RARA-AVIS: Re: Are unpublished novels best left unpublished? YES!

From: Jacques Debierue ( matrxtech@yahoo.com)
Date: 17 May 2007

I think that what gets published is a very mixed bag, with an overwhelming preponderance of bad stuff, some of which is competently written but still bad and some of which is just plain bad, actively bad. As to what gets rejected, my guess is that most of it is just plain bad, too. A well known writer writes a bad novel and it may get published anyway; a new writer submits the same novel and everyone will reject it.

Somehow we have to uncouple critical judgments from the commercial side of things, which is not and never has been fair. It is possible (there are examples) that a very good, even a brilliant book be rejected by so many publishers that, if it does get published by somene, one can only attribute it to luck. It could just as well have remained unpublished had a few circumstances been different (the writer does not persist, forgets about the whole thing, gets busy doing something else, etc.).

To summarize, I do not think that unpublished novels should always be left unpublished, only the bad ones. And a lot of published novels should not have been published (critically speaking, though the author is glad it was published and hopefully made some dough, which I do not begrudge him).



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 17 May 2007 EDT