First novels.
Why are we all so obsessed with first novels? In literary circles, a Big Deal is always made if a novel is an author’s first. First novels are intrinsically Special.
But why?
If you went into hospital to have surgery, would you be pleased if your surgeon was presented to you with the words, “this is Dr Smith’s first ever surgery…”
(You’d probably be terrified.)
I’m not downplaying the accomplishment of writing a first novel. In fact, that term is a bit of a misnomer. A first published novel is usually not an author’s first finished novel. And it’s almost certainly not the first novel they’ve ever tried to write.
Nonetheless, why is the first flush of accomplishment considered more inherently worthy than an author’s fifth or ninth or twentieth novel?
Is it that we’re all pretentious indie kids at heart - desperate to ‘get in on the ground floor’ and discover new artists? Just so we can say “I liked Author X first”? (It’s certainly more exciting to proselytise over an unknown author than to have the other person say, “uh yeah, I read that book years ago - where have you been?”)
Yet, overwhelmingly, authors get better as they continue to write. First novels tend, by definition, to be flawed. The author hasn’t hammered out their tendency towards purple prose; they haven’t tightened up their plotting skills; or managed to make their dialogue zing. Those things come with time. When was your first shot at anything perfect?
Despite this, I feel like reviewers try to handwave away those flaws, because - like I said - first novels are Special. It’s only a shame that those better-crafted novels (the fifth, ninth, twentieth novels) don’t tend get the same critical attention as a Shiny New Thing.
But why?
If you went into hospital to have surgery, would you be pleased if your surgeon was presented to you with the words, “this is Dr Smith’s first ever surgery…”
(You’d probably be terrified.)
I’m not downplaying the accomplishment of writing a first novel. In fact, that term is a bit of a misnomer. A first published novel is usually not an author’s first finished novel. And it’s almost certainly not the first novel they’ve ever tried to write.
Nonetheless, why is the first flush of accomplishment considered more inherently worthy than an author’s fifth or ninth or twentieth novel?
Is it that we’re all pretentious indie kids at heart - desperate to ‘get in on the ground floor’ and discover new artists? Just so we can say “I liked Author X first”? (It’s certainly more exciting to proselytise over an unknown author than to have the other person say, “uh yeah, I read that book years ago - where have you been?”)
Yet, overwhelmingly, authors get better as they continue to write. First novels tend, by definition, to be flawed. The author hasn’t hammered out their tendency towards purple prose; they haven’t tightened up their plotting skills; or managed to make their dialogue zing. Those things come with time. When was your first shot at anything perfect?
Despite this, I feel like reviewers try to handwave away those flaws, because - like I said - first novels are Special. It’s only a shame that those better-crafted novels (the fifth, ninth, twentieth novels) don’t tend get the same critical attention as a Shiny New Thing.