Question of the day: I have spent five years and three major revisions on my first novel. I belong to two critique groups and I've been querying agents for the last six months and contacted about 30 of them. I've gotten 3 full requests, 3 partial requests, and 1 full request from an editor I met at a Writers Conference in April. The problem I'm facing is that everyone seems to have a different (and contradictory) reason for rejecting the novel. What do you think I should do? Should I continue to query agents or set this novel aside? (I'm already working on my second novel, but I'm having a hard time giving up on the first one.)

I can't tell you what to do in this specific circumstance, but I do think this opens up the much broader question of when is it time to set something aside. In your case, 30 agents isn't that many for a really in-depth agent hunt, and because reading is so subjective, you really are likely to get a wide variety of opinions in your rejections, so ultimately, whether or not you pursue this novel is up to you. Maybe it's your query letter, maybe it's timing, the agents you're contacting, the industry...there are so many different reasons as to why it might not be making its mark.

But yes, sometimes, it is just that the book isn't good enough. Writers, especially first-timers, often have a hard time accepting this, but it's the simple truth: just because a book has been completed, and even when a book has been revised - and revised again - it simply still isn't going to sell. If you've been reading this blog for long enough, you know that I speak from experience, and the reason I call out first-timers is because until you've written something that is a hell of a lot better, you really can't tell when a novel stinks. (Which isn't to say that the reader's manuscript in question stinks, only that it's very, very, very difficult to be objective when you have no basis for comparison.)

So how do you decide if you should set it aside? I think this is a really personal decision, but for me - beyond the fact that I was getting rejections from publishers (hee), I was also getting lukewarm feedback from readers I trusted, readers I was sure would rave about it. When they came back with "eh," I started to wonder if maybe I hadn't created the masterpiece I thought I had. (Yes, opinions are totally just that, but again, these were people whose opinions I valued, so I had to give them some weight.) I think also, sometimes you keep pushing a book because of the sunk costs - namely, how much time and effort you've put into them in the past, NOT because you're really so gung-ho on them for the future. Again, this certainly applied to me. After all of my blood, sweat and tears, I simply couldn't IMAGINE that this book wasn't going to be published. BUT, despite my agony, that didn't mean that it SHOULD be published. There's a big difference, and maybe that's not fair, maybe that's the really crappy part of our industry, but just because you THINK it's worthy doesn't mean that the marketplace will agree. And that's the gamble that you take in writing a manuscript in the first place.

I wish I had more concrete answers for you. I can only say that once you write something new - and better - then you really finally get clarity on why that other book didn't sell. It's nearly impossible to articulate the specifics behind this enlightenment (at least impossible for me to articulate them), but the good news is that you WILL finally get it, even if means that you have to write something else to do so.

Readers - I would LOVE to hear from you: have you ever decided to set a book aside, and if so, how did you reach this conclusion?

Question of the day: How did you make the switch from magazines to books? Was it easier to find an agent via your magazine experience?

I made the switch in the most elemental way possible: I wrote a manuscript and shopped it around to agents while still juggling my freelance work. It really was that simple! I don't think there's a magic formula or anything to making this transition, though certainly, it requires discipline, as you're not getting paid to write your fiction, and without a deadline, it's very easy to let it lapse. Most magazine writers are excellent at meeting mandated deadlines, but when they're self-imposed deadlines - with no guarantee of publication - they're a lot easier to ignore.

Actually, let me rewind - it wasn't simple. That's probably not the right word to use. But in terms of overall formula, that's how it worked. The details though were a little trickier. My first manuscript took me four years to write, thanks partially to what I stated above: deadlines and motivation, but also partially thanks to the fact that I didn't know what I was doing. Once I finally completed the ms, I landed an agent but an agent who didn't end up selling the book. So I wrote another one. Which did sell. Albeit with a new agent after I parted ways with the old one. All the while, I was still freelancing at a very rapid pace to keep the checks coming and to keep my byline out there. I would work on magazine pieces in the morning - they had concrete deadlines after all, and I needed to be sure that I met them - and write fiction in the afternoons. I was crazy busy, too busy probably, but I didn't want to let that deter me: once I'd written fiction, I knew that I had to see it through. So I did. 

Again, both simple and not. I wrote a good query letter (which, yes, referenced my magazine experience) and cast a wide net in a blind agent search. I found one (after the first agent didn't work out) who I knew was right for me, and well, four books later, she still is. That's truly all I did - not much different than anyone else. Now, did my magazine experience help? It probably got my query letter read more frequently and also probably got me more requests for partials. But 100%, it did NOT land me representation. The manuscript has to stand on its own - I don't care if you have ever magazine credit known to man - without a strong manuscript, you're not going to land an agent. So again - and I've stressed this countless times here! - please be triple sure that your manuscript is ready to see the light of day.

So that's how I did it. There really isn't a secret handshake or magic formula. It's mostly about self-discipline and writing a good book. (Really! And that should come as good news to those of you who don't come from the writing world - it really is anyone's ball game.)

Before I get to today's post, I wanted to let you know that I'm also guest blogging over on The Divining Wand today, talking about goals and goal-setting and dreams and how to make them happen. Head on over and check it out.

So...WOW. Just wow. ONE MORE WEEK and The One That I Want will be ushered out into the world. It's crazy, it's surreal, it's daunting. Mostly, it feels akin to being pregnant for eight and a half months, then looking in the mirror and suddenly realizing that there's no turning back: you're having this baby and you're having it soon!

To pull back the curtain and give you a glimpse as to what goes on for an author leading up to publication, I've spent the bulk of the last few weeks doing promotional stuff: answering online q/as, writing guest blogs, finalizing the book club guide...things like that. Little things that end up eating the bulk of my day. (Don't get my wrong, I'm not complaining.) There is a flurry of back-end activity on both my part and the part of my publicity team, a last-minute push to ensure that anyone who might consider reviewing the book is aware of its publication, and then...mostly, there's silence. That's the part that gets a little easier with each book but will never, EVER get truly easy. The bottom line is that but for a few long-lead reviews (the trades like Publishers Weekly and the magazines such as Redbook), you really have no idea how the product that you poured a year of your life into will be received.

Which is something that I don't think I ever really considered when I was an unpublished author: the anxiety - EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER YOUR REVIEWS and EVEN THOUGH YOU WROTE THE BEST BOOK YOU COULD - over what comes next. You feel a little bit like Sally Field, despite wanting desperately NOT to feel like Sally Field because you like to think that you're impermeable to what people are going to say about you. But I think just about every author out there wants to be well-received, even if he or she claims that reviews don't matter, and so, in this in-between time, it's hard not to fret, not to lose a little sleep.

There is also, this time around, the weight of expectations. Again, nothing I'd ever considered before, and TRUST ME, I am not complaining. I have readers to please, I have a publisher to please, and let's be honest: you guys know me, you know that I set the bar high for myself, so I have myself to please. It's a strange position to be in - publishing the book in and of itself is an accomplishment, but now, there is more riding on it. I suppose this is true of any career: the higher you ascend, the more you have to both risk and gain. But still, expectations keep me up a bit at night too. (Clearly, I'm not sleeping at all!)

Anyway, that's what goes on in the mind of a writer on the cusp of publication. It's a tangled mix of euphoria and nerves - I'm so super-proud of this book, of the effort that it took me, and what that effort represents to me personally, but I can't lie and say that, like every book launch, I'm not nervous. But so it goes. That's life as a writer. I'll embrace it with open arms.

So I'm very, very curious to hear what others have to say about today's blog post (and dilemma). Please feel free to unleash below. Because I'm truly torn about what I'm about to post.

First, a bit of backstory. Like most writers, I have a google alert set up for my name, not because I'm a total narcissist but because I do think it's important to know what's being said and what buzz is happening out there about you. In fact, some would argue that google alerts aren't narcissistic, rather masochistic, because you never know what's going to come down the pipeline. To that end, plenty of bad reviews and snarky comments come my way about my work. Fine. As I've urged writers in the past, I think it's important to take these things with a grain of salt and package them in a little box and set it aside and move on.

That said.

Yesterday, my google alert went off and brought up a particularly eviscerating review. Again: fine. In nearly every case, I look the other way and simply don't care. Some people will love the book, some people won't: that's life as a writer and you have to accept this if you're putting yourself in the public domain. However, this review said some unfair and inaccurate things about me personally, and the hairs on my neck stood up. All I could think about was that I should be able to defend myself in a rational, calm way. And yet, every other instinct and example - just look at when Alice Hoffman unleashed on Twitter - told me to move on. But I couldn't. I felt almost personally disparaged by the name-calling, and in the end, I wrote a quick, calm, kind note on the blog explaining my stance on what had been said.

But this got me thinking: in the day and age in which anyone can post anything about you or your books, at what point are writers allowed to speak up? In general, the rule has always been - under no circumstance. Keep your mouth shut. You'll end up on Gawker, looking like a fool. But I'm starting to rethink that. Not that the correct tactic is hysterically calling out a New York Times (or whatever media outlet) reporter because he or she didn't like your book, but yes, aren't we entitled to a little bit of defense of ourselves? When something crosses the line? Or is the price we pay for being published authors (and I'm asking this seriously) that we have to sit back and accept whatever comes our way?

I don't know. In many ways, I'm starting to think that bloggers/reviewers/ranters should be responsible for what they post. Sure, they can say whatever they want about something and someone, but at the same time, they need to be okay with anyone - the author included - reading it, and in some cases, being argued back at. Sometimes, I think people forget that if they put something up on the internet, it is OUT THERE, and if it is OUT THERE, then it's fair game for anyone else to chime in on.

Hmmm. It's interesting how much this is bothering me, this concept that there's a wall between writers and readers, and yet it's a one-sided wall at that. Again, it's not the lousy review that I have a problem with, it's public disparagement. At what point is the writer allowed to speak up? Always? Never? Sometimes but with the risk that you'll look petty and/or foolish? Is it really petty to be able to want to defend yourself in the public arena? As I said, I'm starting to think that the answer can be no.

Will you share your thoughts? I'd love to hear them.

So, I am seriously having a hard time believing this, but I am done the first draft of The Memory of Us. Honestly, I'm a little in shock! Writing this book has felt a little bit different than any of my others. Time Of My Life flew by in a whirlwind of two months. The One That I Want was a lot of hard labor. And this one? Well, this one was kind of when I realized that writing a book is just like any other task: if you build it slowly and methodically, it gets done. Like organizing a closet, cleaning out a pantry. (Now doesn't THAT make this gig sound glamorous!) :)

Now, that isn't to say that the real work doesn't begin now. Actually, no, that's not true. For me, the real work is getting from start to finish, but my work is hardly done. Often times - and I'm pretty sure that you guys will be able to relate - I'll think certain aspects of a book are really AWESOME while writing them, and then I'll go back and reread them, and just be aghast. AGHAST! Not only that I thought they were awesome, but that I wrote them in the first place! And conversely, I'm now spending a lot of time reflecting on the problems that I know are already there. Because there are plenty of problems. I think this is one of the biggest differences between who I am as a writer now, and who I was as a writer when I first started out. Not only my ability to pinpoint problems, but the recognition that a draft is...a draft. Not a finished product, not even close to a finished product. Five years ago, I bet that I'd have given this a quick one-over and thought it was pretty damn good. Now, I am literally keeping myself awake at night trying to figure out not only how to make it better, but how to eliminate every last weakness in the plot, the characters, the writing, the dialogue. And I think this evolution of understanding just how much work it takes in getting a manuscript just right can't be underestimated. Whether you're looking for an agent or already contracted with a publisher, I really, really recommend pouring over your manuscript on time more than you think you need to. It's worth it to be 1000% sure that you've gotten it right.

But anyway, that's for later. For now, I'm taking a day to enjoy it before I pull on the goggles and dive back in.