Publish and be damned

[Chefo]

I hope I did not leave the wrong impression. Although I have never edited fiction per say, I have worked on news articles, short stories, student papers, several scientific research papers (one of which went in print) and I have been a SQA for a software project. So, I myself have done my share of editing.

Often, I have come across as being too harsh for I am never shy about pointing out inadequacies in the writing and/or erroneous thinking. I am, therefore, aware of the fact that people get defensive about their work. As a result, I have tried to remain as objective as I can possibly be given that it was me on the other side of the barricade that time around. Yet, having that experience, I also observed how my superiors and peers went about editing a given piece. We used to write down notes (a bunch of them, actually) on the manuscripts and when we asked people to change anything we always explained why. Our purpose was to always provide constructive criticism for, although it certainly ticked some individuals off, it seemed to bring the best out of the folks who were serious about their work. After doing this for a while (bear in mind this was during college so the quality of writing was probably a bit lower than commercial print), I have at least a vague idea of what an edited manuscript looks like.

Looking in retrospective, I assume that I expected something that was not realistic. For all that was worth, I looked forward to registering at least some effort on part of the editor. I know it is hard to go through the volume of work that these folks deal with on a daily basis. Still, I believe that if professionalism is required on my behalf, I should expect a similar attitude from the person on the other end. It was not the rejection itself that bothered me. I've done my research and my expectations about the process were not overly optimistic. Rather, it was the way the editor handled the whole process that stung. Even if he did read it, I could not tell.

Having said that, I will try to rework what is essentially a fourth of my novel.
I have edited that part a number of times already yet now I have an idea floating in my head that I hope will help me grab the reader's attention and never let go (ideally, that is).

It will be hard work but that is not something that bothers me. I have had the privilege to have a couple of people give me some very helpful feedback that I will try to work into the story.

To sum things up, this is a work in progress and I have to learn from my own shortcomings. Still, while putting further effort will prove beneficial to the quality of my writing, it will certainly not make me feel any better about an editor who did not so much as look at my work on the basis that I have never published fiction before.

Best wishes,

Chefo

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, it depends on how we define professionalism. I can assure you that professional book editors at large publishing houses do NOT make line edits on manuscripts until they have gone quite a long way through the publishing process, whatever you did in college or I and my colleagues did in the small press. Editors don't pass out their expertise to all and sundry for free any more than other professionals do. If they did, I imagine the deluge of unsolicited manuscripts would be even greater.

A form rejection means absolutely nothing except for whatever it actually says. It certainly does not mean that they did not read any of your manuscript, not even that they didn't like it. So you shouldn't be discouraged -- just keep on writing and submitting. I know many authors who have been accepted at large publishing house after receiving form rejections from other places.

As for the whole money angle, many writers find it cheaper to tell publishers they can dispose of the manuscript after reading, rather than sending the postage to have the ms. returned. Of course it depends on where you live and how much it costs you to get something xeroxed versus how much it costs to send it by book rate or first class. You might want to do a cost comparison.

 

[Chefo]

Fair enough. I do understand that publishers carry things out differently than what I have practiced. That is why I am not mad at them, but rather disappointed.

As for business- well, I am in a graduate business school right now and I am perfectly aware that publishers' main goal is to make money. Simple as that. Their job is not to make me, or you, or anybody feel better. Over-emphasizing the sure thing, however, is somewhat dangerous.

Business theory points out that any firm or even an entire industry that relies entirely on "cash cows" (the sure thing) eventually goes under. I'll give you an example. I'll never read a book by Robert Jordan again (or never buy one, to be more precise). There are several other authors that I am aware of whose quality of work has declined steadily as their publishers have asked them to come up with something out of nothing. Not only does this embarrass the author, but it also destroys the reputation of the publisher. Since I cannot change a damn thing about it though, all I can do is find something else to spend my cash on. I got carried away so back to the topic.

The issue that I find most upsetting is that I cannot tell on what base the manuscript was rejected. Was it the plot? Was it the writing style? As somebody who has put significant amount of effort into creating a 440 page manuscript, I need to have an idea about what I have to concentrate my effort on. What if, on the contrary, the novel is good enough as it is and changing certain components will only hurt its style and integrity? A simple, one line sentence dealing with these issues would have been enough for me to accept that as a fair rejection. Well, as you pointed out, I got my novel back in three weeks, which is a bit faster than usual. Given that it spent two of the three weeks in the mail, I managed to get a pretty decent idea of how my attempt on publishing was treated.

Anyways, a possible mistake to correct for is that I had structured the novel in an unorthodox way that the gentlemen that I relied on for feedback felt quite positive about. It starts as a classical fantasy novel with what are apparently good guys and antagonists. Yet as the plot develops, moral values and inherent motivation turn grayish awfully fast. This whole book is about prejudice, misunderstanding and lack of vision and how these can transform men of virtue into what they believe they have fought against their entire lives. The novel is about misdirection, intricately woven plotlines, keeping the reader guessing. The problem is, if you read the first 3 pages, there is no way in hell you can catch that. Given that it was precisely the moral ambiguity that had all my peer-reviewers so excited about the piece, I am starting to consider how to get this point across from line one.

As for comparing prices-been there, done that. Still, I truly put my best effort into sending that manuscript and as such I did not want to have anything in there that can prompt the editor to toss my work into the garbage can. Doing that doesn't come cheap. When I go through the whole process again, however, I will probably reconsider how to better allocate my spending. But hey, practice makes perfect.

Best wishes,

Chefo

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well the thing about those cash cows, as far as the publishing industry is concerned, is that most of the fiction that does get published makes very little money indeed -- for the publisher and heaven knows for the author. Few books even earn out their advances. It's those cash cows like Robert Jordan and David Eddings who make enough money that publishers can afford to take a chance now and again on an unknown. Sometimes those unknowns hit it big, and join the ranks of the cash cattle. Mostly, they sell a few thousand books, linger on for a while as midlist writers, and finally either write a break-out book or give up.

Still, it is depressing to go into a bookstore and see the shelves full of books one thinks of as unmitigated junk. Sometimes I just want to throw something. Not just on my own account, but on account of all the authors I love who aren't doing as well as I think they should. Blame the people who go on buying the junk, even after they've become disillusioned with an author and a series.

Editors see a lot of books they would like to buy if they could afford to lose money on them. Some of them they do buy. But obviously, they have to really, really like a book to buy it when they don't expect it to make money. (Like Rainer Unwin and "The Lord of the Rings." Doesn't he look smart now. But he expected to lose a ton of money, and went ahead only because he considered the book a masterpiece.)

Are you sending a three-page synopsis with your manuscript? That is one way to get across some of the layers and complexities that don't show up in the first chapter. Learning to write a really good synopsis can be a useful skill.

Also, who are you getting to critique your work? Friends and family, or do you belong to a critique group? A good group can teach you a lot, not just by what you learn about your own writing but through the process of critiquing others. If you write SF or Fantasy, just make sure you get into a group that specializes in speculative fiction. If you do write speculative fiction, have you ever been to a large SF/F convention? For a comparatively small membership fee you can hear professional writers and editors and agents and illustrators speak on a number of different topics. You can ask questions from the audience. Sometimes you get to meet the professionals, or at least other dedicated and knowledgable aspirings. If we don't want to be chewed up by the system, it helps to know how the system actually does work, and this is one way to learn.

 

[aurelio]

With all due respect, some of the people posting in these topics sound like they think the bigger publishing houses are in one big conspiracy against aspiring writers.

I don't think there is a "conspiracy" against new talent, but faced with a celeb, or friend of someone on the inside, or a writer with a well connected agent, or an unsolicited manuscript, who do you think they'll read who do you think they'll ignore?

Kelpie, you say that HarperCollins EOS just published your book. I'd be curious to know if you simply sent them a manuscript out of the blue, or did you have an "in"?

There's always the chance some publisher will read an unsolicited manuscript, but I have yet to talk to a single person for whom that has happened. And for me, it's not a matter of being against publishers, I'm not, but more a complaint about the process required to get there, which appears to have less to do with the writing than it does with the easy sell or influence peddling. Once they actually read something submitted and reject it, that's fair. I would even be in favor of a stamp that says "un-read" on the returned manuscripts, so at least the authors would know what's up.

However, that being said, more power to anyone who can get their foot in the door with a publisher! And a big congrats to you, Kelpie! I admit a large degree of bitterness toward this sillier part of the submissions process (mostly on behalf of my many friends, who keep trying).

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

My first book was accepted for publication without any "in" or influence. They didn't know me and I didn't know them. This was several years ago, however (the actual publishing process can be amazingly slow sometimes), and I know that it is getting harder for unagented and unpublished writers to break in.

But I don't quite know what you mean by influence peddling. Knowing someone may get someone a little higher up in the editorial hierarchy to Look at your manuscript, but so far as I know, in the end the manuscript rises or falls on its own merits, which may be literary and may be strictly commercial.

Anyway, SF and Fantasy is not a difficult field in which to make contacts. Not at all. Editors and writers in that particular field are amazingly accessible. It's not like you have to be born into the right family, or go to the right school, or sleep with the right people. You just hang out in the right places and you can make lots of contacts.

 

[aurelio]

What I mean by influence peddling is that a well connected and agressive agent can get you in the door (for a price).

I sent my manuscript for "EVE" to a publisher through my Hollywood lawyer (she's a great entertainment lawyer, but doesn't know publishing), because I didn't have or know a literary agent. The publisher passed, and when I talked to the friend who had recommended I try this publisher (the friend is a published author who actually knew the publisher personally and liked my manuscript) she told me after the fact that my lawyer just "wasn't agressive enough" with the publisher.

Judging from the content of the two sentence rejection letter I received from the publisher, it was easy to surmise she had only bothered to read the synopsis.

Now, what an agressive advocate has to do with the actual text of a manuscript is absolutely nothing. But they can take publishers to lunch, wine and dine them, offer to scratch their back on other deals, etc. This is what I'm referring to as the game of influence. If you have the same agent that represents, say, Steven King, the publisher will take a meeting and read your manuscript because they might get Steven's next book. Since my lawyer wasn't connected in that world and didn't have a lot to offer the publisher, the publisher wasn't interested in a deal.

I'm sure the smaller publishing companies are not as lame or corrupted out, but the big ones are all owned by large media conglomerates (HarperCollins is part of NewsCorp, BTW) and are now primarily interested in only best sellers. The chances of them picking up a first time, unknown writer are rare. If you don't believe me, check this article out:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110004578

This guy was already an established author too! And I'm afraid it will only get worse. This process has already happened in the movie business. All the big studios do now is make remakes, things with big stars attached to the deal, or something that is pre-sold in some way (Harry Potter, etc.) It's the business end trying to reduce risk, to the demise of creativity. That's why all the big studio pictures are more of the same all the time now. All the new and interesting films are being done as independent productions now.

I look at self-publishing like independent film making. Once an independent film maker makes a successful movie, the big studios are then interested in making a deal with them. Before that, they can't get a meeting. If a self-published author can get a book to sell on their own, suddenly they are of interest to large publishing houses. It's not a pretty picture, but that's the business model large corporations are following. Why would they be any different with publishing?

You may be right that in the scifi genre it is different, and publishers are accessible, but that was not my experience. It also sounds like you had to do some sort of networking to get them to read your manuscript and that it was not sent completely out of the blue:

You just hang out in the right places and you can make lots of contacts.

 

[Lacedaemonian]

I believe that Lord of the Rings could not get published, until a student who Tolkien had taught became a publisher and published LOTR out of love and respect for the great man. However, the story was a master peice.

 

[aurelio]

I also believe that good work will eventually rise to the top (just like LOTR).

I don't mean to be a pile of negativity (even though I sound that way), but only to urge writers to not give up on their goals when someone closes the door on them, and that there are other factors that don't have anything to do with writing at play.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I've already spent more time on this discussion than I probably ought to, so I'll just say a few more things and leave you all to tear them to shreds as you will.

First of all, I did all my networking after I had a contract. If I had known how easy it was I probably would have done it sooner, but maybe not, being that like many other people who go into writing I'm not exactly confident making face to face contact with strangers. Anyway, being told that it might help me in the future, I bit the bullet and did it, discovering along the way that it wasn't so bad after all. I've made some wonderful friends and if nothing else, I've learned a lot about how publishing works from the inside. I no longer have to form my impressions about the publishing process based on one or two pieces of anecdotal evidence. I have TONS of anecdotal evidence.

I am bemused to see someone complaining on the one hand that some writers have an unfair advantage, and then on the other hand complaining because their lawyer couldn't get a publisher to take their book seriously. I sure as heck can't afford to send a lawyer to sell my books, assuming the thing could be done. The advantage of an agent is that they don't charge by the hour, they only get paid if they get results, and they know who to approach with what kind of book, and how to get better terms once there is a contract on the table. It seems to me that the statement that your lawyer was not "aggressive enough" does not refer to any failing along the lines of blandishments/threats/influence peddling, but merely to not approaching enough publishers or finding out which were the right ones.

Yes, the fact that many publishers are owned by huge corporations has made a difference. Publishing houses that once were essentially family businesses run by people who love books are now taking a much closer look at the bottom line. But what this actually means is that established midlist writers are finding it harder and harder to get contracts. There is, in fact, a division in some houses: while editorial would prefer to work with journeymen writers they know and trust (go figure) sales and marketing would prefer to put their efforts into promoting bright new talents. This is why authors like Kate Elliot and Robin Hobbe have been obliged to change their names in order to go on working. So on the one hand it means there are more slots for unknown names, but on the other hand some of those slots are actually being taken by people already in the business. Probably these two facts pretty much cancel each other out. In any case, I fail to see what is so wrong about people who have labored long in a particular field and paid their dues gaining some slight advantage because of it.

I don't know about any of you, but I can't think of a single other desirable profession in which it is even Possible for someone with no formal training, no contacts, no guild membership, no apprenticeship, no anything but self-taught talent, to even Conceivably be offered a professional contract. Because we have all heard of it happening occasionally in publishing we have all come to expect it, we feel angry if it doesn't always happen that way, and we fail to realize what an amazing thing it is when it does happen.

I respectfully submit that the reason it is so hard to get a book published is simply because so very, very, very many people want to do it. Everyone who has had "an interesting life" thinks they can write a book, everyone who had ever had a psychotic episode, or a cool idea, or an unhappy childhood, or a messy divorce. People who rarely even READ, who care nothing at all about books, but who imagine that writing is a lucrative and glamorous profession, produce manuscripts and send them off to publishers. This is even worse now that computers have made the purely physical act of producing a manuscript so much easier. And yes, there are tens of thousands like I assume you all here, aspiring writers who care about books, who work hard at improving their craft, who read widely in their genre of choice, who have done everything they know how to do to get their books published.

Finally, think about this: When was the last time that you applied for a job where there were hundreds or even thousands of other applicants seeking to fill the very same position -- and then felt it was unfair because someone with actual professional credits on their resume was chosen instead?


* * * * *

Later

No, wait, I'm not going to shut up quite yet after all. I thought of something else I wanted to say over breakfast.

Someone (Aurelio?) complained because a manuscript was rejected on the basis of the synopsis. A synopsis is a sample of your writing, for goodness sakes, it not only shows whether you can present an idea in an interesting way, it also tells an editor whether you know what goes into structuring a story, whether you can organize your ideas, etc. etc. Additionally, it is a tool the editor can use, should he or she wish to buy your story, to convince everyone else in house that has to be convinced before he or she can offer you a contract. In a way, its like your resume, it's like what you wear to a job interview -- its like anything else that makes that indelible first impression. It is the most important two or three pages that any of us will ever write (except, of course, for the next synopsis). We would be wise, would we not, to learn how to do it really, really well? (One thing I've learned: don't just list your themes and ideas -- tell a story.) An editor, looking at a poorly written synopsis -- or even a beautifully written and poetic synopsis that nevertheless does not do what a synopsis ought to -- is just like the employer who looks at the smudged and torn resume, the applicant sitting there in jeans and a tee-shirt, and surmises from these clues that there are probably other lapses in professionalism as well. The applicant who types up a fresh resume, who takes the time to put on slacks and a shirt with a collar, may be no more qualified than the other -- but all other things being equal, who do you think is going to get a fair shot at the interviewer's attention?

 

[Marianne]

I just found this thread so I am late to add my two cents. Also, it has taken me half the morning just to wade through the postings



This is a heated topic on every forum I have seen it posted. The reason it is, I believe, is because writers who are not self published look down their noses at writers who are self published. I am not saying this to stir up the flames here. I am saying it because I have experienced it.



I have made some wonderful contacts in the 'professional' world by attending writers retreats(where I spend a lot of money to have my peers tell me what is wrong with my writing.) Most of the attendees are unpublished but as soon as I say I have published my book they stop talking to me, they won't even ask about my book. If someone tells me thay have written a published a book I say "Wow! What's it about?" Writers who are looking to make it in the publishing arena see self publishing as defeat. It doesn't have to be this way, people. There are many ways to skin this cat.

This is my story(there are a million of them in the big city) I am 53 years old and started writing a few years ago. I wrote a short novel(40,000) about time travel. It would fall in the high school to adult reading range. I spent a year writing it and several months rewriting and editing. I then sent it out to half a dozen agents. All rejected it, most responded in a couple of days, which tells me they did not read it and ponder it for long! All came with standard rejection forms with no explanation, except for one. The agent just wrote on the query page in pencil "Too short for us" I don't think she made it past the query page. (And this was the one agent at the Convention I attended that asked me to send her the manuscript)

I then sent it to about 10 publishing houses, all small presses recommended in Writer's Market that publish young adult fiction and who accept unpublished writers-all were rejected. One publisher asked for three chapters and then six months later sent me an e-mail saying they were not interested.

So, at this point I have spent a couple hundred dollars on postage, paper, ink...etc. I am thinking that my writing sucks. I read the manuscript again and I like it. The few people who have read the manuscript for me like it as well. Are we all shmucks? I dunno, but I decide that I will just throw it in a drawer and move on. Then a friend of mine publishes his own book and we start talking about the marketing and I think that maybe this could be fun-ack! What was I thinking, but to make a long story short, I dig out my manuscript and I spend another few weeks editing and formatting and I send it to my publisher.

Is the book badly written? I don't think so, but you might. Am I less of a professional for self publishing? I don't think so. I work hard at my craft and take it very seriously. Do I lack maturity and professionalism? Not at all.

I worked with Terry Brooks at one writer's retreat and he said the number one factor to getting published is luck. Since only 1% of the manuscripts submitted get published by the established publishing houses, I would say you have to be damn lucky! Do I still dream about a big book contract and selling the movie option? You bet I do! Is it going to happen with my first book, Jumping Jack Flash? Probably not, but I am learning a lot in the process.

Also, I will agree that there are a lot of stinkers in the self published market. I try to look at all the works of people I meet on the web and I even buy some of the books because I want them to support me as well.

Congratulations to all of you who have sold a book to a publisher. Good luck to all of you who have self published. Let's remember that we are all professionals and be nice to one another. Writing is a lonely profession and we need all the friends we can get.

Cheers!

 

[aurelio]

Kelpie, I didn't mean to imply that anything you have done to get published was wrong, suspect, undeserved, or unfair, indeed, I am delighted for you and that things worked out so breezily for you! You don't need to defend yourself. But, it might be just a tad bit insensitive on your part to continue to imply that those of us who have suffered rejection from publishers just don't want to face what you feel is a failure of our writings, or sloppy presentation, or lack of professionalism, rather than a flawed submissions process or a lack of opportunity, or bad timing, as I believe it many times is, and could be read as simply condescention on your part.

If one's writing is not even read by a publisher, then how can it be the reason for the rejection? That someone actually happened to read your manuscript is swell for you, but if you look around these forums, you will find that you are the exception to the rule. For you to assume that this is because all the rest of us are inferior writers would be simply arrogance on your part.

Of course publishing, as you say, is competetive, and one needs to make the best presentation possible, etc., but there are many other factors involved. There are many best selling authors who suffered rejection after rejection before they got a break, so please keep that in mind.

When you say things like:

People who rarely even READ, who care nothing at all about books, but who imagine that writing is a lucrative and glamorous profession, produce manuscripts and send them off to publishers. This is even worse now that computers have made the purely physical act of producing a manuscript so much easier.

Who do you mean by this? People here? The unpublished people here? It does sound like a pretty nasty description of others less fortunate than you. You may feel the value of another person's motivations, desires, talents and worth as an author directly relate to their ability to get published, but I respectfully disagree.

Everyone's path is different. It would be good for you to remember that.

 

[Mark Robson]

Aurelio, now it's my turn to take issue with something that perhaps you haven't seen. I must defend Kelpie here, because I feel you might be talking about something you haven't necessarily seen.

People who rarely even READ, who care nothing at all about books, but who imagine that writing is a lucrative and glamorous profession, produce manuscripts and send them off to publishers. This is even worse now that computers have made the purely physical act of producing a manuscript so much easier.

I get scripts from people like this all the time! People see my books in WH Smith, Waterstones and Ottakars and the like - think - ho, ho, this is a publishing house I haven't tried for my 'amazing' script and pack one off in the post to me. I spend countless hours reading, and giving feedback on drivel. Why? Because I don't want to dampen people's enthusiasm for writing. Most of the scripts that I see have not got a snowball's chance in hell of getting published. I pull no punches with my critiques, but I always look for the positive in peoples writing to give them something to cling on to and encourage them to keep trying. Unfortunately, some take the positive comments (despite all the numerous negative ones) the wrong way and seem to think that the positive comments are enough for them to keep on sending their appalling efforts out again without any further work. *SIGH* What more can I say?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I believe I said specifically that I wasn't talking about the people here when I referred to people who don't even read or care about books. But these are the very people all of us have to compete with for an editor's attention. Find some way to make Them stop submitting, and maybe we'll all get a little more attention from professional editors.

I'm sorry, but either sending one's lawyer to speak to an editor, or self-publishing a book looks like just another way to skip a few places ahead in line: no better or worse than any of the other methods that have condemned as influence peddling. And there is nothing wrong with that. It's a competitive field, and motivated people will look for an edge. What bothers me is that people who have tried and failed to get an edge in one way complain about the people who have used other ways, simply because those other ways have been more successful.

I believe I also pointed out, quite a way up topic, that I have at least one friend who I respect very much who has gone with less traditional publishing. In fact, I have more than one friend who has done so. I've also been reading about some of your experiences in self publishing in another thread here. I truly believe that in going with self-publishing, or e-publishing, or p-o-d publishing one only exchanges one set of headaches for another. Well, for each and every one of us that is our choice to make, but it might be a good idea to look at more than one side of the question before making that choice.

I am well aware that luck is a big factor in publishing -- who should know that better than I? But I don't think I would be wise to continue to depend on that luck to keep on carrying me, so I set out to do some of my homework after the fact when probably I should have done it in advance. As a result, I can see some things I would have done differently, if I had known then what I know now. And then there are other things that, by sheer luck, I happened to do right the first time. If nobody here is interested in hearing about what another writer had to learn through trial and error, fine. Geez, you guys are my competition. I'd be much smarter to urge you all to stay away from major publishing houses. Never submit to HarperCollins, folks; they are all a bunch of money-grubbing b*st*ards.

Anyway, I'm not really trying to convince any of you of anything you've already made up your minds about. But there may be people reading here but not posting who, without a dissenting opinion, might believe that what some of you have been saying here is all that can be said. I've offered a different opinion and a different set of experiences for them to think about if they want to, and now I'll shut up for good.

 

[aurelio]

Mark, I do know what you are talking about. I really do.

I worked in animation development for a quite number of years, so I saw lots of bad ideas, bad writing, bad scripts, bad outlines, etc. come across my desk (not to mention tons of horrible artwork). Believe me. And I frankly have no problem with people telling those writers that what they have written is bad, even horrible if the shoe fits. That was not really my point. I commend you for taking the time to actually read and respond to lot of these people when I know from experience how tempting it would be to simply ignore them or avoid them. You obviously have a good soul.

I do know, having dealt with similar bad writers and artists that even a lot of the bad ones care deeply about what they are doing. I also know from experience it is foolish to prejudge people. One of the women in my art school was an absolutely terrible artist, and I remember wondering how she was able to even get in to the program, but she worked her *ss off, kept improving, and eventually became the best (and highest paid) woman animator in LA, and one of my heroines.

What I really bristle at is the generalizations made by some here regarding rejection from publishers, a belittling experience in and of itself already, as an abject failure of some sort on the part of the rejected writer's writing. Maybe the publisher had a lot of manuscripts that week and only opened every tenth box. Maybe the title didn't grab them. Maybe they met their quota for that particular genre for the season. Maybe they got 5 other books with a theme similar to yours. Maybe they don't even accept unsolicited manuscripts as a policy (see below). It's not always about the quality of the writing.

I also bristle at the idea that if someone chooses to self-publish they are "unprofessional." Here again, this is not a response to the writing but simply another form of prejudice.

The publisher I dealt with briefly (interestingly, at HarperCollins EOS) got a note from her friend regarding my manuscript, which the friend had read and recommended she consider it for publication. HarperCollins told me that I could not submit it on my own, that an agent had to make the submission, apparently for legal reasons (I'm not sure how you got around this Kelpie, but this is what they told me regarding my submission at EOS) so my lawyer, as a favor to me and free of charge, made the submission for me, which was acceptable to HarperCollins (there are a few nice lawyers in this world, believe it or not).

I was told that the reason they do this is so that if they come out with a book similar in any way to one's submission they have a paper trail with a third party, so they can avoid lawsuits, although I don't really know for certain, and perhaps this is a newer policy, I really don't know.

I also didn't so much mind EOS's rejection. In all honesty, I pretty much expected it. My novel is very weird and doesn't slot neatly into a specific genre. I was disappointed they didn't love the manuscript, of course, I'm only human after all, but it was mostly the way the scenario played out, the utterly generic wording of the rejection letter, the idea conveyed to me after the fact through my friend that my lawyer didn't shmooze the publisher enough, etc. that convinced me I needed to take a different path.

And I'm not saying that the path I've taken everyone else should take! So, could we all simply accept the fact that their are many roads to publication and leave it at that, without prejudice? Isn't the point to write and be read, regardless of how that happens? That's all I'm advocating here.

 

[Mark Robson]

Having been both sides of the fence - with 4 self published novels and now the prospect of 2 novels with S & S, I'm able to see both sides here. This debate could go around in circles forever. I think that anyone who is not proud of their first novel wants their head examining, but with that pride often goes an element of blindness towards the weaknesses in the work.

I am still proud of my first novel, though I now cringe when I read it! I see this as a positive thing. I can now see many of the flaws in the writing that would have put any editor worth their salt off publishing the book. By writing 4 more books I have honed many of the skills I was lacking to begin with. The storyline that I wrote was good, though it could have been better. The characters were strong, but could have been stronger. Where I really let myself down was the style - sentence construction and pace. Perversely, I got great reviews for the book from those critics who took time to read it! Also, the readers are still emailing their praise in droves.

Happily, the critics have noticed the improvements that I've made with each new work. Storylines are less predictable, characters are better defined, and the writing style has come along in leaps and bounds. However, I've always been one to take on board criticism. There are many who cannot. Seldom is a first novel the best work of a dedicated writer. The problem is that many who look to get a book published do not see this. They write one book, think it's God's gift to literature and cannot see why it should not be published and hyped to high heaven. Maybe I'm a cynic, but I like to think that I'm a realist when I say that far more often than not this is not in the best interest of either publisher or author.

Challenge: Think of an author whose first book was hyped (aside from JKR) and then name their second book. I can't do that with many. There have been a lot of authors whose first books have been hyped, but then subsequently the sales have not matched the hype and hey presto, the author rapidly disappears into the mire of obscurity. Most of the really big name authors have built their readerships steadily over many years and many books.

I know how hard I've worked to build my readership. I've shaken hands with the majority of them! There are probably more of my books signed than unsigned in existence, but that's all part of the challenge. Giving people a reason to pull your books off the shelf in preference to the McCaffreys and the Eddings etc, whether they be self published or published by a mainstream company.

I will undoubtedly be doing the rounds of promotion events with no queues of adoring fans to greet me for years yet, (unless I'm really lucky) but by putting the legwork in and taking the work to people and giving them a reason to try it - even if that is only the fact that they've met me - I know that I stand to gradually build a large and devoted readership who will follow my work with interest for as long as I keep writing. Would I have done all this legwork if my first, badly flawed novel had been published by a mainstream company? Probably not. Would I now have a readership of 25000+? Very unlikely. I look at my self published work as having been a testing ground and a learning experience. It has been a gruelling project, but incredibly satisfying. Obviously I look positively on self publishing - but only in so much as it is a positive and satisfying hobby. I don't realistically believe I could have carved a successful career out of it.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Seldom is a first novel the best work of a dedicated writer. The problem is that many who look to get a book published do not see this. They write one book, think it's God's gift to literature and cannot see why it should not be published and hyped to high heaven.

I used to be such an arrogant b'stard about my own work. I felt the world owed it to publish me, because I had taken the time to write it. It was a very unhelpful attitude to have for publishing purposes - yet at the time was perhaps necessary to help sustain what was an otherwise extremely challenging writing project.

However, when faced with the realities of the publishing world, I have learned that it's much more important to try and understand how the industry works, and work to the standards of professionalism demanded by the industry.

After all, success in any industry usually requires a level of dedication and determination above the norm. I see writing as no different.

Will aiming so assure myself of a traditional print publishing contract? Not at all. If it gives myself a fighting chance, then that is more than I ever had before.

After all, Olympic athletics is no doubt filled with many people who have achieved a lot, and deserve further recognition - but there are just 3 medals for any event, no matter how many are trying for them.

Ultimately, the struggle for that level of achievement demands a writer offer truly the best that they can in their work. However, there are many options as to which direction a writer may wish to take their work once they feel they have reached that level.

Traditional print remains the Holy Grial and ultimate symbol of writing recognition, but the internet has empowered the writer with various options to suit their own aims.

The most important point is simply to ensure that, whichever option we take, we offer only our best - else we fail ourselves.

 

[aurelio]

Ultimately, the struggle for that level of achievement demands a writer offer truly the best that they can in their work. However, there are many options as to which direction a writer may wish to take their work once they feel they have reached that level.

Traditional print remains the Holy Grial and ultimate symbol of writing recognition, but the internet has empowered the writer with various options to suit their own aims.

The most important point is simply to ensure that, whichever option we take, we offer only our best - else we fail ourselves.

Well said, Brian.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I thought I’d better put my statesman hat on for a moment, as things appeared to be getting a little heated.

As for general comments on submissions – I think kelpie has done a superb job proving that you can get a publishing contract from a major publisher, simply on the grounds of hard work and dedication, rather than on the basis of luck or networking – which can only be encouraging for other writers.

However, it is worth pointing out that she had experience in sff editing in the first place, which suggests that she had a good understanding of the industry, and how it works, and that she didn’t fall into the trap of making naïve submissions – which is something I have done.

An understanding of the industry to some degree seems to be a general pre-requisite – a common recommendation is to learn through short story publishing in the SFF periodicals, such as Asimov.

When I in receipt of a standard rejection letter, it’s worth considering that this is because:

1. The agency was not able to take on any more authors
2. The submission was flawed.

The first issue can be avoided by writing a letter – or even making a quick phone call to the agency – simply asking whether the agency is in a position to read new submissions. The agency will be pretty plain about it if they are not, but will likely recommend a preferred time.

The second issue is the hardest, because it means being aware of various flaws in your own approach. A high degree of professionalism is required. If you’d like to see exactly what I mean then take a look at this article, and apply it to yourself:

http://www.chronicles-network.net/writers/resources/editors/advice.php

According to respect UK literary agent, Carole Blake, around 98% of all submissions she receives clearly fail on at least one presentation issue that Kent Brewster raises in his article linked to above.

That means you can apparently make it to the last 2% simply on the grounds of professionalism. What is professionalism? Try this link as well:

http://www.sfwa.org/writing/faqs.htm

When you reach this bracket, you have a chance of having your full manuscript requested.

An editor friend on another forum suggested to me she’d expect one full manuscript read for every 7 submissions. However, even then, Carole Blake suggests rejection will come because:

1. The concept or story simply didn’t grab her
2. There would be too much reworking of the story to make it workable
3. The agency thinks it would be too difficult selling the particular manuscript in the current market atmosphere
4. The agency is not taking on any more writers (see A. above)

No one suggests that being accepted by traditional print publishing is easy, but the overall report from agents seems to be that writer’s own mistakes are their own worst enemy.

For the chronicles network index of writing resources, try this link:

http://www.chronicles-network.net/writers/resources/

 

[Lacedaemonian]

Brian, you keep putting those fires out and we'll keep starting them.

I fear the day that I try to get published and I admire you all for getting published whatever route you took.