Forum: Author Hangout

For those of us who aren't dedicated to winning a publishing contract, why should we care what these 'caretakers' think?

Because like it or not, those gatekeepers know what they're talking about. It's their business. They deal with it day in and day out. And they are judged by the sales of the books they approve so they know what sells and what doesn't. Are they right 100% of the time? Of course not.

Unfortunately there is no way to measure their rate of type 2 errors.

When I worked for American Express, Credit Scoring was new. We built a credit scoring system to help the New Accounts analysts determine whether they should approve an application for the card.

A lot of what the credit scoring system came up with, based on historical statistics, went against their beliefs. But they were told to follow it. I suggested they approve some applications that the system said not to and monitor them. That way they could prove your "type 2 errors." They thought I was crazy for suggesting that.

The publishing industry can prove their type 2 errors sometimes. Harry Potter proved they were wrong. Also the founder of Elora's Cave. Her novels were rejected so she sold them through her own site. It was a big success so the publishers admitted they were wrong and offered her contracts. Some of the self-publishing successes might have started out as traditional publishing rejects. And of course some of the books the trad publishers publish might fail.

And of course some of the books the trad publishers publish might fail.

From what I've observed, the majority do. The few phenomenal successes underwrite all the failures they don't bother to promote.

Which brings up a chicken/egg question. Do they not promote them because they expect them to fail? I so, why publish them at all. Or, more likely they are failures because the publishers don't bother to promote them.

I think it's more like a chicken shoot. You release an entire flock and let the participants (readers) blast away. Some will get lucky, but most won't get close. The publishers release thousands of books, only promoting those they know will be big sellers, hoping the others might achieve some moderate success.

For me, that kind of approach is counter to the notion that they have some great expertise about what does or doesn't work in a book.

Which was my point. They bet the farm on a few 'key' books, which don't always live up to the hype, while they underplay a whole array of tremendous books, which never really get a fair hearing.

It's certainly not an ideal situation, but I don't see any better ones on the horizon. Indie publishing opens the door to everyone, but it requires a certain expertise in social media, otherwise it's an empty promise.

I think it's more like a chicken shoot. You release an entire flock and let the participants (readers) blast away. Some will get lucky, but most won't get close. The publishers release thousands of books, only promoting those they know will be big sellers

I don't think a publisher releases thousands of books. Only a few each year. The process is very slow and laborious. And it costs a lot to produce each book.

The Acquisition Editor's job depends on her successes and failures. I don't think they consider it a crap shoot.

But this thread wasn't about publishing. It's about what to look out for to make your story better.

I don't think a publisher releases thousands of books. Only a few each year. The process is very slow and laborious. And it costs a lot to produce each book.

Hell, Switch. I publish a "few [books] each year". The mainstream publishers don't exactly publish thousands (I was speaking collectively), but most churn out hundreds (at least a hundred, and a few several hundred). Have you examined their recent catalogs?

As for the thread, drifts always accumulate in shallow depressions, the NE's recent storms should remind everyone of that. 'D

It's about what to look out for to make your story better.

And the definition of What's better varies from blogger to blogger, from editor to editor. There is no universal definition of what a great story is or what all publishers want. That's also the Fun of the Fair, and you have to be in the game to play it.

And the definition of What's better varies from blogger to blogger, from editor to editor.

That's why I've always said, most books/articles on writing all boil down to "write like I do, otherwise you'll never succeed". It's why I've stopped reading writing magazines. I prefer seeing how people write, and hearing about how authors approach problems, rather than some author lecturing me on why he got lucky.

From what I've observed, the majority do. The few phenomenal successes underwrite all the failures they don't bother to promote.

You need to understand the publisher's definition of failure. I once heard it was if the money they invested wasn't returned in the first 6 weeks. So a novel that ultimately did well over time would still be considered a failure using their metrics.

Because like it or not, those gatekeepers know what they're talking about. It's their business. They deal with it day in and day out. And they are judged by the sales of the books they approve so they know what sells and what doesn't. Are they right 100% of the time? Of course not.

I wouldn't object if he'd phrased it that way, (ex. "these books don't sell, as others confirm"), instead he addressed it as "If you're an author, you do what we tell you, no questions asked".

By the way, the number of misses the publishing houses make are legendary--are that only includes the phenomenal successes they passed on--not the many rejected which were never seen again. The gatekeepers of the publishing houses enforce the rules, more than they look for creativity. With so much junk to wade through, with little personnel support, they're simply looking for excuses to toss material rather than read it. Not strictly following a style guide allows them to bypass a large amount of books.

@sejintenej

Jumbled? He tried to put common faults into groups of similar faults - for example those relating principally to science fiction type stories.

My objection isn't the categorization, it's that he listed the categories without showing examples. You can picture much of what he infers, but he never states any of his writing objections.

I'm not dismissing his advice, just the way he expresses his ideas--which is essentially how writers communicate their stories.

So many of his issues were obvious things.

Obvious only if you know it.

Obvious only if you know it.

That was my point. If they're common mistakes, I'd prefer a shorter list which details the mistakes, rather than a list of everything which pisses off one particular reader. This article wasn't so much an instructive discussion as it's a 'these are all the things I hate' diatribe. In short, I didn't learn a lot from it. I learn more from examples than I do lectures or a list of bullet points.

That was my point. If they're common mistakes, I'd prefer a shorter list which details the mistakes, rather than a list of everything which pisses off one particular reader. This article wasn't so much an instructive discussion as it's a 'these are all the things I hate' diatribe. In short, I didn't learn a lot from it.

Not what pisses of a particular reader. It's a list of faults that make a story bad. And not only his opinion, but the opinion of those "in the know."

I didn't see much that I didn't agree with as errors people make. Some seem like common sense, but to those who don't know about them, they can learn from it.

Not what pisses of a particular reader. It's a list of faults that make a story bad. And not only his opinion, but the opinion of those "in the know."

I'm not objecting to his list of problem areas, what I object to is the 'category list' he delivers. Even his 'check out this review for more detail' doesn't provide much additional information. Instead all you're left with is 'these are 52 random things that bother me, and a bunch of other people agree with my list'.

As usual, I prefer discussing details about techniques, rather than dictates delivered from on high, as I find those largely meaningless.

I can understand his objections, but other than agreeing with his list, I'm not sure where to take it from there.

If you take the time to follow up on each topic he presents by clicking on the review of the books he references in regard to each 'flag' you get a thorough explanation of what he's talking about.

I guess it's possible to disagree with his points, but his points are thoroughly discussed and exemplified.

If you take the time to follow up on each topic he presents by clicking on the review of the books he references in regard to each 'flag' you get a thorough explanation of what he's talking about.

Chris, in the linked article above he says, "Here's a lot of common errors," but then only links to one incident of those errors - most of which are things I was told to watch for in high school in what they call year 8 now. However, overall, I was left with a feeling he's pushing to get more people to read his earlier blog entries on the books he mentions.

If the only way to get a clear understanding of what he's talking about is to follow the links, then he's guilty of his own complaint of not enough clarity in what he's saying. The point made should be clear in the original and not require the referenced work to be understood.

If the only way to get a clear understanding of what he's talking about is to follow the links, then he's guilty of his own complaint of not enough clarity in what he's saying. The point made should be clear in the original and not require the referenced work to be understood.

Totally disagree.

It's much clearer the way he did it. He didn't muddle up each item with extensive examples. The reader gets to choose where he wants to drill down.

I didn't have to look at any of the examples to know what he was talking about. But if I wasn't sure of one, then I could look at the detail. To have that detail with every point would make it unreadable.

I didn't have to look at any of the examples to know what he was talking about.

Neither did I have an issue with understanding what he was saying, but Chris' post implied you had to drill down to get a full understanding, which is why I used the word If at the start of that quote of mine. And my last post was in reply to Chris' one.

Chris' post implied you had to drill down to get a full understanding,

No ... Chris's post implied that you COULD drill deeper down if you wanted or needed further information.

Totally disagree.

It's much clearer the way he did it. He didn't muddle up each item with extensive examples. The reader gets to choose where he wants to drill down.

I was going to say the same thing, but you beat me to it. The way he went about it was fine.