Steph Swainston to quit writing to become a teacher

It's usually pretty vague language -- you'll use your best efforts to try and cooperate with publisher's promotion sort of thing. Since it's in your best interests to try to do some, it's usually not an issue, but if you have things that limit what you can do -- I have a pal whose day job means she can't do a lot either -- then they just work around it. In that sense, the Internet has been a big boon, as authors who can't tour, etc., can still do interviews and connect with fans.

What I suspect is the case is that Swainston was getting a lot of advice about what she should do and she felt pressured to comply with that advice. As Newton points out in his piece, authors are all different and they respond differently to stuff in their lives.
 
I posted about this over at another board, then saw this thread. Apologies for the copy & paste, but here's my tuppence:

I think the tone of the article is rather unfair to publishers and the fandom in general. It implies that she's been mauled by outside forces so pervasive that they've crushed her will to write. Authors are strongly encouraged to write a book a year because that's the optimum for sales purposes, but nobody forces you to - and certainly not at Gollancz, in my experience. Publishers would always rather a good book late than a bad one on time. Similarly, authors are encouraged to promote themselves via the internet etc, but many (like myself) don't want to spend all their time blogging and so on. That's fine too: nobody makes us. Equally, nobody makes us go to conventions or debate with fans. In general, we go because we want to. A lot of us pay for ourselves to go; the publishers don't always foot the bill. And the idea that a vocal fan can change an author's next book is really pretty ridiculous.

It might be different for mega-bestsellers (though I doubt it) but the pressures your average author suffers are akin to having a silken handkerchief gently waft towards you before brushing lightly across your cheek and slipping away. Steph's choice not to write is her own, and that's fine, but I feel I need to defend the industry a little here: it's not one tenth as bad as the article makes out, and an author is virtually never compelled to do anything they don't want to.
 
It might be different for mega-bestsellers (though I doubt it) but the pressures your average author suffers are akin to having a silken handkerchief gently waft towards you before brushing lightly across your cheek and slipping away.
Click to expand...

Gonna gently disagree here.

Most of the pressure's self-generated, but writing is by far the most stressful thing I've ever done. Nothing else even comes close (and I have a pretty demanding day job and, occasionally, pretty demanding hobbies). During revisions for my last book, I was physically ill for five solid weeks, solely because of deadline stress and the fear that the second book would disappoint readers. It was not a fun time. In the end everything worked out okay, but that was a rough couple of months.

Writing's just... different. It's an artistic pursuit where you typically spend hours/weeks/months working in isolation, with little or no external feedback, to produce a thing of purely subjective value. You never really know for sure whether what you've done is Good. There isn't a set scoreboard, you can't really win or lose. So it's very personal, and very uncertain, and if you don't have an iron-clad ego then sure, yes, the Internet can be poison.

I think a lot of it just comes down to how you're wired, but I'm pretty sympathetic to Swainston. It's a crazy carousel, publishing. It can be a thrilling ride or it can just make you kinda sick, and if the latter happens to be your personal reaction, well, maybe getting off is for the best.
 
I think he meant *external pressure*.

I totally agree that the pressure a writer has when he writes is enormous, but i don't think it's so much the fans' fault as that it is a highly personally intensive subject.
 
Yes, I meant external pressure. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I know every writer puts themselves under pressure to varying degrees - I do the same - but my point is that industry pressure is very light, and the article reads to me like she's - at least in part - blaming publishers and fans for her decision to quit. If the writing life doesn't suit her, that's her personal decision, of course; I just wonder why she chose to take a swipe at the people that put her there in a national newspaper on the way out. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Oh, no, I think I'm the one who wasn't being clear. ;)

The point (well, one of the points) I was trying to make is that if you're predisposed to generate a lot of internal stress, then it only takes a very little bit of external stress to make things implode. One bad Amazon review, or a stray message board comment, can have a disproportionate impact if it happens to echo all the nasty little demon-doubts already floating around in your head at that particular moment. I suspect that the great majority of authors are vulnerable to that reaction at times.

Mostly we shrug it off and get back to work, because mostly we know we're being irrational, but knowing that your reaction's out of whack doesn't actually make it any more fun. And you might, after a while, make a rational decision to spare yourself any further irrational reactions by bowing out of the game.

I guess I just don't really read her comments as blaming fans and publishers so much as saying "these are the industry expectations nowadays, and I personally don't deal well with those expectations, so I don't want to be in the industry right now." And, I mean, it is fair to say that those are the expectations, and that authors are generally encouraged to meet them. Forced, no. But strongly encouraged, yes.

(also, fwiw, I'm not sure I would agree that industry pressure is in fact 'very light,' although I suspect that we're not talking about exactly the same thing. What I mean is that if you're dependent on your artistic output for a living, and you're not unusually successful, you very well might feel beholden to market demands. For one, you likely will need to put out a book or more every year to get by. It's not a demand imposed by fans or publishers, but it's the reality of trying to scrape by as a working writer. Teachers definitely tend to get steadier paychecks.)
 
I guess I just don't really read her comments as blaming fans and publishers so much as saying "these are the industry expectations nowadays, and I personally don't deal well with those expectations, so I don't want to be in the industry right now." And, I mean, it is fair to say that those are the expectations, and that authors are generally encouraged to meet them. Forced, no. But strongly encouraged, yes.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It is only a newspaper article so it may have had a bias she didn't intend. Perhaps it's just because her opinions are presented as fact, rather than the more eloquent way you've put it. That presents an unfairly distorted view of the publishing industry and the people who work there, IMO. Or maybe it's just lines like she wants to be 'doing something meaningful with her life' that make me prickle... ;)

(also, fwiw, I'm not sure I would agree that industry pressure is in fact 'very light,' although I suspect that we're not talking about exactly the same thing. What I mean is that if you're dependent on your artistic output for a living, and you're not unusually successful, you very well might feel beholden to market demands. For one, you likely will need to put out a book or more every year to get by. It's not a demand imposed by fans or publishers, but it's the reality of trying to scrape by as a working writer. Teachers definitely tend to get steadier paychecks.)
Click to expand...

Yes, as you say, they're different things. If you're a full-time author there's a pressure to write so you can earn, but that's obviously just how the world works. If you want to spend three or ten years gestating to produce a great book, it makes sense to keep your day job. But that's not the publisher's fault, which is what I meant by industry pressure. Many writers take sabbaticals, deliver books many years late, or drop books to do other work and come back to them later. As long as they tell their publishers ahead of time, it's usually fine. There aren't many industries that forgiving, I'd say.
 
Last edited:
All good points. 95% of authors will have day-jobs, there's at least as much pressure there in some cases... (eg, teacher).

PS - good to chat to you at Ian's do in Holborn, Chris.
 
Great quote from Patrick Rothfuss regarding internet interaction:

"the reason I’ve turned the comments off for this blog. I know they would break down roughly like this:

30 considerate, supportive comments.
20 touching, heartfelt comments.
15 funny comments
10 comments saying, “Meh, I already knew.”
5 passive-aggressive snarks masquerading as one of the above.
1 comment from some anonymous frothy dickhole.

And you know which comment I’d focus on? Yeah. The last one. It would sit there like a steaming turd in my bowl of cereal. It doesn’t matter how delicious the cereal is. It could be Fruity Pebbles, or even Cookie Crisp. But in a situation like this it doesn’t matter. You can’t just eat around it. All you can do is focus on the turd."

See it's not as simple as saying "authors should grow a thicker skin", if you're a human being, personal attacks against something that is deeply important to you can hurt like hell, and the anonymity of the internet allows people to comment to a degree that (for the most part) you don't find with face to face interaction.

So I understand the 'internet is poison' argument, even if it's a little obtuse, because unless you're a Rowling, King, Brown etc, it's something that you need to use to find success for yourself, your publishers and the industry in order to make your voice heard.

Best wishes to Steph Swainston in what must be a very difficult and disappointing time.
 
I'm wondering, are writers legally forbidden to press "spam" button on the blog? The only reason no to do it is that trolls generate even more traffic and attention form supporters.
 
jamieem said:
Great quote from Patrick Rothfuss regarding internet interaction:

"the reason I’ve turned the comments off for this blog. I know they would break down roughly like this:

30 considerate, supportive comments.
20 touching, heartfelt comments.
15 funny comments
10 comments saying, “Meh, I already knew.”
5 passive-aggressive snarks masquerading as one of the above.
1 comment from some anonymous frothy dickhole.

And you know which comment I’d focus on? Yeah. The last one. It would sit there like a steaming turd in my bowl of cereal. It doesn’t matter how delicious the cereal is. It could be Fruity Pebbles, or even Cookie Crisp. But in a situation like this it doesn’t matter. You can’t just eat around it. All you can do is focus on the turd."

See it's not as simple as saying "authors should grow a thicker skin", if you're a human being, personal attacks against something that is deeply important to you can hurt like hell, and the anonymity of the internet allows people to comment to a degree that (for the most part) you don't find with face to face interaction.

So I understand the 'internet is poison' argument, even if it's a little obtuse, because unless you're a Rowling, King, Brown etc, it's something that you need to use to find success for yourself, your publishers and the industry in order to make your voice heard.

Best wishes to Steph Swainston in what must be a very difficult and disappointing time.
Click to expand...

I think the difference between Patrick Rothfuss did and what Steph Swainston did are two totally different things. The piece that you quoted is from his own blog. Steph Swainston did an interview with a reporter.

Patrick Rothfuss did not blame the publishing industry or passionate fans for the reason the book took longer than expected. He just said it was taking longer than expected and hoped that the readers would be patient. I think, for the most part, readers were patient waiting for WISE MAN'S FEAR.

Steph Swainston, on the other hand, is quoted as saying the "internet is poisonous" and to be careful of "vocal fans." She blamed external factors as to the reason she is walking away from her publishing contract with Gollancz. I think if she simply stated in her own words on her blog, which she has, that she is going to take a break from writing for personal reasons and left at that, instead of speaking with a reporter I think the response would have been overwhelmingly positive.

Another example to compare to Steph Swainston's situation is that of Scott Lynch. He wrote on his blog, briefly, about his personal situation. Again, the response was overwhelmingly positive. Scott did not go into great detail.
 
Well yeah, but I don't think folk at Gollancz are losing too much sleep about it. And the reality is that most won't even be aware she left, especially if she does end up writing a novel later.

As I said, I think it was a bad idea too. But authors are often not very good business people. And Swainston seems to be saying, I'm really bad at the business stuff, I don't like what people want from me in the business aspect, and I don't want to deal with it anymore. Which she shows is maybe the correct decision by airing that with a reporter. And the reporter of course made a bigger deal out of it than needed because apparently anything an author does that they feel is worth a story is worth it because of the implied but usually non-existent strong implications for the entire industry it supposedly has. Everything has to mean something very important. (This is why science fiction is always dying.)

I think it's great that she wants to go off and teach kids and hopefully that's going to be a better sort of social interaction for her and will get her creative juices going. Stephen King got depressed and "retired" to do much the same thing, only to get jazzed about other things and return to the market. And Gollancz will forgive her for calling them an evil empire because they know that's not what she meant.
 
@ Henderson, think you missed the point there :) I wasn't comparing the Swainston situation to Patrick Rothfuss in any way, I merely used the quote because I thought it was an amusing illustration of how disproportionately negative attacks can weigh on the recipient.
 
jamieem said:
@ Henderson, think you missed the point there :) I wasn't comparing the Swainston situation to Patrick Rothfuss in any way, I merely used the quote because I thought it was an amusing illustration of how disproportionately negative attacks can weigh on the recipient.
Click to expand...

I guess you are right about that, but I still think that Steph Swainston could have provided her statement, but in a way that would have put her in a much more positive light instead of doing an interview.
 
henderson said:
I guess you are right about that, but I still think that Steph Swainston could have provided her statement, but in a way that would have put her in a much more positive light instead of doing an interview.
Click to expand...
Like, for example, a blog post on her site? An official statement via Gollancz?
 
Loerwyn said:
Like, for example, a blog post on her site? An official statement via Gollancz?
Click to expand...

In post #32, I mentioned it might have been better for Steph Swainston to post a statement on her blog. I used the example of Patrick Rothfuss that was used in post #31 as well as Scott Lynch used blog to talk about his depression, but for a different point than what jamieem made in post #31.
 
Well I think it's possible that the interview was conducted with her whilst she was in a frustrated and emotional state - perfectly understandable, but she might well agree that it could have been handled better.

From the outside looking in, it's always seemed to me that Gollancz is a publisher who cares deeply not only about their own success, but that of the industry as a whole and the authors associated with them especially. At the same time though, it *is* a business and they do need to strike a balance between the bottom line and the creative process - not an easy thing and not one they'll always be able to succeed with, but one they do better than most, in my opinion.
 
jamieem said:
At the same time though, it *is* a business and they do need to strike a balance between the bottom line and the creative process - not an easy thing and not one they'll always be able to succeed with, but one they do better than most, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
But this has nothing to do with Gollancz beyond them being her publisher. As far as I'm aware, they've had no hand in this.
 
It's relevant to the issue of publishing a book a year, which is one of the issues raised in the debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsors


We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon


Your ad here.
Back
Top