Blogger: Rachel Kent
At Books & Such, we love all types of writers. But today, I’d like to tell you about two specific types. Each one has its pros and cons.
The first is The Flexible Writer.
The Flexible Writer is the writer we can go to when opportunity knocks. If an editor contacts us with a request or if they are looking for a certain type of project, we know we can go to The Flexible Writer and he/she will be able to do the job well and get it done on time. The Flexible Writer can often take on work-for-hire projects and/or collaborations in addition to their own writing.
The big concern with The Flexible Writer is that he/she might fall into the unbranded trap. Sales figures and even reputation can be hurt by this. Publishing houses might refuse to work with The Flexible Writer if he/she is stretched in too many directions. And The Flexible Writer can hurt sales by marketing too many completely different projects to one audience.
The second type of writer is The Focused Writer.
The Focused Writer knows what he/she writes. He/She will always write in a single genre and does very well with it. This type of writer is very branded and can easily market to his/her audience because the audience is following the writer because they are interested in a specific type of book. Everything should be smooth sailing for this type of author, except for the fact that…
Genre interest waxes and wanes.
The Focused Writer could be in trouble if the interest for his/her genre disappears for a time. A lot in publishing tends to be cyclical, so the interest in the genre most likely will return, but no one knows how long it could take.
I have both flexible and focused writers as clients, and I am very happy to represent both types. I love ’em!
Do you see yourself as one of these types? Or are you a mix of the two or something completely different?
How could a Flexible or Focused writer work to overcome the downside of their type?
Are there any downsides I missed?
Nice Rachel. Nicholas Cage was so flexible he washed up. He did not build his brand. That’s why idols judges advise singers to stay within themselves. A principle of all marketing is to stick to one’s knitting, or your range (to borrow from singing). Don’t dilute your brand, it takes too long to build and requires consistent effort. It also reinforces reader choice the way a book by, say Lucado, carries a tacit “promise”. That said, actors, like Cain, Hackman or Duvall, were persistently productive. They chose movies that kept them ticking over for decades, without compromising their brands. It is a fine balance and goes to what is true of God – He is always in the balance. Jesus embraced that, by being of Grace and Truth. So have sufficient focus to know what you are about, but with sufficient latitude around that to take on complementary work or to move into new territory if your current options are limited. After all, being adaptable is also good for a brand and its continuity. Thus, big firms will extend their platforms to variations on a theme, but walk away from opportunities that stray too far from their competencies. Jesus came to be a sacrifice: a narrow mandate. He could been selfish about that (I came to do your will Oh God). Instead, He extended His life to the needs of many and was more than just a savior, yet never to the extent of missing His primary objective. It takes a lot of honest reflection to know who you are and where your limits are, but being adaptable within that reflects humility and a willingness to be accessible and helpful to your stakeholders. Remember that the Jews endured by adapting really well without ever losing touch with their roots.
Never thought I’d read about Jesus and Nicholas Cage in the same comment.
* I like the way you approach branding; I feel the same way. In the end the brand has to be flexible enough to continue the work of service, which is, after all, the raison d’etre of writing in the first place – or should be, for a professed Christian writer.
* Look at C.S. Lewis – he wrote academically, apologetics, fantasy, and SF, and was effective in all of them (I think “Out Of The SIlent Planet” should be required reading for anyone who wants to create the ambience of a different world).
Somewhere in between…I think. I typically write contemporary fiction, but currently I’m working on a novel set in the 1800s. The story is too compelling not to write, though it is out of my usual time period. What I have noticed in both my current piece and previous ones is that my voice is consistent, the overall themes are comparable, and that I am enjoying both.
I suppose I could fall into either category at this point. My editor of the magazine I write for tells me that I’m her go-to girl. When another writer can’t fulfill their contract, she comes to me. 🙂
I love that editors contact you for requests. Does that happen often? Or is that rare?
What an awesome compliment from your editor, Shelli. I’m not surprised. 🙂
Yes, Jenni … made my heart so happy! 🙂 Thank you!
It happens quite a bit!
Interesting post today.
* I think I was always flexible, but that had to be carried to a new degree when I was an academic. My PhD and postdoc research were in the large-scale structural testing side of reinforced concrete design for blast loading and seismic response, but the opportunities to do that during one’s career are very limited, because most schools don’t have the equipment and facilities needed (the infrastructure is expen$ive, to say the least).
* One therefore has to find research dollars where one can, and for people like me that usually meant working with the Department of Transportation of the state in which one lives – the DOT research bureau issues RFP’s (requests for proposals) on their current areas of interest, usually anually, but sometimes on an as-needed basis.
* This means one has to be able to write a knowledgeable and convincing proposal in “what’s available”. I never did seismic work after leaving UC San Diego. Instead I worked on retaining walls, management aspects of research contracts (DOT wanted to research itself!), the use of baled scrap tires for erosion control, lead and asbestos mitigation, design of snow barriers to keep roads free of drifts…the list goes on.
* In research you follow the money, because that is the main arbiter for the tenure decision. It also pays one’s summer salary.
* So in writing…I’ll do anything (with the obvious exceptions of what every Christian writer would turn down).
In case anyone’s interested, seismic/blast design requires the creation of ‘safe failure zones’ – areas in which the structure can take permanent damage (crushed concrete, bent reinforcing steel) without collapsing. Kind of like a run-flat tire.
* The principles aren’t hard, but the execution can be – the joint between beams and columns in a framed structure are particularly nasty, because they are very stiff, ‘attract’ high forces, and there is only a limited amount of reinforcement that can be placed.
* The 1994 Northridge, 1995 Kobe, and 1999 Taiwan earthquakes were tragic, but they presented a great opportunity to look at areas in which old and new approaches to seismic design stood side by side. They were largely a validation of methods developed in the 1980s; design from the 1970s and before generally performed poorly.
To wrap up…if anyone’s still here…the 1980s were the watershed decade for seismic research, because the availability of relatively cheap means of digitally recording data during a test made understanding of what’s really happening possible, and turned some old assumptions on their heads. Reinforced concrete is weird stuff, and its behaviour is only obvious in retrospect. I worked on a number of tests that had folks scratching their heads…”Now, why did THAT happen?”
* Y’ll might be surprised to know that very few tests are done in ‘real time’, simulating an actual earthquake. For one thing it’s expensive, requiring huge flows of oil to the hydraulic rams that apply the loads. For another, it’s usually not necessary. Slow loading through ever increasing cycles of force and movement are actually harder on a structure, by about 10-15%. The only times it is necessary are when there are some specific dynamic effects, like resonance, that need studying (that’s when the frequency of ground motion corresponds to a ‘natural frequency’ of the structure, increasing loads and displacement dramatically…natural frequencies are what you get when you make waves in a jump rope…one wave is first mode, or primary, two are second mode, etcetera…bridges and buildings do just that).
* And finally, it’s fun. You get to build things, and then break them. Big things. I worked on the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, and the columns we tested were at 20% scale, the smallest that would give realistic results. They were fifty feet high, and took about 400,000 pounds of load applied laterally, with several million pounds of vertical load simulating what the column carried in service.
* Thanks for your patience. I miss the work. It was fun.
what a blast. I’ll wave to you next time.
“…if anyone’s still here…”?
Hahaha! You’re a funny guy, Andrew.
Umm, I think I can safely say that nobody *I* know, other than my geneticist husband and my engineer dad, would have a clue how to do your work.
Which is fascinating, by the way.
It had its hysterically funny moments. I was at an American Concrete Institute (ACI) conference, sitting in on a committee meeting that dealt with the use of ultra-high-strength steel reinforcement.
* The chair said, at one point, “Well, no one’s really tested this stuff…except for some small-scale Japanese tests, there’s just no data out there.”
* I raised my hand and said, politely, “Uh, excuse me…but we did ten large-scale tests, both static and dynamic, back at UC San Diego.”
* The chair peered over his pince-nez Raybans and said, “Indeed? And are the results published?”
* In the best Tom Hanks aw-shucks voice I could do, I said, “Well, I guess they are, because they were published in the ACI Structural Journal last year…in two parts.” (The ACI Structural Journal is THE concrete research journal in the US, and having a two-part paper is very rare, and only done in exceptional cases.)
* As I said, kind of fun.
We drive over that bridge often! Thanks for making it safe for us! 🙂
Andrew, according to news reports that bridge has all sorts of structural problems. I have family members who commute across it, so that makes me nervous.
Janet, yes…there are issues. The original design was good, and I managed the testing of the ‘skyway’ piers and pile caps for over a year at UCSD. The tests showed that as-designed, the bridge would work well. The problems seem to be in construction practices, and in the characterization of the ground that supports the piles (that is, the support from the soil isn’t as good as was initially assumed. It’s impossible to say, at this point, what the outcome will be, and how it will affect the bridge’s operation and performance in an earthquake. There are significant safety factors built into the bridge, that would allow it to withstand considerable stronger ground motion than the ‘maximum credible earthquake’; I would not go so far as to say “don’t worry”, because my involvement ended in 2000, and saying that would just be a guess.
Thinking about it a bit more, I’ll say this – if built to the plans I worked with, that thing is one of the most over-designed bridges ever built. That it would fail in regular use is almost inconceivable; it MAY be at increased risk in a very large event, one with a 500 year return period (that is, you only get that big an earthquake twice in a millennium). The pile bearing problem may cause settling issues, which are bad, but which develop slowly. The weld problems I’ve seen mentioned seem to be a false alarm (welding on that scale is challenging, and welds are very conservatively designed). The Golden Gate Bridge was designed when the understanding of seismic effects was in it infancy, and it’s done quite well. The building codes in California are among the most stringent in the world, and Caltrans has a wealth of knowledge to draw from, both internally and in the research and design community. New construction may have its defects, but the corners in which those defects can ‘hide’, so to speak, are quite small. We do know a lot about this stuff now. (And a lot of our knowledge came from the work of a Hungarian ex-cavalryman named Tom Paulay, a true gentleman, who got a PhD after the age of forty and went to work at the University of Canterbury, in New Zealand. He invented modern seismic design, really…and my doctoral advisor, Nigel Priestley, was his student.)
Thanks for the information, Andrew. It wasn’t appropriate of me to discuss that on this blog, but I don’t have any other way to contact you otherwise. If you would message me on my website, http://www.janetanncollins.com then I’d have your e-mail for future comments.
Hmmm. . . for years I was the focuses writer. Working on gritty Christian YA that I loved. But now I’m a bit more flexible. Willing to write a sweet romance, I just have to write it my way. Yes, I made my heroine puke on the hero. It happens all the time in real life. Why not in my story? But I regress. So I guess the answer is that I like to focus on what I like, but I’m learning that I can write for others too as long as I give the story my own special slant.
You’ve inspired me. The next thing I write, the male protag will puke on his service dog, who happens to be a heeler, and who simply despises baths. Not that I can write this from experience, mind you…
* Oh dear. My nose just grew about a foot.
Ha Ha…once our Newfoundland got sprayed by a skunk. Do you know how many bottles of hydrogen peroxide it takes to cover a 160 pound shaggy dog? Lots!
I think I’m more of a focused writer in terms of comfort level and time. With two boys at home, time (especially in summer!) for writing is limited. I find that I’m focusing on one piece of work at a time. I hope to get to the point where I can be more flexible. I see the advantages of having some of both types of writers’ traits as a writer. 🙂
I could lend you another boy and completely up-end things. Zach is a bit of a party, so yeah, he’ll shepherd The Dudes into all kinds of quiet, hushed and reverent activities.
Are your windows shatter-proof? No reason I ask, ya know, other than curiosity.
Laughing out loud, Jennifer. I’m sure I’d have LOTS of quiet with 3 teen/tween boys under my roof. Perhaps you’re the one aiming for quiet…? 😉
Oooh! I have 3 more boys to add to the mix and a 13 week old puppy…who already weighs 30 pounds. They can write their own sermons and make friendship bracelets. “What is that Dear?”
“Isn’t it awesome, Mom! This is a sermon, written in blood! And we made these manly bracelets of destruction…out of squirrels!!!” I can see it now…
Years of freelancing have made me a very flexible writer in general, in response to ever-changing projects, clients, markets, etc. But when it comes to fiction, I’m pretty narrowly focused on the early 20th century. For now, at least.
Stay focused, dear friend. I cannot wait to hold your books in my hand someday. 🙂
Tough questions, Rachel. For “my” brand, I am focused. But good writing skills are hard to find and, like others have commented, I am a go-to gal at work. When I was in grad school, I was the one who wrote our teams’ final papers because I could pull everyone’s separate contribution into a coherent voice. When I left a job to follow my hubby across country, a former colleague called me, “I miss you. Your boss’ letters are twice as long now.”
The downside? I critique everything I read . . . cereal boxes, newsletters, library books. I can’t find the off switch for the little editor in my head.
I’m definitely a focused writer, at least for the past 2 books, and then next one.
I do have a short list of contemporaries I’d like to write someday, but that’s in the future.
I wrote a column for our city paper and didn’t always love it, because it was an editorial choice each time, not something I could think up and submit. That drove me nuts. BUT, not having a subject choice for years and years helped me develop my skills.
I have a question, in case anyone would care to address it…do you think that there is a correlation between flexibility in writing and music/language skills?
I don’t know about flexibility, but I’ve often thought music, language, and writing skill are related. Some people have an ear for “playing” the language, the way they have an ear for music or for picking up new languages. Mastering all the rules of spelling and grammar–or scales and time signatures–may result in a technically correct piece, but not one that’s fluid and graceful. Maybe that fluidity and ease plays into flexibility.
Interesting take on it, and it makes sense.
On the flip side, when you know the rules of music, you can use them to create something beautiful within the rules. And you can expand them to create something that lies outside the rules because you know how they work. 😉
Nah. I have two sons, both good musos. Eldest is absolutely technical and mathematical about his music, even to the point of building programs to help him with tabbing etc. He is pretty good. The other, a man of the heart, passionate, down-to-earth, a writer – also good. The latter just tends to be more soulful. Both write pretty well.
Must be way cool to watch them develop.
Also, Pete…still can’t find your contact info.
Most of the musicians I’ve known were great at math, less so at language skills.
I agree with Jenny Leo.
I think think any kind of creative outlet that is married to communication is related.
The key seems to be the ability to change pace on the fly. Or, jump to a new song.
I can be singing opera and then jump into a show tune, no problem. It’s all in the “what next?” mindset.
At least, for me, it is.
When I was still able to do a decent amount of airplane work – welding or sheet metal – I noticed a definite disconnect when I was in the Zone. One part of my brain would be concentrated on the task, and the other would be living in my characters’ world. Not in terms of plotting, or what I’d write, but somehow the work would free up that bit to cross the fiction/reality border, and get the feeling. Does that make sense?
Some people have an ear for the math in music–they define the sound in whole and half steps, keys and counts. Others (and I am one) hear it without understanding the math. I played an F French horn in school and sometimes had to transpose E-flat music (a whole step, as I recall); I could do it, but the math sucked the joy right out of the music. And counting the rhythm just confused me. Once I knew how it was supposed to sound, I could play it.
I’m guessing our writing skills fall into similar categories. Oh, we are so fearfully and wonderfully made!
I’m terrible at lower and mid-level math, but did pretty well with higher math. I could ‘see’ it, and I could also see music when I heard it. Kind of like a large, multicoloured rubber sheet that would respond with waves and ‘bumps’ to the tonal language of the music. I can’t read music well, and have to memorize any piece I want to play (piano, but we don’t have one now), but I can usually play by ear, and transpose by ear, as well.
* I’m also pretty good with languages, and can mimic a lot of accents, but again…studying grammar and syntax is hard, hard work.
No clue! We should do a survey.
I would say I am a combination of both. I like to focus on the project at hand and get it finished. However, I enjoy doing different types of writing, from academic essays to creative non-fiction to short story (of varying genres) to poetry. All of which I’ve done while working on a novel. Trying to write a number of pieces at once would be too much of a juggle for me, but working on something other than my current WIP actually can help me when I get in a stuck place in the novel writing. Working on another piece can get creativity and confidence going again, which ultimately re-energizes my WIP writing.
I have some questions, though, Rachel. You said that the drawback to being a Flexible Writer is having one’s reputation and sales figures hurt by working on too many diverse projects, which, if I’m understanding you correctly, would hurt (or at least muddy) the author’s brand. Couldn’t a pseudonym help with this, at least in regards to audience? Or does that cause the problem of starting from scratch with a platform? If that is the case–that being flexible and willing to work on other projects when asked either by one’s agent or publishing house could injury or even destroy an author’s career–why would would an agent ask a client to do that? I don’t mean that as a criticism at all. I’m just puzzled.
Blessings on your weekend. 🙂
I’d be interested in knowing about the pseudonym thing, too. I read that William Butterworth wrote under thirteen additional names, because libraries would not buy more than one Bill Butterworth book per year. He’s probably best known as W.E.B. Griffin, and has written military fiction, nonfiction, and childrens’ books.
* The Wikipedia entry for him is interesting, and awe-inspiring…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._E._B._Griffin
We always carefully weigh each situation. Sometimes authors do use pseudonyms for different projects. And we’ve had authors use pseudonyms to relaunch stalled careers, too.
Most of the time work-for-hire projects don’t involve marketing by the author, so it’s not a problem in those cases. And some projects that we might sign an author up for are ghost-writing projects and the author’s name isn’t even on the book.
Thank you for answering my questions, Rachel. I appreciate it.
Great categories, Rachel. I was very flexible until I found my genre and got a contract. Now, I’m focused, but I’d still like to be available for unexpected opportunites. Branded but not blind to opportunities. I imagine this sounds like many writers. Make the most to build a career, but don’t stick your head in the sand.
Oh, I just adore your second sentence. 😉 Can’t wait to see how God continues to touch lives through your stories, Meghan.
SnOoPy DaNcE for Meghan!
Woo-hoo, Meghan! A huge congratulations to you, my friend!!
Congratulations!! That’s great!!!
Thank you, friends!!
I remember seeing your post about your contract on Facebook! Very exciting. 🙂
I like your “branded but not blind to opportunities.”
Great question, Rachel. I’ve never thought this one through before. But now that I’m thinking about it, I can see I’m flexible for short articles of fiction or nonfiction. But when I’ve tried to write a novel in a genre other than inspirational mystery/romance I lose interest. I need the challenge of a mystery, the intrigue of a romance, and the eternal qualities of an inspirational to keep me writing.
Part of me wishes I’d be content to write strictly romance or romantic suspense—but I need the driving force of unanswered questions to keep my pen to paper. Time will tell if this continues to work for me. I believe both types of writers have strengths and weaknesses, and we’re wise to tap into our strengths as much as possible.
It’s challenging enough to be a writer without working against who we are inside. Growth and stretching is good as long as we don’t get strained to the point of snapping in half. Perhaps a pen name could help preserve a flexible writer’s main platform and brand if they desire to branch out? And a focused writer could test the waters with short stories (I’m considering this option).
Friday Blessings to everyone ~ Wendy
Wendy, I find that your use of the word “inspirational” speaks to me. My faith informs everything I write, but I’m deliberately making the attempt to be accessible to the Doubting Thomases of the readership…I’ve found that taking aa very strong evangelical stance can put people off, make them feel excluded because they’re not ‘there’, in terms of having a personal relationship with Christ. I’d like them to feel comfortable thinking about the eternal questions, to be invited in to sit and listen, so to speak.
* It’s not a question of watering down faith – far from it. But I usually try to let it motivate the characters and drive the plot from within.
* In one thus-far unpublished (but finished) book, a character catches on to this, and makes the wry observation that Christians are sneaky.
I hear you, Andrew. I originally wanted to write for the secular marketplace but found it’s not my personal calling–as yet. I’m a Bible thumper through and through (a gentle and respectful one). If I tried to market my manuscripts as anything but Christian I’d get slayed on Amazon for sure. My manuscripts have flawed characters, like I am, and their spiritual awakening and/or growth is part of the package.
With my blog I’ve noticed people from different faiths and no faith have followed me along with Christians. So if they end up reading my future books, it will be a bonus as it’s quite clear on my site I’m a believer. I have a strong evangelical spirit, and would love nothing more than to have encouraged someone sitting on the faith fence to enter the narrow gate.
Blessings as you continue to allow your “faith to inform everything you write.” The world’s in need of more Light.
There’s a particular readership waiting for each one of us. May God write through us and place those words into the appropriate hands and hearts in his perfect timing.
The “faith fence” … I like that wording, Wendy. 🙂
Interesting observations, Rachel. I like seeing the ups and down of each type of writer. Personally, I’d say I’m flexibly focused thanks to journalistic roots. Give me an assignment, and I’m focused. I believe that played into landing my first contract with Barbour for a novella collection — they gave me a title and I gave them a story. It was so similar to what I did as a reporter.
My first two fiction contracts were contemporary, the next six historical. In fact, for that first Barbour novella, I took a contemporary story I was working on, kicked it back 150 years and sold it. Maybe I’m a schizophrenic writer?
“I took a contemporary story I was working on, kicked it back 150 years and sold it.” Very smart, Davalynn!
Thank you, Christine. Trouble is, I’m still determined to write the contemporary version! Maybe I could run a contest for readers: “Which of my historicals does this story sound like?”
🙂 I don’t think schizophrenic!
Blessed are the flexible, for they shall not be broken. Nor shall they be known, either, apparently. That’s me, in both ways… 🙂
I’m definitely a focused writer! I have about a dozen novels in different stages of plotting that are all done in the dual time/time slip style. It’s my favorite style of writing. The novels I am planning do, however, all deal with a different country as the setting and a different historical era too. I hope that offers some positive diversity for a focused writer. 🙂
Rachel, do you think this style would be considered one that would go in or out of style? Are there some publishers looking for this type of book/s now or have been? I’m very interested to know. Thanks!
Books like that are actually doing very well right now in the general market. Trends in the general market do make it to CBA eventually. I think your style might be up and coming. 🙂
Thanks, Rachel! That’s very encouraging! And I’ll just keep working on with those dozen plus manuscripts! 🙂
Morgan, nice to see you here again. Your name is memorable so I recognized your absence. And what encouraging information you received from Rachel. 🙂
Hi Jenni!
Thanks so much for your sweet comment and noticing my absence! 🙂 I’m glad to be back! I hope I don’t take any more hiatuses but this one was a good one – I met my husband, dated, got engaged and married in the last year and a half so it’s been a bit of a wonderful whirlwind! lol
But now I’m getting back into a “nice new normal” routine!
And yes I am pumped with the info from Rachel. Dual time/time slip is the style God opened my eyes to several years back and I really love reading and writing it. Kristy Cambron is an author that does it so well!
Have a good weekend, Jenni! See you on here again soon!
Great article, Rachel. I am definitely more of a focused writer. Try as I might message-driven fiction is usually what comes out. I love sharing messages with kids and hoping they learn from them.
I’d like to think I am the good parts of both: flexible in the midst of focus. (Or is it focused flexibility?)
I was a flexible writer until I found my passion. Now I am focused on that passion. But if things change I have no worries about being able to assess the situation and find a new passion.