Sci-Fi, fantasy and speculative Indie Authors Review discussion

I was thinking about my work today, and realised that I approached writing my second series differently from the first, because I didn't expect to submit the book to agents or publishers. I would be going direct to readers. I think my writing is more "natural" as a result, but the sales suggest that it's even less commercial. Have other authors seen a similar change, and how did it work out?

What do you mean by more natural? Ignoring rules or just being more descriptive?

I can't really say that I'd do anything differently. I wrote my first book with the intention of shopping it around,but after a very brief look at how the market had changed considerably in the decade since I'd last published, I went straight to indie and didn't look back. My next book was written with this knowledge and no, nothing changed.

Now, I will argue that my writing may have changed a bit in the last three years, but that has more to do with the natural changes from book one to two, three, etc.

Robert wrote: "What do you mean by more natural? Ignoring rules or just being more descriptive?"

In my first books I had more action, a more distinct story arc. The 'steps to space' series are much more saga-like. The problem the characters solve is to get off Earth, to the Moon, etc. No real bad-guys.

I simply write what I want, the way I want. If a publisher doesn't want that, then fine. (Not that I'm farming work out to publishers.)

The first book I wrote I did try to shop around and it was very different from what I've written since, but it wasn't written as well. That was just inexperience. It also happened to be a lot more ambitious than most of my stuff since then. All that was matter of changes inside me, not in reaction to perceived external audiences.

I think that's the way to go, Micah. Of course all my agent/publisher feedback is in my head anyway. All I got when I was submitting was form letters, with no indication anyone had read the MS.

Thank you for the discussion on "writing differently."

Before I wrote my first novel, I attended a series of writer's conferences and spoke to many novelists who had written their first book. Many were so discouraged after sending out dozens to hundreds of query letters to traditional publishers without a positive result that they were either considering abandoning their first work as "not good enough" or giving up writing altogether.

I made two resolutions from these observations: (1) I will write the books that I would like to have read (but no one else bothered to write them yet) and (2) No matter what else happens, I will get my books into the hands of readers (as opposed to acquisition editors who have an eye on reading trends and making enough money to support their company's business).

I am not at all opposed to traditional publishing, but in my humble opinion, chasing a traditional publisher can be a black hole of a time-waster. In addition, I think the very process of sending query letters invariably causes the writer to align their writing with the perceived expectations of acquisition editors.

I think there's two aspects to this. As Micah said, write what you want, the way you want it.
Publishers can try to push people into pigeonholes, or get them to effectively rewrite a version of the latest best seller.

But on the other hand Publishers aren't idiots. If they know that a certain genre does well between 60K and 200K words, they might suggest that you write your 600K epic so it falls naturally into three parts. In this case taking the advice of a publisher would make perfect sense and could reasonably produce a change

A lot of that information is out on the web, too, Jim. If one is prepared to do a bit of searching and to accept what one finds. Length, the more 'genre' you are, and less 'literary,' the more you have to stay in the 60-80k range. 90k-100k, you need to have serious intent. YA needs to be 40-60 - I must have been doing something wrong when I was young, reading the whole LOTR series in one shot. As I say, all the data is out there, though how believable it is, I don't know. I have an unusual advantage, that I'm retired and don't rely on my writing to put food on the table. Which is good, as I'd be starving by now and not writing anything at all. So I suppose it behoves me to follow my instincts, as I have no excuse for not doing so!

Richard wrote: "A lot of that information is out on the web, too, Jim. If one is prepared to do a bit of searching and to accept what one finds. Length, the more 'genre' you are, and less 'literary,' the more you ..."

Well there you go. I would never give two figs about whether the book I'm writing is the "correct" length for my genre, so I guess it's best I'm not writing to please a publisher.

i know i can dial it in for publishing companies (i rejected some contracts because i wanted more control of my work) but i refuse to change how the story is told to fit their idea. I've been told my works are good but they are hard to define. I'm just fine with that. if someone out there thinks they can market it better than i can to send it to the masses I'm all for it. but until then i will continue hammering out these doorstoppers because i very well can.

I never considered talking to agents or publishers an option. It just seemed like self publishing was the easiest way to get published. It was only later that I even noticed that e-book only was considered a green option.

I had thought to try the traditional route when I finally was given the ultimatum to write. Then, when I did get to the end of book 1, I didn't have the time to spend looking up, researching, and writing letters. I was already into the first weeks of an overload Graduate semester. I still looked at the smaller presses who were on Facebook, and the like. Talked to one, and they were interested.

I was too until I got the feedback that I'd have to change over half the book. (And, I'd warned them going into negotiations about the issue, too!) At that point, I knew self-publishing was the only way to go.

It's been a slow slog, but I'm also not complaining. With school, and all the homework that entails, I'm quite content for things to be moving slowly. Lets me keep my focus where it should be, while keeping the story at bay and letting me sleep.

Since then, books 2 and 3 have been a bit different. However, that's more because of the change in the story itself, not in my writing style. I write the way that feels natural. If someone out there likes what they read, and wants to help push it further into public notice - great! Otherwise, I'll keep working on it. Doors are starting to open for the indie published books that didn't used to be there, or were only for traditional books. It may mean a few extra hoops to jump through, but I don't see what benefit putting someone else between what I write and the readers provides to either side of that equation.

At this point in my life I don't worry about sales, just about the writing. Commercially viable and quality aren't really all that synonymous most of the time.

I don't think I write differently depending on what kind of publisher is going to get it, but rather on what I'm writing. The stuff I have written for traditional publishers have been articles and translations about films. I have had short stories in books that have been semi traditionally published and one that is going to be in a book that will be self published by a group of authors I'm in, and one flash fiction collection that I'm about to self publish myself. The film articles and short stories aren't written in the same style, but that has more to do with the material that I'm working with rather than the publisher.

Hmm it sounds like your meeting you expectations and disregarding agents and publishers. In clear terms with not writing to please them. You're writing for yourself and fans that you have. Which is a good thing, that's why everything feels natural.

I had a T/A in college that was all about writing to attract publishers. He had published a few poems, but did not have a large catalog of his work published. I had conversations with him that I believed you had to write for yourself first, and fans and publishers second and third. He disagreed, but I always believed if you didn't write for yourself first you would never come up with something new and creative.

Me and my co-writer planned to pitch our book to publishers but that didn't affect how we wrote it. It did mean trying to figure out which bit was likly to catch someone's eye.

That said, we didn't know Kindle's big self-published sellers are often short and serialised. That would've affected how we wrote it and we'd have a very different story as a result.

Charles wrote: "That said, we didn't know Kindle's big self-published sellers are often short and serialised. ..."

And on other threads and on other forums I've heard a lot of people say how much they hate serialised books so you might have been wise to avoid it. ;-)

It could be the serial format has been overdone

Some say the fashion for short books was driven by the royalty algorithm on Kindle Unlimited, which paid by the title, regardless of length. They now pay by the page, so that perverse incentive has gone away.

I wish there was a more effective mechanism for people who've read my books to contact me. I've been disappointed by the lack of feedback. Reviews are useful, but it would be nice to have some active discussion.

I know how you feel Richard but frankly I don't think the vast majority of readers want to have to cope with the author as a real person.
After all, if we've done the job properly we're the one person who hasn't intruded into their lives

One area where I definitely stray from what publishers are attracted to is length. My books go well over 100,000 words. My second is actually 200,000 which to my understanding, is not something a publisher is likely to take on. I enjoy long books though and feel it is important to let the story dictate the length. It's over when it's over. If I tried to write for publishers, I feel I would be short changing my readers.

i feel ya on that nathan -_-

I write what I like to read which isn't on the market of what book publishers like to see or accept. So writing what I want to write is best for me. I spent my time being in that box that is traditional publishing. I rather stay indie. If readers want to read something original then I welcome them to read my work. If not and you're too scared to go way outside the box then fine same goes for traditional publishers.

Jim wrote: "And on other threads and on other forums I've heard a lot of people say how much they hate serialised books so you might have been wise to avoid it. ;-)
"

DOOM!

My brother, a righteous dude but more of an intellectual than me, told me he tends not to buy from new authors if they have written series books, feeling that meant they were light-weight. He went on to confess that, if he finds an author he likes, he'll go on to read more by that author. So the old rule applies: you can't win, you can't even get even, and you can't get out of the game.

Richard wrote: "tends not to buy from new authors if they have written series books, feeling that meant they were light-weight..."

I'm kind of the same way--although I did recently read Asimov's entire Foundation series. Definitely not lightweight.

I know objectively that series books aren't all crap and lightweight, and yet I too catch myself thinking that...!

Richard wrote: "So the old rule applies: you can't win, you can't even get even, and you can't get out of the game. "

The only way to win is not to play

Because I've read so many great series, Jack Vance's Lyonesse or Asimov's Foundation Series, then I don't have a problem with them
You can get bad series by bad authors who would also write bad individual books :-)

I should make clear, I don't feel I've lost by being writing, on the contrary it's a great pass-time for me, and I never expected to make a living at it. The only true reason I "can't get out of the game" is that I enjoy being in it too much. And the cost? A couple hundred dollars to date, maybe.

It’s easier to make a living as a professional athlete than a novelist. I write because I can’t stop myself. If the odds are against a writer making a decent living off his/her work, than why not draw as much enjoyment from the process as possible. Besides, there is already a Stephen King and Grampa Tolkien, there is, however, only one of you. I always hear authors say, “write in your unique voice, then you will have the corner on that market”.

What common "rules" do you ignore when writing the way you want to?

Does anyone like multiple povs in the same paragraph?

OMG Robert. Multiple POVs in the same paragraphs!
I just did several critiques for Critters, and then decided to stop. There was some difficult stuff, but nothing that bad.

Can I challenge this group as well. In order to disarm the Traditional Publishers, Indies have to work twice as hard. I will do at least one review a month, probably more, but at least that...honest but kind. I challenge all Indie Authors to do the same and let us prove we can be just as good, if not better.

I might not be understanding you but I don't think anyone is going to disarm the traditional publishers by copying their methods.

Hmmm. I suppose. I think they are being disarmed already. And I think it is important for us to strive to achieve some standard that assures our readers a pleasurable experience. The biggest problem in publishing is no longer getting the creative product out there, it is raising the value of that product, and providing guidance to the reader they can trust.

Once a person is looking at books in Amazon, I don't see any easily recognizable tip offs that a book is written by an independent author. For me the biggest problem is getting people to see my book ad so they can decide to get it or look for a different one.

Yeah, as long as it 'looks' professional, I don't think readers care if it's indie or published. (And yeah, trying to get it looked at in a sea of other books is a pain in the painful place)