Steph Swainston to quit writing to become a teacher

[Hobbit]

Nice link, Loerwyn.

The problem with this market-driven approach to publishing is that it tends to reward “more of the same and faster please” rather than “better and different.” And that’s a pity, especially when it leads talented authors to walk away from the field because they don’t fit “the marketing mold.” It also rewards disproportionately those authors who are able to spin out one series endlessly and, to a much lesser degree, those who’ve been able to establish themselves as a “brand” apart from any specific work.

And that’s why, unless matters change, especially in fantasy, we’re likely to keep seeing most authors tied to a single massive series.

Not sure if this is above, but I have read a comment by Steph that she will return to the series, but in a couple of years or so.

Mark

 

[Loerwyn]

And when/if she does, I hope it's under better circumstances for her. Like others, I'm still perplexed as to why an extension for the next book wasn't sought (Neither party appears to have said if one was) or that some other solution was arranged, but only she can know what's best for her.

Being a Modesitt fan does have its uses, Mark I think his perspective is fairly interesting as he's from a different time to many of the authors we have here on SFFWorld, but he also has a strong background as an economist so that added experience can make his points rather unique in their depth or understanding. I do think one thing he raises, i.e. the lack of authors writing in different genres, would be an interesting debate to have here at some point.

 

[Eventine]

Not sure if this is above, but I have read a comment by Steph that she will return to the series, but in a couple of years or so.

...which makes me extremely happy. Hopefully I'm still enough of the same person then to enjoy them as much as I do now.

 

[expatrie]

If you want to leave writing, logically you leave and let your publisher issue a PR statement saying you've taken a break, rather than do an interview with a journalist trashing the publisher who is going to sell your backlist still and garnering you lots of the Internet attention you say you don't want. That said, that's rather a minor sin, and I again hope it gets better for her.

Very wise. I'm adding this to my mental toolkit. But I hope I never need that tool.

--Brian.

Now back to catching up on the thread.

 

[expatrie]

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.

Sure. Sure. The internet is a nasty place. Nobody's disputing that "prong."

I dunno. Maybe you're talking to me, and I'm not trying to be a dismissive dork or something, but all this noise about people being high-strung or sensitive or whatever the term being employed passes right over my head. A book a year is a series fiction standard. It just is. What I can't fathom is a want-to-be author not realizing this in all the reading they do.

And this is the internet, you have to type stuff into the search box to find it. If you don't have the stomach for the 1% of negative reviews on Amazon, well, why are you looking? Don't distribute your email address. Way back when, you could request the agent (I presume an agent here, but please don't attack that part of this comment) not send the critical stuff. I mean, it's fine you're a delicate, unique snowflake and all, but stop wandering into the pizza oven and complaining about the heat. What I'm saying is, if you have a low tolerance for cyber-bullying, well, don't do facebook and don't follow your name's hashtag (or whatever those things are) on twitter. Keep your head in the sand. You need to do online stuff, shut off the comments. And if you don't know how to set it up that way---well, don't set it up.

Besides, like all art (and I'll plant the flag firmly here) everything comes down to (A) society's/cultural expectations and (B) personal taste. "A Modest Proposal" (do I put an essay in quotations?) is objectionable because of the content and our own social taboo about eating children. To hungry hyenas (insert appropriate species that eats its own young here, because I lack the expertise), the story is merely a normal well-reasoned letter to the editor. You may like sentences that are a page and a half long with a thousand restrictive clauses, others may prefer a simple declarative SVO sentence. Neither is "wrong" because it's art, not math. (and the more advanced math gets, the closer it becomes art, by the way).

And as to having a thick skin, one company I worked for and was laid off from, a co-worker (one of five supervisors I had, say) ran around telling everyone what a moron I was after I "left." My consolation is he had to try twice to pass the professional engineering exam while I only had to try one time. Defamation? Probably. Worth getting all riled-up over? Not really.

I guess what I really don't understand is people setting up "fan" web sites, enabling comments and then somehow expecting it to be a love-in. And then they shut off the comments. I mean, why did you have them on in the first place? Take a look at any book on Amazon, it's generally negative "this sucked" reviews and "this was brilliant" reviews. People who don't really care don't bother.

(I don't mean to pick a fight here or pick on Ms. Swaindon, I wouldn't know her from Adam--well, I could probably decide which one is Ms. Swaindon if she were in a line-up composed entirely of her and men, but you know what I mean).

--Brian.

I don't know, maybe I'm just being a dork.

 

[KatG]

Well no, once a year isn't the industry standard and it really isn't the standard for SFFH. But what it was useful for in general fiction is hardcover. You have a hardcover edition, then a year later you bring out the paperback edition (the backlist) and a new hardcover (the frontlist.) So that worked well for pairing. But in SFFH, you are dealing with mostly mass market paperbacks, as is the case for romance, westerns, suspense fiction, etc. So you've had a whole lot of authors who were/are the prolific ones writing multiple series with several books coming out a year, sometimes under different names, sometimes several books in a series coming out in a year. And it was hard for some of those authors if their work was then in hardcover, in mystery say, because the publisher would ask them to slow down to one book a year to please the booksellers who got the book first in hardcover. And you have authors who are comfortable with a once a year schedule and others who take much longer. Writers simply don't all work the same.

And Swainston wasn't upset about bad reviews. She was upset at having to set up a website, do Facebook, blog, Twitter, etc. and spend a lot of time doing that instead of writing and living her life. But you don't necessarily have to do all those things. However, it might have been wearying dealing with a lot of people who think you do.

Overall, she's stepped back and is re-figuring things on her own terms, which is a good thing.

 

[Loerwyn]

And Swainston wasn't upset about bad reviews. She was upset at having to set up a website, do Facebook, blog, Twitter, etc. and spend a lot of time doing that instead of writing and living her life. But you don't necessarily have to do all those things. However, it might have been wearying dealing with a lot of people who think you do.

I would disagree, because there's plenty of authors who don't. As I mentioned earlier, I found Col Buchanan's online presence to be minimal. Gail Z. Martin is content to flood her Twitter feed with repetitive messages about her series, and I believe she's only just got her own website. I suspect that some authors on my shelves don't even have a rudimentary online presence!

Jon Sprunk integrates himself with the community and is a very pleasant guy, but that's something he's chosen to do. David Weber has his site, a Twitter feed (Which is updated a few times a month) and I believe he's active on his own forums. He still manages to get published a few times a year. Modesitt blogs weekly (If not more frequently) on his site, he participates on his own site and he responds to e-mails. These authors do it of their own choice, and that's fair enough. I respect them for it, but I don't think I'd think less of David Weber for not having Twitter, as an example.

Most of the authors I've seen on Twitter don't do it simply for self promotion. Many of them use it as a platform to talk with each other and their fans (Allowing me to Rick Roll Peter Orullian! ), but with a hint of self promotion in there.

All she'd have to do is put half an hour, maybe an hour, into it each day. That's not a lot to ask, and you never know, she might actually like it. Authors don't need these internet-spanning crusades of marketing to be successful. If she had a functioning website that was easy to navigate and updated every so often, and perhaps an infrequently updated Twitter feed, Swainston wouldn't need anything else. She could put in a couple of hours a week, which isn't hard at all, into maintaining the online presence.

It seems to me that she's crying over spilt milk rather than anything else. Surely signing tours and in-person promo events are more disruptive and time-consuming than maintaining a little bit of an internet presence?

 

[KatG]

It's not always a question of time -- and it can take considerably more than a few hours a week. It's also a matter of how you like to deal with people. A lot of writers are not comfortable talking with a bunch of strangers about their work, and then having to monitor and go through those strangers' comments and emails. And while some of us like to yammer, for other writers, doing a blog post requires a thoughtful essay. Add on other promotional attempts or obligations and family stuff and day job stuff and it's a much bigger issue.

But that doesn't really matter. Authors are simply not the same. Some can manage some things and do so beautifully and others can't. In the past, with the wholesale market, that wasn't as much of an issue. Authors could be fairly anonymous if they wanted. (We used to have a lot more male romance writers.) Or they could promote aggressively and personally. Now, a lot more is requested from authors for even a basic online presence. But that doesn't mean that works for all authors. Ever notice that even the really social authors may disappear for weeks from their blogs, etc., when they are writing? It's not that easy to juggle for everyone. It's an additional job, really.

 

[Loerwyn]

I'm sure it is, Kat, and I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying that a functional and beneficial, but minimal, online presence is easily achieved. If an author only had a website and updated it once a month or something, but kept it relevant, that would work. If they have a mini biography, a little "This is what I'm doing now" section and a few lists about their books (Publication order, the different series, recommended reading order etc), then that'd work excellently. If the author does that, they won't have to deal with the Great Unwashed, they'll have an internet presence and fans will still get something out of it.

 

[Erfael]

I'll come down on the other side of the fence, Loerwyn. I have no use for author websites. I don't visit them, never have any curiosity whether an author even has one. I don't even get terribly interested when authors stop by here. There have been a rare one or two whose presence here has convinced me to buy their books due to the kinds of ideas they liked to discuss (Notably, the philosophical discussions Gary and Scott Bakker used to have got me to read both of their books. I was also very impressed by Ms. Moon). But, if I were honest, more authors have put me off by their behavior here over the years than have turned me on. So I'll say, no, I don't think an online presence is necessary for an author (and can be detrimental unless that author is of a certain personality).

 

[KatG]

It's not a matter of thinking of readers as the "Great Unwashed," with authors looking down on fans. Some writers have social disorders that make it hard for them to deal with certain things, both social interaction and/or business issues. Yes, for most people, creating a minimal web presence is not a big deal. But for others, it may be a big deal, especially if they are getting pressured to do it or do more, and it sounds like Swainston was. It can, for some writers, cause them to develop writer's block. And then we have a small percentage of authors who can't afford regular Internet service, etc., who are not in the middle to upper classes. So there simply isn't a one size fits all answer to these things.

 

[Loerwyn]

It's not a matter of thinking of readers as the "Great Unwashed," with authors looking down on fans.

I wasn't implying they do, I just used a semi-popular term for the public. I didn't mean to imply that I think authors feel they're in a class of their own, although that said, some authors seem to be in a world of their own.

I'll come down on the other side of the fence, Loerwyn. I have no use for author websites. I don't visit them, never have any curiosity whether an author even has one. I don't even get terribly interested when authors stop by here. There have been a rare one or two whose presence here has convinced me to buy their books due to the kinds of ideas they liked to discuss (Notably, the philosophical discussions Gary and Scott Bakker used to have got me to read both of their books. I was also very impressed by Ms. Moon). But, if I were honest, more authors have put me off by their behavior here over the years than have turned me on. So I'll say, no, I don't think an online presence is necessary for an author (and can be detrimental unless that author is of a certain personality).

That's fair enough, Erf, but I can't deny that I find author sites useful at times. As a recent example, I found Terry Brooks' site useful in terms of finding out the reading order of his Shannara books (Which, like many, turned out to be publication order). I'm sure some authors find them very useful things to have, as they won't have to repeat the same things and can divert common queries (Especially for multi-series authors like Brooks, Feist, etc) to their site. I got frustrated recently with Abaddon Books because they don't keep reading orders (Nor even publication details) for their Twilight of Kerberos series on their site. That almost put me off buying any more beyond the one I had, but one of their employees took the time to relay the list over Twitter, which was no small feat. If they had the order on their site, it would have saved a lot of time for everyone involved.

But on the other hand, I think being put off authors isn't necessarily a bad thing. There's so much choice in the market that you can allow yourself to truly sideline authors you don't agree with. I will not buy an OSC book because of his views, and I only found out about that due to the internet. If an author seems intent on pushing his/her views in books, such as Mark C. Newton and Goodkind (Not that they're similar), I can decide whether I want to support them or ignore them, and focus on authors who either don't fill books with agendas or waste pages with endless philosophical fourth-wall breaking.

David Weber's presence on Twitter actually encouraged me to read his books more, and I'm thankful for it. The same went for Jon Sprunk and Mark Lawrence - Chances are I wouldn't have gotten their books if it wasn't for them being social.

I think there's a lot of variables, but I will agree that it can be as damaging for an author as it can be as, for want of a better term, profitable. At the end of the day, an author is a sales person and they have something to sell. If they want to sell books, they need to give people a reason why. Some publishers support authors more than others (I think Adrian Tchaikovsky and L.E. Modesitt, Jr. both have their websites supplied for them by their publishers, just as examples), but it's up to the author to help sell their books. They can connect with their prospective audience and market in ways that publishers can't.

 

[Erfael]

That's fair enough, Erf, but I can't deny that I find author sites useful at times. As a recent example, I found Terry Brooks' site useful in terms of finding out the reading order of his Shannara books (Which, like many, turned out to be publication order). I'm sure some authors find them very useful things to have, as they won't have to repeat the same things and can divert common queries (Especially for multi-series authors like Brooks, Feist, etc) to their site. I got frustrated recently with Abaddon Books because they don't keep reading orders (Nor even publication details) for their Twilight of Kerberos series on their site. That almost put me off buying any more beyond the one I had, but one of their employees took the time to relay the list over Twitter, which was no small feat. If they had the order on their site, it would have saved a lot of time for everyone involved.

I've never had a case yet where Wikipedia can't answer this for me, as in most cases publication order is the only way to go. I tend to find the author sites less useful in that these things are usually buried a couple layers deep. A simple Google search of "<author> bibliography Wiki" or "<author> reading order Wiki" tends to turn the information up pretty quickly.

 

[Loerwyn]

I agree, but not all authors have a substantial Wikipedia page, if one at all

 

[jamieem]

...................