Science fiction agents

[Havlen]

I wouldn't say that I am talking about the way I'd like things to be so much as they way they should logically be. (Not that I wouldn't like them to be that way.) But, from what you've said, I just don't see why the editor should care so long as they are receiving as many books from the author in the original genre as they already are receiving. At that point, they haven't lost anything by the author trying out a different genre on a pseudonym.

Note: I am talking only about the reasons already stated. There could be other reasons (not stated) that I am not commenting on. For example, the risk that the pseudonym would be revealed and there would be some type of backlash on the author.

[John Jarrold]

Because it's incredibly unusual for an author to write in one genre to a commercial standard. And each genre is separate. Just because an author can write fantasy wonderfully, if doesn't follow that he or she can also write SF, humour, crime or anything else to a high, commercial standard. They each exercise different muscles

The words publishers live by in 2008 are 'Life's too short'. Any author not willing to stick to one genre and work at it over a career is usually consigned straight into that bin. And as I have said elsewhere: of course there are exceptions, but they ARE exceptions.

[Havlen]

I agree. It is incredibly difficult and rare to be able to write commercially in multiple genres. No doubt, much much much much more rare than the author who wants to write in multiple genres. (Did I put enough much's into that?)

My question would be, why would the editor care? Given that the author is going to turn in books in the original genre at roughly the same rate, the fact that he may or may not be able to write historical fiction good enough to be published should be relatively immaterial. If the historical fiction isn't up to a commercial standard, it shouldn't be published.

Please understand, I am not arguing with you here. I'm sure what you say is true, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning of it.

I'd guess it falls more into something along the lines of: I doubt you can write in multiple genres effectively, because that is very rare, and while you say you'll still give me my books just as fast, I don't believe you -- you trying out this new genre is probably going to create delays for me getting my next book.

But, I am curious on if there is anything else, such as: I am worried you'll put out a historical fiction under a pseudonym, see lagging sales, think you can boost those sales by revealing your pseudonym, and that will create a backlash for the fantasy books you work on with me.

(Hey, its fun writing as an editor in first person!)

[John Jarrold]

No, publishing is very, very difficult. It's just unnecessary to put extra hurdles in the way like pseudonyms or changing genres. Basically, what any publisher is looking for is an author who writes one wonderful book a year in the same genre - not repeating the same book, but staying in the same general area. Don't complicate it. I spoke this evening to a senior editor - thirty years experience in UK publishing, publisher of some of the bestselling novelists over that period, including SF and fantasy - and during our conversation about Life, the Universe and Everything said I was having a conversation (I didn't say where, or if it was online, via e-mail or by phone) with a newish writer about pseudonyms and authors changing genres. Their immediate reaction was: Hmm. That sounds like a difficult customer who I'd avoid like the plague. Just FYI...

And never, never tell long-term publishers how you think their business should work, if you're an unpublished author! Every editor and agent has a file marked 'Trouble', and this is the sort of thing that leads to a writer being thrown into that file.

Keep it simple...

[Havlen]

Oh, no doubt, if I was talking without the umbrella of anonymity I would keep an eye on diplomatic phrasing. My goal isn't to tell you or anyone else how publishing should work (I know far too little about it to do that!) -- My goal is to understand why it works the way it works.

(I probably could have phrased it better in the post above, but I'm flipping back and forth between this and an article on using MyYahoo as an RSS Feed reader, so I am a little distracted!)

Personally, I would have no problem continuing in a single genre. I write multiple genres now because I write what comes to me and sparks my interest. I also work on multiple books at the same time. (Well, one book at a time, but I switch books between drafts.) But I wouldn't submit a fantasy book unless I was willing to do fantasy exclusively.

It's just good to know the how's and the why's so I can keep it in mind. It helps me to decide what to do with the lone science fiction book I have written -- and likely to be my last science fiction book. I'm no science fiction writer, even if Stranger in a Strange Land is one of my favorite books of all time

[Teatime]

Interesting to read this thread. Thinking about me specifically, maybe I gave the wrong impression when I said I wanted to try different genres - I don't mean I plan to write a crime novel after this current one. But I would say my work is far more influenced by the 'weirdness' of someone like Kazuo Ishiguro, who merges literary and sci fi, rather than, say, George R R Martin.
While I'm not saying that I've succeeded, that's certainly what I've tried to do with my first novel - it is undeniably sci fi (set in the future for a start!), but that is essentially because I felt that was the best place to say what I want to say. It is possible - maybe even likely - that my next novel will tone down the sci fi elements, keep the 'weirdness' elements, and keep the 'literary' elements as well.

So - there ARE consistencies, I just have a problem of classifying, I think!

Incidentally - to anyone, but John in particular - would you classify Kazuo Ishiguro as a sci-fi writer?
What about someone like Russell Hoborn (the person behind Ridley Walker)?

Thanks

[John Jarrold]

No, Ishiguro and Russell are writers who sometimes use SF tropes in their writing - they are 'literary' novelists. You don't find them on the SF shelves in your local bookshops, which is a good rule of thumb. Martin Amis, Jeanette Winterson, Doris Lessing, Margaret Atwood and others fall into the same category. Peter F Hamilton, Richard Morgan, Iain 'M' Banks and others are SF writers (who do appear on the genre shelves) - and Iain doesn't use the 'M' when he is writing mainstream fiction, of course. He is one of those few exceptions to the genre rule I mentioned!

[Teatime]

Thanks. I am going to an interview today in London with a charity that helps get London authors published: they might be able to help with classification. A SF can surely have literary themes.
My work is more SF than Ishiguro's, but I'd like to think explores equally valid literary themes. Incidentally, I don't see myself as a 'genre hopper' like Banks is, who clearly works in two distinct genres - I think my issue is more classifying my writing style and genre!

Incidentally, how would you describe The Road, in terms of genre? That is a PA novel, but going by where it is in the bookshop, it's marketed as a literary one (perhaps because of the acclaim and prizes).

Maybe I am worrying too much about this. Essentially I'm trying to figure out who I should approach with my manuscript.

[Peter Graham]

Hi Havlen

My question would be, why would the editor care? Given that the author is going to turn in books in the original genre at roughly the same rate, the fact that he may or may not be able to write historical fiction good enough to be published should be relatively immaterial. If the historical fiction isn't up to a commercial standard, it shouldn't be published.

If I can put in my two penn'orth. I can't answer this from the perspective of a publisher/editor, but I think I could from a general commercial perspective.

If I have an employee who is good at one particular area of work, I'd be bats to help them develop to a certain level in that job and then allow them to have a dabble in something else. OK, they might still be able to do the work I need them to do in their particular field, but I'd be very concerned that they'd just be marking time and directing their enthusiam elsewhere - I want constant improvement and constant dedication from each employee.

If an employee who was absolutely excellent in their field came to me after ten years and said "I want to change. Let me do something else or I resign", I'd have no option but to accommodate them as far as I was able. But if someone new and not yet established, or worse still someone who was only at the stage of applying for a post said something like "I'll do this for a bit and then you won't mind if I do that, will you?", I'd think "we've got a live one". The existing employee would be politely told "no" and the prospective employee would be politely told "goodbye".

That is the commercial reality, at least in my line of work and I suspect in all lines of work. If you are good enough, the day comes when you can pretty much call the shots and act like Squire Nonsuch. And, if you really ar egood enough, that day will surely come. But, if you are not yet good enough, you'd be well advised to get your head down and pay your dues first.

Regards,

Peter

[Havlen]

Peter, this is a bit off-topic, but I don't agree with the specifics of your analogy. I've seen a lot of people jump around at companies. As the head of an IT department, I once hired the event specialist as our web master because I knew that's what he wanted to get into and that he did it on the side. (And, I knew that he had talent for it). Every place I have worked at for any real length of time, I can recall people jumping around.

But, as a programmer, I completely understand John's sentiment of keeping it simple. That was one of the core values I held as a programmer, and a key mistake of too many programmers is making things overly complicated. The fact is, the more lines of code, the bigger chance of bugs. And, I'd guess, the idea in publishing would be the more you go off the script, the bigger chance of failure.

[Peter Graham]

Havlen,

And, I'd guess, the idea in publishing would be the more you go off the script, the bigger chance of failure.

Pretty much. If you are known as a sci fi writer and you are popular with the sci fi audience, then author, publisher and agent can all be reasonably well assured that, provided the quality of your work doesn't drop, you can continue to satisfy demand. Everyone then gets to pay their mortgage and buy the odd pint of beer into the bargain.

But if you decide to have a go at something else, you have two issues. Firstly, can you really write that chick lit blockbuster about impossibly beautiful young London mothers balancing childcare, careers and extra-marital affairs as well as you can write science fiction?* And secondly, even if you can, will your sci fi audience want to read it? Because if not, you need a new audience and it's right back to square one - building a reputation and a readership and so on.

This was really my point. When you have sold enough copies to be able to dictate what you write and when, good luck to you. But otherwise, your agent or publisher is going to want you doing what you are good at, what you are established at and what you know that everyone can get paid for. Satisfying an existing demand is always easier than creating a new one.

Regards,

Peter

* there is probably a Texan equivalent!

[Havlen]

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

* there is probably a Texan equivalent!

Like writing that chick lit blockbuster about impossibly beautiful young Dallas mothers balancing childcare, careers and extra-marital affairs?

C'mon, you gotta know at least one city in Texas, right?

[Ursa major]

But which one, Havlen? Isn't Houston larger and more important, for instance, when Dallas is Ft. Worth-less? (Or even when it's not?)

[Peter Graham]

Like writing that chick lit blockbuster about impossibly beautiful young Dallas mothers balancing childcare, careers and extra-marital affairs?

C'mon, you gotta know at least one city in Texas, right?

Steady on, old chap! No offence intended. I'd hate you to think that I was some ignorant, insular bumpkin hanging over a field gate with my trousers done up with baling twine. Let me assure you that I not only know the names of cities in Texas, but could even point at them on a map!

What I don't know (and what I meant by "Texas equivalent") is whether these same chick-lit potboilers are popular in the Lone Star State. And if they aren't, presumably you have some other dominant literary form which serves the same market.

Over here, said potboilers are nearly always set in London and involve characters from the star-studded worlds of media, advertising and design. They do not have the same resonance when set against other well known British backdrops - Scottish glens, West Country Moors, Welsh pit villages or the (once) dark satanic (ex) mills of the (previously) industrial north.

Hardly unreasonable to think the same might be true over your way, is it?

Peter

[chrispenycate]

Originally Posted by Havlen

Like writing that chick lit blockbuster about impossibly beautiful young Dallas mothers balancing childcare, careers and extra-marital affairs?

C'mon, you gotta know at least one city in Texas, right?

Thinks back to touring days. Austin? Abelene? (though young mothers in Abelene probably go "moo" at their offspring).