Great question, and one that I actually don't think has ever been asked here before! Yes, you already seem to know that to submit to an agent and then a publishing house, that your manuscript (at least fiction) has to be complete. Why? It's too easy to start a book and never finish it. It's also similarly easy to start a book well and finish it badly. 

So that's that.

As far as what comes next, most authors do NOT have to write the entire book to make a sale. Most of our contracts have something built in which requires us to write the first three (or so) chapters, along with a proposal, for consideration. The publisher then has right of first refusal on that submission. That said, my agent has always encouraged me to write more than the bare minimum because the more they see of great work, the more excited they'll be about the book and their offer. (Translation: potentially more money.)

With Time of My Life, because we were changing publishers, I believe that I wrote the first 100 pages, which we then shopped around. With The One That I Want, I did indeed stick to three chapters, which is something I regretted, and am unlikely to do again. For me, part of the problem with my struggle to write that book was knowing that I was contracted to do something and really not having an iota of how I was going to do it. Psychologically, it felt harder than having those first 100 pages down and feeling good about them. Instead, I pretty much had the entire book looming, and I KNEW I had to deliver it. It was a little paralyzing. With The Memory of Us, again, I had, I believe, 150 or so pages done, before anyone laid eyes on it. Not because I had to but because I learned from experience that I respond best to circumstances in which I feel like I'm in control: once you've written that much of a book, the end is in sight, and you know that you can get there without too many problems.

So that's how I like to do things, regardless of what my contract states. I'm curious: writers, do you sell on the first three chapters? If so, why? If not, are you like me in that you like to have a better handle on things before you ink a deal?

It's something I've been thinking about for a while, and I believe I even blogged about it well over a year or so ago. When I got married (many moons ago), I immediately adopted my husband's name, tacking it on to mine without giving it much thought to my long-term career. But to be honest, I never quite made the leap. I still answer my work line as "Allison Winn," my website, quite obviously, still has the same maiden name address, and to most of the people who know me or knew me in my pre-married life, I'm still Ali Winn, sans the Scotch.

And now, maybe it's because 95% of my energies are spent devoted to my family, but I've been thinking about trying to retain a bit of control over the one thing that I do for myself: writing. Which leads me back to my maiden name and wondering why I changed it (professionally) and whether or not it was the right decision.

When I tweeted about this, the majority of women who replied opted NOT to change their names. A few called it old-fashioned; many simply felt as I do now - that it's about grabbing hold of your life up to now; and @rosiemolinary put it wonderfully: that all the experiences she had that allow her to write were part of the life she embodied with her maiden name. Why on earth would she change it? Why on earth indeed.

None of this has anything to do with my marriage or my family. In fact, in some ways, I think it's about how fully devoted I am to them - so much of what I do is about them, that I'd like to have one thing for me. I suspect a lot of women and moms know of what I speak, even if the issue for them isn't about a maiden name. Maybe it's about time or a hobby or SOMETHING that we can call our own. I'll still be Scotch for my kids and for their school and for anything else that covers that aspect of my life, but for this, I kind of think that I'd like this to be my own.

So yesterday, when I got home from vacation, I called my agent and asked: can I go back to it professionally? How difficult it is anyway to make that leap? I might be too far into my career to do so, and that will be that, and I, of course, will deal. But still, it's something I long for - the complete and full definition of my professional identity, one that has nothing to do with any other aspect of my life. Sure, I write about motherhood and marriage, so maybe that's not entirely fair or true, but I'd just like to be able to own this. If that makes sense. 

Anyway, it's something I encourage new writers to really think about: your professional identity and where you'll be, not just in a year from now when your first book is published, but many years from now. How do you want to respresent yourself? 

Other writers out there: what say you? Did you change your name? Why or why not? Do you regret it? Ever think of doing things differently?

But you know what? I'm rethinking this. Because throughout the process of The Memory of Us, I have been super-stoked to tackle the manuscript, and now, with this mini-break, my enthusiasm is even higher. And I'll tell you what: early readers are giving this ms a big thumbs-up...I'd say it's in the same shape now - after three drafts - that The One That I Want was after seven. And I can't help but think it's because I am so damn excited to be writing it. With The One, which I remain super-proud of and fully believe in the finished product, there was a lot more hair-pulling, a lot more stress, and a lot more pressure. This one is just purely from a place of joy, a reminder of what I love what I do, and I really, honestly wish that I could just put it out into the world RIGHT NOW to test my theory. :)

Anyway, this could certainly lead into a bigger discussion, which we did delve into many months ago, about what translates to a reader from behind-the-scenes, and this is a subject that I hope to revisit on the road to the publication of The Memory of Us. For now though, I'm just happy to be so pleased with the manuscript and happier still to return to it. Sometimes, work really just feels like work (writers always need a reminder of this), but I'm elated that this one doesn't. Maybe my next one will. But for now, I'll take what I can get. :)

Writers - I'd love to hear - have any of your books come more easily to you than others? Do you think it affected the final version?

In the meantime, if you have lingering questions about the publishing industry - from magazines to agents to editors to whatnot - feel free to post them below. Now's a good time for me to play catch-up, so I'll address them as soon as I get back.

Hope you all enjoy your own last gasps of summer too!

This is an excellent question, and one that I've wrestled with myself. The conclusion I've come to is several-fold:

1) I think that there are only so many themes to be explored in books. What I mean by that is that all authors are waxing poetic about, I don't know, maybe ten different universal themes/truths - death, acceptance, regret, happiness, etc, and what makes each book distinctive is how the specific author tackles it. I mean, read the descriptions of many of the newly released books by your favorite author. Most of them may revolve around themes that we've heard before, but it's the approach that sets the book apart. And this is true for me too. For example, it's not like the idea of "what ifs" hadn't previously been explored, but I tried to put my own stamp on it in Time Of My Life.

2) I think that there is some truth in the idea that you should write what you know, at least when it comes to my own writing. For me, creating three-dimensional characters comes from having a real understanding of their lives, and thus, yes, I suppose that I write about women who face various crossroads. That's my map on which to draw. NONE of my characters' actions or circumstances reflect my own, but there is still an emotional connection that I have with them - one that comes from being a woman who has faced crossroads of her own. And for me, that's critical. Which isn't to say that, I don't know, I couldn't write a murder mystery or whatnot, but I don't know if, without that important connection, the book would be as strong or really, if I'd be as interested in writing it in the first place.

3) This isn't to say that I wouldn't like to try something new. I've thought about writing from the male perspective or tackling an entire book in the third person, thus exploring a few different psyches. But as I get older and encounter different obstacles - or watch my friends encounter different obstacles - I'll always have new material. Growing children, divorce, remarriage, empty nest, all of the things that women in my peer group have to face. So I do feel like I'll always have new takes on the same themes, and as long as I'm challenged, I hope that my readers will be satisfied.

What say you, readers? How important is it to you to tackle new themes OR is it more important that you write great books while still examining the same issues?

Anyway, head on over and check out how I try to ensure that I keep reinventing myself while still drumming the same beat. I'd love to hear how you guys do it as well.

For me, personally, I feel like I "owe" readers (and that's a terrible word choice but you know what I mean) some graciousness and some responsiveness and some interaction. I truly am so grateful that ANYONE would pick up one of my books and invest both the time and money in reading it, that I am almost always willing to engage with them on Twitter or on my FB fan page about it. But for me, that's probably where my sense of obligation ends, which is maybe why I'm not struggling with the balance of social media that others do. I don't think it's an author's job to invite readers into other aspects of their lives - the personal FB pages with pictures of my kids, the blow-by-blow of my weekend plans, my political views (which I never, ever share publicly) - even though, sure, this might make me seem all the more relatable. I think there's a balance that can be found in the exchanges that I have with readers that doesn't involve me opening myself up for full exposure.

But it's a hard line to toe, to be sure. I ENJOY being friends with readers and enjoy knowing things about their own lives. So, of course, I share things about my life, but I try to be careful about crossing boundaries, in the same way that maybe agents do with clients or that bosses do with employees. These boundaries are all established for a reason: after all, really, at the end of the day, we really DON'T know each other.

Some authors don't believe in even establishing this line in the first place: I can name a few who don't tweet, don't FB at all. They want to write books, full stop, and their obligation to readers begins and ends with writing a good book. That's it. From a marketing standpoint, it's hard to fully get behind this tactic, but from a personal standpoint, I suppose they're of the belief that authors should still be relatively mysterious to their fan base. Or maybe they just truly - and this I can understand for certain personality types - don't have the interest in engaging online.

Anyway, I'd be curious to hear how you guys deal with putting your personal life out there...if authors should feel a sense of obligation to do so or what, really, they SHOULD feel obligated to do for their readers. Nothing? Everything? What's the middle ground?

Right now, these past few weeks, I am deep into my revision of The Memory of Us, and something funny has happened: I have lost my instinct to tweet, to post FB updates, and yes, even to blog a bit. I click over to Tweetdeck when I need to give my brain a break and try to come up with something to say, and well, there's just not much that's coming out.

Which started me thinking. And which has evidently starting my friends thinking too.

I used to think that all of this outside writing and creating and whatnot didn't affect my writing, but now, I'm wondering otherwise. Actually, that's not true. Given that I have indeed, been able to steer myself away from these mediums while writing, I don't think that my writing has been affected, but I can really see how it can be. How you can spend your days training your brain to speak in 140 character lines rather than thinking about meaty dialogue or vivid, lush description. Some of my friends feel like they've fallen into this trap, so they're slowly shifting away from tweeting or FB-ing or however they send their messages out into the world.

The tricky side of making this shift is that as authors, we also know how important it is TO send these messages out into the world. There is NO DOUBT that social media sells books, that readers like to communicate with authors, and that platform is king right now. Publishers don't just want you to tweet and FB, they expect it. Readers seek you out, and if you don't make the effort, they may very well move onto another author who does. But authors also do wonder about where we have the power to draw the line: how much of our lives do we have to expose - share pictures of our families, offer details on our weekends out?

So what is a writer to do? For me, I feel lucky that I naturally pulled back from Twitter, etc, when my work needed it most: I have a deadline, and to be honest, I just can't compromise the time that I do when I'm not knee-deep in a manuscript. And once you step away for a few days (or even a few hours), it's easier to stay away the next day and the day after that. (I should say, I don't go full turkey- anyone who follows my twitter feed knows that! But trust me, I am spending a lot less time, and more importantly, MENTAL energy, on it right now). I'm also pretty comfortable talking about my pop culture loves and life observations, but I, too, draw the line that many of my friends are debating. I LOVE tweeting with readers and interacting with my FB readers, but I also can't reply to everyone (which I think people understand), and I also limit my personal FB page to people I know in real life. It's the only way that I can control this line that social media blurs. I'm not trying to be rude or anything like that, I'm simply trying to make sense and order of the SM platform.

It's a tricky thing - this brave new world. We're all navigating it together. For some of my writer friends, they've had enough for now. Too much tweeting about their personal lives, too much tweeting in general, maybe, not enough ACTUAL writing...which, after all, is what we're here for, what we're paid to do, and the only reason anyone has heard of us or read us in the first place. Anyway, I thought it was an interesting discussion: this balance and the push-pull and the combination of both dread and joy that social media brings. I, for one, wouldn't give it up entirely for anything. It makes me feel like part of a community, takes me out of that isolating bubble that is writing. But still...it's a slippery slope, no?

I'd love to hear how you guys navigate this brave new world, and if you've found that social media affects how you write, as well.

Ah money. One of the singular MOST uncomfortable things for a freelancer to talk about and yet also the singular MOST important thing for a freelancer to talk about. I can't speak to specific rates for blogs - I'll leave that up to the comments section - but I CAN speak to how to go about this, and why it is so important that you do so.

Back when I was freelancing as my main gig, I always established pay from the get-go. When I was offered an assignment, the editor usually included her offer in the email, and from there, I'd calculate how long the article would take me (approximately), and what I could then anticipate earning per hour. If it was too low for my time, I'd ask for a bump up. I - because negotiating makes my heart skip a beat like many others - always tried to do this in the kindest yet FIRMEST way possible. Maybe it's that you're earning more elsewhere or maybe it's just that your typical rate is higher and you hope they can match it. Or using some language like that. Other writers will be more aggressive about it, but that's what worked for me. Editors KNOW that you want to earn the most money possible, and they are NOT going to be offended or pull the assignment because you ask, nor are they going to really even think about it again once the conversation is over. But if you don't ask, you DEFINITELY will not get a rate bump.

These days, so much assigning is done via email, that in some ways, the negotiation task is easier. You can think about what you want to say and not stumble over your words. Also, your editor won't feel put on the spot when you approach her. (Yes, I am sure that there are some old schoolers out there who prefer to handle this by phone. That's totally cool too. I'm just sharing what has worked for me. By all means, please weigh in below on what works for you too!) If no rate is mentioned in the initial assignment email, I'd write back with something like, "This all makes sense - thanks for being so clear. What is the word count and rate per word?" This isn't a difficult question - it's a simple fact that she NEEDS to tell YOU before you begin. If, in fact, she's paying you nothing, this is also the time that she has to tuck her tail between her legs and share that too. At no point should you be sitting there working on a piece with a giant payment question mark over your head.

So that's how I tended/tend to handle things. As far as blogging pay rate, I really haven't blogged for money, but I'm hoping that some folks out there have and will share the varying scales. I suspect that they run anywhere from literal pennies to $1+ more per word. Magazine rates STILL hover between $1-2 per word (for nationals), and haven't been bumped up in years. So I'm guessing (again, just a guess) that blogging comes in below that.

Anyone want to share his or her strategies for negotiation/uncovering pay rate, and if you're feeling really generous, share what you might earn for a blogging gig?