One of the problems I've found with being a new writer is that (obviously) I don't have any track record with readers and that means there's a lack of trust in my ability. And this is a particular problem when - as I am - you're writing a four volume saga like The Demi-Monde.
When a reader trusts a writer they believe that he or she won't leave them dangling, that the plot holes and inconsistencies they perceive when reading a book are not mistakes, and that everything will be explained or rationalised in later instalments of the story.
Let me give you a case in point. One of the reviews that has gone up on Amazon.com (by 'silea') has cited a number of 'major plot points' which, in her (I'm presuming 'silea' is a girl, if not, my apologies) view mar the book. Now what we have here is a breakdown in trust: silea doesn't have enough confidence in me as a writer to believe that by the time she gets to the end of 'The Demi-Monde: Fall' everything will be explained (notably how Norma got into the Demi-Monde; why the US military thinks its neoFights are dying; why ABBA is so persnickety about exactly replicating its Dupes etc. etc.). But believe me, silea, all will be made clear ... trust me!
Another example was the English reviewer who chastised me for introducing technology to my world of 2018 which will be beyond our current capabilities. Absolutely correct if the Real World of 2018 was OUR world but (as will be explained in later books) it isn't. You see: he didn't trust me.
Unfortunately this trust issue is a problem I think will be exacerbated by 'The Demi-Monde: Spring'. There are a number of inferences/suggestions/hints strewn in Spring which won't be resolved until the final book. I thought this was me being tantalising until my American editors (quite rightly) suggested that I become just a tad less oblique. God knows what silea will make of Spring but it'll be interesting.