Daring to change genre ~ could it become the new black?

I read an author interview on Shelley Wilson's blog the other day, in which children's fantasy writer Lynette Creswell talked about writing fantasy for grown ups, and other genres.  

The other day I was talking online to author of the fantasy Storm Trilogy, Anthony Lavisher, who says he's going to write a thriller next, possibly followed by something historical.

Is this a bad idea?  Some might say yes, but I applaud them.

Since I've started this self-pub thing, one piece of advice I've read over and over again (and, indeed, have given myself) is to stay roughly in the same genre.  This is why: if Angela Author has built up a fanbase for her historical fiction over the last 5 books, those readers are going to be disappointed if her 6th book is about space ships and aliens.  "It's not what I expect from an Angela Author book," they will say, and may give up on her.

But I've been thinking about this.  All creative minds grow and change, don't they?  Surely the essence of creativity is that you're always thinking of new stuff?

I photographed various piles of books around my living room!

The books I write are all character driven, from multiple POVs.  I went darker with The House of York, but they all centre around relationships, usually family.  After The House of York, the plot for The Devil You Know popped into my head - it's about five people who think a local serial killer might be someone close to them.  I wanted to write something more suspenseful, including the odd character with some seriously evil sh*t going on in their heads.  I slid diagonally, I suppose, rather than changing genre....

.... but what I'm coming to is this.  Most of us read several different genres, so if you love the SciFi of Joe Bloggs and the financial thrillers of Bob Smith, might you not like to read Bob Smith's SciFi, too?  Should we be as fearful as we are that we'll put off our readers if we produce something that isn't along exactly the same lines as what's gone before?

 

Bit of a GRR Martin bias on this shelf!

The cheapness and easy availability of Kindle books means that most avid readers have tried new genres over the past few years, and discovered new writers.  In 2010, I was told by a reputable literary agent that she couldn't sell You Wish to a publisher because it was written from multiple 1st person POVs.  I had no desire to rewrite, so I self-published.  Several years down the line, multiple 1st person POVs has become so popular that I rarely open a book that features the same narrator all the way through.  Many readers didn't seem to care for it at the time, either, but now accept it as a popular style, and comment about the author's skill in changing 'voice'.

....so, my point is this.  If a certain style/format used to be thought of as unsaleable, but is now not only accepted but the happening way to go, maybe authors writing in multiple genres might become more accepted, too.  The norm, even.  I know some have got round it by writing the alternative genre under a pen name, but unless you have a good publisher behind you it can mean starting off a whole new promotional platform for that pen name.

Okay.  *Deep breath*.  My next book will be part one of a post apocalyptic series.  No, not zombies, much though I love to read about them, but a pandemic.  Essentially, though, it will still be a Terry Tyler novel.  It centres around one family and their friends, their hopes, fears, love lives, joys and disappointments, but in an end-of-the-world setting rather than comfortable middle class life in East Anglia.  I think that if you like the way I write, then you'll like Tipping Point (working title) as well.  

I'm fascinated by survival after disaster, by the psychology of how people cope, by the manipulation of the population by the media (Tipping Point deals with this, too) ~ isn't it, therefore, logical that I would want to write about it?  If you like the way someone writes, then you like the way they write, full stop ~ surely?  Unless they're moving from romcoms to air conditioning installation manuals, it's likely that you'll still have time for whatever they bring out.  And with any author you like, even if it's action thriller after action thriller or vampire after vampire, you always have your favourites and not-so-favourites.

I hope I'm right and am not just trying to convince myself.  I daresay there will be some readers who say, "I like her family dramas but I don't really want to read about a global disaster."  But if more of us dare to branch out into other genres, it might give others the confidence to give it a go, too.  It might also encourage readers to try genres they always thought they wouldn't like.  I only discovered that I love zombie apocalypse books by accident.  A lady who reads my books asked if I'd be so kind as to read her zombie apoc short story.  I did so out of politeness, and bloody loved it, so much that I've bought three of her books since, and it's now my most-read genre after histfic. 

Maybe it depends how orientated you are towards marketing.  I'm not so much; I always have about 4 stories on the 'to be written' list, and when I've finished one novel I just pick which one I want to do next and crack on.  I'm sure those savvy book marketing people would pour much scorn on this!

I don't know where else I'm going with this really, but if you've dared to publish in more than one genre, are thinking about it but are wary, feel hemmed in by your publisher, or have any other thoughts on the subject, I'd love to hear about it! 

Self publishing: a creative choice, not a last resort ~ thank you, Anton Newcombe...

.... for reminding me of something I've been thinking about lately...

For anyone who is not familiar with the name, Anton Newcombe is a brilliant musician and founder of 90s band The Brian Jonestown Massacre.  Last night I watched the 'rockumentary' Dig! , about seven years of friendship and feuding between BJM and their more commercially successful peers, The Dandy Warhols.  Newcombe had many chances to be signed by recording companies, but blew most of them, perhaps on purpose.

This morning I read an Interview with Newcombe in The Guardian by Rhik Samadder which, amongst other points, reiterated his anti signing-with-an-established-record-label policy.  I was so glad I read it.

Most writers, whilst penning their first novel, have fantasies about submitting it to a major literary agent and being taken on by a major publishing house.  This fantasy becomes reality for one in a million, if not less.  Alas, many soon realise that their first novel leaves much room for improvement, and is not the stuff of which bestsellers are made.  I started writing long before Kindle; back in the days when I occasionally submitted novels to agents I gained some interest, but it amounted to 'yes, like the way you write, but can you change the content according to what is currently in vogue, so I can sell it to a publisher?'

I've written about this before so won't go on and on about it again ~ the point I wanted to make, in a roundabout way, is that writers should not see self-publishing only a last resort after they've been rejected by mainstream publishers, but as a creative choice, because they want to make their own choices about what, when, how and for what price they publish.  Yes, self-pub stuff on Amazon ranges from the brilliant to the truly dire, but the desire to 'be a published author' leads many to sign with small independent publishers who have zero clout with booksellers, or, worse, with rip-off vanity presses (hybrid, or 'contribute towards the cost').  

As far as independent publishers are concerned, some writers find that they end up with all the restrictions of trad pub - losing control of content, timing of publication, price, etc - with none of the advantages - no promotion, no financial advances, no books in high street shops and, on occasion, proofreading and editing that leaves much to be desired.   

 

 
Self-publishing means you can make your own decisions about every single aspect of your books.  You're not bound by what some editor, who may or may not have a good understanding of the market, considers saleable.  When you say you self-publish 'by choice' let it mean that it's your first choice, not a last resort after 30 rejections.

I remember one writer saying that he'd felt so excited by the 'indie' movement in publishing, when Kindle was first introduced, but became disillusioned by the reality: people bunging up any old rubbish on Amazon and thinking they were going to be the next GRR Martin.  This has added to the bad name self-publishing has had since the days when vanity publishing was the only option available.  

Acceptance by a publishing house or a recording company should not be seen as the only affirmation that creative output is worth something; such large companies exist to make money, first and foremost, not to nurture the artist, who is not encouraged to be 'edgy' or explore new ground; money invested has to be a safe bet.  As Courtney Taylor-Taylor of The Dandy Warhols said in Dig!, all the record companies give you the spiel about caring about your career, not just your hit records, but if you don't have a hit record you soon find out how much they care about your career.   Similarly, with major publishing houses and literary agents: if you don't produce the hot selling goods, you're history. 

But what about validation of your talent?  Doesn't acceptance by a literary agent/publisher give you that?  Not necessarily.  I've heard, straight from one horse's mouth, that acceptance by an agent doesn't necessarily mean that you're a terrific writer, just that you've produced a product they can mould into something that will earn them big bucks.  If you want validation, wait to see if readers buy more than one of your books.  Rejoice in your genuine reviews from book bloggers and the reading public.

I've read fantastic books by self-pub authors that are easily as good as those by well known writers and some published by mainstream houses that are pretty mediocre, but sell because of that, and the money behind them, of course; 'vanilla' is always popular and, indeed, is pushed by the media.

Saleability to the masses (and investment from large corporations) does not necessarily indicate creative brilliance; it's fair to say that creativity and making money do not go hand in hand. 

It took me a while to realise that I actively want to be self-published.  I can't imagine letting someone else have control over my work.  If you understand the importance of good editing and proofreading to produce something worth selling, you should be proud that you do it all yourself.  Once you stop worrying about writing synopses and what-the-hell-agents-are-looking-for-this-month, or getting yet another rejection letter, your writing life gets a lot easier.  And you can spend your time producing novels, not query letters.

"Fabulous book, darling, but it's got ADVERBS!"

Do you follow the writing 'rules'?

I hope not.  

When I first started writing, there were no 'Write your way to bestsellerdom' blog posts.  There were no Twitter #writetips, and significantly fewer courses set up to make money out of the hopeful wordsmith.  If you wanted to write you just sat down and did so, you didn't take time out to blog about writers' block, word counts, or the two hours you just spent mulling over whether or not it's acceptable to change from third person to first in alternate chapters.  If it turned out you didn't have any talent, the thirty rejection slips and the awkward look on your friends' faces after they'd read your sample chapters soon delivered the message.

Nowadays, not only does our culture of encouragement mean that we must never, ever suggest that a writer wannabe might not have a gift for the written word, but instructions on how to write are everywhere we look.  New writers can get bogged down by them.  I've seen reviews that make me wonder if the reviewer sat with a check list next to them whilst reading, while some blog posts give the impression that anyone can produce a bestseller via a series of modules, almost.  Punchy start? Tick.  Hook in the first chapter? Tick.  Atmospheric backdrop without too much rambling description?  Tick.  Which is why, I suppose, some debut novels read as though they've come straight from a creative writing class.  Reined in and careful.  Ooh, did you know that you can no longer add 'she said' after a piece of dialogue?  Of course, we all learned a few years ago that you must NEVER write anything like 'she shouted' or 'she snarled', but now, apparently, you can't write 'she said' either.

Er, yes, you CAN.  Sometimes.  When it's necessary.  Part of the skill of writing is being able to make the decision about whether or not something 'works'; already I'm seeing indie novels that have followed the new 'abandon he said-she said' rule so absolutely that you can't work out who's saying what to whom.
 
I read an article a while back in which a first-novel writer was getting herself into fifty shades of anxiety over the first/third person thing mentioned above.  More worrying were all the comments beneath, reminding her of what was okay and what wasn't.

The cartoons aren't necessarily relevant to the article, by the way; 
they're just here to amuse you!

Writing courses and articles offer all these rules about how to use POV in order to make a reader 'connect' with your characters.  I think most of this is horsesh*t, to be honest.  If you write well enough, your readers will connect with your characters within a few pages, whatever damn POV they're in.  If you don't write well enough, no rule book, writing course or blog article is going to make that connection happen.

I've been told that I 'couldn't' have more than two paragraphs of backstory.  Really?  Ever read a Jackie Collins book?  Whatever the literature snobs say about her genre, her pages and pages of backstory on the introduction of a new character didn't do her any harm.  Mutiple POVs in one novel used to be considered a little on the wild side, before it became the fashion it is now; an agent told me that she liked a book I'd submitted to her but couldn't sell it to a publisher unless I rewrote from one POV; I shouldn't deviate from the main story, she said.  I felt like saying, um, ever read any Jerome K Jerome, master of interesting little diversions?  The multiple POVs of GRR Martin?  Or Susan Howatch?

**Alert!** Always hang a piece of garlic above your laptop to ward off the evil adverbs!  These days, red flashing lights and an alarm bell go off on my lap top via the 'Writing Rules' Police if I so much as consider including one in a first draft.

Of course, one should always be open to learning; I read a bit of good advice the other day and thought, ah yes, I need to remind myself of that, and indeed I would if I could remember what it was.  Any decent and serious writer without ego problems knows that they can always improve; wise words from the experienced and accomplished are always worth listening to.  But one writer (see how I started a sentence with 'but' there?  Daring, huh?) said this to me in an email today: "I minimize contact with some of my old beta readers because they have such slavish devotion to the so-called rules of writing that they forget how to tell a good story".  Which, for me, said it all.

Writing is a creative, fluid, individual skill.  If you read any novels by your favourite authors, I bet you'll find adverbs, 'she whispereds', and even a bit of ~ eek, dare I mention it? ~ telling not showing.  By which I don't mean introducing a character by saying "Harry was a brusque sort of chap who often got on the wrong side of people, but also had an engagingly dry sense of humour"; that's just amateur and crap; of course the reader should be shown that he possesses such qualities, not told.  But I've been ticked off in reviews for one book for too much 'telling not showing' of events, because my character gave an account about one too many, instead of my taking the reader back to where the party/murder/argument/death actually happened; sometimes, though,  you have to just tell the reader about an event, you can't show every damn scene or the novel would be two thousand pages long.  And I wonder if those reviewers had heard of 'telling not showing' before they joined Twitter and read all the 'how to write' blog posts thereon?  I certainly hadn't.

A while back I came across a blog post by one of the 'My one self-pub novel hit the top ten of a minor genre chart a year ago, and now I'm qualified to tell everyone how to write' crew.  He actually said something like "I'm often asked, 'Bob, is it acceptable to use profanity in my writing?'".  I bet you just frowned and thought "WTF?" too, didn't you?   You write whatever the story requires, whatever feels right for you, there isn't any 'can' or 'can't'.   Have your rock star talking as if he's at a church social if Bob says so, by all means, but don't expect your readers to be astounded by your character realism.

I actually wonder if some writers have never grown out of the need to do what teacher/Daddy says so they won't get told off.

Ages ago I got a 4* for my first self-pub novel, You Wish, that said something along the lines of 'it really worked, despite breaking so many of the rules of writing'.  I could write the book better now (having just published my 11th one, it would be a bit of a worry if I couldn't), but isn't the key in that one line?  Earlier this year I read an excellent novel written in the second person.  I couldn't believe it worked, but it did, because the writer has talent and imagination, and confidence in his own style.  It's Ultra Violence by Mark Barry, if you're interested.

This post is way too long already, so I'll end by telling you what happened when I wrote a satirical blog post called How to write a romcom best seller in one easy lesson.  I had lots of comments from chick lit authors who thought it was very amusing and spot on ~ but I also received a few tweets from people thanking me for it... because they thought it was to be taken seriously....

..... and here is what writer Katrina Mountfort had to say about 'the rules', earlier this year!  HERE