The SF editor Ted White once lamented that Richard A Lupoff would never achieve the success he deserved because, though a better writer than most in the genre, he couldn't bring himself to write the same kind of book twice. And that's just in the fairly narrow confines of fantasy and SF. You can hop between genres and still make it in the mainstream, but only if you're willing to adopt the same narrative voice all the time (think Calvino or Bradbury) and that's as much a straitjacket as genre. In any case, these days publishers interfere far more with a book than I'd be able to tolerate. Traditionally published friends have had whole chunks of their story moved around (unnecessarily, I think) and in one case the publisher even insisted on changing the opening line to force a fit with other, quite different, books by the same author. The last time I submitted a book I got back rewrite notes from three publishers that all pulled in entirely different directions -- and all were absolutely convinced their approach was commercially the best one. So I raise a glass to any writer who just sets out to please themselves. We get better books that way.
Hear, hear, Matt! We don't remain interested in the same thing for our whole lives. Inquiring, creative minds explore all over the place. It's natural that we want our creative work to do the same. Also, we age. We find new world views we want to explore. New experiences we want to process in our art. It's completely natural for our work to evolve, sometimes across the boundaries between one kind of book and another.
In publishing it's still considered an oddity for a writer to step outside their tramlines. In music it's always been more accepted because we've seen more high-profile examples of it. It helps that those are usually highly publicised too, by rich record companies who don't dare oppose them, or the artistes are rich enough to fund the publicity themselves, but it does also do the job of educating the world about how creative people think. Sting can do thrashy guitars with the Police and lute songs a few decades later and he's regarded as a rounded, developing human being.
It's just as natural for writers to evolve.
The big problem, then, is taking readers with you. All the publicity is massively expensive and not guaranteed to work anyway. But expensive or not, that doesn't change the fact that a creative, sensitive, inquiring soul is always going to evolve, to discover new joys, new concerns, to get excited by styles and forms they haven't yet tried. It is the natural creative state.
Totally agree with you, Matt, & you've let me off the hook regarding building a large following, chasing up an agent, or even working out my style.
I am slowly publishing my memoirs here on Substack, but did intersperse it with some varied flash fiction, &from the challenge I set my writing group of writing 10 minutes every day I'm writing a crime story. Like you I read widely &do need to get all these random stories out my head
Honest thinking about commercial success. Over my 50 years of reading, I've discovered that becoming a successful commercial author takes luck and a single-minded focus on writing for the market. It's just not for everyone. Especially those with an active imagination and a desire to tell unique stories that arent' constrained by genre. My partner, Lisa, is an award winning author who has never had commercial success, not because she doesn't try, but she has had terrible luck with agents and the timing of her books being published. I wonder if much of a writer's success is simply luck and timing.
It's not just writing - commercial success in any artistic or business endeavor involves a lot of luck and timing, plus marketing and persistence. The quality of the product or service is no guarantee of success.
The SF editor Ted White once lamented that Richard A Lupoff would never achieve the success he deserved because, though a better writer than most in the genre, he couldn't bring himself to write the same kind of book twice. And that's just in the fairly narrow confines of fantasy and SF. You can hop between genres and still make it in the mainstream, but only if you're willing to adopt the same narrative voice all the time (think Calvino or Bradbury) and that's as much a straitjacket as genre. In any case, these days publishers interfere far more with a book than I'd be able to tolerate. Traditionally published friends have had whole chunks of their story moved around (unnecessarily, I think) and in one case the publisher even insisted on changing the opening line to force a fit with other, quite different, books by the same author. The last time I submitted a book I got back rewrite notes from three publishers that all pulled in entirely different directions -- and all were absolutely convinced their approach was commercially the best one. So I raise a glass to any writer who just sets out to please themselves. We get better books that way.
I sold a book last month. I'm happy with that.
Hear, hear, Matt! We don't remain interested in the same thing for our whole lives. Inquiring, creative minds explore all over the place. It's natural that we want our creative work to do the same. Also, we age. We find new world views we want to explore. New experiences we want to process in our art. It's completely natural for our work to evolve, sometimes across the boundaries between one kind of book and another.
In publishing it's still considered an oddity for a writer to step outside their tramlines. In music it's always been more accepted because we've seen more high-profile examples of it. It helps that those are usually highly publicised too, by rich record companies who don't dare oppose them, or the artistes are rich enough to fund the publicity themselves, but it does also do the job of educating the world about how creative people think. Sting can do thrashy guitars with the Police and lute songs a few decades later and he's regarded as a rounded, developing human being.
It's just as natural for writers to evolve.
The big problem, then, is taking readers with you. All the publicity is massively expensive and not guaranteed to work anyway. But expensive or not, that doesn't change the fact that a creative, sensitive, inquiring soul is always going to evolve, to discover new joys, new concerns, to get excited by styles and forms they haven't yet tried. It is the natural creative state.
Totally agree with you, Matt, & you've let me off the hook regarding building a large following, chasing up an agent, or even working out my style.
I am slowly publishing my memoirs here on Substack, but did intersperse it with some varied flash fiction, &from the challenge I set my writing group of writing 10 minutes every day I'm writing a crime story. Like you I read widely &do need to get all these random stories out my head
Honest thinking about commercial success. Over my 50 years of reading, I've discovered that becoming a successful commercial author takes luck and a single-minded focus on writing for the market. It's just not for everyone. Especially those with an active imagination and a desire to tell unique stories that arent' constrained by genre. My partner, Lisa, is an award winning author who has never had commercial success, not because she doesn't try, but she has had terrible luck with agents and the timing of her books being published. I wonder if much of a writer's success is simply luck and timing.
It's not just writing - commercial success in any artistic or business endeavor involves a lot of luck and timing, plus marketing and persistence. The quality of the product or service is no guarantee of success.