Why We Have Gatekeepers

In fiction and in life there are often gatekeepers who guard the entrance to the castle or the enchanted kingdom. Consider St Peter, standing guard at the pearly gates, or those big blokes in dark glasses and wash ’n’ wear suits who stand outside the nightclubs and only let the pretty girls in. In both cases there are good reasons for them to be there: the big blokes are fulfilling a health and safety function by ensuring their nightclubs don't get overcrowded, and a public relations function by only allowing the prettiest admission (thereby establishing their club’s reputation for being a hot totty spot); while St Peter makes sure that heaven doesn't get filled up with non-believers and troublemakers, and therefore remains heavenly.

These gatekeepers do an unpopular but necessary job. So when people complain that literary agents are no more than self-appointed gatekeepers who are preventing writers from reaching editors they fail to consider what would be the result—to writers, publishers and readers—if agents stopped carrying out their literary gatekeeping role.

Editors are very overworked. A lot of their time is taken up by reading, and close reading at that. In order to do their job well they cannot skimp on this: editors were already horribly overstretched year ago; in the last year many have lost their jobs, and the books that they were responsible for have been handed over to the editors who remain employed, adding to their already too-heavy workload. This lack of time is nothing new: but it has been compounded recently, to a horrible degree.

No wonder, then, that editors prefer to work with agents. Doing so frees editors from the tyranny of the slush-pile; and they know that anything an agent submits is likely to be both publishable, and appropriate for their lists. It gives those editors time to work more closely with their writers, and to do their best to ensure that their books are the best that they can be. This means that we, as readers, have better books to read; and also that we, as writers, are displayed to our very best advantage.

There is a cost to the publisher: the contracts that agents negotiate are usually far more beneficial to the writers who sign them than a standard publisher’s contract, and so the publishers’ shares of income is cut: but the advantages of not having to deal with the mountain of slush outweigh this by a significant degree.

Editors And Publishers

Just about every publishing company has its own website, which you can find without too much trouble: the ones that I've listed here are those which seem particularly useful to me, or particularly interesting. If you have your own personal favourites and don't see them here, do let me know so that I can add them to the list.

The Abbeville Manual of Style is exquisite. Read it every day.

Behler Publications is an independent publishing house founded and run by Lynn Price, who comments frequently here. Behler used to have a Blogspot blog but has now turned to the dark side and gone over to Wordpress. Both blogs are worth trawling through, as they're dense with information.

Bluechrome, independent publisher of lovely literary fiction, short stories and poetry, blogs. Which is just as well because lovely though Bluechrome is, I can barely read its website because of the colours of the text.

Ebury Publishing has a blog, a balcony garden, and a lot of lovely books. Each time I see pictures of the balcony garden I wonder how long it'll be before the whole thing plunges off the face of the building, ripped away by the weight of all those sodden grow-bags. But the strawberries do look wonderful.

Editorial Anonymous is the blog of an American children's book editor who blogs almost daily about the publishing business, what editors and agents want to see from writers, or cake. It's a winning combination.

Editorial Ass is the blog of a New York-based editorial assistant who writes about her work and her life. It's funny, informative and insightful. Lovely.

Little, Brown's blog is little more than a catalogue of its forthcoming titles and various author events: I would do so much more with it, and I'm afraid it's a missed opportunity for them.

Me And My Big Mouth is Scott Pack's blog. You'll find lots of reviews there, lots of talk, and a fair amount of publishing information and gossip too. Mr Pack used to run Waterstone's, and now he runs The Friday Project, which is an imprint of HarperCollins.

Monday Books publishes mostly non-fiction with a slant towards politics, satire and memoir, and all of the Monday Books titles that I've read have been bloody brilliant.

The Penguin Blog has some interesting content related to its books and I like it: but I found little there concerned with writing or publishing.

Picador, which is part of Pan Macmillan, blogs.

Salt Publishing specialises in publishing anthologies of short stories and poems, and I've not yet read a bad collection from them. Gorgeous books, the lot of them.

Snowbooks. Beautiful books, lovely people, and a great blog.

Two Ravens Press publishes lovely literary fiction, and has a very interesting blog.

How Readers Drive Publishing

Publishing is a business which produces books in order to sell them. It depends on writers, agents, editors, designers, illustrators, copy-editors and printers to produce those books; and on marketing staff, publicists, sales agents, wholesalers, distributors, bookshops and booksellers to sell those books.

All of the people who are involved in the production and sales of books depend on one thing to fund the work that they do: the reader. And because readers fund publishing, they drive the whole of the publishing process. When readers don't buy books, the publishers lose money and everyone involved in that supply-chain suffers.

So when publishers recognise that a particular type of book doesn't sell well they stop publishing it, or they stop publishing so much of it and get really picky about the books in that genre which they will consider.

Conversely, when publishers notice that a particular type of book is selling very well, they will look for others of that type to publish.

If publishers won't consider a particular genre, agents won't be able to sell it to them; so agents quickly learn what publishers will and will not consider. As those agents don't eat if they don't make sales, they don't take on books they don't think they can sell no matter how much literary merits those books might have.

So please: don't suggest that literary agents are unfairly stifling new writers because of their own personal agendas, or that publishing is ignoring whole swathes of talented writers because those writers write stuff that is somehow too contentious or unpopular to make it onto their lists: agents, editors and publishers all look to the reader when deciding what to take on, and if readers aren't prepared to buy a particular type of book, then that type of book is very unlikely to get published.

It comes down to this: to stand a chance of being published, your book has to be well-written, but that’s not enough on its own. If readers are likely to buy your book and it is well-written, then it has a good chance of getting published; but if publishers know from their years of experience that a book like yours is unlikely to attract enough readers to make it commercially viable then it is not going to get published no matter how well-written it is.

Trios: Devil’s Gold, by Julie Korzenco—The Editor’s View

Julie Korzenko, author of Devil's Gold, has been kind enough to round up a trio of articles about her book. Last week, Julie described how she found a home for her book; this week Emily Steele, Julie's editor at Medallion Press, discusses the editorial process; and next week we'll learn how Medallion Press markets its books. But first, a note from Julie.


As a first-time author, waiting for my line edits was excruciating. I had no clue what to expect and imagined all sorts of nightmarish situations from rewritten plot lines to insertions of killer pandas instead of wolves. Much to my delight, edits were a piece of cake. There was one item, however, that threw me into a bit of a tailspin. My environmental watchdog organization ZEBRA needed a new meaning to its acronym. Originally it was Zoological Ecological Biological Research Agency. I was a bit “ogical” happy which didn’t sit well with my editor. I had no problem changing it and now prefer the new organization name of Zoological Environmental Bio Research Agency. Shortly after submitting my edits, I woke up in the middle of the night in a panic. ZEBRA had to be changed not only in the manuscript but also on the jacket flap (which had already been created and approved and finalized by the art department) and all websites and online bookstores where my “blurb” was posted. Medallion immediately corrected it everywhere, but it was a momentary challenge to figure out exactly where we had the name posted. I still chuckle when I read the reviews written from my ARC’s as they all refer to my “ogical” ZEBRA.



Within every publishing house is a wicked, horrible editor just waiting for the next aspiring author to send a manuscript into her evil lair so she may dash his hopes and dreams to the ground . . .

Oh, wait.

No.

That’s not actually true.

The truth is that editors are always seeking the next great text, and one of our greatest rewards at Medallion is discovering fresh talent. Reading every manuscript we receive is one step we intentionally take to fulfill our mission to publish well-written products.

Julie Korzenko’s story is a great example of the necessary effort involved in becoming a published author. As an editor at Medallion, I bear witness to the fact that every step Julie took toward publishing Devil's Gold brought her memorable character Dr. Cassidy Lowell to the point at which she was ready to engage her audience through print.

At Medallion, our editors strive to discover and produce works written with passion and an apparent dedication to excellence. Currently, we receive approximately thirty-five manuscripts per week, and we read every one. We don’t want to miss a single opportunity to discover a solid manuscript with a unique twist.

When a manuscript captures our attention, we analyse whether it is well prepared and how much editing the manuscript will require. We check grammatical and structural concerns to see whether we have time within our production schedule to adequately edit and produce the manuscript.

Next, we work with the marketing team to determine whether a market exists for the title. We do this by checking whether comparable titles are selling. This task is initially the author’s and ultimately the publisher’s. If research indicates that a book will produce the sales we need, then we begin working with the author to set the publishing process in motion. If you are passionate about creating and sharing unique stories, keep working hard. Research your market by reading comparable titles and discovering how and why they’re selling. Write with passion. Edit your manuscript well to present your hard work in the brightest possible light. Do these things well, and yours may very well be the next great novel on our readers’ shelves!



My thanks to Julie, for organising this mini-series of blog posts, and to Emily Steele of Medallion Press for her contribution: I'm hoping she might be able to drop by to answer any questions, so do speak up if there's anything you'd like to know about Devil's Gold or Medallion Press.

Meanwhile, Julie has kindly offered to give away a free copy of Devil’s Gold. To be in the running, all you have to do is email her at “jkorzenko at gmail dot com” and answer this simple question: what is P3? You’ve got until 12 May to get your emails in: after that date, Julie will select the lucky winner at random from all entrants who answer correctly.

What Editors Want

A few days ago this thread was started on the Authonomy message-board. It eventually degenerated into a sodden late-night exchange, but the post which kicked it all off reinforces much of what I've written here and says it all far more clearly than I could manage: so here is that post in its entirety. I've bolded one line, but that's the only change I've made.



It's late at night, I have a job I'm procrastinating on and the wine is open, so I feel a fit of pomposity coming on. Read no further if you are offended by reminiscing and lecturing.

But here it comes.

An central idee fixee among emerging writers is: 'What do editors want?' Much thought is given to this question, particularly in gathering places like Authonomy. Eventually, when the discussion has built up a head of steam, some all-knowing, squelching person will come along and say "editors are looking for excuses to reject your book. Just one comma out of place and – bam! – book rejected". The conversation is thereby killed and the insecure author feels even more dejected.

This is all wrong. At least, it was in my case and still is false as far as editors I know go.

What editors want, more than ANYTHING else in the world, is for someone to delight them.

Most manuscripts that land on an editor's desk – even, believe it or not, the ones that comes through recommendations, agents, personal friends and authors with track records – range from the unfinished-need-lots-of-work to the outright boring. And that's only speaking of work that has been through the filter. Some of these will be picked up, just because the sausage factory has to keep churning stuff out, but they won't fill the editor with excitement about coming to work in the morning.

Publishing doesn't have many pluses. It's poorly paid, the glamorous lunches are few and far between, and the overseas trips heavily contested. The free books pall after a while (a) because you've soon read them all and (b) because they're probably not your genre anyway.

What makes it all worthwhile are the times when a luminous book pops through the post. A book that from the first masterful sentence transports the reader.

Such books are incredibly rare. But they're fun to work on, they're fun to publish, and they add lustre to an editor's career if they win an award or become a bestseller.

How do you know if you've written a masterpiece?

If you're asking the question, then you probably haven't. The more experienced and expert you are at anything – tennis, swimming, painting, computer programming – the more you instinctively know what works and what doesn't. And you certainly know when you have done something outstanding in your field, even if you don't know HOW outstanding it is. If you're still floundering, hoping for approval for your book, go back to the drawing board.

Because the sort of books that enthrall first the publisher and then the public are books written with verve and confidence, and that's something that comes from talent plus a finely honed craft.

And all that came from a bottle of Californian Zinfandel. Whew, that 16% alcohol is a killer.




My thanks to editor, writer and Authonomy member Osiander, for giving me permission to quote him at such length.

Queryfail Two Is On Its Way!

Following the rather mixed success of the inagural round of Queryfail, which spawned Agentfail and stirred up so many people that even I blogged about it, Queryfail 2: Queries Never Die has been announced. It's going to take place this coming Friday, April 17, and people are already twitching in anticipation. In all sorts of ways.

Just bear in mind that Colleen Lindsay, who organises the whole thing, works in New York, so the timing is going to be a little strange for those of us in the UK. It'll give us all time to have a decent amount of coffee before the fun starts, and to have a few glasses of weekend wine before it finishes.

What Do Editors Do?

There are many different layers to editing a book well.

First there’s the overall structure of the book. Does it work in its current form? Would the book flow better if scenes were rearranged or deleted, or if new scenes were added?

Then there’s the content. Are all those scenes complete? Are there any plot-holes which need filling, or characters which need a little more flesh on their literary bones? Or descriptions which are just a little too lush, and could do with a bit of trimming? Is the tense and point of view consistent throughout, and appropriate for the story? Line-editing aims to get all of this right and is an intense and important process.

Once the structure and contents are taken care of, the focus moves to copyediting—checking the smaller details. Are the grammar, spelling and punctuation correct and consistent throughout the book? Are there any potentially libellous statements which will need to be checked by a lawyer, or removed entirely? And have all facts been checked for veracity? Often this work will be handed over to a copy editor; a fresh view of the book is always useful and usually leads to more errors being discovered and corrected.

Once all of the copy editor’s comments have been incorporated into the book, the designer will flow the text into the layout that has been agreed on and the editor will take another look through, to check that the headings are all in the right places and that no widows or orphans have been created (which are stray lines at the beginning or end of each page); and once all of that has been done a set of page proofs will go to the writer and, ideally, to a proof-reader for final corrections before the book finally goes to print.

Alongside all of that, editors drive their books through the process of publication, dealing with design, publicity and marketing, and production along the way. It’s a complex job. No wonder they sometimes fall behind with their slush-piles.

Queryfail?

Ten days ago Colleen Lindsay (who blogs over at The Swivet, and is a literary agent with the USA-based Fine Print Literary Management) organised Queryfail Day: a day-long Twitterfest. Colleen was careful to advise those taking part not to post anything which might indentify any of the writers whose queries were being discussed; and she warned that the exercise was not being done to make fun of anyone, but was an attempt to show, in real time, how overwhelmed agents and editors are with submissions and why so many of them fail.

I thought that the concept was potentially useful, very interesting and funny (although I haven't read it all and I didn't participate—I'm not one of the Twittering classes). However, plenty of people take the opposite view and many seem to feel that those who took part ridiculed the writers concerned.

In a few days I'll post my own response to Queryfail: Publishingfail. Expect it to move slowly, as most things in publishing do. And to keep you going until then, here’s some further Queryfail reading.

Editor Unleashed discusses The Queryfail Trainwreck; Justine Larbalestier leads her own excellent discussion; Book Publishing Today discusses Queryfail too; and even The Guardian gets in on the act.

Cutting The Slush Pile Down To Size

The slush-pile is an ever-present sea of despair. Some writers wallow about in it for years, while editors avoid it's depressing claggy depths. Most of the books it contains have no hope of ever being published by a mainstream publishing house; and yet their writers are so determined to be published that they submit their work repeatedly, racking up the volume of the slush pile and making it even harder for agents and editors to discover the few commercially-publishable works that the slush-pile contains.

If the books which stood no chance of commercial publication were removed from the heap, the submissions system would be transformed: volume would be reduced and response times could be improved; and the big publishing houses might just well reopen their doors to unsolicited manuscripts.

How could this be achieved? First, by writers taking more care with their submissions by editing their work more carefully, and by ensuring that they submit only to appropriate markets; and then by the provision of an ethical alternative route into publishing for the manuscripts which are commercially unpublishable.

I’ll be discussing that last point in greater detail soon.

Editors On Facebook Discuss Difficult Authors

A discussion on Facebook has irritated a few author-friends of mine. I've been sent a link to this ongoing discussion and, while the editors involved think it's funny, not one of the writers who have seen it seem to be laughing.

I'm not going to tell you which side I'm on because then I'll upset everybody. Just click the link and work it out for yourself. You'll need a Facebook account to be able to read it.

Query Blasting: The Scattergun Approach

There are all sorts of organisations out there which will, for a fee, send your query to agents or editors, or your press release to newspapers, TV stations and the like. They usually do what they promise, and e-mail your information out to all the names on their mailing lists—and those lists can be vast, with tens of thousands of names on them. But what is the usual outcome of such a scattergun approach?

Well, first, you pay for their services. Then they send out your information (and if they've written your press release or query letter for you, they'll have charged you extra for this and will probably have written a formulaic, template-based piece which will have a very limited effect); and then—nothing.

You're unlikely to see good results, or to even make back the money that you paid them. Because the queries that they send out on your behalf will be generic, one-size-fits-all; they're not going to be personalised, addressed to individual people, or even targeted to appropriate agents or editors who represent your genre; and the press releases will go out to all their media contacts regardless of whether you're promoting a book about train-spotting in 1920s Sweden or a contemporary romance novel with an S&M twist.

Let me remind you: each time you send anything out, you have to target the right people. If you had a problem with your phone bill, you wouldn't just write to every person in every phone company you could find, would you? Regardless of what country you, or they, are in? No. You'd write to the customer services department of your phone provider, and tell them exactly what the problem is. It's the same with queries, submissions, media packs, press releases, and review copies. You must send them to the right people, otherwise the whole exercise is a pointless waste of everyone's time and money.