hard in the right way. The writer who writes every single day, without fail, but never reads anything to learn technique, or never has a master critique that technique, may well never earn great skill. Practice doesn't make perfect - perfect practice makes perfect. All that doing something the wrong way daily does for you is reinforce bad habits and poor craftsmanship.
It depends both on what your goal is and what you are talking about. If you are a writer and your goal is to get published, you are probably right. If, however, you play basketball and your goal is to get in to the nba, you are wrong. There are thousands of very talented 5'8" guys that work their asses off to play basketball. The lucky ones end up in a d II school and are never heard about. It all depends on what your definition of successful is.I think what you are there are actually three ingredients.
1. Skill - which you are in control to improve if you work at it.
2. Talent - which you either have upon birth or at a minimum are set at a very young age and won't change overtime
3. Perseverence - which is that you'll never stop until you reach your goal.
Of the three I think #3 is probably the most important as if you give up it's game over. If you have all 3 then I think there is no doubt that you will "make it". If you have #1 or #2 and #3 your chances are pretty good. So in that respect Kevin is right in his optimistic belief that anyone who tries hard enough CAN succeed (i.e. you can get there with #1 and #3) but will your writing be exceptional? Will it stand the test of time? Only if you manage to get published and have #2 - at least that is my cents worth.
It depends both on what your goal is and what you are talking about. If you are a writer and your goal is to get published, you are probably right. If, however, you play basketball and your goal is to get in to the nba, you are wrong. There are thousands of very talented 5'8" guys that work their asses off to play basketball. The lucky ones end up in a d II school and are never heard about. It all depends on what your definition of successful is.
Good point, I define success as "being able to make a living from your writing"
I
But "talent" is an innate ability that you either have or don't. The ability to invent ideas from nothingness can't be taught. You either do it naturally or you never will. I'm also a painter so I possess both of those innate abilities but I'll never be able to play baseball well enough for someone to pay me to do that for a living. No matter how hard I try or how much I might want to.
I usually find myself agreeing with Kevin but going to respectfully disagree this time. I think you CAN always improve your writing. In other words you can gain skill. Practice does make perfect and the more you do it...the more you study others...and attempt to learn from past mistakes...will make you a more "skillfull" writer than you were say 10 years ago.
But "talent" is an innate ability that you either have or don't. The ability to invent ideas from nothingness can't be taught. You either do it naturally or you never will. I'm also a painter so I possess both of those innate abilities but I'll never be able to play baseball well enough for someone to pay me to do that for a living. No matter how hard I try or how much I might want to.