How age relates to publishing

[Thor_Doomhammer]

Is age a factor when deciding what books to publish? (Ex. Will the publisher always choose the older candidate rather than the younger one?)

 

[Havlen]

I wouldn't worry about age being a barrier for you. Writing, story, and the market for the book are all going to be much more important.

 

[Triceratops]

Yap, pretty much story trumps all in this case. I don't even mention my age. Many of the youngest writers are not ready for a career, and most of the oldest ones don't have much time to develope a fan base. If you are in the cozy middle, you're just one of many vying for one of those coveted publishing slots. So put your best foot forward, FTK and get right on that WIP.

Good hunting.

Tri

 

[Anthony G Williams]

I doubt that publishers have any idea of the age of the authors. It's not as if they meet prospective authors face-to-face these days.

 

[JFLewis]

The topic of my age didn't come up until after the contract had been signed. Don't worry about it.

J

 

[quidscribis]

No one - that I've ever heard of - mentions their ages in their query letters, and there is just about zero reason to ever mention it. How on earth would anyone have even an inkling of an idea of the age of a writer? And why would they care?

If the story is good, that's what matters.

 

[dustinzgirl]

Didn't seem to be a problem for that Eragon writer kid.

And, I'm going to have my ninth twenty-first birthday in two months. I was supposed to have my masterpiece done by now. I blame the kids.

 

[Anne Lyle]

I was supposed to have my masterpiece done by now.

I find myself saying that every year

Problem is, the older you get, the more you realize you're really only getting started as a writer (and in the last couple of decades, the market has also become much tougher to break into). I console myself with the thought that when I eventually get published - no "if", mind you, I'm determined to persevere - it will be with a much better book than I could have written in my 20s or even 30s...

 

[Meadowhawk]

How on earth would anyone have even an inkling of an idea of the age of a writer? And why would they care?

The only way is if you directly or indirectly 'tell'. If you decided you wanted to try and play the age card because you think it would make you more marketable to a target audience, I would guess there could be an advantage in some non-fiction markets. You're an expert in Quantum Superconductivity of Bizarre Particles and want to present yourself as someone who has been teaching for 20 years. I don't see a real advantage in fiction, but perhaps I'm overlooking something.

On the other side, an unprofessional query typed in txt msg w-o punc cries out immature (the previous text-speak was made up and may not actually represent the proper use of this form of communication).

:: edit::
Right after submitting, it hit me. Someone mentioned Eragon. This was a case (small parent-run press) where he was marketed as a teen author to teens. When his parents published the book first, they traveled to high schools across the country and had Paolini speak and they sold 10,000 of his books. Knopf picked it up, and you know the rest of that story; but this might be seen as a creative use of age as a marketing technique.

 

[John Jarrold]

In the UK, mainstream publishers are interested in their authors' ages - not in order to decide whether or not to publish them, but because the author is a part of publicizing the book, so if they are unusually young or old, that's a point to mention in the marketing and publicity material. If they are, say, between late 20s to early 50s, it isn't a specific point, in those terms. Christopher Paolini, the author of Eragon, was of interest to the book trade because he was very young. Others who have had their first novel published in their 60s have also had that pointed out in their publicity material. As a publisher, you use everything you can to make a novel interesting to the book chains and the punters when it is first published. But no one will take on a book specifically because the author is particularly young or old, in normal circumstances. A reader running into a bookshop on a wet morning to buy a paperback to read on the train or bus doesn't give a toss how old the author is: it's the writing and the story that matter. And word-of-mouth, of course.

I always asked agents about the author's age so I could mention it, if necessary, in the publishing meeting. And then, once I'd taken an author on, I met them ASAP to get a personal relationship going!

 

[Rhi]

Would I, at 16, be considered too young to be accepted by publishers? At the moment, it's irrelevant - my 200,000 word fantasy epic is far from finished - but I am looking for publishers who accept unsolicited manuscripts so that I can get some feedback and see whether my dream of publishing has any substance to it. I am still at school: would that be considered a disadvantage in the eyes of potential publishers?

 

[John Jarrold]

Not of itself. It's the book that matters.

If a publisher thinks a book is wonderful and wonderfully commercial, the author's age is simply something that might be used for marketing and publicity purposes after a deal is done, not involved in the decision whether or not to make an offer.

 

[LJonesy]

I find myself saying that every year

Problem is, the older you get, the more you realize you're really only getting started as a writer (and in the last couple of decades, the market has also become much tougher to break into). I console myself with the thought that when I eventually get published - no "if", mind you, I'm determined to persevere - it will be with a much better book than I could have written in my 20s or even 30s...

Agreed, to an extent.

I see my younger, current years as an opportunity to gain experience, to write so much to have a substantial amount of unpublishable works under my belt.

I guess i'm contradicting myself in a sense. I'm finishing every single unfinished story of mine now, and writing down ideas for a novel i am writing.

 

[Dean F. Wilson]

I think there are two sides to the blade of being published young. Firstly, it's great publicity, and can really help with sales. There are also a lot of "sympathy" buyers, who buy because you're young (you see the same in the music industry). The problem is that you can be typecast as a "young author", even when you're much older and have published many subsequent works. It might also be hard to get subsequent deals.

I wrote my first novel when I was 11/12, but I'm actually glad that I never pursued publishing. On looking back, the book isn't very good. It's very high-school English, and my style has matured a lot since then (those extra years of reading have helped greatly - never underestimate the power of reading; it's essential to be a good writer). I am, however, glad that I started writing long works at such an early age, because that has given me the necessary experience to write to the standard that I'm at today.

The author of "Eragon" (can't remember his name) is a good example for this topic, I feel. Is his second book of a higher standard than his first?

-D

 

[LJonesy]

I wrote my first novel when I was 11/12, but I'm actually glad that I never pursued publishing. On looking back, the book isn't very good. It's very high-school English, and my style has matured a lot since then (those extra years of reading have helped greatly - never underestimate the power of reading; it's essential to be a good writer). I am, however, glad that I started writing long works at such an early age, because that has given me the necessary experience to write to the standard that I'm at today.

Hearing these things always makes me uncertain about my own ability. There are so many writers out there who've been writing since an early age, it feels like it makes it harder for me to write.

Then again, during school, when we were given writing tasks, i went ahead the extra mile, sometimes even went ahead an extra two miles. Never started writing properly until 2 years ago.

Is this a frivilous, uneeded worry Dean F. Wilson? Or is it better to ask in a new thread?

 

[John Jarrold]

It's a subjective thing. Some very good authors start early, others not until they have retired!

Concentrate on your own writing at this point, not on how other writers are doing it or when they started.

 

[Dean F. Wilson]

Well, think of it this way:

Writer A starts writing when they're 10 and is now 30.

Writer B starts writing when they're 25 and is now 30.

By writing, of course, I mean "actively", as we've all done a few essays, etc. in school (and college, if applicable).

Writer A has 15 years more writing experience than Writer B. Well, we assume they do. What if they've actually only written once a year, while the latter wrote on a daily basis? Also, what if they don't like reading (and are, thereby, exposed to less words and grammar) and Writer B reads regularly and in multiple genres (including those they don't write in)? What if Writer A just took pen to paper and ignores all advice and criticism, while Writer B spent some of their 5 years learning the craft and taking advice and criticism in a healthy fashion? What if Writer A refuses to rewrite, revise, edit, research, or do any of the things that can turn a good piece of writing into a great one, while Writer B actively does these things?

As you can see, it really is a personal matter (subjective, as John said), and just because someone says "I have X number of years experience" doesn't actually mean they're either more qualified, more suitable, or produce a higher quality product. Personally speaking, I'm of the belief that maturity doesn't come with age, and I feel this applies to writing too - the maturity of your writing doen't isn't necessarily dependent on how old you are. You can be young or old, and you can start your writing career at any time (indeed, many successful authors start writing later in life). Your attitude towards the craft, your own writing, and your peers (fellow writers, agents, publishers, etc.) is vitally more important.

-D

 

[Havlen]

Age is really just a factor of time, and while time is certainly part of becoming a better writer, it's only one part of what makes a better writer. Reading also makes a better writer, study of the craft, and good old fashioned talent all go into making a better writer.

For example, a person might have spent seven years writing five novels, but that experience doesn't mean that he's a better writer than someone who has spent one year writing a single novel but who has also read multiple books on writing, has studied the craft of writing, and who has a natural flare for words.

 

[Triceratops]

I often have these regrets. I didn't start writing serious until I was 28, and did not continue it through my life, as I'd wanted to. I picked up again recently at 55, and made some pretty good strides. I'll never know where I might have been had I continued. I'm just glad I got back into the ball game again.

Tri

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

It's been said that you have to write somewhere between 750,000 and a million words (including rewrites) before you get really good at it. And I believe that this is true. Of course you have to make good use of your time while you're writing that many words. You can't just spit them out thoughtlessly; you have to study your craft.

Starting early helps you to get in the work before jobs and children and other responsibilities take over. But some people can juggle jobs and children and writing just fine, while others can't.

55 sounds like a good age, if you've got some of that other stuff out of the way and can really concentrate on the writing. And while some people may be more mature at 20 than others are at 40, the same person is going to have more life-experience to draw on than they did 20 years ago. Youth has one set of advantages and age has another. It's how you make use of those advantages that counts.