Getting published 2
Let’s face it, readers and writers essentially fall into these categories:
1. Readers
- non-writers;
- fellow writers who read widely.
2. Writers
- serious [published; unpublished];
- occasional.
Somewhere in this mix is the vast number of “I have a novel tucked away I’ve always been meaning to finish,” who tell you “Some friends told me I should get it published.” More rarely, there is the writer with both the means and the perseverance to get published – who has people behind him/her to accomplish just that.
L’Ombre, in the first part of this mini-series, stated the pitfalls and the meagre earnings involved, even if you do get past those initial hurdles but he also held out hope that e-books, using POD selling are a way forward, once the DRM problem [the control by the providers of the equipment and lists] is overcome. I’d say the dead-tree version is always going to be around, on a 50-50 basis with e-books.
Now, looking at your product – is it publishable?
Attitudes
The danger is if you think it is and that it’s the best thing since sliced bread. For you, no pesky slashing and demands by publishers – you have a product people simply must read and it’s the publishers’ job to recognize your sensitive and brittle writer’s nature and just publish the damned thing at their expense.
When told that no one’s interested in what you’ve written or when no one actually says anything but just ignores you, powerful egos can be pricked. I’m sure I can write in certain genres but I’m not at all sure it’s to many people’s taste and that’s the first issue:
1. Who is your target demographic?
What is your work – fiction, non-fiction, which discipline? Assuming it is fiction, which seems to me the most difficult to interest anyone in, given the idiosyncratic tastes of potential readers, everyone and his dog has written something of this nature. Why is yours better? More importantly, what sort of person would want to avidly read it in an already flooded field?
Going back to the mention in the last two days of The Animals, what they had was the voice of Eric Burdon and the melodious and keyboard-heavy Alan Price. So there was an angle which lifted them above the madding crowd.
Is your writing general enough to capture a broad readership or is it too specific? Do you have a bee in your bonnet about what you’re writing and do you want people to embrace that? I’d say that if you do, you’re pretty well doomed. I’m not offering advice here because it’s like teaching my grandmother to suck eggs – I’m just thinking out loud about the whole situation.
“You” is general here, rather than specifically directed towards your good self.
If I were to say my novels would appeal to men [and one lady has said that they do because of its action and man-centric view of the women], then the men are going to be turned off by all the soppy romantic-tragedy and relationship angst and the empowerment of the women – the women are basically in charge in these books. If I say it’s the Brit market I’m after, then why are the women French and Russian? Would the novel sell in France, if sympathetically translated? There are a lot of “ifs” there.
So I’ll basically tidy up the loose ends, put in all the links and bits and pieces and then get onto something else such as the Albion Alliance and this blog.
Speaking of AA, this raises an analogous point to writing. We’ve been in contact with a large number of people and organizations, even joining some of them. What happens is that they are only interested in promoting their own organizations so we get the phenomenon of their newsletters flooding our inboxes on a regular basis but precious little in reverse.
No one wants to read another person’s output, particularly if that output is personal and not universal, if he/she has his own output he wants read and if it doesn’t capture the imagination, which it can’t do until someone reads it, of course.
2. What is your writing style?
I’d say the writing style is critical. You might not have an interesting topic and you might not have the wherewithal, your grammar, spelling and syntax might be awful but if you have an easy, provocative or just plain readable way of writing, you’re halfway there. People might just give you a try if they know your previous output.
One literary agent said to me: “I’ve read into your work …” What a put-down; one can only smile.
3. Is your work original or is it fan fiction?
Mary-Sue is a constant menace to the fiction writer. Firstly – are you original or derivative?
Secondly – are you a Mary-Sue?
Is the book all about you, you, you, either as a hero for whom, after a bit of false modesty, when things appear to go against him, he miraculously survives and/or wins the day? Alternatively, is he so wet that it annoys the reader? Both are driven by the personality of the author, which comes through over and over.
If that personality is likeable, you might get away with it. If less than likeable, that will become apparent after a few pages. And one thing has not been said yet in this post – the reader has his/her own ego, his/her own desire to be the one who succeeds, the person of note.
If this post has been, as Andrew Scott says, “nasty little teeth and claws”, then I apologize. It was intended as a piece on the pitfalls of getting published – forewarned may well be forearmed.
Filed under: Leisure, travel & sport
You are doing it again James – Andrew Scott did not say “nasty little teeth and claws” despite your use of quotations implying that he did. Andrew Scott said “sharp little teeth and claws”, and it was actually an affectionate remark not a spiteful one. Why do you persist in misquoting your readers’ comments? You do it a lot, twisting them to suit whatever is in your head. I am not the only person to have noticed, or to have moaned.
Firstly, Andrew – apologies if I misquoted you. The actual quote was “but with sharp little teeth and claws, even though they won’t actually do too much harm”, which of course was a put-down and not affectionate in the least. Not that I commented at the time but couldn’t resist this time.
Now, “persist in misquoting”.
I don’t, Andrew. Full stop. I don’t “persist”, I mean. Although there might be an error or two in the words, the intent is never misrepresented.
The other one you are referring to, I believe, is Tiberius Gracchus and he claimed I took his remarks out of context. Again, a point of view but disputed. I could equally claim “misrepresentation” of my own remarks in many places and one blogger [not you] makes an art form of it but I just let it go by, as I was going to with this one.
Now if you’d said, Andrew: “Doesn’t know when to shut up,” well I plead guilty to that.
Oh Dear James, you do believe in your own interpretation of the meaning in other people’s remarks so strongly, and yet I know for sure that you can be so wrong about what was both actually said and what was meant, by several commenters. It is, I’m sad to say, one significant reason why I rarely comment these days. Even when, in your reply, you provide in black and white evidence that you clearly did misquote me, adding the word “nasty”, you can only bring yourself to say apologies “if” you misquoted me. It is not a case of “if” James. You put the word “nasty” in all by yourself. I have enjoyed my foray into commenting here, but I expect it is over. I’ll still be reading from time to time though, and who knows, I may even get beyond 193 comments one day. Bye for now.
Question – where have I ever had a go at you before? Now what you’ve constructed here is a false impression for readers. I wrote a post on bookselling and the other post was on kittens, for goodness sake. Now, what did I get out of that?
A putdown.
I made reference to it here and got the import completely right. You can’t slide out of it by saying the original was not a put down – and a smiley tacked on the end alters nothing. It was clearly a putdown. If it had worried me at the time though, I would have commented but didn’t until today.
Now you try to throw the blame back onto me for what was a substantially correct interpretation [I included the full quote above and even apologized] and then you defended yourself by throwing further personal accusations at me about some mythical people, which dragged the discussion completely away from the post.
Very easy to say “not for the first time”. Sounds plausible, Andrew, except that it is based on thin air and readers are not going to know one way or the other.
This is precisely what I’ve been referring to in recent posts, not particularly about you – but about certain people arguing through ad hominem and emotion, trying to create a slanging match when others are sticking to the issues and when this misinterpretation is delivered in an even-tempered and good-humoured manner, it adds to the plausibility.
The problem is though that it is simply not as you present it. This is not a matter of “my interpretation”, which puts it into the doubtful category – I took the words that were actually written and the reaction is based on that which was far from doubtful in the original.
This is the game playing which annoys me, hence the tone of this comment.
James, a final comment, about this instance only because I have neither the time nor patience for any more: You misquoted me, adding the unpleasant word “nasty” which I did not say, within your quotation marks. You cannot blatantly misquote someone and expect them not to object. If you object to any of my comments which you have moderated and then published on your website please delete them, I will not read any interpretation into that whatsoever, in fact I won’t even know. Whether you will believe me or not, I wish you no harm whatsoever, I enjoy reading your blog and whatever differences in opinions we may have I regard you as, from what I can tell, a decent chap. But I am giving up commenting on your blog. Good wishes, Andrew
Sorry it came to that. Am I still permitted to comment at yours?
Ah… so here I am commenting again, despite what I said. Damn. You got me Higham
(Smiley face meant as a smiley face, no hidden meanings). You will be very welcome to comment over at my place James, and I’ll be continuing to read your almost always fascinating output here. I hope life treats you well. It is too short for silly squabbles. Will I get my 200 badge yet? Never say never…
So whose slush pile do you recommend?
I had no idea what a Mary Sue was before this- thanks James. Second your comments on the difficulty of getting published- that isn’t an easy task.