What is wrong with this picture?

[Peekay]

I am a painter. I have a number of canvas' ready to show to galleries all of which I consider to be my finest work. I have slides taken of them and want to send these to the relevant exhibition spaces. Obviously I can't just send the images to galleries as no gallery will look at paintings that do not come from a paintings agent. As painting agents will not look at work from a painter that does not have a gallery this poses a dilemma. I decide to purchase the invaluable services of a pre-painter, a professional that knows what the galleries like. She takes my paintings and paints out offending portions, recolours others and informs me that the public taste is decidedly against violet or indeed any mixing of red and blue, she then suggesting complete removal of this offensive spectra. I dutifully obey upon which as if by magic my paintings become magically attractive to agents and thereafter, galleries. She reccomends that the paintings be marketed towards the 'young adult collector', a class of art lover recently much swollen in numbers. This entails the removal of any overly long brush strokes, a mark against which the young adult collectors are much opposed. They are dutifully expunged.
Within the gallery the owner introduces me to the repainters, a team of pros kept by them to correct the dreadful omissions of the artists whose inability to practise their own craft is legendary. These persons apply further revisions and corrections to the canvases to ready them for the gaze of the public whom they must protect from any works that might place undue strain upon them. It is decided that the paintings do not 'grab' the veiwer with sufficient violence upon first glance and so brighter more explosive hues are added to lure in the eye of the 'art collectors' (These are described to me as bovine creatures who wish all paintings to more or less resemble each other and who start at anything that remotely differs from expectation.)
To my surprise the gallery expect me to whitewash their walls for them, print and send out fliers advertising the show and drive the collectors to the gallery in a bus but, earnestly willing to join the pros I concede to these demands.
I eventually tire of this circus and decide to hang my paintings before the public upon the metal railings that surround the park. When ensconced here I am continually surrounded by other painters who castigate me as an onanist and egomaniac, insisting that I once more don the gallery owners yoke as a sign of sweet humility. They even mock me and strut around before my railings thrusting out their chests and crying up the manly virtues of 'the marketplace' the gladatorial arena in which they battle. They shout that none that be not as hardy, thick skinned, career minded and masochistic as they be allowed to show in galleries at all!
Crazy?
No gallery owners or artists would ever act in such a draconian or subservient manner?
It happens every day, only you have to be a writer.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

<snip> I eventually tire of this circus and decide to hang my paintings before the public upon the metal railings that surround the park. You forgot to mention that the park is located far away from where the painting-buying public goes, and that the park is filled with other works from other artists -- some good, most ghastly -- and the aura from those other works begins to permeate your canvases, adding a greyish hue which clouds the vibrancy of the colors, and blurring the clean edges of your brush-strokes.

[Jamesaritchie]

I am a painter. I have a number of canvas' ready to show to galleries all of which I consider to be my finest work. I have slides taken of them and want to send these to the relevant exhibition spaces. Obviously I can't just send the images to galleries as no gallery will look at paintings that do not come from a paintings agent. As painting agents will not look at work from a painter that does not have a gallery this poses a dilemma. I decide to purchase the invaluable services of a pre-painter, a professional that knows what the galleries like. She takes my paintings and paints out offending portions, recolours others and informs me that the public taste is decidedly against violet or indeed any mixing of red and blue, she then suggesting complete removal of this offensive spectra. I dutifully obey upon which as if by magic my paintings become magically attractive to agents and thereafter, galleries. She reccomends that the paintings be marketed towards the 'young adult collector', a class of art lover recently much swollen in numbers. This entails the removal of any overly long brush strokes, a mark against which the young adult collectors are much opposed. They are dutifully expunged.
Within the gallery the owner introduces me to the repainters, a team of pros kept by them to correct the dreadful omissions of the artists whose inability to practise their own craft is legendary. These persons apply further revisions and corrections to the canvases to ready them for the gaze of the public whom they must protect from any works that might place undue strain upon them. It is decided that the paintings do not 'grab' the veiwer with sufficient violence upon first glance and so brighter more explosive hues are added to lure in the eye of the 'art collectors' (These are described to me as bovine creatures who wish all paintings to more or less resemble each other and who start at anything that remotely differs from expectation.)
To my surprise the gallery expect me to whitewash their walls for them, print and send out fliers advertising the show and drive the collectors to the gallery in a bus but, earnestly willing to join the pros I concede to these demands.
I eventually tire of this circus and decide to hang my paintings before the public upon the metal railings that surround the park. When ensconced here I am continually surrounded by other painters who castigate me as an onanist and egomaniac, insisting that I once more don the gallery owners yoke as a sign of sweet humility. They even mock me and strut around before my railings thrusting out their chests and crying up the manly virtues of 'the marketplace' the gladatorial arena in which they battle. They shout that none that be not as hardy, thick skinned, career minded and masochistic as they be allowed to show in galleries at all!
Crazy?
No gallery owners or artists would ever act in such a draconian or subservient manner?
It happens every day, only you have to be a writer.

In other words, you don't know how to create a painting anyone likes, or is willing to pay for.

[novelator]

Yes, and if you're looking down the writer's road, here's what you're going to see.

In the short term, it will soon become the "norm" that every mss is professionally edited BEFORE being submitted to an agent. Who foots the bill? The writer. This makes the mss almost, but not quite, a turnkey text block. It's all so sleight of hand--the agents suggest this, a whisper becomes a rumor, and then it becomes the "norm." The publishers did this with marketing and now the author marketing is accepted as the norm. Saves the publishers a lot of money.

In the long term, the major publishers via their courtesans, the agents, are going to wait until the desperate author self-publishes. If the author is relatively successful with sales--proving there's a market for their work--one or more of the agents will swoop down on the unsuspecting prey and offer to represent a sure thing, the publishers signs them on, and voila, a star is born. But who foots this bill? Who takes all the risk financially? Who does all the work? You guessed it--the writer. Up to the point a contract is tendered and signed what has the agent and publisher invested? A little surfing time. And what's really neat about all this, from the agents and publishers point of view, is that they now have a turn-key product where the publisher will glean a lion's share of the royalties, the agent skims his or her take from the writer's portion, which if he or she signs the contract, drops significantly. And the writer still has to do all the marketing. It's happening more and more and more these days. Pretty soon, this will be the main road, not some little side trail or outside chance.

If you've read Animal Farm by Orwell, authors are the horse being worked to death by the pigs, who aren't worried in the least because there's so many horses out there dying for a spot in the stable.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Mari

[Jamesaritchie]

Yes, and if you're looking down the writer's road, here's what you're going to see.

In the short term, it will soon become the "norm" that every mss is professionally edited BEFORE being submitted to an agent. Who foots the bill? The writer. This makes the mss almost, but not quite, a turnkey text block. It's all so sleight of hand--the agents suggest this, a whisper becomes a rumor, and then it becomes the "norm." The publishers did this with marketing and now the author marketing is accepted as the norm. Saves the publishers a lot of money.

In the long term, the major publishers via their courtesans, the agents, are going to wait until the desperate author self-publishes. If the author is relatively successful with sales--proving there's a market for their work--one or more of the agents will swoop down on the unsuspecting prey and offer to represent a sure thing, the publishers signs them on, and voila, a star is born. But who foots this bill? Who takes all the risk financially? Who does all the work? You guessed it--the writer. Up to the point a contract is tendered and signed what has the agent and publisher invested? A little surfing time. And what's really neat about all this, from the agents and publishers point of view, is that they now have a turn-key product where the publisher will glean a lion's share of the royalties, the agent skims his or her take from the writer's portion, which if he or she signs the contract, drops significantly. And the writer still has to do all the marketing. It's happening more and more and more these days. Pretty soon, this will be the main road, not some little side trail or outside chance.

If you've read Animal Farm by Orwell, authors are the horse being worked to death by the pigs, who aren't worried in the least because there's so many horses out there dying for a spot in the stable.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Mari

You are wrong. It's nonsense. I hear this kind of silliness often, and it always seems to come from someone on the outside looking in. It simply bears no resemblance to reality.

Publishing doesn't work this way, and doesn't want to work this way. The last thing publishing wants to do is work this way.

You always know someone is off base the moment they mention marketing. Writers do not do all the marketing for their work. Many wirters do no marketing at all. Publishers do market the work of new writers. Every time, with every book. What, do you think pubishers want to lose money on an investment? Though it is the writer's book, and why would he complain too much about helping in the marketing process?

And the writer doing all the work? It's simply nonsense. It's fool talk. Neither publishers nor agents are sitting around waiting for writers to self-publish. By and large, agents and publishers try to stay as far away from self-publilshed writers as possible. Why? Because almost everything out there that's self-published is complete garbage. A waste of paper, and a waste of everyone's time.

Most of those who come from self-publishing to commercial publishers never gave commercial publishers a chance in the first place. And there aren't many who come this way at all. For good reason. Crap doesn't smell any better because you self-publish it.

And calling agents courtesans really means you're standing outside in the cold looking in. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I wonder if most even know what history is? You know, things that happened in the past. There has never been a time in history when more first time writers were published. Not even remotely close. There has never been a time in history when it was so easy for the average person to write a novel and find a good agent and a good publisher. There has never been a time in history when publishers spent anywhere near as much money promoting and distributing first novels by unknown writers.

The way wannabe writers whine now, I really wonder how they would behave fifty or seventy-five or a hundred years ago when it was fifty times harder to break into pubishing? I wonder how they would act if they woke up one morning and found there were only 375 publishers in the entire publishing indutry, most were tiny, and almost none of them wanted new writers on anything like a regular basis? And when they did take on a new writer, he'd better have some serious credentials.

I wonder how they would react to knowing that distrivbution was lousy, that there were only a few ways to sell a novel, that the publisher had all the power, and agents who could go to bat for a writer were few and far between?

Everyone who fails wants to blame publishers, agents, the system, or the phase of the moon. The myths and nonsense built up around failure is impressive. If this much imagination went into a novel, it would probably be a bestseller.

In truth, the fault is almost always with the writer. Most people can't write at all well, and that's a fact. For every person who can tell a good story, fill it with good characters, and make it something people want to read, there are a hundred who couldn't write a grocery list without help. This is true in any area where talent and skill matter, and it's silly to think it shouldn't be the case for writing.

Hemingway said the most important thing any writer can possess is a "Built-in, shock proof sh*t detector." Most new writers do not have this, but good agents and good editors have the latest model already installed. And it goes off each time they get within thirty yards of the slush pile.

The writer has more going for him today than at any time in history. It's far, far easier for a new writer to get and agent and sell a novel to a commercial publisher than it ever has been. Agents and editors are always doing their best to find new, talented writers. It's not their fault that so few are around.

[Bufty]

And therein, perhaps, lies the root of the problem.

...all of which I consider to be my finest work...

[Shadow_Ferret]

I see somebody's taken their bitter pill this morning.

[CaroGirl]

I see somebody's taken their bitter pill this morning.
Yes, those bitter pills can be difficult to swallow. Try a spoonful of sugar.

[James D. Macdonald]

The publishers did this with marketing and now the author marketing is accepted as the norm. Saves the publishers a lot of money.


Perhaps it's the norm at places you wouldn't want to be published by anyway. Real publishers want to sell books (otherwise they go bankrupt). They don't leave the marketing to untrained, unskilled, underfunded amateurs.

You, the author, quite literally do not have access to the genuinely useful avenues of promotion and marketing.

[UrsulaV]

When ensconced here I am continually surrounded by other painters who castigate me as an onanist and egomaniac, insisting that I once more don the gallery owners yoke as a sign of sweet humility. They even mock me and strut around before my railings thrusting out their chests and crying up the manly virtues of 'the marketplace' the gladatorial arena in which they battle. They shout that none that be not as hardy, thick skinned, career minded and masochistic as they be allowed to show in galleries at all!
Crazy?
No gallery owners or artists would ever act in such a draconian or subservient manner?


Honey, if you don't think artists actually do that, you're livin' in a dream world.

Artists are generally lovely, wonderful, deeply kind individuals, while simultaneously being vengeful backbiting sardonic scum. (This has little to do with being an artist and everything to do with being a human, mind you.) If your art is unapproachable and unmarketable, believe me, the number of artists who will flutter their eyelashes and speak in honeyed tones about the importance of self-expression is nothin' compared to the number of artists who will snicker behind their hands at your pretentious butt.

Trust me. We're just as vile as writers. Galleries are just as draconian, just as specialized, and just as hard to get into. There's just fewer of us, because the obvious skill threshold for art is a lot higher--it's immediately apparent if you can't draw* whereas if you can write a sentence, you can aspire to being a writer.

Also, your "repainters" really exist. They add paint strokes to canvas prints to make them more collectible. It's part of marketing for people like Thomas Kinkade.

I get that you're miffed about self-publishing or something, for some reason, but at the moment, what's wrong with this picture is your choice of metaphor.



*Not that this stops everybody...

[thismakecents]

Crazy?

No gallery owners or artists would ever act in such a draconian or subservient manner?

It happens every day, only you have to be a writer.

Hang in there, sounds like you hit a wall. Take your time, get up and try getting through once again. Your not alone!!!!!

[Kate Thornton]

JamesARitchie - I don't *always* agree with you, but I always look forward to reading your posts. You take the time to give a very complete view of your opinions. Even though your posts can sometimes be abrasive to the thin-skinned, they always have the cleaning power of Comet and scrub right down to main idea. I need a moisturizer after most of your posts, but I still say "Thank you."

There is a world of difference between the art of creating fiction and the crafts of writing and getting your work published. A good writer is going to embrace both art and craft if they want to create excellent fiction that is publishable and if they want to work within the publishing industry to market their work.

[Neeli]

Even though your posts can sometimes be abrasive to the thin-skinned, they always have the cleaning power of Comet and scrub right down to main idea.



I love this metaphor!!!! Whhhoooo hooo!

Speaking of repainters--I used to be a "repainter." My previous artistic hobby involved buying dolls, taking all the factory paint off them, and repainting them (see my work at www.Shalimardolls.com). It is very similar to writing. The new artists can't understand why their work doesn't sell for over $1000 a doll--or even sell at all. It takes a certain amount of talent, a discriminating "eye" in addition to sharp acuity of vision (some folks even use magnifying glasses), and practice, practice, practice!!! Of course, with painting, the right brushes and paints are the trade secret that makes all the difference.

An established name always did better than a nobody, good pictures were essential (if you couldn't get good, clear high-resolution pics collectors would be stupid to buy), and clever posing and accessories helped, but in the end, it was THE PRODUCT that mattered. If your work looked like a two-year old's attempt, it was laughed at. Some of these things were down-right scary (including many of mine). But if you scrutinized the best artists' work you could learn enough to do pretty well--with patience, perseverence, and practice.

By comparision, writers have it easy: no paints, brushes, sealants, pastels, etc.; no camera equipment, lights, photoshopping; no web-site to design, no e-bay auctions write (they aren't as easy as they look--the good ones anyway), no hassles with dead-beat buyers who don't pay up or foreign buyers who want you to lie on the customs forms, and then sometimes you have the paint just perfect and when you heat-set the doll's hair, the boiling water would cloud your sealant or smear your paint. AAaargh!

Writing is so much simpler--and cheaper.

Of course I know many of you hate to think of writing as a hobby, but until it's making a living for you, that's what it is.

[Bufty]

Hobby, perhaps - no real quarrels with that, but it becomes a full-time and sole adequate income-earner for very few, and then usually only after years of hard work.

But simpler? By simpler, if you mean easier - Who are you kidding?

And cheaper? Everything's relative to income. :Hug2:



Writing is so much simpler--and cheaper.

Of course I know many of you hate to think of writing as a hobby, but until it's making a living for you, that's what it is.

[icerose]

If you don't like the rules of the game, stop playing. If you want guidance or help on a specific road block, ask a question.

James is right though, there were more novels published now than ever before, and quite a number of them are first timers.

The task lies with you to craft a sellable story. If you can, chances are extremely high it will be picked up.

After you've been at it for a while, rejection becomes standard, and once you get past the self implications which rejection actually lacks but some take it that way, then you can see it as an opportunity to try again, write the next book and the next one, fine tune your writing. Make it irresistable. Try looking at your own work with a critical eye. You won't make it to the publishing phase without it. Also, the editors in the publishing companies, really are needed, and they do good work. I suspect very few books were better off before the editor touched them. And if your agent took it on then told you to get it professionally edited, especially if they sent you to a source, you fell in with a wolf. A scam artist.

Sorry, but you've been scammed, which is where I think your bitterness is coming from, sad but true, and if your publisher told you to do all the marketing, also a scam. Could you possibly be a Publish America author???

I was force fed all of the misinformation you are spewing, I simply chose to spit it out and rinse.

Of course I am guessing as you are rather vague in your post, but it sounds like you are speaking from experience.

Take a deep breath, look around the forums, and get the real information of how it really works. You might just find it isn't as bad as you think.

[James D. Macdonald]

As the dawn rose at the end of WWII, there were fewer than fifty bookstores in all of America.

Today there are over 8,000.

People are buying more books, reading more books, and reading later in life, than ever before.

And let me tell ya, it isn't the presence of PODs that's making that difference.

[PeeDee]

The reason, I think, that so many people are so absolutely convinced that reading is a dying pastime, no one reads books anymore, no one sells them, we're as illiterate as the collapsing Roman Empire...is because unlike movies, music and television, you don't have ten billion little magazines telling you all the juciest gossip about the book business, you don't have ten million web-sites with movies and music sections, you don't get the gossip about the authors that you get about celebrities.

As such, we assume the field is dead, which is hardly the truth.

What really worries me is that, to an extent, agents and publishers (the sort that would steal the pennies off your eyes) can whisper quietly that writer's pay for editing and publishing and do their own marketing...and the nature of the internet, to an extent, is that this can be spread and eventually accepted as a "norm" by kids who don't know better. It's very worrying.

Look. Part of playing this game is being willing to work for your books success. THat doesn't mean paying for better marketing, paying for an "upgrade package" to get your book in hardcover, paying some schmuck with a turnstile printer to make you up some bookmarks. It means doing interviews when your publisher sets them up, being willing to do book signings, and mostly....WRITING ANOTHER BOOK.

How often have you heard Terry Pratchett, Stephen King, J.K. Rowling point out that they're sure glad they've been so successful, or they would have had a hard time making back all the money they'd spent to get published?

Never. You hear them talking about writing their next books, writing their last books. That's the point.

I adore the current publishing process, and the fact that it can sometimes take a....long...time. Honestly, I haven't the head if it were a fast-paced business. I like that by the time my current novel probably hits stores, I can easily have my next novel written.

I think that it should be required reading for every writer (particularly young/new ones) to read How To Lie With Statistics. Watch the so-called POD industry (which is on-par with the "stealing tires off people's cars" industry) reshape before your very eyes.

[blacbird]

James and James are exactly correct, and what it boils down to is this: They may both be arts, but writing and visual arts are not precisely analogous, either in the way they work or in the way an audience responds to them. Music is yet another animal. We see this analogy made, in some way, every now and then, and it simply is false.

And that's from someone else terminally on the outside looking in.

caw.

[RG570]

I don't buy the party line on this, not for a second. Of course people already in the business will lash out to anyone who criticizes it as "on the outside" and without a clue. And of course they're going to defend the system that's working for them. There's nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't automatically mean they're being objective about it.

It's all the same. Visual art, music, and writing. They all suffer from the same disease.

When it comes down to it, you can't use art as a means to create capital and expect it to stay as art.

To make more money, the culture industry has to lower the bar, so their products appeal to more people (which is now synonomous with "good").

So the public can't understand atonalism? Just make a note not to sign any artists who make atonal works, nevermind what they're trying to say or how well they say it. If it's atonal, it can't sell so- it's bad.

And now, for whatever reason, the public has no attention span. So now the culture industry adjusts its standards, changing what is "good". Rather than chastising the people for letting their minds slip, and showing them some books they might enjoy if they just get off their *** and think for a minute, the culture industry says "books that do not satisfy these people are bad."

Painting, music, and writing are full of so many stupid rules now, and the only reason those rules exist is because they help a book appeal to the lowest common denominator. There's no room for experimentation, no room for serious expression. We've become addicted to kitsch.

Art isn't supposed to be "easy to read" or necessarily pleasing to the eye. Yet now this is all anyone knows. Escapism and kitsch should be secondary, not the entire industry. I find it utterly insane that so many writers, painters, and musicians are so eager to adopt a standardized method.

Then again, I'm probably totally wrong. Boring pop music fads, books that read like screenplays, and soulless paintings are popular because they're "better". I guess my unwillingness to adopt standardization is a sign that I am a bad writer and musician. Too bad, really.

[James D. Macdonald]

That's why I don't talk about writing; I talk about commercial writing.

[batgirl]

The painting=novel metaphor doesn't work for me from the get-go. A painting is a single physical thing. You can sell it once and it will hang on one wall and be seen by some limited number of people.
A published novel exists in thousands of physical pieces, can be owned by thousands of people and read by both first and second-hand-owners plus anyone who borrows it.
I think you should have started with print-making, though prints aren't a perfect equivalent either, because they're usually numbered and limited, and books only rarely are.
Basically when I try to follow this allegory, I get tangled up in wondering whether we're talking about the classy leather-bound painting, the cheaper painting-club edition, the mass-market or the trade softbound painting ... Nope.
I stumbled at the first on a whole bunch of paintings all being the finest work - I paint sometimes, and I can tell you which of my pieces are better in which ways and what I learned painting them. If all your work is at the same level, it sounds as if you're not advancing anymore, however fine it looks. Of course, this is the metaphorical 'you', not the real you. I'm sure that you yourself continue to learn and advance, despite setbacks and visits to Bunyan's Slough of Despond.
It's tough. Selling your painting is tough too - which is why I stick to doing it for myself.
-Barbara

[Neeli]

But simpler? By simpler, if you mean easier - Who are you kidding?


Easy, no. Simpler, yes: no brushes to wash, no paint on your hands, no pictures to take, no garage full of packing peanuts and boxes...

To write, you only your computer, or even just a pen and paper. You can do anywhere--in a car, on a camping trip, at the beach. Just playing around in your own mind. :)

[josephwise]

It's all the same. Visual art, music, and writing. They all suffer from the same disease.

When it comes down to it, you can't use art as a means to create capital and expect it to stay as art.

To make more money, the culture industry has to lower the bar, so their products appeal to more people (which is now synonomous with "good").


This is a disease that stems from the artists, not the industries. Some art is very successful commercially, yet remains art. The problem is, other artists see this happen and they begin to immitate the successful art, leaving out what really made it art in the first place.

ET was a quality film. Come on, you know you loved it. It was ART. And it was a smash hit. But if you look at all the "Mac and Me" imitations that followed it, you'll notice the reason ET was popular wasn't because it was about a friendship between a cute alien and a young boy. That formula continues to fail. ET was about divorce. About being abandoned. About human issues.

Industries only make the inferior immitations available because there's a demand to be filled, and few pieces of superior art to fill it. The artists aren't producing enough good work.

I'm on the outside looking in, but I like what I see. I like my chances. I don't WANT the industry to make it easier for me to get in. I can get in on my own. All I have to do is produce the kind of writing that I would personally love to read, and I guarantee there will be others who love to read it too. This is indeed a great time to be an unknown writer, and there's no reason for any of us to be less optimistic than that.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I guess my unwillingness to adopt standardization is a sign that I am a bad writer and musician. Too bad, really.

And I guess if you're going to create something that is so narrow in scope that only a handful of people might be interested then it should come as no surprise when you can't find a market for it. Nor should the industry be berated because they try to purchase only what they can sell.

But, to be honest, I've never considered myself an "artist," merely a hack writer who writes what he enjoys to read. I make no pretentions about art or intellectualism.

[soloset]

Then again, I'm probably totally wrong. Boring pop music fads, books that read like screenplays, and soulless paintings are popular because they're "better". I guess my unwillingness to adopt standardization is a sign that I am a bad writer and musician. Too bad, really.

Awesome. Seriously. You do realize your entire post boils down to, "if you don't like what I like, you're a soulless sheep"?

I had a lot more to say, but Neeli and josephwise and Shadow Ferret covered it. I'm sorry life isn't turning out the way you expected it would.

Easy, no. Simpler, yes: no brushes to wash, no paint on your hands, no pictures to take, no garage full of packing peanuts and boxes...

To write, you only your computer, or even just a pen and paper. You can do anywhere--in a car, on a camping trip, at the beach. Just playing around in your own mind. :)

And, most importantly, no self-combusting paint rags to burn the whole house down. :D

[cree]

Wow, what a thread. Here's my take.

I am a plumber.
I can't plumb.
I get ticked off at the people who I try to plumb for, for getting ticked off at me for not being a plumber who can plumb.

Pass the carrots.

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

Look. Part of playing this game is being willing to work for your books success. THat doesn't mean paying for better marketing, paying for an "upgrade package" to get your book in hardcover, paying some schmuck with a turnstile printer to make you up some bookmarks. It means doing interviews when your publisher sets them up, being willing to do book signings, and mostly....WRITING ANOTHER BOOK.

Like the doll-painting (lovely things, BTW!) example, you have to have to be able to compare your work with the stuff that's selling and be able to tell what you are doing wrong.

And you have to be willing to make it "success-ready" by doing all the editing, polishing and even be willing to trash it as a nice attempt that broke in the kiln and write another one.

There have been some impressibly expensive flops in the publishing industry ... with all the push and hype behind them, the buying public just didn't.

[UrsulaV]

Painting, music, and writing are full of so many stupid rules now, and the only reason those rules exist is because they help a book appeal to the lowest common denominator. There's no room for experimentation, no room for serious expression. We've become addicted to kitsch.

Art isn't supposed to be "easy to read" or necessarily pleasing to the eye. Yet now this is all anyone knows. Escapism and kitsch should be secondary, not the entire industry. I find it utterly insane that so many writers, painters, and musicians are so eager to adopt a standardized method.

Ah. Yes. Doubtless that's why the highest praise you can give an artist is "Hey, this totally reminds me of Thomas Kinkade!"*

Seriously, dude, I realize it's fun to ride the high horse around the barn, but do you hear what you're saying? There's no standardized "rules" for painting, except maybe "Try not to eat the lead-based paint." Originality is so insanely valued in fine art that I think it's actually stifling--the minute you find out that someone did anything even remotely like that, ever, you can't. Originality is on a complete pedestal. You want to insult an artist badly, tell 'em their work is derivative. You want to see them smile a brittle, painful smile, say "Oh, I love this! It reminds me of this other artist!" Watch them die a little when you utter those words.

If you can give me one single, concrete, specific example of these "rules" of the "standardized method" of painting (And I mean a specific rule, not "It should sell!" or some inane vagaries) then I will be very suprised. And eat crow, as well. But I make my living as a painter, and somehow, when they were mailing out the handouts listing our new standardized art rules, they missed me.


*Kids, don't try this at home.

[LeeFlower]

With apologies to John Scalzi and the Disperational Posters people, both of whom have been at this gag longer than I have:

http://pics.livejournal.com/padawanroo/pic/0006qp9f http://pics.livejournal.com/padawanroo/pic/0006r34e

Editors provide a service to the general public. They separate wheat from chaff. That's why the publishing industry didn't crash with the advent of the internet. Yes, anyone can put up a novel (or a painting, or a song) for people to read or buy. But when you see that little Tor/Bantam/Baen/Simon &Schulster/etc symbol on the spine, that says "someone who prides themselves on providing good reading material to the public is staking their reputation on the quality of this book." Editors aren't evil, soulless husks of human beings who like to crush new authors' hopes and dreams. The fact is, if they buy a books that suck, people will stop buying their books. Such is business.

[novelator]

Well, James and James, et al.

To state unequivocably that I'm on the outside looking in, or I'm way outside in the cold is to assume facts not in evidence. To imply I write crap when you have not read a word of said crap, let alone a whole crappy novel, is not only insulting, but again, assuming too much.

Also, to presume I know nothing of marketing, or more specifically, book marketing, or publishing or agents or book production is a mistake on your part.

Lot of assumptions there. You're old enough to know what happens when you make them.

Don't tell me authors aren't expected to market their work nowadays, or that a five-grand marketing budget (if that) for a new author goes anywhere. You're kidding yourselves. You are out of touch.

I ask you, James and James--have either of you tried submitting your work to an agent blind, under an alias with no credentials, just to see what would happen? From what I understand, you both have agents and lists upon lists of immaculate credentials that are truly well-earned. But your perspective and opinion of the current publishing climate reflects only that position which you worked hard to attain. And in all sincerity, I respect you both, but on these issues, I must also respectfully disagree.

My opinion is not nonsense, it's not something I grabbed out of thin air, but a result of years of diligent study of all aspects of this business.

And I will continue to call agents courtesans until they stop working to "weed out the chaff" for publishers while taking their percentage from the writer, the one who can least afford them. Sure, they talk a good game, and like any good salesperson they prefer to demonstrate the benefits of the services they claim to provide, but in the end, they won't go to bat for an unknown writer if it means jeopardizing their contacts with the major publishers. They will, first and foremost, look out for number one--they have to, that's human nature. That is also the nature of business

I stand by what I said. I'm an author, but I'm also a business person concerned with forecasts and trends. I also stated I could be wrong, which is more than some disagreeing are willing to admit.

I don't like what I see coming down this road, any more than some of you like hearing it. But the fact remains, an author must market-that is the norm; there are growing whispers and rumors that to improve a writer's chances of representation a manuscript should be professionally edited BEFORE submitting to an agent and the author will foot that bill; and there are more and more deals being struck for turn-key books produced by self-publishing writers the traditional publishers have ignored until the sales figures proved there was a market.

Do the research then, prove me wrong, but do it without prejudice. Believe me, I would love to do nothing but write. The articles stating that this is no longer possible are legion. Look for yourselves.

Mari

[LeeFlower]

Novelator, I think you're misrepresenting an agent's primary job. It's not an agent's job to pick out good books so that editors don't have to. If that were the case, no publishing houses would accept unagented submissions, and agenst would 'give' MSs to editors instead of selling them.

An agent's job, first and foremost, is to advocate their client's interests in business transactions with publishers. Yes, they take fifteen percent off the top. But the top that they're taking fifteen percent off of is almost always a much higher top than the average author could negotiate on their own. They get paid because they provide a service, and that service is to the author, not the editor. Are real estate agents 'courtesans' in your book? They do essentially the same thing.

[UrsulaV]

Just 'cos I like nitpicking a metaphor, what's the beef with courtesans, anyway?

In many societies--ancient Greece and the hetaerae come to mind--high ranking courtesans were the most powerful positions women could aspire to, and the only one where you got to leave the temples and actually see the city. Throughout history, a number of cultures have claimed to look down on its courtesans, while throwing itself panting at their feet. Fascinating women, some of 'em.

Why such lack of love? Certainly one wouldn't want to be at the bottom of that particular service industry, but life at the top has historically been a surprisingly respected position, and "courtesan" tends to imply a rather high standing, as opposed to any number of other words which I'll avoid using in mixed company.

Why say "courtesan" like it's a bad thing?

[dragonjax]

Don't tell me authors aren't expected to market their work nowadays, or that a five-grand marketing budget (if that) for a new author goes anywhere. You're kidding yourselves. You are out of touch.

This is going to depend on what you've written. If you wrote a debut romance novel, you're not going to get media or reviews. (I'm learning this the hard way.) Other genres may be treated differently, even for debut authors -- I personally know of one debut author whose novel is his publisher's lead title for 2007. Thousands of color ARCs. Lots of attention. The works.

What I'm doing, along with whatever my publisher will do, is promote myself on the Internet via my website, via my presence on sites like AW, via my local book sellers (indies are our friends)...and by writing more books.

I ask you, James and James--have either of you tried submitting your work to an agent blind, under an alias with no credentials, just to see what would happen?

My first two books went nowhere. No agent, no sales. For my third book, I wrote something completely different. And I got a top agent, and a week after it went on submission I got a three-book deal in a pre-empt. That was ALL the writing. (And the timing. So much of this comes down to timing.)

It's possible to get an agent and get sold. It's possible to have your pick of agents. It's possible to break in. But then it's all on the author to stay in.

[Angela]

Why say "courtesan" like it's a bad thing?

Because courtesans were prostitutes or wh*res. It is a bad thing to be compared to, and nobody likes to be called such a thing.

Main Entry: cour·te·san http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?courte02.wav=courtesan'))
Pronunciation: 'kor-t&-z&n, -"zan also 'k&r-, -"zän; especially British "kor-t&-'zan
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French courtisane, from northern Italian dialect form of Italian cortigiana woman courtier, feminine of cortigiano courtier, from corte court, from Latin cohort-, cohors

: a prostitute with a courtly (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/courtly) , wealthy, or upper-class clientele
http://www.m-w.com/images/pixt.gif

[JimmyB27]

Art isn't supposed to be "easy to read" or necessarily pleasing to the eye.

What the hell sort of pretentious twaddle is this? Why on earth would you want to look at art that isn't pleasing to the eye, or read a book that is real hard work to read?


But the fact remains, an author must market-that is the norm; there are growing whispers and rumors that to improve a writer's chances of representation a manuscript should be professionally edited BEFORE submitting to an agent and the author will foot that bill

1 - Why the focus on marketing? Think about the books you buy, how many have you been persuaded to try by an advert? Personally, I rarely even see marketing for books, let alone get influenced by it. Occasionally I see an ad for the latest novel from one of my favourite authors, and I'll go out and buy it. But that's all.
Marketing is overrated for fiction books IMHO.

2 - I don't know about the idea of hiring someone to edit your novel, but if you want to be a writer, you should be able to edit up to scratch yourself. If you presume to write professionally, this is a basic skill you will need. (and before you pull me up on any mistakes I've made in this post, I haven't edited it, it's just a message board post)

[James D. Macdonald]

Well, James and James, et al.

...

Don't tell me authors aren't expected to market their work nowadays, or that a five-grand marketing budget (if that) for a new author goes anywhere. You're kidding yourselves. You are out of touch.

I made precisely one statement to you:

The publishers did this with marketing and now the author marketing is accepted as the norm. Saves the publishers a lot of money.


Perhaps it's the norm at places you wouldn't want to be published by anyway. Real publishers want to sell books (otherwise they go bankrupt). They don't leave the marketing to untrained, unskilled, underfunded amateurs.

You, the author, quite literally do not have access to the genuinely useful avenues of promotion and marketing.

I stand by that.

If you don't want me to tell you the truth, that's okay with me. Don't listen.

I ask you, James and James--have either of you tried submitting your work to an agent blind, under an alias with no credentials, just to see what would happen?

I can't, without violating my contract with my current agent. But I'll tell you what would happen: the book would get picked up. Perhaps not by the first agent I submitted it to, but sooner rather than later, and to a top-flight agency.

[soloset]

Because courtesans were prostitutes or wh*res. It is a bad thing to be compared to, and nobody likes to be called such a thing.

Setting aside the fact that not everyone has those particular attitudes towards the selling of sex (enclosed find one coupon for a free can of worms and a can opener), the issue is the connotations. Courtesan does not have the same unpleasant connotations as "whore" does, or at least it shouldn't to anyone with a familiarity with the word.

That's why it's called a nitpick; we get the point, but it could have been made in a better way with a different word.

[Zolah]

I am an inventor. I have invented something called a widget-trundle-gum. There are hundreds of other widget-trundle-gums for sale out there, but I think that mine is new and different and I hope that people would like to buy it. Unfortunately I cannot afford to manufacture my gadget in large numbers and I don't have the contacts or budget distribute it either.

So I go to some experts on widget-trundle-gums. Luckily for me, they're willing to look at my invention for free. One of them likes it. Again, lucky for me, he's willing to offer free advice. He tells me it has potential but that from a technical point of view it would be more efficient if the left-side boodley-scumpet was at a right angle. I fix this, and then expert tells me he thinks he can use his contacts to sell it on to a manufacturer and distributer for me. He'll represent me during contract negotiations and make sure I get the best possible deal, and in return I'll pay him a commission. I say: sure, thanks!

The expert sends my widget-trundle-gum design to a dozen companies that manufacture and distribute widget-trundle-gums. One of them thinks it's really great, but that it still needs adjusting to make it the best possible product it can be. They're willing to offer me one-to-one design sessions with an adjustment specialist and - wow oh wow - they're willing to pay ME a development fee to have this done.

I work with the specialist and after a while we're both sure the widget-trundle-gum is the best EVER. The company agree to manufacture and distribute my widget entirely at their own expense - they'll also pay me a lump of cash for the right to do this, and give me a percentage of their profits. The widget expert negotiates with them for me and gets me the highest possible advance payment and percentage of profits.

When my widget-trundle-gum goes onto the market and I make an effort to tell people about it and promote it, because I want lots of people to buy it. The company also do their best to promote it to, putting as much money behind it as they can afford to without jeopardising their solvency.

Then some other people come along and start making a fuss in the widget store. They say I'm a sell-out because I adjusted my widget to other people's ideas of efficiency, and that a true inventor would never compromise his initial vision just for the sake of efficiency or sales. They say that all widgets are the same these days and no truly new widgets ever get made because people are afraid of new ideas. They say that the widget-expert and the manufacturing company are exploiting me. They say their widgets are much better than mine anyway. What do I say to them?

Grow up and get a life you big babies.

[chiouxy]

And now, for whatever reason, the public has no attention span. So now the culture industry adjusts its standards, changing what is "good". Rather than chastising the people for letting their minds slip, and showing them some books they might enjoy if they just get off their *** and think for a minute, the culture industry says "books that do not satisfy these people are bad."
If you're dissatisfied with what publishers put out, by all means read something else. If you can't find "good" art and literature you're not looking hard enough. You can't make people like what they don't like.

[Liam Jackson]

<<<I ask you, James and James--have either of you tried submitting your work to an agent blind, under an alias with no credentials, just to see what would happen?>>>

So, we're back to the "new writers are just grist for the publishing mill" again.

I'm not James. Nor am I James. But I did submit my work to an agent blind with no credentials. I received an offer for representation. I eventually signed with a different agent, someone I met through a mutual acquaintance. (A braggart, you say? Not in the least. In fact, I developed a great deal of humility from the experience.)

The agent sold my book to the second publisher he contacted. Prior writing credentials? Technical/training materials. The novel I sold? Supernatural thriller. I've since sold additonal books (same storyline) to the publisher.

Furthermore, while the story is good, the writing isn't. It's not especially poor, but it certainly isn't as good as it could have been, or will be in the future. So how does a writer of moderate talent (and even that's debatable) sell several books to a publisher? It's not because I had "insider connections" or that the publisher was desperate to fill his fall schedule (all though I did accuse him of that at one point, tongue-planted-firmly-in-cheek.) As my editor explained it, it's becasue the publisher has been selling books for many years, and through that experience, he felt my story would appeal to a certain reader niche. In other words, people would buy it. (A lot of people, or so he says. We'll see.)

Now, gather what you will from this tale, but the delta is this: There's damn sure nothing special about me or my circumstances. I wrote a story. The publisher thinks the story is strong enough that he can sell it to readers. That, in fact, is his usual and customary modus operandi.

As for marketing, my publisher has a marketing department comprised of paid professionals. They can do more with a simple phone call than I can do by driving cross country with a trunkful of books, or by sitting on top of a flag pole for a month. You can drag a dogsled loaded with books from Tacoma to Boston and it probably won't get your work noticed by major reviewers. Marketing pros can, and without fooling with that damned dogsled. Now, does that mean I shouldn't market my own work? Define the verb, "market."

Name and product recognition in high profile, craft-related publications, radio and newspaper interviews, blogs, websites, participation in professional organizations, and craft-related online communites are just some of the many ways you can market your work without laying out a great deal of cash. Does it help the cause? I'm sure it does to a point. But nothing I've done or will do can probably help my book as much as the marketing push from my publisher.

This whole publisher/agent conspiracy theory is so out of synch with my personal experiences, it's almost laughable. However, it isn't funny. Not in the least. Conspiracy theories born of frustration spread like cancer and do almost as much damage. New writers don't need to hear that goals are unobtainable. Nor do they need to hear that publishing is so desperate that anyone can write and sell a novel for megabucks. And they certainly don't need to hear that the best way to finaggle the big bucks is to go the POD route first. Yes, there have been some few, notable POD exceptions. I can't recall any of them off hand, but a few have been mentioned here at AW. But keep in mind, its the infrequency of such an occurrence that makes it an exception in the first place.

As for the futility of going the old, and traditional route, I guarantee I'm not the only first time, no name, no credentials, no insider-connection writer to publish in 2006 and 2007

The formula for success in writing commercial fiction has been posted on this site many times. As with everything except death and taxes, there are a few exceptions and mitigating factors to that formula. From what I gather from conversations with old pros, and compared to my own experiences, the basic formula still begins with "write a book the public wants to read, polish, then submit, submit, submit."

I was a member of this site long before I ever submitted a novel to an agent. Everything I knew about preparing my work for submission, from the query, to the synopsis, to formatting the ms., I learned by reading posts here on AW. Of course, individual mileage varies and hanging out at AW is certainly no guarantee of publication. But if you're serious about making the effort, this is a good place to start.

Best of luck.

[victoriastrauss]

Don't tell me authors aren't expected to market their work nowadays, or that a five-grand marketing budget (if that) for a new author goes anywhere. You're kidding yourselves. You are out of touch.You seem to be assuming that "marketing" for a publisher means the same thing that it does for an author--readings, signings, websites, book tours, etc. Actually the major part of book marketing occurs behind the scenes, months prior to publication--sending books for review, selling books into stores, advertising to the trade, issuing catalogs--and is something that publishers do for all their authors, even the obscurest and least profitable. If publishers don't do that basic work of getting the book out there, all the post-publication marketing efforts in the world won't help.

I'm not saying that things haven't changed--they certainly have. Self-promotion was barely even a concept for book authors in the early 1980's, when my first novel was published. It's now ubiquitious. But though publishers certainly like it when authors are pro-active in supporting their books--especially in the nonfiction field, where more and more, editors seem to be expecting authors to come with their own fan base--it's still not a requirement--and results are not guaranteed. The most strenuous self-promotion can produce little or no result, and books regularly do well with minimal efforts by their authors.

I also think that some of the hysteria that surrounds the idea of self-promotion comes from the self- and vanity publishing world, where authors have no support from their publishers and it really is all up to them. The low average sales of such books is a demonstration, I think, of how little an author can do on her own.
And I will continue to call agents courtesans until they stop working to "weed out the chaff" for publishers while taking their percentage from the writer, the one who can least afford them.I don't understand why this is a problem. The chaff gets weeded out whether it's agents doing it or editors doing it. Publishing isn't a democracy. Plus, agents do a whole heck of a lot more than chaff-winnowing to earn their 15%.
there are growing whispers and rumors that to improve a writer's chances of representation a manuscript should be professionally edited BEFORE submitting to an agent and the author will foot that billNot from anyone reputable or knowledgeable. These rumors come from writers who listen to the wrong people, or from dishonest freelance editors who have a vested interest in encouraging potential clients to believe it.
and there are more and more deals being struck for turn-key books produced by self-publishing writers the traditional publishers have ignored until the sales figures proved there was a market.This notion is put about by those who push self-publishing as a viable alternative for all new writers. Partly it's old news--publishers have always acquired successful self-published books--and partly it's hype. I don't know for sure, but I would bet that as a percentage of the total book market, the number of successful self-pubbed books picked up by commercial publishers is pretty much the same as it has ever been.

- Victoria

[UrsulaV]

Because courtesans were prostitutes or wh*res. It is a bad thing to be compared to, and nobody likes to be called such a thing.

http://www.m-w.com/images/pixt.gif

*gaze up*

I am perfectly aware of what a courtesan IS, madam, I am merely questioning the assumption that that's such a bad thing. I assure you, my morals may be lacking, but my vocabulary is impeccable.

[Toothpaste]

I can add nothing that hasn't been already put very elegantly, except to jump on the 'I have no writing credentials and got a top agent and will be published this time next year" bandwagon, again not to brag (I'm just as surprised as the next person) but to reiterate the point that it can be done. What I did think was interesting, and completely off the point, was how interesting writing can be. We have been presented with two analogies, novelator's and Zolah's, and both when you read them come across as very well put and quite accurate, yet they represent the complete opposite sides of an argument. I think that is totally cool.

Oh and Zolah, where can I get one of your widget-trundle-gum devices? Mine has completely worn out.

[Zolah]

Oh and Zolah, where can I get one of your widget-trundle-gum devices? Mine has completely worn out.

Certainly. Well, if you can wait until March next year, when my widget-trundle-gum will be available from all good book -er - I mean, widget stores (and I was another first time author with zero credits and qualifications who got plucked off the slush-pile by agent and editor - amazing how something that's supposed to be impossible just keeps on happening, isn't it?).

[Tracy]

I personally really appreciate the editing process (once I give myself a day to get over the trauma of hearing what's wrong with my novel!)

This is because in each and every case (3 published books now), the novel has been a much, much, much better novel for the editor's input. I didn't always like it, some changes I made kicking and screaming. But the end result was a better novel. And she got no credit (apart from my acknowledgements) while I got my name all over the cover.

Sounds like a good gig to me.

I write and re-write until my novel is the best I can make it (and my editor is kind enough to say that the novels are very well presented, not needing too much work), but by definition I'm very/too involved with it. I cannot possibly have an objective opinion about it.

So to have an interested, knowledgeable, professional, objective opinion is wonderful! To have this free help to make my novel better is amazing. Far from griping and having the arrogance to think that every word that drops from my fingertips is perfection itself - I think this is a terrific process.

[Angela]

*gaze up*

I am perfectly aware of what a courtesan IS, madam, I am merely questioning the assumption that that's such a bad thing. I assure you, my morals may be lacking, but my vocabulary is impeccable.

I did not paste that there because I thought you weren't aware of the meaning of the word. I only did that to illustrate the fact that some agents might be insulted to hear themselves described in such a manner. I do apologize if my statement seemed "snarky", as it was not meant in an offensive spirit.

[batgirl]

Not to stir the courtesan pot any more but ...
To any agents or editors out there - I'm completely willing to prostitute my talent. Really. Just ask me.
-Barbara

[PeeDee]

Hah, the jokes on us, Babs, 'cause we know you haven't got any talent. Nice try.

;)

If the Evil Publishing Monolith is such an evil thing, and new writers with their fresh eyes and brilliant minds can spot it and cry against its evils, how come you never have (in all the history of publishing) a fifty year old author who suddenly shouts "Hey! I just realized what a chump deal this is! Ye gads, off I go to vanity press, what a waste of all my years this has been!"

Clearly, when the Publishing Man gets to you, the Publishing Man gets you for life.

*sigh*

[Angela]

Not to stir the courtesan pot any more but ...
To any agents or editors out there - I'm completely willing to prostitute my talent. Really. Just ask me.
-Barbara

:ROFL:

[James D. Macdonald]

While you're prostituting your art, please do not include any nude photos with your query.

Really. Don't.

[Carrie in PA]

While you're prostituting your art, please do not include any nude photos with your query.

Really. Don't.

*wonders if the post office can retrieve query*

[batgirl]

Hah, the jokes on us, Babs, 'cause we know you haven't got any talent. Nice try.

;) Then can I pimp your talent, PeeDee? Come on baby, you know I really love your mind... I'll treat you right.


While you're prostituting your art, please do not include any nude photos with your query.

Really. Don't. How about a tasteful art-shot of my undraped muse (http://www.muse-apprentice-guild.com/)? She's the one who'd be doing the work, after all.

-Barbara