I published my first book at 38—here's exactly how I changed careers to make it happen
But at a certain point, I became determined to write a novel. My knowledge of books was limited to reading them. I had no idea where to begin.
What I know how to do was execute a thoroughly researched career pivot. I'd been telling other people how to do that for years. Now it was my turn.
Spoiler alert: It took about five years, but I made it happen. My first novel went to auction, where I landed a six-figure, two-book deal with HarperCollins and was able to start writing full-time. "Dear Dotty" was published last year, and my second novel, "Lucky Break," comes out in July. I'm currently hard at work on a draft of a third novel.
Here's how I did it:
This is the first thing I'd tell anyone considering a change. Look at job postings and LinkedIn profiles of people who have the jobs you want. How did they get there? What skills do they have that you need to cultivate?
I had to learn things like how to write a novel, how a book gets published, what the word count of a manuscript should be, how to get an agent, and what an editor does. So, you know, everything.
I started with Google. It led me to resources like "The Shit No One Tells You About Writing" and Susan Dennard's blog (now a Substack), which helped me understand what my career pivot would entail.
I quickly realized that understanding the publishing industry wouldn't do anything for me if I didn't know how to write the story. So I enrolled in a part-time, two-year writing program.
What drew me to the Stanford Continuing Studies Novel Writing Certificate was how it focused on guiding students through the process, from initial inspiration to writing to revision. Even better, we'd get feedback from teachers, all of whom were published authors themselves, and fellow students. I knew I needed to learn the craft and for me, this was the best option.
I also wanted to get experience submitting work, implementing feedback, working with editors, and even getting rejected — all things needed to be comfortable with if I wanted to make this my career.
So I wrote career advice articles for The Muse, some of which also ran on Forbes, Business Insider, and Fast Company; blogged about living aboard a 45-foot boat; and submitted a short story that was rejected about 10 times before Storyshares published it.
Getting better at the craft of writing was so much fun. Getting better at taking in feedback and rejection? Less fun! But all necessary.
Once I completed a draft of my manuscript, which took two years, I felt ready to learn more about how to get it published.
Connecting with fellow writers at the Northern California Writers' Retreat provided both emotional support and practical knowledge. These peers became my first readers, accountability buddies, and partners in promoting my book.
Meeting industry professionals taught me things that no amount of internet research could provide. However, I quickly learned an important truth: Connections can open doors and get your manuscript read faster, but this won't get you published if your writing isn't compelling.
While networking is essential, continuously improving your craft is even more important.
The closer I became to being ready to query (i.e., send my manuscript to agents I hoped would be interested in representing me), the more I focused on building my platform. I already had a website for my career advice articles and an Instagram about boat life, so I decided to repurpose them.
I updated my website to include a section about my writing journey and upcoming novel. I shifted my Instagram content to include more behind-the-scenes glimpses of my writing process alongside the boat life posts. This gave me a foundation to build an author platform without starting completely from scratch.
In the midst of this lengthy career pivot that came with absolutely no guarantees, I juggled a few freelance jobs: as a personal assistant, a real estate assistant, a career advice columnist, a freelance resume writer, and a contract career coach — sometimes all at once! Yes, I was tired.
My sweet, supportive husband, Brian, worked full-time during this period, and we don't have children. None of this is one-size-fits-all.
My "application" was my very polished manuscript and my query letter (which I was delighted to find wasn't too dissimilar from a cover letter). I spent months refining it, researching agents who represented books similar to mine, and personalizing each submission.
Just like with job applications, I made sure my first impression was impeccable — no typos, proper formatting, and a compelling hook that would make agents want to read more.
Publishing moves slowly. Some agents responded within days, others took months, and some never responded at all. It took nearly nine months before I finally received an offer of representation.
While waiting to hear back, I started outlining my second novel and continued building relationships with other writers. This kept me sane and ensured I was developing my skills and expanding my network.
When I eventually got interest from editors, they wanted to know what else I was working on. Because I hadn't stopped creating, I had multiple ideas to discuss, ultimately leading to a second book contract.
I took into account feedback I received and made significant revisions to my manuscript. I saw firsthand how being flexible and willing to change your approach is often what separates successful authors from those who give up too soon.
Having a growth mindset was key to my success. Pivoting from recruiter to novelist isn't exactly the same as changing careers from, say, accounting to customer service. But like any meaningful career change, it requires patience, perseverance, and a willingness to learn.
Even with my second novel about to publish and a third in the works, I'm still learning every day.,
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
30 minutes ago
- CBS News
Sacramento-area chain Chando's Tacos abruptly shuts all remaining locations
A popular Mexican food restaurant with locations around Sacramento has abruptly shut its doors. All Chando's Tacos locations were closed as of the lunch hour on Tuesday. Doors were locked at the West Sacramento location, and the North Sacramento location on Arden Way was dark. The chain's social media presence was scrubbed as of Tuesday, with Chando's website also redirecting to the Google front page -- a sign that the site had been taken offline. Owned by Lisandro "Chando" Madrigal, the chain once had locations all around the Sacramento region. Madrigal even got some national exposure when he competed on an episode of the Food Network TV show "Chopped" in 2021. Madrigal confirmed to CBS Sacramento that he will be holding a press conference on the matter at 9 a.m. on Monday at his restaurant chain's Arden location. Chando's popularity saw it expand beyond California at one point, with a brick-and-mortar location opening in Decatur, Georgia, near Atlanta in 2023. The Georgia location closed in 2024, however. Only three locations were still in operation as recently as this past weekend: the original restaurant along Arden Way in Sacramento, one near Fruitridge and Power Inn roads, and the West Sacramento location.
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Forbes
Today's Wordle #1502 Hints And Answer For Wednesday, July 30th
How to solve today's Wordle. Looking for Tuesday's Wordle hints, clues and answer? You can find them here: How To Solve Today's Wordle It's Wordle Wednesday, which means we have an extra challenge to bang out before getting to today's Wordle. Every Wednesday I give you fine Wordlers a riddle, brain-teaser or logic-puzzle to solve. Here's today's: If you throw me from the window, I will leave a grieving wife. Bring me back, but in the door, and you'll see someone giving life! What am I? I'll let you know the answer in tomorrow's Wordle guide. Now let's solve today's! FEATURED | Frase ByForbes™ Unscramble The Anagram To Reveal The Phrase Pinpoint By Linkedin Guess The Category Queens By Linkedin Crown Each Region Crossclimb By Linkedin Unlock A Trivia Ladder Wordle is a daily word puzzle game where your goal is to guess a hidden five-letter word in six tries or fewer. After each guess, the game gives feedback to help you get closer to the answer: Use these clues to narrow down your guesses. Every day brings a new word, and everyone around the world is trying to solve the same puzzle. Some Wordlers also play Competitive Wordle against friends, family, the Wordle Bot or even against me, your humble narrator. See rules for Competitive Wordle toward the end of this post. Today's Wordle Hints And Answer Wordle Bot's Starting Word: SLATE My Starting Word Today: STEAK (95 words left) The Hint: Test quality. The Clue: This Wordle has two double letters. Okay, spoilers below! The answer is coming! . . . Today's Wordle Every day I check Wordle Bot to help analyze my guessing game. You can check your Wordles with Wordle Bot right here. STEAK was a good opener, leaving me with just 7 words. But man oh man did I botch things with CHOIR. I obviously had no idea that only 7 words remained so I just thought I might as well rule out some letters. CHOIR only slashed two words from my total! Ugh. USUAL cut that down to just one: ASSAY for the win! Today's Bot We flip the tables once again. The Bot gets two points this time for beating me and guessing in three. I lose one for losing to the Bot. Our new totals for July are: Erik: 9 points Wordle Bot: 10 points It all comes down to tomorrow's Wordle! This is the closest we've ever been! The word "assay" comes from the Old French assai or essai, meaning "trial" or "test," which itself comes from the Late Latin exagium, meaning "a weighing" or "a test." This derives from Latin ex- ("out") + agere ("to drive, do"). It's closely related to the word essay, which originally meant a trial or attempt. Over time, assay came to specifically refer to testing the content or quality of metal or ore.. Be sure to follow me for all your daily puzzle-solving guides, TV show and movie reviews and more here on this blog!
Atlantic
4 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Internet Loves Sydney Sweeney
Sydney Sweeney is inexplicably reclining and also buttoning up her jeans. She's wearing a jacket with nothing underneath. She's attempting to sell some denim to women, and appears to be writhing while doing so. In a breathy voice, the actor recites the following ad copy as the camera pans up her body: 'Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color.' When the camera lands on her eyes, which are blue, she says, 'My jeans are blue.' The commercial is for American Eagle. The whole thing is a lot. The jeans / genes play is a garden-variety dad pun. But when uttered by Sweeney—a blond, blue-eyed actor whose buxomness and comfort in her own skin seems to drive everyone just a little bit insane—it becomes something else. Sweeney does not speak much about her politics (for interested parties, there are potential clues, such as a 2020 tweet supporting Black Lives Matter and a mention of having conservative relatives), but this hasn't stopped the right wing from framing her as one of their own. Her mere appearance in a plunging neckline on Saturday Night Live led the right-wing blogger Richard Hanania to declare that ' wokeness is dead.' Meanwhile, speaking about the American Eagle ad in a TikTok post that's been liked more than 200,000 times, one influencer said, 'It's literally giving Nazi propaganda.' For some, the ad copy about parents and offspring sounded less like a dictionary entry and more like a 4chan post—either politically obtuse or outrightly nefarious. Across platforms, people expressed their frustration that 'Sydney Sweeney is advertising eugenics.' One of the posters offered context for their alarm, arguing that 'historic fascist regimes have weaponized the feminine ideal,' ultimately linking femininity to motherhood and reproduction. Another said that, in the current political climate, a fair-skinned white woman musing about passing down her traits is 'uncreative and unfunny.'(To further complicate matters, before the controversy, American Eagle announced that a butterfly insignia on the jeans represented domestic-violence awareness and that the company would donate 100 percent of profits from 'the Sydney Jean' to a nonprofit crisis text line.) Are you tired? I'm tired! The trajectory of all this is well rehearsed at this point. Progressive posters register their genuine outrage. Reactionaries respond in kind by cataloging that outrage and using it to portray their ideological opponents as hysterical, overreactive, and out of touch. Then savvy content creators glom on to the trending discourse and surf the algorithmic waves on TikTok, X, and every other platform. Yet another faction emerges: People who agree politically with those who are outraged about Sydney Sweeney but wish they would instead channel their anger toward actual Nazis. All the while, media outlets survey the landscape and attempt to round up these conversations into clickable content—search Google's 'News' tab for Sydney Sweeney, and you'll get the gist. (Even this article, which presents individual posts as evidence of broader outrage, unavoidably plays into the cycle.) Although the Sweeney controversy is predictable, it also shows how the internet has completely disordered political and cultural discourse. Even that word, discourse —a shorthand for the way that a particular topic gets put through the internet's meat grinder—is a misnomer, because none of the participants is really talking to the others. Instead, every participant—be they bloggers, randos on X, or people leaving Instagram comments—are issuing statements, not unlike public figures. Each of these statements becomes fodder for somebody else's statement. People are not quite talking past one another, but clearly nobody's listening to anyone else. Our information ecosystem collects these statements, stripping them of their original context while adding on the context of everything else that is happening in the world: political anxieties, cultural frustrations, fandoms, niche beefs between different posters, current events, celebrity gossip, beauty standards, and rampant conspiracism. No post exists on an island. They are all surrounded and colored by an infinite array of other content targeted to the tastes of individual social-media users. What can start out as a legitimate grievance becomes something else altogether—an internet event, an attention spectacle. This is not a process for sense-making; it is a process for making people feel upset at scale. Unfortunately for us all, our institutions, politicians, influencers, celebrities, corporations—virtually everyone with a smartphone—operates inside this ecosystem. It has changed the way people talk to and fight with each other, as well as the way that jeans are marketed. Electoral politics, activism, getting people to click on your SoundCloud mixtape—all of it relies on attracting attention using online platforms. The Sweeney incident is useful because it allows us to see how all these competing interests overlap to create a self-perpetuating controversy. Did American Eagle know what it was doing when it made the Sweeney advertisement? The company hasn't addressed the controversy, but the ad—not unlike the famous and controversial Brooke Shields Calvin Klein campaign it appears to be playing off of—seems like it was perhaps meant to walk a line, to be just controversial enough to garner some attention. Casting Sweeney to begin with supports this theory. Although perhaps accurately, her image has been co-opted by the right, in part because of where she's from (the Mountain West) and some of her hobbies (fixing cars). Even her figure has become a cultural stand-in for the idea, pushed by conservative commentators, that Americans should be free to love boobs. (Sweeney's cultural associations with conservatism have also been helped along by an Instagram post she made in 2022 featuring photos from a 'surprise hoedown' party for her mother's 60th birthday; online sleuths found separate photos depicting guests in MAGA-style hats and 'Blue Lives Matter' gear, which led to a backlash.) A marketing executive with enough awareness of Sweeney's image and the political and cultural conversation around her might have figured that the ad featuring her in particular talking about her good jeans would draw eyeballs. This does not mean that some of the outrage isn't culturally significant. Those who have spoken out about the advertisement aren't doing so in a vacuum: Fears over eugenics creeping into mainstream culture are empirically grounded—just glance at some aspects of the very public and loud pronatalist movements, which have been supported by influential people such as Elon Musk. Proud eugenicists have found purchase in mainstream culture on platforms like X. The Trump administration is making white-supremacist-coded posts on X and enacting cruel immigration policies, complete with military-style ICE raids and imprisonment in a makeshift gulag in the Florida swamps. That's the real context that the ad was dropped into. It makes sense that, as one commentator noted, the ad might feel like it is part of 'an unbridled cultural shift toward whiteness.' But all of this reality is stripped away by opportunists across the internet. The right-wing media ecosystem is excellent at cherry-picking examples that look, to their audiences, like egregious examples of so-called snowflake behavior. MAGA influencers and Fox News prime-time segments feed off this type of content, which allows their audiences to feel morally superior. Very real concerns about the political direction of the country and the emboldening of bigots are reduced to: Democrats are triggered by cleavage. The right-wing media apparatus has every incentive to go at the Sweeney stuff, as the MAGA coalition struggles to distract its base from Donald Trump's Epstein-files debacle. But it's not only the right that cherry-picks. In their rush to publish viral news stories explaining the controversy, the media credulously grab examples of supposed outrage—regardless of whether the accounts in question have tens of thousands of followers (and actual influence) or just a handful. One BuzzFeed story quoted an Instagram comment from a user who is not a public figure, just a person with 119 followers. This kind of amplification, where nonpublic figures become stand-ins for public opinion, is a dangerous game. It distorts the conversation, sending a flood of attention to posts from small accounts, often in the form of other users who pile on and excoriate the original poster. In turn, this leads to the otherwise inconsequential post taking on the appearance of relevance, causing more outrage. What ends up happening in these scenarios is that everyone gets very mad, in a way that allows for a touch of moral superiority and that is also good for creating online content. The Sweeney ad, like any good piece of discourse, allows everyone to exploit a political and cultural moment for different ends. Some of it is well intentioned. Some of it is cynical. Almost all of it persists because there are deeper things going on that people actually want to fight about. The polarized discourse obscures the real possibility that the majority of people encountering this ad are uninvested, passive consumers. Rather than have any conviction at all about the entire affair, they're consuming this discourse the way that people consume sports content about player infighting in a locker room or the way that people read celebrity gossip. Perhaps this is why American Eagle hasn't issued a panicked statement about the ad or why its stock price, barring a small fluctuation, hasn't changed much. For some, the stakes are high; for others, this is content to be consumed in a moment of boredom. The internet loves Sweeney—not as one might love, say, a person, but as you might an object, an atomic unit of content. Her image is fawned over but also analyzed, co-opted, and monetized. She is savvy enough to get a piece of this action, too; hence selling her bathwater and these jeans. But the internet loving you, it should be said, is not often a good thing. Its desire is limitless. It ingests a person and slowly turns them into a trend, a main character, a thing that people struggle to speak normally about. Perhaps the impulse to label these predictable culture-war moments as discourse reflects a need to make all the anger and fighting mean something. Discourse suggests a process that feels productive, maybe even democratic. But there's nothing productive about the end result of our information environment. What we're consuming isn't discourse but algorithmic grist for the mills that power the platforms we've uploaded our conversations onto. The grist is made of all of our very real political and cultural anxieties, ground down until they start to feel meaningless. The only thing that matters is that the machine keeps running. The wheel keeps turning, leaving everybody feeling like they've won and lost at the same time.
