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 true, are unpublished novels best left unpublished,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How can it be unpublished if it was published?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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 16 May 2007 EDT