Not rubbish.... Practice, practice, practice If you are quoting them right, they aren't saying rubbish but that the first five novels should be treated as learning experiences and I tend to agree there. I don't think you'd need to write 5 really thick works, but 5 stories or 5 novellas to learn. That's what I did. I wrote short novels - novella's and put them out into the virtual world as free ebooks to see what kind of response I'd get and I got amazing high rated response out of the gate. I now am rewriting and re editing for the umpteenth time to get them more polished. I never intend to get paid for these stories, they are all back stories and character explorations for a novel I am writing that I hope to one day have published. I do not consider these books to be published. They are my trial run, my practice work, and it takes a lot of practice to be good at anything.... even things you love to do. Many authors have unpublished work that they can pull out and revamp to publish it, but some are beyond help and stay in the closet. I have a few that will never even see the light of day.
Every writer is different, therefore such remark doesn't make sense to me if taken literally. That author is either shortsighted or malevolent.
Very few successful writers became famous from their first novel. There are notable exceptions of coarse, especially those who only ever wrote 1.
I think that this is just a way of trying to communicate the idea that writing requires practice. To make a comparison that I've used too many times before, nobody would expect to sit down at a piano and create a publishable-quality recording on the first try. But many people do seem to expect to write publishable-quality works on the first try - or even if they don't think it's publishable, they don't seem to accept that much of their writing is temporary, is just for practice and has no other value. I suspect that this is because people figure that if they can (1) speak their native language and (2) read their native language, they can (3) write their native language. A pianist understands that he will spend hundreds, thousand, probably tens of thousands, of hours making music that isn't worth keeping. Many writers don't seem to understand that the same is true of writing. Five novels? A million words? Ten thousand hours? Half that amount, twice that amount? It's going to be different for every writer, but the fact remains that every writer is going to need practice to reach a publishable level of skill. Edited to add: It's interesting that those three figures are quite similar. Five novels of the modern hundred-thousand-word novel size would be about half a million words, and it seems reasonable that for a hundred-thousand word novel you'd write two hundred thousand words by the time you're done writing and rewriting and editing - therefore, a million words for five novels. A million words divided by ten thousand hours is a hundred words an hour, which is again a fairly reasonable figure. I'm not saying that there's anything magical about those numbers, but I do find it interesting that they line up so well with each other.
ChickenFreak, while I agree with your music analogy, let me tell you a story about a legendary guitarist named Joe Satriani. He used to play guitar with a friend of his and during those sessions they would create some riffs and melodies. Whenever Satriani came out with something new his friend would name the small piece of music for example calling them Satch Boogie number one, Satch Boogie number two and so on. Most of theses ideas were very unpolished and really just the musical equivalent of doodles, however one of them, which went on to be known as simply Satch Boogie, is probably one of the greatest song he recorded in studio. Of course he probably rewrote the song several times. The same can be done with novels. Sure that great first novel we have in mind as a neophyte writer most likely won't be as great as we think it will, but put it aside for a month and then rewrite the hell out of it and it will improve. Have your friends or beta readers read your work and rewrite some more. I believe it would be more accurate to say that we can't write a perfect novel on the first try. That would be true for the first five novels and then any other novel you write after that.
Oh, sure, there's no reason to assume that there's no core of lasting value in any of that practice writing. I'm not suggesting that the writer type a page and promptly toss it in the fire. But I am saying that the writer shouldn't _demand_ a core of lasting value, as a prerequisite for the writing. I do believe that the primary value of the first bunch of words - quarter million, half million, a million - is the act of writing, rather than the product of the writing. And many hopeful writers seem not to accept that. They don't want to write if they're not inspired, they don't want to write while there are still plot holes, they don't want to go on to the next sentence until the last one is perfect. Their goals are based on the product, not the process. And I think that's a mistake. The goal should, IMO, be to make today's product better than yesterday's and tomorrow's better than today's. Any value in the product that happens to exist beyond that is a bonus. There's no harm in keeping that million words and surveying it for value someday. But if there happens to be no reusable value in the product, the value of having written that million words is not, IMO, significantly diminished.
I think their advice refers to all novels one ever writes, including that first one when they were 13. Perhaps writers who get published by the time they are in their 20s, would have been writing for good 10 years, most of which time they wee in school. In that case, 5 novels is about right. I guess it depends on how good you were when you started writing novels and that a 40 year old professor manages to write a publishable novel much sooner than a teenager or a young adult at the beginning of higher education.
I kind of fall in this category, to some extent. I learned to write in 700-1000 words bursts so I could afford to edit as I went. Once I decided to write novel length work it took a year to even be able to turn off spell check so that I could get more easily into the flow instead of wasting too much time in the form. But still, when I'm not advancing the story because I'm not sure where I'm going next, I'll go back over what was written and firm it up. I'm working on a fantasy novel presently. I had an editor to go over the first 30,000 because I like to make sure I have a strong foundation. It helps me to see ahead in the story when where I have already been is strong and steady. It also teaches me to write better, tighter. And the more I lean on my editor to tend to structure, the more I can release myself to interact with the story. It makes it more fun for me this way.
Talent is defined as "the natural aptitude or skill". That's nature. Nurture is what one does with it.
I believe part of the equation, if it could be called that, is not only writing words, but reading. Some have already discussed in this thread the need to improve, not just hammer out a certain number of words. But reading is important too, because a major part of writing a good novel is storytelling. Grammar and punctuation are important, but so is pacing, dialogue, characterization, description, etc. Reading helps, as one will pick up these and other storytelling techniques passively through observation while being entertained, but carefully studying published works--seeing how an author accomplished writing a novel--and applying what's learned to one's own writing style and projects--practicing and revising--is also key to improvement and success. Maybe it will take five novels. Maybe it will take the equivalent of ten, or two, or one. Or maybe a writer will never improve enough to write publishable novels.
Go get a blank canvas and create a beautiful realistic oil painting -- it will take time, and I bet it'll look a bit pants. Get the analogy? Thing is, no matter how many words you write, if you're not writing in a way to improve on what came before, all the novels/stories will be the same as the first -- probably not very good. I've also heard by your tenth novel. . . So, like most things regarding art and craft, it's subjective. Just because we can all write, it doesn't mean we can churn out a story on a first attempt. What's needed to be understood is that a craft is something that develops with practice, and depending on the ability (natural or not) of the person, time taken to produce an art piece of quality will vary. All craft can be learnt, too. Those that have a natural talent will find it easier -- but even those will know that it takes a lot of practice. Those that lack talent will have to work harder.
Hi, The whole thing's arbitrary. Five novels for one might be ten for someone else, and one for a third person. And the definition of crap is an issue in itself. Is the Bard's crap decent by someone else's standards? I think the key idea is that yes - you should get better at writing by writing more. There's no doubt about that. But equally for a writer there's another thing to consider. Freshness. Often I suspect those who go on to write more novels end up getting their work edited into a sort of formulaic structure. You know the sort of thing. The advice keeps coming up in most fora again and again. Shorter crisper sentences, active voice, lose lots of purple prose. And sure maybe that is all good advice. But as writers mature(?) head down that path I can't help but feel that they might also be losing something in the process. Their original, fresh, raw voice. Sometimes the very first book someone writes, even if it's loaded down with mistakes and doesn't fit the accepted mould, may actually be a writers best work. And the later polished stuff may end up being derivative for want of a better term. My thought, judge each and every work on its own merits and don't bother with other peoples rules of thumb. Cheers, Greg.
While some books truly are unreadable, often one person's crap is another person's treasure. I was reading James Herbert's obituary last night, for example, and hadn't realised that 'The Rats' was the first novel he ever wrote. By many standards it's crap, but the third publisher he submitted the book to bought it and it sold over a million copies. At the same time, few people would suggest that his books didn't improve over the years as he wrote more.
A novel is not one "great" idea but one simple premise that forms the foundation for your characters to play out their drama on. It is there that all the great ideas that it takes to complete the novel come from. Wrong. All of Shakespeare's ideas were old long before English was a even a language. There are no unique ideas; there are no new stories. There are only unique ways of telling them. It is now and has always been the way you tell the story that matters.
Publish and be damned. If you become the next JK Rowling then everyone will rave over your early works as being magnificently experimental!
Your first book is either good or it isn't, that is rule one, for all other books you write see rule one. I have saw first book that where great, the follow ups not so great, kind of like movies. The truth is you have no idea which of your books is going to sell great and which not so great, just write. Every dog has his day.
Exactly my point Dagolas. However he toured about 130+ places and put in some work outside of the writing in order to do that. The point is, there is no way to tell. All writing is as unique as the people who write. Naturally. OP do not confine yourself to other people's criteria. What other people say is not law. In fact, there is only one law in writing a good novel. "Do the readers love what they are reading?"
Right again, Dagolas. What drives me crazy is how Pastor Authors do this thing where they write a book...and then write a workbook for the book they wrote...What the heck? Why not just included it in the original??
So it looks like it we have figured it out...Your first five novels are not automatically rubbish. Your first five novels are...YOUR FIRST FIVE NOVELS!
If you write that many. And just for future reference, avoid double posts please. I'm sure a mod will fix it this time, but just make sure to remember it.
I can agree with this if the works are good. I wouldn't recommend that a new author just published whatever they churn out while they are still learning or becoming a good writer. First impressions tend to stick, and your name is going on those works. If you publish three crappy novels because you just want to get your work out there, you may seriously reduce the number of people who will ever buy the fourth one. I've picked up some bad stuff for Kindle, and it's unlikely I'll buy anything else those authors put up for sale.
If somebody spends 17 years on a major story and edits the heck out of it, gets many readers to give feedback, works it to a very high standard ...then it's not rubbish, even though it may be the first or ONLY novel they write. I do hate blanket statements like: "your first 5 novels will be rubbish." There are many great authors out there who were never prolific, but whose 'first' book stands out from the crowd. "No Great Mischief" by Alastair MacLeod. "To Kill a Mockingbird" by Harper Lee. Two examples of best-selling authors who only ever produced one novel ...but they are corkers.
