I’ve read a few debut books this year so far and I started wondering about debut authors and how harshly we should be judging them.
I read and reviewed Ignite the Stars this year and I didn’t enjoy it very much. This is Maura Milan’s debut novel and whilst it had all of the ideas for a good story, I felt like it needed some work. This is her only book out so far, and it got me thinking about authors I love and whether I enjoyed their debut books.
V.E. Schwab is a well-established author and the first book I read of hers was A Darker Shade of Magic, the first in an already popular series and one she wrote later on in her career. Her debut novel, The Near Witch, doesn’t compare. If I’d read The Near Witch first I don’t think I would have fallen in love with her in the way that I have. Some of my opinion is based on the plot of each book but some of it is due to the writing. Although you can see the raw talent in her debut, her later books show how she has improved.
One of my favourite authors is Chris Wooding. I stumbled across Poison and it blew me away. I’ve read lots of his work and, I’ll probably eventually read everything he has written. When I read his debut novel, Catchman, however, it fell short of my expectations. It had the kind of twist that Wooding, in his later writing, has perfected but the execution of it here was poor. If I had read Catchman first, I wouldn’t have thought of Wooding as the brilliant writer that I do now.
This has all brought me to the question: should we should be kinder to debut novels?
Writers should be continually improving at their craft with experience. Maybe it takes writing a few books to get into the swing of things, to trust your audience enough to not over explain, to learn where the plot might drag or just generally take on feedback. Established authors have already had that time to learn. So how can I judge a debut book against another author’s writing who has had time to hone their craft, make mistakes or publish okay books or bad books before publishing great ones?
On the other hand some debuts are fantastic.
I have recently read Eleanor Oliphant is Completely Fine by Gail Honeyman and The Poppy War by R.F. Kuang. Whilst the former didn’t blow me away, it is objectively good and a well-deserved bestseller. For the latter, I was really impressed with the story, the writing, the imagination. These are both debut novels. Having looked up these authors I discovered that both Kuang and Honeyman went on notable writing workshops before being publishing. So, does that mean that they worked, not necessarily harder but in a more formal way to improve their writing? Is that why their debuts are better? Should we judge these debut books to a higher standard? (Also, side question: am I just a book snob?)
But perhaps, this is something that is exceptional.
I know I judge books quite harshly but I know it is tough getting published and maybe I just need to take into account that as a debut author, they may not have the same understanding of the industry as another author. They may not have had the opportunity to do a prestigious writing course. They may, simply, not be naturally as brilliant. An author’s debut book isn’t guaranteed to be their best work or a bestseller. A debut book means that someone recognises a writer’s potential and thinks that it is worth publishing and sharing it with the world.
I don’t really have a satisfying conclusion to this topic. As a reader, I’d like to judge all books by my personal bar, but this topic has got me thinking about when that’s a valid bar to use.
I would love to hear your thoughts! Do you think there is a lot of pressure on authors to write an excellent debut? Do you take into account whether you are reading a book by a debut author?