My experience is that there's a lot of truth in what Dave
Zeltserman said in his very succinct post. A lot of
exceptionally good novels are getting passed on, and the lack
of 'platform' -- previously a term only applied to
non-fiction -- is becoming an increasingly popular reason for
rejection.
That's by no means across the board, but I do hear it a
lot.
As Kevin says, "publishers are in business to sell books, and
they always were." No argument there. But what I've observed
since becoming a literary agent is that many publishers are
looking for a much more certain and immediate return on their
investment than perhaps was once the case. Literary agents
are increasingly turning to non-fiction to make a buck. You
can sell on an outline and sample chapters, there's more of
it being bought, and the money's generally about twice what
you'd get for fiction. So why wouldn't you? Of course by
doing so it then becomes harder for new writers to find
agents, and without an agent it's very difficult to find a
publisher.
Whether it's fair or not is irrelevant. It does mean that
it's harder for good novels to get published. Harder for bad
novels to get published too, of course.
That's how it looks from where I'm sitting, anyway.
On the topic of posthumous novels, Stark House Press are
bringing out a previously unpublished Gil Brewer novel soon.
And I believe James Cain left a couple of unpublished works.
As did Ralph Dennis. And both Hard Case and Harcourt are
bringing out unpublished Mickey Spillanes. As for existing
novelists: I know several who have orphans. The Edgar-winning
THE CONFESSION was languishing in a drawer till Charles Ardai
bought it.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Burton Smith
To:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: RARA-AVIS: Are unpublished novels
best left unpublished? YES!
On May 16, 2007, at 9:22 AM, George the Librarian
wrote:
> Is it true that a good book will always find a
publisher?
No.
> If it is
> true, are unpublished novels best left unpublished,
like for example
> Jim Thompson's The Rip-Off? I liked this
posthumously-published novel.
> It had the quirkiness of The Golden Gizmo, but a
tighter, stronger
> plot.
How can it be unpublished if it was published?
Was it rejected in his
lifetime?
> I am a believer that the literary marketplace is not
that fair, but I
> am curious how others feel.
What's "fair"?
Everyone -- regardless of talent or commercial
viability -- gets
published?
Is it "fair" that libraries don't stock every
book in the world?
Publishers are in business to sell books -- and
always were. If they
think they can't sell a book, should they publish
it anyway?
It's their money, after all.
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.
If you think the literary marketplace is unfair,
put your own money
where your mouth is. Publish your own damn novel.
There's no law
against it. The vanity presses are waiting for
you, licking their chops.
But the literary marketplace is unfair?
To who?
When was the last time you went out to buy --
with your own money --
a book you knew would be poorly written? Is it
"fair" that you only
buy books you think you will like?
One final point: the rise of relatively cheap POD
vanity presses has,
for the first time in history, given us a clear
look at what
traditional publishers have rejected. As a
reviewer, I've probably
read at least a hundred of these things over the
years. The picture
is not pretty. There are a lot of people out
there who think they're
writers.
They're not. They're typists.
And often not even very good ones.
Grrrrrr....
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 16 May 2007 EDT