Kevin¹s made some very valid points, although there are
different angles to look at in this equation. A recent
article in the NY Times suggests that publishers often don¹t
know what will be marketable (as in the case of a title that
was rejected multiple times and didn¹t get a lot of backing
behind it that went on to be a NY Times bestseller).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/business/yourmoney/13book.html?_r=2&th&emc
=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Stating that books that don¹t find a publisher aren¹t very
good because the ones that have been self published aren¹t
very good is hardly a fair basis for evaluation. What
percentage of unpublished/rejected writers turn to self
publishing? Someone get me a stat that says 90% of rejected
authors self publish their books and I¹ll shut up right now,
but I bet that not even a third of rejected authors self
publish.
In reality, most people I know who have a manuscript that¹s
been rejected have it in a drawer.
Let¹s take a different example. The Derringers were announced
today. SPINETINGLER submitted one story we¹d published last
year that I really thought would make the short list. It
didn¹t. But the writer used the story as a platform and wrote
a full-length manuscript based off of it and entered the
Debut Dagger. And it made the shortlist.
Another story didn¹t make the Derringer list but made the
South Story list.
Did the fact they didn¹t make one list mean they weren¹t that
good? That the authors couldn¹t write? No. That¹s how
subjective awards are, and sometimes publishing is no
different.
Harry Potter got rejection letters. Come on, who knows what
will be a breakthrough? Sometimes, it seems, nobody. An
author told me recently about sending in the first chapters
of the second book they were under contract for. The editor
came back underwhelmed. It was Œmeh¹ bordering on
Œbarf¹. They wanted changes.
Next week they contacted the author and said they didn¹t know
what the hell they were thinking, they¹d re-read it and loved
it and gushed and were all enthused.
Imagine if you¹d been a query passing that editor¹s desk on
the first day. Tossed with no second chance. It takes a
committee to buy, but only one person to reject.
Almost every author I¹ve interviewed has talked to me about
the luck involved in their success. When I interviewed Laura
Lippman (
http://www.spinetinglermag.com/Laura_Lippman_Interview.htm
) she said,
³ I've also had one of the strongest lucky streaks anyone can
have in this business and luck should not be under-estimated
as a force in anyone's career.²
People would do well to remember that George Pelecanos, Ian
Rankin, Ken Bruen none of these guys were an overnight
success. I listened to George talk last year about
struggling, feeling ready to give up, how hard it was in the
early days. I¹ve interviewed Ian about what helped him break
through
(on my blog last summer). There¹s no formula on it. I
personally know authors who¹ve built successful careers after
tallying up hundreds of rejection letters.
It is incredibly hard to get published and authors who
haven¹t let success go to their heads know how much hard
work, luck, timing and circumstances have contributed to
their career.
If it was all down to marketability there would be no books
that tanked, no authors getting dropped, nobody struggling to
pay their dues. And sometimes those books are award-winning
titles Elaine Flinn springs to mind as someone who won an
award and still had to go looking for a new publisher.
I bet a survey here could identify a lot of exceptionally
talented authors we all think write better than some big-name
bestsellers... Success is not always directly related to
quality writing.
I¹m not advocating conspiracy theory. I¹m just saying looking
at some self published books isn¹t a basis for saying all or
even most rejected works are crap.
And which of us hasn¹t seen a book lately that falls under
the crap category? I¹ve had one this week I¹ve thrown
multiple times. I think it¹s behind the couch now, where it
can stay and rot. Some stuff that gets published IS
garbage.
Just my 2 opinionated cents, Sandra
On 5/16/07 2:28 PM, "Kevin Burton Smith" <
kvnsmith@thrillingdetective.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, a few good books don't find a publisher, or
otherwise slip
> through the cracks. That's nothing new. And the
oft-repeated stories
> of this "masterpiece" or that "classic" that almost
wasn't published
> will be -- predictably -- trotted out again and
again and again in
> this thread.
>
> Yada yada yada.
>
> But those exceptions are few and far between (which
is why the same
> old examples get trotted out again and again and
again). It may be a
> poor business decision or a glaring lack of
judgement on the
> publisher's part, but it's not "unfair."
>
> For every alleged "classic" that finally makes it to
print, there are
> thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of books
that sink without a
> trace. Usually with good reason.
>
> And, coincidentally, hundreds of great books -- real
classics -- that
> do make it to print. Chandler, Hammett, Cain,
Leonard, Block,
> Westlake, Bruen, Pelecanos, Mosley, Parker,
Macdonald, MacDonald,
> etc., etc. They all survived and thrived in the
literary marketplace.
>
> Is that fair?
>
> Having worked as an editor in the tiny corner of the
literary
> marketplace that is THRILLING DETECTIVE, and having
read a slew of
> self-published books for reviews over the last nine
years, as well as
> hearing horror stories from other editors and slush
pile readers,
> I've come to the conclusion that must books are
rejected by
> traditional presses for one simple reason, and one
simple reason alone.
>
> They're not very good.
>
> They may be preposterous or inept, hackneyed or
incomprehensible
> gibberish, clumsy or poorly structured or any of a
multitude of other
> sins, but most rejected works share one thing in
common. They're not
> what the publisher is looking for, or not good
enough to put in the
> editorial time to make better.
>
> There's no big conspiracy.
>
> The clarion call of "unfairness" is just a balm to
soothe untalented,
> frustrated writers looking to blame someone --
anyone -- for their
> lack of literary of success. Anyone but
themselves.
>
> Talk about pathetic. Boo hoo hoo.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 16 May 2007 EDT