On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 06:07:15PM -0500, Shalanna wrote:

> My previous post was forwarded from another list where we're having a 
> discussion about rejection.  Basically, most of the New York-published 
> authors are saying, subtly and unsubtly, that if your book is rejected by 
> all of New York, it's crummy and should be revised.  It couldn't possibly 
> be readable.  The POD and e-book published people say that if you can't be 
> pigeonholed, they reject you, so why not trust your own judgment and go the 
> other route?  Most of the sentiments were toward the "if you're rejected, 
> you deserved it" bent, so I replied from the other side.

Ugh.

I really don't see how anybody can have been published by a New
York publisher and not realize how much luck, chance, and blind
guessing is involved in the process of buying a new author's
work.

> Because I still believe in some of the work I've sent in and heard back 
> that "we loved your story and your prose flows smoothly--can even be 
> eloquent--but we don't feel that it's salable in this market at this time" 
> so many times.  I still believe that POD has a place and that the work has 
> an audience.

I have no opinion of POD -- I don't mean that in the old-fashioned
sense that equates to, "I have a bad opinion of POD," but rather
literally.  I don't have an opinion.  But I know that not all
rejected manuscripts are unworthy.

> I realize that the people who are being put out by the large firms want to 
> "set us straight" in case we "don't know any
better," and I appreciate that 
> they give a hoot, but frankly, when I hear people saying "It wasn't that 
> hard to get published," I think they're being more than rude to
those of us 
> who are still struggling.  I think people like Laurie and Dennis are great 
> prose stylists, and I don't understand why their work isn't getting picked 
> up by a large house.  Yes, I do understand from a marketing viewpoint, but 
> I think the companies are losing out on a reliable market of inveterate 
> readers.  I do wish sometimes that the dreck wouldn't be so prevalent in 
> POD so we wouldn't all get a bad rap, but that's the compromise we have to 
> make.  Nope, those writers and their friends have *no* idea that it isn't 
> good.  It's probably just as well, if they're happy.  If I'm one of them, 
> then so be it.

Sometimes I want to write an etiquette book for published authors.
"It wasn't that hard to get published" is permissible if somebody
is making really sweeping statements; otherwise it should always
be accompanied by "I got lucky."

Publishing companies shouldn't be owned by large conglomerates that
want to treat books like rolls of toilet paper.  PNH has been heard
to say that the large corporation that owns Tor has been made to let
Tor alone by being made to believe that selling SF is an esoteric
art that only these crazy geeky types can fathom.  But it sounds,
given what's going on with my latest submission, that even they are
feeling the crunch these days.

-- 

Pamela Dean Dyer-Bennet           (pddb{at}demesne.com)
"I will open my heart to a blank page
   and interview the witnesses."  John M. Ford, "Shared World"

--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha