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.
clindsay says
THANK YOU FOR WRITING THIS!
Oy. A huge pet peeve of mine from whiners…
Literary Cowgirl says
Annie Proulx would have been Allen Proulx, because not very long ago (fairly recent, astually), that sort of writing would be unacceptable coming from a woman. And Broke Back Mountain? Well, let's not even go there. We are blessed to have the classics on hand, and so many contemporary works breaking barriers. I can't wait to see literature in another 50 years.
Other Lisa says
Love this post, and Gina, love the article about Golding and LORD OF THE FLIES. I thought his editor had a great piece of writing advice:
At the end of his letter Monteith concedes that “the allegory, the theophany, is the imaginative foundation”, but insists that “like all foundations” it is “there to be concealed and built on”.
Carolyn says
Thank you so much for this post!
I adore you for this.
Jeff Adair says
Excellent post. You are right on the money.
Terry says
Thanks, Nathan, I'd like to read that one too. Dig deep.
Ink, yes, Hawthorne could be saucy but it was all off-stage.
I may have been the only kid in school who loved Hawthorne and Thomas Hardy, no less.
Teenage angst, no doubt.
wendy says
Good point, Nathan.
Just goes to show how important it is for the book/piece of literature to reflect the culture of the time or advance the cultural awareness to the next level. Oliver Twist did this so well and Uncle Tom's Cabin. (I believe as I've not read the latter.) But Oliver Twist – a book about children being forced to work in terrible conditions in the UK in the 18th or 19 C. – would make for a strange read today. Whether Uncle Tom's Cabin would have some relevance today I can't say for sure as I've not read it – just about it.
One thing that these books illustrate to me is none of us should blindly follow the values and beliefs of the majority or those of our current culture. We should question everything, try to prove everything, decide for ourselves what is real and true.
Jenny says
Another interesting question/point of interest would be to see how many books were published back in the day that are not classics. In George Eliot's "Silly Novels by Lady Novelists" she lists a few books that haven't made it to today's bookshelves–making her point that there was a lot of not-up-to-par writing. But I bet that those 'silly books' were the money makers for the publishers. And Eliot and Dickens and Austen still made it amongst all those other silly writers!
Whirlochre says
Now we all have zippy underwear, the lure of the Walking Tent Look diminishes (though we may still yearn for the homely cotton feel).
Andrew says
Nathan: indeed, and when you bring up small presses, we get to the crux of it. Many great books — Ulysses, for example, are products of small presses.
And in Canada (where I'm calling from), small presses are still an important piece of the publishing economy. The career path of most writers still begins with a small press; if the first novel gets good reviews, doors open.
But something has changed in publishing, globally, over the years: the industry has become increasingly centralized in a small number of super-publishers. These companies are much more profit-driven than are small presses, and it's these guys who are accused of being timid and crass.
How many genuinely bold literary experiments — game changers — have been launched by major publishers in the past thirty years?
I'll tell ya what. I'll bet you can't name one — and if I win, you represent my book. 😉
I do agree with you to an extent — but it's also true that the centralization of the industry has changed things.
Robin says
Great post, Nathan. A dead on comeback to the publishing complainers of this world.
I know that I am happy to be in the era I reside in. To echo what Marsha said "I am right where I want to write."
graywave says
What this says to me is that what is considered good writing is a matter of current fashion. (See Finding a Good Novel.) If you want to be published it is essential to understand what the current style is and to practice it. It is definitely wrong to believe the current style is in some way better than styles that have gone before.
Nick Kimbro says
I agree with most of this post, although I think you have to admit that before market indexes and statistical feedback and all the other things our technologically and capitalistically advanced civilization has to offer,there was pehaps a little bit more room for personal vision on publishers' part.
christicorbett says
What a great "flip" to a longstanding, and quite silly, arguement. Definately makes a person think.
Now, I've got to get back to my last round of rewrites so one day I can be published and have people trash my book 🙂
Christi
https://christicorbett.wordpress.com
Cheryl Gower says
Some in our writers group have been discussing a related matter–are we "selling out" our English language and grammar for the sake of the almighty dollar? or to be trendy? There are many of us who think so. It's a sad day when a phrase is ruled a sentence; when commas are no longer required to separate a list of adjectives; and when writers blog with no care to spelling or capital letters. Our thinking is that whenever one writes, it should be done well. I just read a short story, and although it was poignant and moving, the author wrote in phrases for the better part of the story–and it WON!!
Gina says
Andrew – good point. Some things are different after all nowadays.
Takes me back to the interview with Georges Borchardt Nathan linked to recently, where GB said he would like to see a new generation of gentleman publishers and less corporate shenanigans.
Crystal says
I always find that a stupid comparison anyway. Considering a lot of the authors back in the day self published themselves, or started at a big publisher, it's just a stupid thing to say. I think that people who just don't want to try and make a good MS start to wine about how it's too hard in this day and age, and so-and-so couldn't have gotten published now.
Hat Man says
Yes it is absolutely pointless. More to the point is that they had trouble getting published in their own day.
Scott says
I hear your frustration, Nathan, but I'm not buying the argument 100%. Writers reach back because those are the books that inspired us and fed us our styles. The reverse just doesn't have a natural entree into the process.
Also, the competition with technology has changed the way we read, and in many ways, dropped readership in some demographics. Men used to read more fiction. Now, they're info junkies. Coincidence? I don't think so.
I agree that the industry is just reacting to trends, but I also think it's valid to examine the past in a way that comments on the present. I'm not saying agents should fix it, but maybe it wouldn't hurt to listen.
Ryan Potter says
DOING IT & SMACK, both by Melvin Burgess, wouldn't have seen the light of day in the YA world as recently as 20 years ago.
Donna Hole says
Words to live by Ink.
Maybe you could create a section in your bookstore for those of us who have to resort to self publishing to get our "creative works" out there. You could call it the "BUY IT BEFORE THE AUTHOR DIES" shelf, and if a work doesn't sell before that eventual expiration date, feel free to remove the novel!
I do agree that comparing what would or would not have been published in either today's or a generation ago's time is pointless.
Case in fact: A couple years ago my dad asked me to write a fairy tale for him. This was about August, and I finally started the tale in early October. A great Halloween story, if I'd gotten it to him in say September. By the time I finally handed it to him (polished to perfection, I'm sure) in late November he was already in a Christmas mood, and not very amused with my offering.
All creative works in good time . . .
……….dhole
London Mabel says
Thanks for saying this. I get so tired of that argument.
Adam Heine says
"Writers reach back because those are the books that inspired us and fed us our styles. The reverse just doesn't have a natural entree into the process."
I have to disagree with this, Scott. I'm inspired and influenced as much by Dashiell Hammett and H.G. Wells as I am by Neil Gaiman, Orson Scott Card, and George Martin.
And there's a whole generation of writers who are, at this moment, being inspired to the craft by authors like Rowling, Paolini, Colfer, and Meyer.
I think the reverse (i.e. inspiration and influence from today's books) is the most natural entree into the process. For myself, I only reach back to see how it used to be done, not necessarily how I should do it now.
J.J. Bennett says
I personally like to think those writers would have been too classy to make a comment of that nature. I think it shows malice and unprofessionalism…
Dominique says
That is so true.
I cannot help wondering, with the number of people concerned in our day that J.K. Rowling is turning kids into devil worshipers, what would have been done with Ms. Rowling 200 years ago.
Vacuum Queen says
All I know is, I wish there were as many MG and YA books available to me when I was young. A lady in B&N the other day kindof scolded me about the books I had piled up on the checkout counter. "Today's children's books are rubbish." I told her I was looking forward to reading them before I gave them to my kids.
So I guess feel like Guardians of Ga'Hoole and Warriors and other fun books for kids would've been a hit back then. There were probably kids like me waiting for MORE to check out from the library.
Other Lisa says
Wow, I can't imagine why @anon 11:07 PM's comment might have been deleted…
Some of my best friends are straight white men (really!), but seriously, the assumption of privilege that your post embodies is something you might want to work on, seeing as how it's the 21st century and all…
Ink says
Anon,
You're really Charles Dickens, aren't you?
The Rejectionist says
No, that Anon was actually Harold Bloom. Great post, Nathan!
Ink says
Gordon,
The point is that we're not rising or falling… we're just humans, muddling along the same as always. There are challenges, preferences and prejudices in every publishing age. There's not much point in romanticizing the past and bemoaning the present. Which is not to say you can't advocate for things in the present if you think you have a goal worth promoting. But that advocacy should be rooted in the present reality rather than an idealized past.
Mira says
Lol.
Anon, you're pretty funny. You rely on Nathan's 'open-mindedness' not to delete your post, and then proceed to insult him personally and call him every name in the book, including 'narrow-minded.'
Your argument has similar inconsistencies.
I think you're trying to say something, that may very well have some value, but it's really lost in the rant.
Mira says
Ink – your 6:07 post. Really good.
Anonymous says
I believe it is Nathan who is censoring my posts, which really only proves my point – he's narrow minded.
No one should feel threatened by dissenting views, even mildly insulting ones, because anyone with a healthy sense of self esteem can weather a few barbs. Which proves, he's not only narrow-minded, but weak minded as well.
When one is a true advocate of art and of free thought and expression
the very idea of censorship is loathsome to them, thus he is not arbiter of art, he couldn't be, he's a seller of goods, no more, a cog in the wheel of delivering crap to the consumer, he's one more (of many) "general mills" of the publishing world.
Censorship is the retreat of a the weak and fearful.
Censorship is the antithesis of art.
Who said those thing?
Tracey S. Rosenberg says
What bugs the hell out of me is when people submit, say, Pride and Prejudice to mainstream publishers, and then claim that its rejection is proof that no one recognizes good literature.
Um, that, or they DO recognize good literature and want nothing to do with the crazy person. But no, no, it MUST be a problem with the publishing industry….
Mira says
Anon 7:08
It's not censorship for a blog owner to have rules of posting. It's their blog.
In terms of this blog – my experience is that Nathan is extremely fair minded. It's admirable how open he is.
Try expressing whatever you are trying to say here without the insults, mild or otherwise. It would probably stand.
But regardless, no one is censoring you. You have every right to start a blog and post your viewpoints.
And that's really about all I have to say about this – I don't want to get into a big argument, if that's where this is headed.
Best wishes.
Ulysses says
I occasionally wonder what the author of Gilgamesh would have gone through to get published back in the day. His rejection pile must have made fascinating clay-tablet reading:
"I'm sorry, but there's a glut of flood stories on the market today."
"The plot's good, but I found the character of Utnapishtim unsympathetic."
"Enkidu dies? After all the effort the reader's invested in empathising with him?"
"An interesting memoire, but we don't feel it will appeal to the larger population of illiterates here in Ur. Good luck placing it elsewhere."
Ink says
Anon,
Funny, I always thought insults were the refrain of the weak-minded…
And you're free to say whatever you want. That doesn't mean other people have to publish it. You can go insult people on your own blog. I'm sure they'll be thrilled.
Susan Quinn says
Whether today's bias is any better or worse than yesterday's bias is beside the point. We have to write in the present.
For the record, I think Nathan is a stellar individual for all the time and effort he puts into this blog, which many, many people find of tremendous service (myself enthusiastically included).
I'm concerned about navigating the biases inherent in an industry I'm new to (since I'm still working on that darned first novel) – they are there in any industry. The authors of days past that wanted to push the limits found ways around them, to varying degrees of success.
Of course you should focus on writing your story, the one you want to write – but you also have to know how things work, what the visible (and invisible) blockages to publishing are, if you hope to be published some day. Isn't that what blogs like this are purporting to help us do?
Today, I think the industry, and society as a whole, is more open to multicultural, gay, previously-under-represented-group type publishing, with agents actively soliciting these kinds of stories. But what is the industry more closed to? I don't agree with the name-calling, but the valid point that's getting lost is that there are biases. I'm not qualified to say what they are, being too new in this industry, but I would like to hear what others think they are. . .
Anonymous says
Just found your blog and already my eyebrows are singed. In my critique group this very week, we ranted about how Hemingway's novels would never sell now! Shame on us!
Anonymous says
Susan Quinn states her opinion very well, kudos.
However, I dont think that its so much a case of an active bias perse in the pub industry, but more of a pervasive, almost monolithic, like mindedness. Its almost to the point of a cult of personality is guarding the gates and I see more and more writers are not writing what they want, but writing to please the gatekeepers.
That's the death of art.
Nathan Bransford says
I agree with Susan as well that every era also has its biases, including this one. Further up in the chain someone linked to Eric's post about the New York-centric nature of publishing, and I do think some miscalculations are made because there is a disproportionate number of people from similar backgrounds: the stereotype of an Ivy Leaguer with a privileged background isn't true of everyone in the industry, but it's very common.
I don't agree with anon though, about a cult of personality or writing to please the gatekeepers. The gatekeepers are just the messengers – we're only following the market. When publishers decide to buy a book they almost always do so by committee. It's not one or two people deciding everything, it's a big mixture of people. Collectively those people can indeed be led astray by collective biases and there are indeed some people with a lot of sway, but writing to please one gatekeeper would be pretty pointless.
Nathan Bransford says
anon@7:08-
You're not a freedom fighter; please spare me the lecture. You're welcome to post if you can find a way do so in a respectful fashion. Otherwise I'll continue to delete your comments.
Jean says
I hear you. Why don't we go in reverse? 🙂
Ink says
Hey, that's sort of funny – I now have this picture of Nathan's inbox full of queries with main characters named Nathan Branton and Nate Brimsford.
Nathan Bransford says
anon-
If you think so little of me I don't know why you'd deign to spend your time here.
Susan Quinn says
Nathan – I trust you're right about the Ivy League Insider being over-represented in the publishing industry, and that having an impact what gets published – I'm just not sure what that impact is. But it helps to know that going in, to hopefully understand the publishing "world" better, in all its glory and warts.
BTW, thanks again for being Sheriff Bransford and keeping the peace. Sorry it's a lousy job.
Ink says
Nathan (or anybody else),
Would you say the quality small presses have more variance in terms of their members (ie. their backgrounds)? It would make sense, really, in terms of personal opportunities, and might explain some of their willingness to take the risks that make the New York publishers leery – that is, their interests, tastes, and concerns might be different.
Nathan Bransford says
bryan-
Not to my knowledge. I think their experimentation has more to do with the fact that they're content with reaching niche audiences and don't tend to be as profit-centric as the NY publishers.
Mira says
Yes, I think small presses are the risk-takers – sort of like indie movies.
If we have a bias today, I think it might be more toward making money.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I remember that incredible interview Nathan linked to…someone mentioned it earlier. And that man said publishing used to be run by rich men who would back an artist even if they weren't making money.
So, I think when people complain that the classics wouldn't be published today, it's because of the focus on the dollar and the bottom line.
Oddly enough, it doesn't work well. The publishing industry is not making as much money as it could, by a long shot, imho.
Nathan Bransford says
I sort of agree with you, mira, but I don't know that there was ever an era in publishing that wasn't profit-centric. There may have been a bit more patience to let authors develop and to invest in them rather than being very focused on the short term and to lose money on certain authors they believed in, but the entire infrastructure of publishing was built on profits. The industry has never been run by philanthropists.