I think mine is an unusual case, based on recent successes and the fact that the agent really seems to like my writing and see some potential.
I think he also quite likes to take a writer under his wing now and again. I know for a fact he has done this before, but it certainly isn't the norm, no. Not as far as I'm aware or in communication (not in person) with other agents.

Also, his problems were not with the quality of the writing. His notes over the characters and the plot itself were surprisingly minimal. The main problem lies in the tone of the book and chiefly the fact it's based on the Bible and revelatory myth almost wholesale.

In the current climate, the agent didn't think that would 'work', and wasn't prepared for the headache even if it does. He also doesn't think I am, and I sensed that more than anything, he was 'sounding me out'. Was I flexible enough? Was I a religious nutter etc?

So, really, the agent only asked me if I'd be willing to deal with these two issues, and seeing as I said - after a lot of huffing and puffing - that I would, he therefore took me on.

JB

<Added>

Thanks Terry. I'd rather be rich in spirit than rich in pocket. I'm not very materialistic, to be fair. There isn't much I want that I don't already have, at least not in solid forms. In some ways, going back to places you first loved, characters who excited you, is like revisiting old friends, knowing those places better, and falling in love all over again. At least, it should be like that. The agent told me that the most important part of any writing endevour is that you enjoy it. Anything else translates straight on to the page.

Poppy,

But I’ve read books like that before, books that I guess get published because they have that ‘page-turneriness’ quality, that Snowy was talking about. And I think it can be a pretty cheap quality. I’m not sure whether the ‘ask question – extend, refuse to answer – eventually answer’ model applies in all cases of page-turneriness (like that expression) – maybe it does. In the book I read it was present in the form of a subterfuge, and, in fact, the pacing of how all is eventually revealed was pretty well done. But, ultimately it was very unsatisfying because there was no depth to the characters – they weren’t characters - and you just didn’t care what happened to them.

I think this is so true. I read a book by a famous science-fiction writer a while back, one who's very successful commercially and wins lots of prizes. Basically, the idea was a great one, sufficient to get me quickly turning the pages to see what happened next. However, about half-way through, I found myself slowing down, eventually skimming the rest, and I realised the reason was that a good idea is not sufficient. To go back to the model of THEME-PLOT-CHARACTER-THEME, although his idea was a great one, it wasn't quite a theme; more of an interesting scenario, i.e. it didn't authentically raise an issue in my mind that I wanted to see explored. Which led to his plot being rudimentary and obvious, with no surprises. Which meant his characters (dialogue) were flat and interchangeable; which meant, in turn, his plot remained too direct, and in turn rendered the theme/idea pointless. (In fact, he did have a theme but it had nothing to do with the story! It's just his particular hobby-horse which he gets into a lot of his books.)

I'm also wary of the 'ask question-extend-refuse to answer-eventually answer' model. It works okay in sitcom, because the reader understands it's a device to ratchet up the humour. But I think in drama, the writer should be able to produce tension through more subtle characterisation (one of the reasons I like Aaron Sorkin's writing so much).

Terry,

i think that is so true what you say about shocks - my first one was when i uploaded for the first time on WW, the first time anyone apart from my hubbie had ever read my work - hardly a positive word, but it was the best critique i'd ever had because it blew me off the little pedestal i'd made for myself, just because i'd managed to write a book.

Other shocks include a particularly honest reader who told me the first chapter of my new project was, er, let's just say not good - my eyes might have filled but i realized she was absolutely right.

Then my Cornerstones report...

I think you are probably right, the compunction to get published probably does take the edge off one's ability to improve as a writer - although i find that's what drives me as well. Not the desire to be famous or earn bucketloads of money, but to have that public recognition of my skills, that sense of achievement.

I don't think though, that in this context, being a writer is different from any other job - sometimes we all settle for being less than we could be in certain areas of our lives.

Therefore I'm interested, Terry, do you push yourself to the limit in terms of achievement in all areas of your life? Or does this drive to be the best that you can just apply to Terry The Author?

I guess I do push myself in any area that I can do something about. I strongly believe that progress in anything doesn't just happen, you have to consciously work for it. I'm not a good fan, for example, always having preferred to be a participator. It's not intentional, just something that's hard for me to control. For example, I decided to go to the British Fantasy Con last year, with not much more intention than just hanging out and meeting some people I knew. But before it, I found myself writing to the organisers with a couple of ideas I thought it would be good to have panels about. One of them was children's fantasy--I explained I'd had children's novels published with speculative themes but thought there was quite a lot of difference between the requirements for adult and children's fantasy. So they wrote back and said, You sound the ideal person to moderate a panel and, hey, Neil Gaiman and Clive Barker will be on it too (although Barker later dropped out of that particular one). Now, believe it or not, I'm shy by nature, so was rather nervous about doing this job. In the event, I took it too seriously, in that I prepared subjects for us to discuss and launched the panel with more direction than it wanted, i.e. I only discovered at the point that the main idea of most panels is just to let the writers gab about themselves. Neil Gaiman also took issue with my contention that there isn't much good training for writers in the UK, saying he thought writers don't need training, they just need to write a good novel. The other panellists were similarly sceptical and so I felt awkward and failing at my job. However, the point is, I would still prefer to go through an experience like that than just sit in the audience and soak up the vibes--because you really do learn about yourself and others by doing things like that. Also, someone approached me after the panel, saying that he didn't agree that writers don't need training, and would I consider working with him, which is something that wouldn't have happened if I hadn't put my head on the block.

Oh, and a footnote to this story is that shortly after the BFS Con a writer friend of mine got talking to Neil Gaiman at a US conference, mentioned he knew me, and Gaiman said he'd really enjoyed that particular panel. Which maybe goes to show that as long as you put your best efforts into what you do, even if you it doesn't go smoothly, people will get something out of it anyway.

Terry

Terry

I was there and I enjoyed that panel too. I love Gaiman, but didn't think he was the best placed person to go into that discussion because he is practically a celebrity. I think Barker would have been much better, and it's a shame he pulled out. Barker is so much more informative about these things, where Neil himself is quite shy and unassuming.

The reason for that also stems from background. Gaiman was a rather successful young journalist and fortunate enough to become mates with Douglas Adams, which kind of kicked started Gaiman's career. Gaiman already had a lot of contacts in the industry. Not saying it was any easier really, but Barker lived on the dole for nine years, learning the art of the writer and writing his first novel. He came from a very poor background and dragged himself up to the superstar status he had today.

'Write better novels' sounds a very typical thing that Gaiman would say. He is a lovely man, but a walking bag of anecdotes. I got the feeling from Barker that he is a lot more effusive and verbally passionate about the art - I mean, did you hear his speech about the death of genre at the banquet? (I wasn't there but read the transcript).
I think Barker would have gone deeply into the question, personally, and we all may have learned something other than the general laugh that accompanies Gaiman's witticisms.

Best

JB

Well, i've enjoyed reading this thread, but i'm afraid i don't feel qualified to comment. I too wish there were more constructive discussions on WW about writing, almost a daily tutorial by a site expert would be nice - how about a tutorial forum, where a site expert instructs/leads a discussion on different aspects of writing each week - now there's an idea, i'd pay extra to have access to a forum like that.

I share this, great thread, enjoyed reading...

I'd like to thank everyone who contributed to this thread; it's very much helped to shape my thinking further on this subject. I'm going to be out of circulation for about a week now, so if anyone else comments and I don't respond, that's why.

Finally, very well done, JB, for resisting bringing up the HP word, in relation to question time with Neil Gaiman . . .

Don't know if you've gone yet, Terry, but I loved your story - very human. And the feeling of having stuffed it up - I relate to you so much on that. I think, though, sometimes it can be really good to discuss things with people you don't agree with and can be more stimulating than just going "yes" and "yes" with someone you agree with. Because it really makes you examine what you think and why you think it and even if you don't change your view at all, it can clarify why it is you think it and make you look at it properly which is always interesting.

As long as things don't just reduce to a "yes" "no" kind of squabble.

Sound like Gaiman enjoyed the challenge and the debate. I can understand that.

Thanks for this discussion - really enjoyed it and triggered off loads of ideas for me.

Terry, no, I'm somewhat bored of that argument now. Happy for both of their successes really, because at least it shows it can be done. I mean, that was just my impression anyway. I hardly know these people!

JB

This was very interesting to read - Terry, and anyone else who hasn't already, I think the Cambridge Introduction to Creative Writing, by David Morley, discusses a lot of the themes and questions that have cropped up here. I very much recommend it.