Friday, June 22, 2007

This arrived at my inbox yesterday.

Dear Mr Charkin,

I intended sending this as a comment to your blog. But I didn’t want to use my name, which might have embarrassed my agent. Also, there wasn’t an obvious opening. But if you would care to respond on the blog, while keeping me anonymous, that would be fine.

I realise that you are a busy globetrotter and top company executive, with a lot more on your mind than the anguish of would-be writers, but I wonder if I could drag you back for a moment to the business of publishing – or not publishing – first novels.
 
I have a number of friends who are successful novelists. They started years ago and have have continued ever since, winning a loyal following over the years and attracting, for the most part, postive reviews. I have also met several writers, Robert Harris and Sebastian Faulkes among them, who have gone on to great things.
 
In my own case, and I am now in my late fifties, the story has been very different. I have written six novels so far, none of which has been published. The first two probably deserved their fate. The subsequent four, were, however, above average (if I say so myself) and could easily have sat alongside the products of my more successful pals.
 
I don’t say this vaingloriously. The agents I have had over the years – two in the United States, three in Britain, were all convinced that I had the talent to make it to the top. Each in his (or her) turn assured me that the book they were representing would get published, make me good money and provide the basis of what would be a successful literary career.
 
Of the five, three are very big in the trade. My present agent is even, I might say, a leading luminary, much quoted on the state of the business and the difficulties of marketing.
 
In an email to me this morning, he said it was “tragic” that my latest offering had not made it. He couldn’t understand it, he said. And even though he much likes both of my latest proposals, he now fears that they may not be saleable.
 
Time after time, the responses from publishers have been that my writing is first class, my plots fascinating, my structure solid and resourceful. There has been criticism, of course, but most of it centred on detail or the foibles of individual characters.
 
In the most recent case, one leading publisher (not from Macmillan, I hasten to add) said that my main character was someone he recognised immediately. He had laughed out loud, he said. I had got the particular corner of London life that I was after exactly right. Sadly, he added, his sales people were not convinced that there would be a big enough market for what I was offering. So, in the end, he felt he had to decline.
 
One of the country’s top publishers, who years ago produced a non-fiction book of mine, told my agent that I was a “wonderful” writer Another, a former Fleet Street colleague, said she was sure I had what it took to succeed in fiction. Yet both turned me down, as did the head of popular fiction at one of your principal rivals, who said that he loved the book himself but was unable to persuade his sales team of its virtues.
 
What is going on? I don’t expect to become rich and famous. I don’t expect to be annointed in the Guardian as the new Evelyn Waugh. But I do believe that I write accomplished fiction and deserve my place, for a week at least, on Waterstone’s Big Tables.
 
Is it because I write, mainly, about men in their fifties? Is it because I have left it too late to break through? Is it because these days I lack a proper media “platform” that would guarantee me notice from the critics?  I don’t know, but I feel sure my age has a lot to do with it.

What really gets my goat is the sheer volume of truly awful fiction that does get published, only to go nowhere. In every such case, the publisher concerned must have thought, yes, this one is in with a chance, and the sales people must have agreed. The fact that they turned out to be wrong does not appear to embarrass them. Water under the bridge, dear boy ... publishing isn’t an exact science. Well, if these books are allowed to fight their corner (and lose money hand over fist), why not mine? At least once.
 
I might add that I am sticking with my latest agent, who is a prince among men and seems determined to get me published. But it has been hard pounding for both of us.
 
Your thoughts on the above would be much appreciated.
 
Best wishes,
 
Puzzled of London

What can I say? It must be deeply frustrating for the correspondent. We set up Macmillan New Writing with precisely this type of author in mind. The list is doing fine but the numbers wouldn't make an accountant's eyes light up with excitement. If we had to publish these books under the currently traditional model - advances, hype etc - the accountant would throw him/herself out of the window. Even so and even though we have had success, other publishers haven't followed suit. Why not?

Publishing fiction is tough. There are arguably more wannabe authors than readers. Of course there is rubbish published but there is more fine novels published every year than anyone could possibly read. Readers also have to be picky. We all enjoy only a limited amount of leisure time and we are likely to think twice before spending it on an unknown author. This posting on Susan Hill's blog highlights another set of issues. Even if an author does get published and does become successful there appears to be little loyalty to the publisher who took the original risk. The big profits frequently go to an author's second or third publisher and some of the most successful publishing houses deliberately and intelligently ignore first novels in order to pick up the third or fourth from an author after much of the hard work is done.

Perhaps the answer does lie in Lulu or simply web publishing under a Creative Commons licence. At least such publication allows an author some exposure. But it will do little to stem the flow of so-so or worse novels being published which will make it even harder for the reader to discern the good from the bad and encourage even less reading experimentation.

Anyone else want to contribute their thoughts?

 

 

#    |  Comments [20]  | 
6/22/2007 6:23:41 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
My personal comments - It seems to me from the correspondent's anguish, that the key to getting one's book published is in the hands of a department whose people may (and I say may!) not necessarily, have the passion for reading or stories, but numbers and sales !

If numbers are the only objective, it gives a good picture of why some books make it and some don't.

Can I safely conclude that in a few years time, as a reader, I will not be reading a good book but one which has been published by a decision made out of graphs and projections....Every book I turn to, now, will make me ponder....Grim reality...Or am I being too hyper, I don't know..
6/22/2007 6:46:21 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
How many editors today would be willing to publish C P Snow as a new author ?

6/22/2007 8:46:15 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
I don't believe there is any way numbers can be the only criterion for book selection and I don't believe any publisher believes that. But it is certainly one consideration and a highly important one. If nobody buys a book, both publisher and author will suffer.

And, Clive, I can't anwswer your question but 1. I would have published him and 2. tastes change.
6/22/2007 9:12:50 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
If your correspondent (and his/her agent) were willing to consider foregoing an advance, we at MNW would be delighted to consider his/her work. The same goes for any budding C.P. Snows. And age is no barrier – author Brian Martin compares himself to Mary Wesley, in that he published his first novel (with MNW) at the age of 68.
6/22/2007 9:13:23 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Do you think maybe the book industry is becoming more like the movies?

It doesn't matter how good a "blockbuster" film really is. With so much of the box-office money made on the first weekend, the aim is to convince enough people to go and see it as soon as it comes out.

The effect of that is that movies with star names carry less risk, because audiences are more likely to come on the first weekend, before anyone tells them the film is rubbish.

Apply the same logic to a book publisher, and platform, star author, etc offer the best way of minimising risks.

Puzzled of London may have written several books of literary merit, but why should a publisher take a risk on him when they are struggling to market the established (and lower risk) "talents" they have already?

Has he tried smaller, independent publishers - or thought about self-publishing? Someone has to take a risk to get his books out, so why not him?
6/22/2007 10:25:20 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Richard, surely your correspondent's problem is that they are not, Jordan, Kerry Katona, or indeed, Geri Halliwell.

'The publishing industry is going backwards.I don't think Trainspotting would be published today. It's all about formula. The gates were briefly open, but they've shut again.'
Irvine Welsh Sunday Times 25.03.07
6/22/2007 10:41:44 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
I'd like to comment if I may. Seven years ago I entered my first novel in a Random House Australia competition for unpublished manuscripts. It didn't win, but it did make the final shortlist of 8 or 9 manuscripts.

After that ... nothing. I did a lot of research then picked out a couple of publishers here in Australia, plus one in the UK and one in the US. All bar one rejected the manuscript with similar comments - my chosen genre (SF/Humour) was too small a niche to bother with, humour was a hard sell, SF wasn't selling as well as Fantasy, etc, etc. The other one has yet to respond 7 years down the track, so I gather that's a no.

In 2001 I rewrote the book and then self-published it, despite all the pitfalls and negativity surrounding that particular process. I'd sold a few of my short stories to print magazines by then, which confirmed I could string words together in the approved fashion, and one of them scored an Aurealis Award, which proved people were enjoying my fiction.

At the time I chose self-publishing because either the publishers I approached were right, and there would never be a huge market for my books, OR they were wrong, in which case I wanted to seek out that market and prove it existed. (Given the massive popularity of Red Dwarf and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, I was convinced they were wrong.)

After self-publishing the first book I wrote another featuring the same characters, putting everything I'd learnt into it. 18 months later I self-published this second novel without bothering to submit it anywhere. By then I'd managed to get copies of the first book into every specialist/genre bookstore in Australia - all six or seven of them ;-) - and also a number of Dymocks, A&R and Collins outlets. Sales weren't brilliant but I felt I was making progress. Before book two came out I was fielding questions about it at SF conventions, and that was easily enough to motivate me.

Over the following twelve months I wrote, edited and published a third book in the series (nobody ever accused me of giving up lightly, that's for sure). This one was only in the shops for three weeks before I took a call from a local publisher. Their sales rep had spotted my books in the wild and taken the first one back to head office. The relevant people read it, enjoyed it, and wanted me to work with their editor so they could release it right across Australia and NZ. Then they sent me a contract covering all three books. Bingo!

That was in 2004, and since then all three novels have been released here, have appeared on various bestseller lists and have generated hundreds of enthusiatic emails from fans of the - dare I say it - popular SF/Humour genre.

I'm not posting this to brag about a modest success, I just wanted to highlight my own case. It's not that common for self-pubbed fiction to find a home with a publisher, and while I wouldn't recommend everyone rush out and do it, it could work again under the right conditions.
6/22/2007 12:31:24 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
My comment is for Will Atkins at MNW

Richard's correspondent wrote (snipped)
"One of the country’s top publishers, who years ago produced a non-fiction book of mine"

Surely this precludes the anonymous author from getting his work published by MNW, which I understood was only for *unpublished* writers.
6/22/2007 12:52:00 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Clive: although writers who have already had a novel published are excluded under MNW's terms, this doesn’t apply to those who have previously published non-fiction.
6/22/2007 2:00:40 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
What a depressing day on the UK publishing world’s top blog. Self publishing would be the solution except it's frowned upon unless you’re called James Joyce or Bert Lawrence. Should we all lick our wounds and adopt Franz Kafka’s approach? Tempting, but I fear that on our death our friends, unlike Max Brod, would probably obey our last wishes and destroy our manuscripts. Best of luck to your struggling author. Don’t give up. Remember Jo Rowling. Compare the print run of her first book to that of the last.
6/22/2007 2:08:13 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
I meant "UK Publishing's top blog." Guess as a writer I am living in too many worlds!
6/22/2007 2:27:41 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
It's an interesting question and I would like to say to Puzzled of London that it isn't leaving it too long to break into the market. One of our authors Mo Foster is 70 and her first novel A Blues for Shindig was published by us last year, another - Jon Haylett is 62 and his first novel is being published by us next month - I don't think it is an ageist industry and if we can make a story out of the author - even better. That for us is what it boils down to - a marketing angle.

My thoughts as a smaller independent publisher are that yes, there a huge number of books out there that are published, that I frequently pick up and think 'my god,why did nobody stop this before it got into print?!' But for exactly that reason there are many people out there who aren't getting published. So what we need with every book we pick is a really strong marketing angle. Without that - our books get lost - if we can't see it in a submission we won't go for it. For us if the book can be described briefly and we get the reaction 'actually that sounds interesting' for example The Angel Makers by Jessica Gregson - women suppressed by their abusive husbands turn to the village witch doctor for help. The solution - boiling fly paper for arsenic and an increasingly high male death rate! Not everyone's cup of tea but something we could hang an angle on.

The other thing we have to think of as an indie is foreign rights - for us in this sale and return world, the extra firm income that we make from foreign rights gives us a security for some of our slightly riskier decisions! Publishing for us is about marketing, it's about the author, news stories and it's about choosing a good book - but it has to be about all of those things.
6/23/2007 12:41:12 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
I don’t normally leave comments here, though I read your blog every day. But today I can honestly say that this post has left me feeling utterly miserable. I even made threatening overtures to the cat and I blame you, Mr. Charkin, for destroying what had been a good relationship between man and pet.

Are there really more wannabe authors than readers? If so, I call for a cull. That or I might as well give up now. I’m sure there are other trades that might take me in. Only, I’m unsuited to them all. Writing is part of me. I could no sooner abandon my notebook for a window cleaner’s squeegee than you could ask a priest to abandon his faith and take to professional arm wresting.

Yet I suspect this isn’t a sentiment shared by 90% of what you term ‘wannabe authors’. Dreams are powerful things and very few wannabes finish books. They make writing tutors rich and know the 1001 reasons for not writing. Yet they fail to know the one reason for writing, which is the love of the work, not the dream of rewards.

This, I suppose, is the nature of any high profile modern business in which people perceive fame and riches without giving much consideration to the dedication required. How many go hungry, or whatever we might class as ‘poverty’ these days, because they choose to write? Real writers are facing a losing battle because publishing appears to be distancing itself from the written word. The business only encourages those that dream of riches and the huge advances when its increasingly about name recognition, proven genres, bandwagons, Waterstone’s ‘big table’.

Does it even matters what’s between the covers of a book, as long as so many thousand ‘units’ get sold based on good promotion? Now it’s increasingly in the hands of the marketeers. Richard & Judy produce a booklist and Jane Fallon has a book in that list. It will be a hit. Is it any coincidence that she’s a TV producer, the girlfriend of Ricky Gervais? I don’t think so because that’s what’s the game is increasingly about and good luck to her if she has a chance to play. Meanwhile, those of us who can’t stop writing return to our desks tomorrow, even though the chances of our succeeding are next to nothing. That, I think, should shame all publishers who really care about books. And, in the long term, as people buy fewer books because what’s inside continually disappoints them, it will be harmful for everyone.
6/23/2007 5:24:49 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Cri du coeur ! I am not really involved in the world of literature and writers... Even less in the publishing industry. The creative commons is probably a good way and in a near future, if we get some suitable eBook device as cheap as MP3 device, talented people may have a chance to be read by a wide range of "internautes" (I don’t know the English wording for this).
And if the model of publishing on paper do not work, why not imagine, a free independent corner on a merchant site, with a (mobipocket)eBook version available only.
Et comme nul n'est prophète en son pays (sorry again, my English is quite limited), make a good translation in French and let's try to be published across the channel, on a far more tiny market than English is.
6/23/2007 12:48:52 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
"Is it because I write, mainly, about men in their fifties?"

I think the writer of that letter has answered his own question. It appears he writes about a rather limited range of protagonists, and not one that is historically in the hottest demographic.

That's a generalization, of course, but look at movies today: how many of them feature protagonists in their 50's?

It's sad. It's silly. It's unfair. But it's also reality.

Sounds like this writer keeps hitting himself in the head with a hammer, and is surprised that each time he does so, it hurts.

But contrary to what the writer claims, I don't think it's because of his age. It's because of what he's writing about. He needs to write about something else. If every other aspect of his writing is as fabulous as he claims, I think the reality is that he's simply not telling the right stories.

I wonder if he's too caught up in thinly veiled autobiography. He's in his fifties, and writes about men in their fifties. Doesn't seem like much of a leap. But he's got tons of options. He can write about a younger man, drawing on his own experience at that earlier age. Or consciously look for a premise that would help sell the book. That's what this writer seems to be consciously avoiding, and he's paying the price.

I have no sympathy. Well, maybe a little. It IS a drag that readers and film audiences are guilty of age discrimination. But rather than bang my head against that wall, I'd simply make a note of it, and factor that into my character decisions.

And this is NOT to say that he can't write a best-seller about a man in his fifties. But to do so, his story needs to grab the reader to the degree that his plot and characters resonate with people who are NOT men in their fifties. Otherwise, he's chosen his own "platform," and made it an incredibly limiting one.

A popularly quoted definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. This writer needs to change something, not just complain about the headaches he keeps getting from hitting himself with that hammer.
6/23/2007 7:14:48 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Personally, I think there will always be more readers than writers. I believe that writers write because they've read so much and (sometimes)suddenly feel inspired to write, to join the band of writers, to make their own voice known. (But Mr Charkin may have stats to disprove that one these days...)

A long time ago, I heard Colin Dexter speak at a function. He'd been on holiday to north Wales and took a couple of novels with him, some or all crime related. It rained - par for the course in Wales - and he read to pass the time. He read a crime novel during that session of holiday and thought he could do better when he finished it, so he turned his hand and mind to creation and creativity.

He never said what he read at that time, but he created Morse thereafter.

I think that says it all. "Think you can do better?" Try. "Make the grade and catch the latest wave?" You'll be published.

I think it's "catching the latest wave" that has writers stumped. For that read "originality" in the current market, for any market even; then they might have a decent chance.
6/24/2007 9:20:52 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
From Mr Cronin's post:

"A popularly quoted definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results."

Unfortunately, if you speak to enough published authors, you'll conclude that doing very much the same thing over and over and expecting different results is how most of them get published.

And people wonder why so many writers are crazy...
6/25/2007 8:34:03 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
After 38 years of failure, and 10 unpublished manuscripts, my "first" novel was published in the US this year. I'm 61. The big difference this time was writing a book "I had to write" instead of the complicated thrillers "I wanted to write." Said another way, I looked inside for my story.
6/26/2007 5:46:12 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Jonathan Main quotes Irvine Welsh:

'The publishing industry is going backwards.I don't think Trainspotting would be published today. It's all about formula. The gates were briefly open, but they've shut again.'
Irvine Welsh Sunday Times 25.03.07

I was around when we published Trainspotting at Secker (part of the evil Reed empire of the time). People were saying that publishing was in a terrible mess with the conglomerates stifling creativity etc etc. In those years, apart from IW we 'discovered' Louis de Bernieres, Roddy Doyle, James Kelman, Bill Bryson and many many others. Irvine Welsh is sounding like disgusted of Tonbridge Wells - things ain't what they used to be.
6/27/2007 9:43:41 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
I'd also like to suggest you have a look at the ongoing discussion and criticism of these issues at the POD CRITIC blog, particularly this post:

http://podbookreview.blogspot.com/2007/06/pod-critic-sees-print.html