natural and right and you feel it had to be that way

just like TC, Roger.

Nik.

Thanks Nik, you're too kind!

By the way, if 11,000 copies sold is minuscule then my sales would barely touch infinitesimal.

It's true, Rog. It works perfectly.

11,000 in pb is mainly miniscule in proportion to the amount the publisher spent, I guess, and in what it says about the possibility of the next book doing well. There's many a literary writer who doesn't sell that many.

Emma

Hi Emma, another thing is that Raw Shark Tales has, I believe, been optioned for a movie. At one point Nicole Kidman was on the phone to Stephen Hall begging him to change the mc to a woman so she could play the part! If the movie ever does get made (a big if, I know) then that may lead to a real uplift in sales. It's a long game, selling books and stuff can happen further on down the road that can help the publisher recoup their losses.

True, they spent a lot on marketing and generating hype. But maybe it was that that led to a film prodco getting interested, which can only be a good thing for the publisher, and may be a good return on the investment.

<Added>

Raw Shark Texts, isn't it...? Is it?

It's a bit of a gamble, though, ain't it. I agree, of course, in principle, but it's not the strongest business model.

I wrote A Gentle Axe properly, just to show people I could!

I think it's a bit like people's aversion to modern art - greeted by the oft quoted cry of "yes, but can they really draw?"
Picasso proved he was a great draftsperson before he went off experimenting, and I think the same should be true for writers. It probably also helps if a publishing house can recoup their expenditure via the autor's previously published bestsellers.
Does that mean nobody should experiment? Of course not, just don't do it on your first novel and expect it to be snapped up.

it's not the strongest business model.

Is there anything about the booktrade that is? Not just weak business models, but positively counter-intuitive, much of the time, as far as I can tell...

Roger, yes, the long game's the part of it I'm only just understanding. You hear so much about how books on Tesco's shelves have a fortnight to prove themselves, and how publishers dump you as soon as sales wobbles, and actually neither of those things are necessarily true. From Faber seeing the first Porfiry to the fourth coming out in paperback (by which time maybe you'll be under contract for more? ) is a long haul by most industries' standards. And I'm really surprised (and thrilled, of course) to find the trade still wanting to promote TMoL, and the translation rights still selling, and so on. Maybe when as aspiring writers we moan about how long it takes to get answers to submissions and so on, and how it takes a year to publish a book, and so on, it's because we don't realise that the booktrade just does operate on 16 MHz when the rest of the world is on 256 MHz and upgrading fast...

Emma

Emma - you're quite right! Sigh.

Hi all,
I found this thread pretty interesting. Grammar and I are only casual nodding acquaintances, but I don't think I can get away with saying my writing is experimental!
Irvine Welsh and his dialect writing sprung to mind. I think Trainspotting would fall into the extreme experimental category, but it also has strong characterisation and story at its heart. In a novel length piece I don't think you can solely rely on word play to keep the reader's interest.
Azjale

I haven't read Cormac, but when I taught English I used to come across students who used all lower case letters with no punctuation as well as students who wrote only in capitals. They got really huffy when I told them to stop. It was a (poor) disguise for ignorance of the conventions. If a publisher/reader is convinced that the author really does know basic grammar rules it doesn't matter - they'll accept variations for the sake of style.

As reader I find most writers do stick to the conventions and where there's a variation it makes sense. I'd say I ignore 'ands' and 'buts' starting sentences if there aren't too many. Generally speaking, books don't get to the publishing stage if the writer isn't competent. I remember hearing a guest on 'Desert island Disks' once,though -a dyslexic journalist who writes restaurant reviews for one of the Sunday papers. He dictates his copy over the phone and a subeditor doctors the spelling and punctuation. However, he is very well-connected, married to a posh editor, and in any case it would hardly work so well for books. You'd have to be able to afford a secretary to take dictation - like the late Barbara Cartland, for instance.

There are writers who habitually use poor grammar, but the only one I know of from personal experience is Jeffery Archer. I picked up one of his early works -'Not penny More, Not a Penny Less' when I was on holiday and I was compelled to read on not just because of the racy plot but amazed by the bad grammar. Lord Archer, too, is well-connected, and I don't think he's a good model for most writers to follow.

So I think you can get away with it, provided you know the right people.

Sheila

I think that most agents and Publishers would react unfavourably if faced with the work of an unknown writer who obviously ignores conventions and good grammar.

Writing is a living entity and it is changing all the time. The greatest influence on the tools that writers use to convey their ideas onto paper is the spoken word - the language we use in our everyday lives.

Formal grammatical guidelines are therefore under constant attack by the inaccuracies, laziness and ignorance that permeate our everyday spoken language. In most cases this is a slow process in the breaking down of formal grammar and a changing of the grammar itself. This is not a bad thing, nor is it a good thing, it is simply a process of development in the way we communicate one with another.

The second challenge to a writer is to create effect, mood, colour and sometimes produce a highly charged framework into which the picture he/she sees encompasses and conveys what the writer wants the readers to accurately receive. To achieve this some writers choose to throw correct grammar and/or structure to the winds. This is their choice as a writer.

My advice would be to stick to conventions and good grammar until you have made your name as a writer... unless, of course, you are a genius, a celeb, have slept with the Prime Minister or 'know the right people'; in such cases someone else may ghost write for you.

Len

Len

Well considering I'm not a celeb (yet), haven't slept with the Prime Minister and I don't know any of the 'right' people I'll just have to stick with being a genius

Putting a comma gefore and grates me to the teeth plus starting a sentence with and is a joke tbh.

NEVER put a comma before and and never start a sentence with the word and.

Simple isnt it.

The comma before and I'm looking into and the author list is endless so it doesn't seem to matter other than to me. I'm not going to even complain about that one. When i was a youngster at school however puttting a comma before an and would lose you one mark. GURANTEED.

regards
j

But we’re not at school now, Jules, and rigid statements like this only serve to stifle writers who are still exploring to find their own voice.

So is that sentence grammatically incorrect, by your rules? And I bet you have a rule about not starting a sentence with ‘so’ too…

Dee