As usual in these discussions, Kevin Burton Smith has the
philiosophical high ground with his question "How can it be
unpublished if it was published?" Kevin's right that a lot of
what is rejected is crap. But I think he throws the baby out
with the bath water when he argues, in his usual understated
way,
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.
Dave Z's point I think is closer to the truth:
Most large publishers are looking for what they think
will be commercially successful books, not necessarily good
books. Also editors today probably have less say than they've
had in the past as to which books get bought, with more of
the influence coming from the sales and marketing boards.
It's becoming more and more about the package as opposed to
the book.
I can do a little boo hooing myself when I find that Eddie
Muller (the Distance), Reed Coleman (The James Deans) Scott
Phillips (Ice Harvest) get dropped by their publishers. James
Ellroy broke out with something like his fifth book; Ross
Macdonal took longer than that. Publishers won't stay with a
writer who needs time to build an audience anymore. Then you
read some of the stuff that is published--and does or doesn't
sell well--and it's clear that an equally valid question is:
Are many published novels best left unpublished?
And Kevin, when you look over this in time and reply, which
I'm sure you will, be kind.
Best, Con Lehane
--- In
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Burton Smith
<kvnsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
> 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 true, are unpublished novels best left
unpublished, like for example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 How can it be unpublished if it was published?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 : 17 May 2007 EDT