With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely)...
Readers should pay attention to your bitter tone, before judging Michael Neff and the Algonkian Workshops. (They are named, by the way, for the park in which they are offered. Nothing suspicious or nefarious going on there either.)
I don't think anyone accused or suspected them of something nefarious with the name. It certainly never occurred to me that there was something suspicious; I thought it was an homage. So what, you know? People do homages all the time. There's nothing suspicious about it, and pointing it out isn't an accusation of anything.
...I help as much as I can to introduce people to this scribbler's life; among the myths I try to help them deal with is the largely false one that editors and publishers in New York know a damn thing about writing.
...You say you are an editor in New York? I would not be surprised.
...I don't know if you edit fiction, or what you edit, but you should know better. I am not surprised that you don't.
I'm curious: if you think NY editors are so incompetent, unnecessary, and stupid...why are you working for a conference that focuses on selling books to/making writing sellable to those very people?
What are you teaching those who pay, if you believe NY editors and good writing are antithetical? Are you teaching them what you think is good writing--which by your terms would be unsellable to those oafish NY editors--or bad writing, which is sellable?
(I'm also kind of curious about "this scribbler's life," because aren't you a professor, and not a full-time, supported solely by writing writer?)
(These are genuine questions. I'm not trying to be snide or anything.)
What writers--real writers--provide students in workshops and writing programs is an education about the student's own work; where it is very fine and where it is derelict. Plenty of people work very hard to do just that.
What's the difference between a real writer and a fake one?
Why are editors part of the selling points of the workshops, if they provide absolutely no feedback at all? Francisbruno says he got some feedback from the editor he spoke to; are you saying the editor was unqualified to do that, because s/he was not "a real writer?" Or that the feedback which Francisbruno got was worthless because the editor doesn't know a damn thing about writing?
(Also, that's actually the job of an editor.) But yes, plenty of people do work hard to do just that, and no one is disputing it. Nor is anyone disputing that the Algonkian people work hard. The question is one of qualifications; no one is implying that the Algonkian people are sitting around collecting money and eating peanuts with their feet on the desk while ignoring writers' cries for help.
And they are not in it for the money. I wonder how many editors promise to get a fledgling writer's work "ready" for publication for a couple thousand dollars or more? I wonder if it would be fair to condemn all editors because of those few who do that?
1. No one is accusing them of just being in it for the money. We are saying we think it's overpriced. We are asking about the staff etc.'s experience in commercial publishing (and I note that not one defender of the workshops has come forth with any evidence or details of such experience). That's it. No one has even implied that the principals of the group aren't good writers, for that matter.
2. Lots of "editors" promise to do that. I agree, it's sad. There are also lots of "writers" who promise to make a writer's work sellable or suitable for commercial publishing, and promise to help them make connections with professionals in that industry (which are ultimately not really worth much) if the writer pays them a lot of money, too. There are a lot of "agents" who charge submission fees or annual or semi-annual fees; there are a lot of "publishers" which are just vanity presses or printing houses, and charge writers to submit or for cover art or editing or any number of things because they're actually incapable of selling books to the public. We try to teach/help writers to avoid all such people here.
3. How are you not condemning all editors in your comments above? We certainly don't condemn all editors here. Nor do we condemn all writers, agents, or publishers because of the actions of some clueless or unethical ones.
It's only creative writing that is scurrilously attacked by outsiders and people who couldn't cut it or get into a good writing program; and they are always attacked with the exact scorn and envy apparent in your post.
Perhaps you'd like some sugar to add to your grapes?
I don't see any scorn or envy in Hapi's post(s). I do, however, see them quite plainly in yours, and your attacks on NY editors who don't know a damn thing about writing and are clearly unqualified to judge great writing in any way.
But then, I never went to college at all, and I'm only good enough to support my family by selling books to those dumb skill-less NY editors and the apparently equally moronic reading public, so clearly I'm not qualified to comment on that.
Alas, my view of Algonkian was poisoned by the pitchbitch. First impressions, you know. For me, I see a thin layer of sleaze glistening like a slug trail any time I see their name.
Others may draw their own conclusions from this about the utility of "guerrilla marketing."
Yes, unfortunately, the behavior and personal attacks we see against anyone who dares to even question the workshops etc. leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
