Isn't it supposed to get easier?

By Jenny Hilborne, author of mysteries and thrillers

I've heard a familiar grumble from lots of multiple book authors who find each book they write is more difficult than the last. I'm no different. Each new book is harder and takes me longer to write. I've asked myself why. Is the difficulty a sign of improvement, or an indication I'm somehow lost in the process, buried under all the new information I pick up? Am I trying too hard?

I'm currently working on my fourth novel, Stone Cold, and I'm finding it is my most difficult book yet. I said the same thing when I wrote book #3, Hide and Seek. I thought the writing process would be easier with each book -  I've picked up more and more tips, learned many of the "rules" along the way, and attended numerous workshops and writing conferences.

I first attended the Southern California Writers Conference in 2008, with a completed manuscript for my first book, Madness and Murder. I paid for a one-on-one critique with a publisher, who later became my publisher, but not until they'd rejected me, given me advice on how to fix my mistakes, and presented me with a rare second shot at submission. You see, I thought I knew enough to write a good book at that early stage, and I didn't. I've attended SCWC several times since, and always learned more and come away with great advice. Even after all this, I still find every book harder to write than the last.

Drew Kaufman and I briefly discussed this in a recent Facebook exchange. With all the feedback we've received, with what we now know and have learned along the way, why does each book become harder to write? Do we present our protagonists with more complicated challenges? Weave in more subplots? Do all authors feel this way? Are we improving or getting lost?

The more prolific an author is, the more readers expect from said author. Is this right? Fair? Well, I expect a lot from the well-known authors whose books I choose to read, yet I find I'm currently enjoying the books from lesser known authors much more. I've stopped reading Harlan Coben altogether. His later works don't impress me as much as the earlier stuff. I wonder if he got bored, or stopped trying as hard to please his audience, having "made it." In the works of some prolific authors, it's often easy to note similarities between books, a pattern if you like, or the authors voice. In some cases, this makes the outcomes of the stories predictable.

It's a challenge I struggle with myself. Only on my 4th novel, and I already find I have to work hard to avoid repetition, to stay creative and bring in new and unique threats, problems, and plot lines. After the release of my 2nd book, No Alibi, a returning reader remarked how my first 2 books were so dissimilar, they could have been written by different authors. Rightly or not, I took it as a compliment. I noticed from watching the X Factor how judges want new singers to be instantly recognizable to an audience by their style, their voice. This raised a question in my mind: do all authors have a "style"? Should they? Does it work the same way for emerging authors as for singers?

Back to difficulty: The hardest part of my first book was how to finish, writing a satisfactory ending. In subsequent books, this has become the easier bit. Now, I get lost in the middle. I know more about my writing and understand myself better as an author than I did several years ago, have learned more about character development, energy, pacing, consistency, small detail, yet it feels more than ever like work. Hard work.

Authors: Why are subsequent books more challenging to write? Is it because we continually raise the standards for ourselves as authors and strive to make each book better?

Readers: Do you like the authors you read to have a recognizable "style"?

Setting the Scene

We'd like to welcome Author Jenny Hilborne to our happy little family of bloggers. Today is her first post as a regular. She joins us every other Wednesday, and we look forward to having her here!

By Jenny Hilborne


When I wrote my first novel, Madness and Murder, I wanted a recognizable, popular setting that readers would enjoy, not some remote place no one had ever heard of. Even though the strength of my stories is in the characters rather than in the settings, the locale of a novel is important. It gives the story background and sets the scene. At least, it does for me.

I recently read the Sam Christer novel, The Stonehenge Legacy. What a fabulous setting for a thriller. I was immediately drawn to the mystery before I opened the book. The place is iconic, even if you’ve not yet been there. I visited Stonehenge when the stones weren’t roped off and it was possible to get right up next to them. This place always gives me chills, so I couldn’t wait to delve into the book.

An extra treat was the few scenes Christer wrote that took in my hometown of Swindon, a town about 36 miles from Stonehenge and not known for its glamour. I liked the fact he chose a non-typical setting. I could reference all the streets and landmarks, which further enhanced my enjoyment of his book. In my own novels, I use mostly real neighborhoods in San Francisco, with a combination of real and fictional streets and establishments. It’s fun to create streets, maybe even whole towns, and name them.

Last week a reader approached me, with a copy of my new novel, Hide and Seek, in his hand, and posed this question: are the streets and venues real? Intrigued, I asked the reader how much it mattered, whether he had a preference, and if so, why. Turns out he didn’t, but the question led me to wonder about the preference of other readers and how important the setting of the story is to them. How much does it depend on genre? For example, can a historical thriller set in a fictional location be convincing? What type of environment improves the reader’s focus? To find out, I conducted a mini interview with ten randomly selected readers (plus a couple of authors) to get their take on it: a real setting they can visualize, or a fictional one they can imagine? I asked male/female, younger/older, readers in the US and the UK, and of varied genres. The answers surprised me.

Almost all those I asked prefer a real location. The most common reason I was given is based on travel. Readers enjoy stories that take place in locations they’ve either visited or plan to visit in the future. Those without the budget or opportunity to travel enjoy doing so through the author’s eyes.

Some readers say a fictional setting creates no frame of reference and leaves them remote, less than fully vested in the story. “If I fall in love with a fictional setting, I can’t visit it.” 

The advantage of a real setting, if captured perfectly by the author, is it allows the reader to visit the place, which is a huge part of the story for some readers. To what degree does this create a stronger following between the author and the reader? One reader cautioned: “If you choose fictional settings, the writing must be true to the region. I want to sense the rhythm and the culture.”

I thought Fantasy might be different, but even the readers of Urban Fantasy I asked chose real world places (with fantastical elements). The few I asked who didn’t choose real settings expressed no preference. The answers made me think about my writing style and the worlds I create. If readers want rhythm and culture, how do I give it to them in a fictional setting? If an imaginary town is at the centre of our stories, we must make them seem vivid and real. That’s quite a challenge, for which we only have our imaginations upon which to draw. They better be good.

Of course, I only asked ten readers. Others may feel differently about the setting. Which do you prefer – real or not?