You know how whenever someone gets disgruntled with the publishing industry they invariably name a classic book and say, “Well, [insert James Joyce, William Faulkner, Herman Melville, other dead white male/Jane Austen here] would NEVER have found a publisher today.” And this is supposed to remind us about the fickleness of today’s crass publishing business, the shortsightedness of its employees, and the general debasement of literature? As opposed to “back in the day” when they appreciated Literary Genius and Weighty Books and all the rest?
What I want to know is: how come no one does the reverse? Here’s a fun exercise: let’s instead think about all of the books published today that would never have found a publisher in a previous era. You think they would have published Toni Morrison in the era of Herman Melville? (nope!) What about Jonathan Franzen in the era of Jane Austen? (nope!) Or an openly gay author like David Sedaris in any closeted era? (nope!)
Why would previous publishers not have recognized the genius of these authors?
They would have been a) worried about the bottom line and b) busy publishing books that were reflective of their own times.
You know. Like today.
AM says
It's fun to think about the scandal many of today's books would have caused in the past.
Reesha says
Too true.
I agree the questioning of such things is pointless. Except for the fact that it makes me feel better when I get a rejection slip.
"Surely, someone out there somewhere, some time, would have recognized my genius?"
Wordy Birdie says
'Everybody Poops' by Taro Gomi
Dara says
Exactly.
paulgreci says
Perhaps Daniel Defoe's Moll Flanders or Chaucer's, The Miller's Tale would've had a chance in todays market. If the mss got into the right hands at the right time. But I agree, it's pretty much pointless to think about this stuff, but thanks for the break. Now, back to writing.
mkcbunny says
I immediately thought of Jonathan Lethem. "Gun with Occasional Music" could only have been published in the 20th century.
Ink says
Timing is certainly important. Moby Dick, for example, was a very odd novel and quite unlike anything else being published. And it flopped.
After a few more interesting flops, Melville was forced to give up novel writing and spent the last 20 years of his life working and writing poetry. It was only in the 1920s, decades after his death, that Moby Dick was brought to light by critics and hailed as a masterpiece. But what other masterpieces might he have penned?
So, write the best you can, and if it's not working wait a few decades. Try not to die, though.
Anonymous says
"Cut" (Patrica McCormick), "America" (E.R. Frank), "Lithium for Medea" (Kate Braverman) … there are so many.
The kernel of this trick question – I like it; reminds me of Miles Fisher's 'This Must Be the Place,' a "remake" American Psycho (um, add that to the list, too) because it yanks work from one era and replants it in the present. What seemed chic & au current (courant? oi, Gourmet closes and there goes my French), 25 years ago becomes ripe for ironic reinterpretation.
Also, this question touches on the cultural & era specific elements of the philosophical dimension of the Polanski debate ie., what flew in the 70's doesn't in the oughts but can one judge someone through the prism of 30+ years?
Naomi says
Amen.
Ken says
Times change, is the key there. If Faulkner or Joyce was writing today, they surely wouldn't come up with the same novels they actually did — just like if you plunked Lethem or Junot Diaz into the 1920's, they wouldn't come up with what they do now.
There's talent on one hand, and there's public tastes on the other – and it's hard to say which way the influence is stronger. Do the great writers make the literary landscape what it is, or do the times make the great writers?
Wordy Birdie says
All of Laurie Halse Anderson's YA novels. They still cause scandals. 😉
Ink says
That's a good point, Ken. Jane Austen wouldn't be writing Pride and Prejudice today. Hopefully she wouldn't be writing Pride and Prejudice and Zombies either…
Marilyn Peake says
I actually think that, overall, the quality of writing in books is much better today than ever before. I think this is because more people with a talent for writing can actually write books even if they have busy lives because computers and the Internet make their efforts manageable. When I look back at books that were popular in the past, many of the greatest classic stories weren’t actually written that well. Those books were published and some of them had movies made from them because, even though they weren’t always the most well-written books, that’s all we had and people love stories. Some of the authors who became household names in the past had a mix of quality in their published books: some of them very well-written, and others that barely made sense. Popular authors repeatedly had their books published, though, because they were valued as storytellers, and there weren’t that many storytellers with the time to write.
My only problem with today’s book world is when books that are obviously not well-written but sell many copies and make lots of money are given literary awards and great reviews by literary book reviewers. That’s a recent change. In the past, writers who wrote more for money than literary excellence frequently called themselves out on it, laughed about it, and didn’t expect to receive literary awards. They were writing for money, not for literary excellence, and they knew it. The award committees and literary reviewers also knew it and pointed it out. I think that’s changed in today’s world where making huge sums of money is often conflated with high quality.
Susan Quinn says
This begs the question of why readers want the things that are being published today? And do publishers really have a pulse on what readers want? Sure, sure, they follow book sales because, well, they want to make money and they're not stupid. But with so many books not making very large sales numbers, why are they (the publishers) not hitting every one out of the park?
This tags on to a blog from Pimp My Novel about the New York Bubble (TM) . . .
ryan field says
I love the book "Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet."
I doubt it would have been pubbed during World War II when they were putting Japanese Americans in camps in Idaho.
And, there are many talented straight women writers these days publishing LGBT books that never would have been published in the past. I came across a woman the other day who writes gay YA books about coming out and she's wonderful.
Anonymous says
Hahahahha! Very good point!
And, Ink, I love it: "try not to die, though!"
So sometimes I was probably miscast in this century but there is no other place I'd rather be.
Jill Edmondson says
Timing is everything! And, yes, the reverse is true – minority writers today would not have found a publisher in days of yore.
Aslo interesting to me is what HAS BEEN published (long ago) that people are up in arms about today. By this, I am referring to a number of school boards in Ontario that do not want "To Kill a Mockingbird" on the high school reading list.
Mockingbird may or may not get a publisher if it were written today, but the fact that school boards are trying to ban it is almost as if they are trying to deny it was published before.
Hmmm… Jill
Mercy Loomis says
Timing is so important. But what I find to be more interesting than "Would X be published today" is asking "why is X still read today?" What made that story so compelling that it still interests readers, even though it is probably no longer socially relevant? What makes something "timeless?"
Figure that out, (and have a modicum of talent and craft), and you'll be a lot more likely to sell, regardless of the New York Bubble. 😉
Wendy Sparrow says
Along the same lines, what would be published today IF NOT for the classics? If those long dead had never slogged their way to getting published, many of today's writers would never have taken up the pen… uhh… keyboard. Few non-readers *cough* Kanye West *cough* become writers. (Wait… are we still calling him a writer? or is there another word for him? )
I think those of the past ought to get kudos just for working without spell-check, wikipedia, and Word. If I had to pen or type stories on a type-writer…. It makes me a little ill even thinking about it.
Comparing today's publishing to the past is just so apples and oranges. There are a million different variables that go into determining why something was published then and now. Sometimes… it's talent… and sometimes it's… (Wait… what are we calling Kanye West? )
JEM says
Hooray! Great post. Comparing things of the past to today is pointless. Do you think a rotary phone would be bought today if it were still available? No. Although I will say, it was pretty well known that Oscar Wilde was gay. In fact, according to my high school English class (which I take as my foremost authority on all things literary), The Importance of Being Earnest was an inside joke about being gay. So…yeah.
But in general? Totally with you. Especially when people are using that argument as leverage for getting their own books published.
ryan field says
"I think those of the past ought to get kudos just for working without spell-check, wikipedia, and Word. If I had to pen or type stories on a type-writer…. It makes me a little ill even thinking about it."
It wasn't that long ago 🙂
I was still submitting hard copy to publishers and magazines in the late nineties, using a typewriter, a dictionary, and a thesaurus.
And it really wasn't that bad. Actually, in a lot of ways it was less stressful.
Keith Schroeder says
I agree. Stephen King would never get his stories published in 1920. Neither would most of today's bestselling authors.
The quality of books published today are of the highest level ever. I think the added layer of review, read agents, increases the quality. I have purchased books that don't tickle me, but that is more a matter of taste than quality. With rare exception, I can see why a book makes it to the bookstore shelf, even if I don't care for the story.
With authors, agents, and editors all working to make books better, is it any wonder quality has increased?
If a book doesn't find a home because it is a Joyce style masterpiece, you can always travel back in time and sell it to a published there. If time travel alludes you, then you need to write a book that can rise to the level of quality produced by traditional publishers today.
I think that is enough sucking-up for one day. But remember, if you want publishers to cut corners for your book, you have to accept that other books will be extended the same offer. And when you lay your hard earned money down to buy said books, no complaining.
Hilabeans says
Well said, Mr. Bransford. Well said.
Courtney says
I think this has a lot to do with style as well.
For instance, there is a vast stylistic difference between the works of Cormac McCarthy and Charles Dickens.
I really don't think McCarthy's books would have gone over well in Victorian England, however sacrilegious that thought may be…
Andrew says
Okay, so publishers in the past were "a) worried about the bottom line and b) busy publishing books that were reflective of their own times."
And publishers today are busy publishing books that were reflective of our times.
Tell me, how does this disprove the proposition that our times are short-sighted and crassly commercial?
Anonymous says
Timing *is* everything. Mostly this is becuase often the validity of a published work depends more on its acceptance by an audience at the time it is published than its supposed or actual literary merit/genius.
If I were more mathematical, I would devise a formula. It would be complicated, but someone would note its perspicacity and possibly find an answer that allowed them to sleep at night after their 3rd form rejection.
Nathan Bransford says
Andrew-
You're going to have to work pretty hard to convince me there was ever an era in publishing that wasn't short-sighted and crassly commercial. While, of course, at the same time producing what are now considered classics. Heck, some of the classics were considered crassly commercial.
Rick Daley says
If said book is not out of print, then it is published by today's publishing industry.
Seems like simple logic to me, am I missing something?
Andrew says
Jill Edmondson: "By this, I am referring to a number of school boards in Ontario that do not want "To Kill a Mockingbird" on the high school reading list."
No school board in Ontario is trying to ban this book.
One parent of one child at one Toronto high school has made a complaint, and asked that the book be removed from the curriculum of one school board. No decision has yet been made.
Board representatives have defended the book. The board is not trying to ban anything.
Terry says
"Best Sex Writing 2009" would not have been published back in Nathaniel Hawthorne's day, even if the title was "Best Sex Writing 1851."
Nathan Bransford says
Terry-
"Best Sex Writing 1851" is definitely a book I would pay to read. To the archives!
Ink says
I'm sure Hawthorne had his saucy side…
Andrew says
Nathan: indeed, publishing has always been crassly commercial. Just as long as you're willing to admit it. 😉
From time to time, though, publishers have been more willing to take risks. David Sedaris may be openly gay, but he's not a risk to his publisher in the same sense that, say, Richard Brautigan was.
That willingness to take risks, too, moves with the spirit of the times. And right now, we don't got it.
Nathan Bransford says
andrew-
I think it depends on what kind of a risk you're talking about. Mainstream publishers certainly aren't taking many risks at the moment, but there is a whole slew of small presses who are carrying the banner of experimentation.
I think you're right that willingness to take risks move with the times, but I also think the fact that literary works is so far out of the cultural mainstream has more to do with culture than with the publishing industry.
Annalee says
What gets me about that question is that if you're looking at a famous classic, you're probably looking at something that massively influenced–and probably continues to influence–the market.
If you filed off the serial numbers and sent them off to publishers/agents, (and yeah, I know the stunt's been tried before), the form rejection you get back probably isn't going to be because they thought it was rubbish. It will be because (a) they think it's well-written but derivative (of itself, and all the books derived from it already), or (b) they recognize it, but there's no way for them to tell if you're a smart-alec blogger or a lunatic who believes the original author used time-traveling brainwaves to steal the manuscript from them. So they're sending you a form reject to make you go away.
So before we've even gotten to the part about how all books exist in an historical context, we've already nixed 99% of all classics.
Laura Martone says
I think it's also important to remember that many great literary voices of yesteryear weren't necessarily appreciated in their day either.
Laura Martone says
You know, like what Bryan said. Thanks, Ink, for beating me to the punch.
—
word veri: fanders – like MOLL FANDERS?
Marilyn Peake says
It seems to me that many of the discussions on Nathan’s blog for the past couple of weeks has centered around the huge struggles writers face in getting a literary agent and publishing deal, the huge struggles agents face in selling books to publishers, and the huge struggles publishers face in selling books to the public. A few minutes ago, I stopped over at one of my online writers’ groups and found an incredibly inspiring story, DO NOT GO GENTLE… about the dedication of one writer, Len Joy, told from his perspective. It gave me the courage to persevere. Enjoy.
Anonymous says
I think the point that the pointless question is making is writing style has changed drastically and we've all been taught the classics are so great when they are "horrible" examples to learn from craft-wise.
Some of the changes are good. Other changes seem to happen for change's sake. We tend to dumb down everything to the common denominator rather then forcing a higher standard.
Elaine 'still writing' Smith says
The definition of "statistically unlikely to be published" has to found in the dictionary under B for Brontë: all three sisters in a parson's cottage in the middle of West Yorkshire?
Phyllis says
Arguments that compare past and present publishing usually suffer from one flaw: The authors quoted to support the argument are celebrated classics. Some of them were successful in their times, even bestsellers, some of them had to struggle for years before they became longsellers.
But they weren't the only writers who published. The rest of them are forgotten. Some of them were successful in their times, even bestsellers, some of them struggled for years to escape oblivion and failed.
Here's a link to all bestsellers of the 20th century:
https://www.caderbooks.com/bestintro.html
I recognized precious few names from the beginning of the century. And I bet the ones I didn't recognize were loved by their publishers for their commercial appeal.
Hollie Sessoms says
Any era that would not publish David Sedaris sucks big stinky eggs.
Phyllis says
Arrgh. The rest of them is forgotten.
Mira says
There is no question that there is so much more access to publishing than in previous eras. Women, people of color, LGTBQ, religious minorities can all publish now, whereas even 100 years ago, if you weren't white, male, straight (or in the closet), dominant religioned and had connections, well good luck to you.
Which is truly wonderful.
But one of the reasons there is such access now is because people fought hard for it.
One should always question the time that one is in. That is how we grow as a community.
On the other hand, there have been great improvements. You are absolutely right to point them out and celebrate them!
GhostFolk.com says
ink — Melville was forced to give up novel writing and spent the last 20 years of his life working and writing poetry.
Really? I thought he married money. Oh well. He should have.
Ken says
An even better question to ask is– especially in the children's PB genre– would this be published if this author weren't a celebrity? I don't have a problem with mainstream celeb books since they're typically about the celeb, but I think the trend of publishing celeb authored children's books has been detrimental to the genre in so many ways.
Marsha Sigman says
Besides not having Stephen King, which would be a crime, we would not have J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter. Think about it, there were people in this day and age that protested it was satanic. It would never have seen publication during Jane Austen's time.
I am right where I want to write.
Ink says
Ghostfolk,
Yup, Melville was a customs inspector in New York. Apparently even an honest one.
Genella deGrey says
During a tour of – I think it was Margaret Mitchell's house, we were told that she first submitted "Gone with the Wind" on a well-used legal pad with random scribbled scene notes stuck in-between the pages.
That would SO not fly today.
🙂
G.
Gina says
If anyone thinks anything is different in publishing nowadays please read this superb article about William Golding´s struggle to get Lord Of The Flies published:
https://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article6801942.ece
It´s a blast and cheered me up no end when I read it first (especially since it has a happy end).
Sample:
¨Faber's reader scrawled along the top of the letter that the novel was an 'Absurd and uninteresting fantasy', and concludes with the verdict 'Rubbish & dull'.¨