First-Time Thrillers

[John McFetridge]

Publisher's Weekly has an interesting article about thrillers from firt-time novelists here.

The most talked about is probably Beat the Reaper by Josh Bazell. A couple weeks ago an agent with no connection to the book was telling me how great it is.

A bunch of the others look really good, too.

[Grant McKenzie]

Obviously, the list is incomplete ;-)

[I. J. Parker]

You know, much as I love to see some support for new writers, I see nothing new or original among these. God knows there's Jack Reacher, Dan Brown, medical mystery, the Sopranos, etc, etc.). I'm getting a bit tired of thrillers myself. Too much repetition.

[Grant McKenzie]

A lot of the time, that repetition is the fault of the summaries rather than the actual novels. Publishers, Hollywood and Media want a quick-hit for the readers: If you like Jack Reacher, you'll love . . . etc. Most writers want to tell original stories, but in order to sell them, they have to pitch them Hollywood-style: Dan Brown meets Jurassic Park as Jesus rises again.

[Naomi Hirahara]

I have to agree with I.J. on this. Perhaps if they had included a sample of their prose it would have helped.

But it was interesting to see how well the debut authors they profiled last year fared. A mixed bag and different reactions to similar numbers. It reveals that future expectations and internal politics may figure prominently in the reactions.

[Eric Christopherson]

Perhaps I don't know any better but my initial reaction to the editor comments on the books that hadn't sold well was they were putting on the best face possible for some disappointing numbers and that some caked on the makeup a little more than others.

[I. J. Parker]

Actually, the first book gets more exposure than all the rest. People are still curious, and reviewers feel obliged to check out newcomers. It's the later steps that's break your spirit.