Originally published at The Huffington Post
One of the more challenging aspects of being a literary agent is dealing with the incredible deluge of submissions that pour in every single day, twenty four hours a day, from all corners of the globe and for every type of project imaginable. I don’t keep precise stats on the number I receive (it’s hard enough just to answer them all), but in any given year I receive somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 query letters from aspiring authors. Out of those tens of thousands I reject all but a tiny handful of them and take on perhaps three to five clients a year.
Contrary to the myth that an agent is sitting at a desk cackling as they read the submissions from the supposedly untalented masses, I loathe sending rejection letters. Loathe loathe loathe. Not because it’s tedious, but because honestly: who am I to be telling someone they’re not worthy of publication?
Well… who am I? I’m a literary agent, and my job hinges on having a good batting average at the sorting process and pulling gems from the virtual pile. I have to use my knowledge of the industry and hopefully some skill to find what will ultimately sell to a publisher.
But as I search for the diamonds, every day I have to pass on the life’s work of cancer survivors and abuse victims and war heroes and many more people who spent hours upon hours of their life writing a novel in the faint hope that it would someday find publication. I don’t enjoy sending these rejection letters, and I never forget that on the other end of the letter there’s a person out there whose day I’m probably ruining and whose dreams I’m chipping away at. What makes these books unworthy, other than the fact that it simply wouldn’t be profitable to publish them in print?
The lack of commercial viability of 99% of the books written every year necessitates all this rejection. I can only take on the books I think I can sell to publishers, and aspiring authors receive this judgment in the form of a rejection letter. But the very nature of commercial viability in the publishing world is changing quickly with the transition to e-books, and I think it’s ultimately a change for the better.
The Print Funnel
In the print era, there was a good reason to create a funneling process rife with rejection: making a book and getting it to readers is a costly process. It requires extensive and expensive infrastructure (production, printing, warehousing, shipping, retail) and realistically there were only a finite number of books a publisher could publish and still have a chance at making a profit.
All the other books that, rightly or wrongly, were viewed unworthy: they disappeared into drawers, never to see the light of day. While many of the vanished manuscripts were likely passed on for good reasons, who knows what masterpieces and gems were lost to bad guesses?
Luckily, the e-book era is changing all of that. Anyone can upload their work to the Kindle or iBooks or insert e-book store here and make their work available, and thousands of authors are currently doing just that.
Contrary to another publishing myth, I’m not an agent that’s opposed to self-publishing, nor do I see it as anything close to a mortal threat to the world of literature and publishing. People fret as a swarm of books hit the market, many of poor quality, but I don’t see any reason to fear the deluge at all.
Let’s face it, folks: the deluge is already here.
The Digital Deluge
Walk into any large suburban bookstore and you’ll find tens of thousands of books to choose from, more than you could possibly read in an entire lifetime. Head on over to your friendly neighborhood online superstore and you’ll find hundreds of thousands more. We’re already faced with (literally) millions of options when it comes to choosing a book. And guess what: faced with all that choice we are still able to find the ones we want to read.
No one sits around thinking, “You know what the problem with the Internet is? Too many web pages.” Would you even notice if suddenly there were a million more sites on the Internet? How would you even know? We all benefit from the seemingly infinite scope of the Internet and we’ve devised a means of navigating the greatest concentration of information and knowledge the world has ever seen.
So what’s the big deal if a few hundred thousand more books hit the digital stores every year? We will find a way to find the books we want to read, just as surely as we’re able to find the restaurants we eat at and the movies we want to see and the shoes we want to buy out of the many, many available options.
Infinite Choice Instantaneously
I grew up in a tiny farming town, and for me a fun afternoon consisted of standing in a rice field and shooting things with a BB gun. I didn’t have a friendly neighborhood bookstore to peruse, and as this was pre-Internet I certainly didn’t have a lot of choice in what I was able to read. My choices were basically limited to what was stocked at our small-but-awesome library and whatever I was able to wrangle from the small-and-not-awesome mall bookstore over 30 miles away.
Not only did my experience growing up give me the skill to shoot dirt clods with the best of them, it also gave me a tremendous appreciation for the importance of choice (because let’s face it, nothing gives you an appreciation for choice like not having any). I probably would have bankrupted my parents if I had regular access to a Barnes & Noble growing up, but I would have loved it!!
And now we have even more choice than a big bookstore. Instantaneous access to every book you could ever want to read: how could this possibly be construed as a bad thing?
The Sound of Silence
Clay Shirky, author of Here Comes Everybody, notes that we’re moving from an era where we filtered and then published to one where we’ll publish and then filter. And no one would be happier than me to hand the filtering reins over to the reading public, who will surely be better at judging which books should rise to the top than the best guesses of a handful of publishing professionals.
I don’t see this transition as the demise of traditional publishing or agenting. Roles will change, but there are still some fundamental elements that will remain. There’s more that goes into a book than just writing it, and publishers will still be the best-equipped to maintain the editorial quality, production value, and marketing heft that will still be necessary for the biggest books. Authors will still need experienced advocates to navigate this landscape, place subsidiary rights (i.e. translation, film, audio, etc.), and negotiate on their behalf.
What’s changing is that the funnel is in the process of inverting – from a top down publishing process to one that’s bottom up.
Yes, many (if not most) of the books that will see publication in the new era will only be read by a handful of people. Rather than a rejection letter from an agent, authors will be met with the silence of a handful of sales. And that’s okay!! Even if a book is only purchased by a few friends and family members — what’s the harm?
Meanwhile, the public will have the ultimate ability to find the books they want to read, will be unconstrained by the tastes of the publishing industry, and whether you want to read experimental literary fiction or a potboiler mystery: you’ll be able to find it. Out of the vastness of books published the best books will emerge, driven to popularity by passionate readers.
Sure beats shooting dirt clods.
Photo by Isabelle + Stephane Gallay via Creative Commons
){kind=link}
tnt-tek-
Well, one of the things that Clay Shirky points out in HERE COMES EVERYBODY is that 50 years after the printing press was invented, Johannes Trithemius published an impassioned defense of the scribal tradition. Only he published it via the printing press.
I don't know. The idea of anyone being able to upload a book and expect people to buy it and then only those of us with sales will get anywhere freaks me out–and not so much as a writer but as a reader.
I want a gatekeeper there making sure the stuff I read isn't just pure crap, which, by your admission 99% of what's out there isn't publishable.
As a writer, I'd like to be able to actually make money at this one day. I write because I love to write, but this is more than just a fun hobby for me. This is something I put a lot of effort and work into. I do that with the intent that I might one day be able to have a commercial product that I can sell. The thought of only ever being able to sell a handful of books is freaky and certainly not worth the investment. If that was all I'd ever accomplish, I'd probably stop bothering to spend months editing when I finish something and just move on. The handful of people who would read it can read the version I print out on my printer because obviously they'll just be friends and family anyway.
Really, though, the whole concept of ebooks meaning anyone has a chance has me worried that we'll lose readers in general. I wouldn't keep reading if almost everything I found was terrible. I'd limit myself to only things someone recommended or a few writers I knew I could trust.
I think if anything it's more disabling to a new writer. It's like the concept of self-publishing, to me. There's a reason why most self-published books don't sell much, and a reason why a lot of readers don't like to read them.
I think, if anything, we'll find people becoming *more* dependent on publishers and even less likely to buy random ebooks.
As for the internet/too many websites concept…actually I do say things like that. 😉 People ask me why I don't often read blogs and my reason is because ninety percent of them aren't any good. They're boring or poorly written. The only blogs I read are industry related or by professionals. I'm one of those people who inwardly cringes every time someone says, "Oh, I started a new blog! You should come read it."
I wouldn't say it's a problem of there being too many, but a problem of most of them not being worth reading. I apologize to blog writers out there, but it's true. So yeah, there are definitely people out there who actively avoid certain things on the internet because of experiences with them. Unless I see it linked on the site of someone I trust to have good taste, I won't bother opening it.
In any case, I just hope I can get into the business before any of the stuff you mention happens.
I agree with the silence issue, but I still haven't seen an argument about the bottom-up method that makes me feel anything but dread about it.
People who are worried that a deluge of self published, badly written books will overwhelm and possibly obscure better, professionally edited books are overreacting. When you log onto Amazon to shop for ebooks, the titles you find right away are the same titles you'd see prominently displayed in a Barnes and Noble. That is, the books published by the biggies and being pushed with the most marketing money behind them. People who have the chutzpah and energy to market their own books now have a real shot at it and those of us who need the backing of editors and agents can still go the traditional route with the same possible success as always.
Terrific post – it's great to see someone in the industry embracing this change. What concerns me is the negativity many of us e-publisher are facing. The purported simplicity of e-publishing is diluting our credibility. People need to understand that there are two types of self-publishers: vanity authors and enterprise authors. The latter treat the process as the entrepreneurial venture that it is, and are thus more likely to succeed. I very much look forward to the day that happens.
So what happens when the lights go out? What are you going to read then? EMP anyone?
Or –
What happens when you are taxed or charged for every hour of your electronic devises because the carbon footprint of a self-published writer has become too big?
Just adding to tnt-tk's thought. I'm crawling back in my cave now.
Great discussion. I think there are too many uncertainties about what is going to happen to the industry for a writer to try and second quess anyone's move. But, I do know that what ever trend the industry is driving, it will profit them more than the writer.
You mention the printing press as a great change, but really wasn't the manuscript still on paper – just easier to read?
In my library I have books once owned by my grandfather, a few by great grandparents, with their signatures in the front. What will my Great grandchildren have of mine without paper?
Wouldn't self publishing be limited to only those with money to pay for it? Hey, isn't that what's happening in politics?
Very cool thoughts and comments. I like the vision of the future you present. ;o)
You said:
No one sits around thinking, "You know what the problem with the Internet is? Too many web pages."
I say:
Quite the contrary. I think about that A LOT. It's precisely the problem indicated by phrases such as "drinking from a firehose", "Finding a needle in a needlestack". "everybody will be famous to 15 people", etc.
I call it the problem of finite human bandwidth. Think also signal to noise ratio. The bigger the Internet, the more places for the good stuff to hide.
You said:
Would you even notice if suddenly there were a million more sites on the Internet? How would you even know?
I say:
Not sure if the number is a million, but at some point search engine software will begin to fail to scale.
You say:
We all benefit from the seemingly infinite scope of the Internet and we've devised a means of navigating the greatest concentration of information and knowledge the world has ever seen.
I say:
Remember Sturgeon's Law. Who could deny that 90 percent of the Internet is crud?
Just a counterpoint,
-Steve
On another subject –
You said:
But as I search for the diamonds, every day I have to pass on the life's work of cancer survivors and abuse victims and war heroes and many more people who spent hours upon hours of their life writing a novel in the faint hope that it would someday find publication. I don't enjoy sending these rejection letters, and I never forget that on the other end of the letter there's a person out there whose day I'm probably ruining and whose dreams I'm chipping away at. What makes these books unworthy, other than the fact that it simply wouldn't be profitable to publish them in print?
I say:
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting here, but as I read between the lines in this and the immediate surrounding paragraphs, I seem to detect that you're not entirely happy with what you're doing. How long before you reinvent the profession of "agent" as a facilitator for a writer's self-publishing / e-publishing efforts?
Or am I imagining things?
-Steve
Very good post Nathan, I loved reading it.
The thing that jumped out at me was the enormous plethora of queries you get every year! Absolutely mind-boggling.
My question is how many of these 15 – 20k are serious attempts, and how many are people who just hammered out a 50k nanowrimo kinda thing and forwarded the unedited, raw draft straight to you with nary a proper query?
Well-reasoned and well-stated. Thanks.
Brilliant article. I love that, as a reader, I have such a huge selection of books to choose from in today's world. I purchase books from a wide array of publishers: large publishing houses, indie presses and self-publishing. I’ve learned how to evaluate which books are probably going to be good, by looking at excerpts, reviews, awards, etc.
Hi,
Great article and, personal statement echoing all those who've gone before on this theme!
I don't envy you your job, nor have I sought a lit agent on my return to writing (after a break)for the very reasoning behind your statement: "elusive diamond in a desert"
I'd probably do better sending my ms to a sheikh, he might actually pick it up and at least read it!
Seriously. Every author out here thinks their novel "a diamond in a desert!" and yeah, there are some gems out here. One sees them all the time entered in blogfests, on writer sites and blogs.
Have to admit I'm fascinated by the industry in general from all sides of the grinding mill. That said, there's less pain involved in rejecting than being rejected! 😉
best
F
Interesting post and comments.
Dan's comment makes me think that eventually only the very wealthy will be authors. Becoming an author already requires investment. In this vision of the future, you will have to pay more for success: the more you can afford to spend to promote your work, and the more you can afford to gamble that this promotion will lead to success, the more you can afford to pay for independent editing .. etc. Then there is the expense of the technology for writers and readers and the total dependence on electronics ..
BTW, I'm confused re. self publishing and self-internet-publishing leading to mainstream publication, as I've heard that this can adversely affect the possibility of the work being taken on by a publisher or agent, and is usually prohibited for work entered in writing competitions.
Apologies if this is covered somewhere on the blog already.
Jumping on the Negative Nancy bandwagon here… but all I get out of this is that the future of publishing is going to look a lot like Authonomy.
My main concern (like a lot of others here) is quality. Critique groups are great, but advice is easy to ignore and a lot of writers (myself included) have larger-than-justified egos which can only be cowed when faced with an onslaught of cold, hard form rejections.
In this future where the most popular books will be written by tech-savvy, people-friendly entrepreneurs there won't be any drive to improve the writing itself- rather the focus will be on marketing skills and image.
Without that extra push from a respected third-party (agents, publishers etc) I fear a lot of writers will become complacent and self-satisfied with their craft.
(But thank you for writing this post, Nathan! Discussions like these are important to have IMO.)
An interesting post, Nathan, that moves in a strange arc from the rejection process to the changing nature of publishing. I agree with pretty much al of what you say, except for the role of publishers – do you really think they will still be "one stop" houses? I would have thought it much more likely the skills you mention will fragment and form clusters of specialised expertise. That would seem to be the kind of lean, flexible model that the speed of the new era demands, with authors able to commission an editor and cover designer simultaneously, for example, and in each case to choose the one best suited to them rather than the best one in a particular publisher?
Nathan,brilliant article, one of your best as it puts it all into a 'nutshell'. It's honest, far thinking and takes some of the scare out of the mania for all things electronic.
I recently queried you ( The Assassin's Village) and despite you saying the project was not what you represent,I'm not deterred – there are alternatives out there self-pub etc,etc.
Thanks
Faith Mortimer
Great post, Nathan.
I wonder though, if the agent/publishing process will chsnge for the better.
I'm all for smaller publishers taking less of a chance on a lot more authors by offering eBook contracts first, followed by a print contract if it does well (something I've benefited from).
However, I don't think it's all silver-lining – at least, not quite. There are an awful lot of less than scrupulous people out there, who'll be trying to take advantage of folks.
I believe we'll see a huge increase in the number of 'Pay us and we'll publish your work on the net' scams.
As a self-published author, I see one big missing piece of the puzzle: moolah, connections, and know-how on sales, marketing, and distribution. I wrote a good book, I went through all of the hoops, I had it edited and printed, I listed it on Amazon, I threw a launch party. Plenty of people I didn't know before have given me great feedback on the book. But it still didn't break even. Five years later, now that eBooks are more of an option, the cost of entry is lower, but the problem is still the same – getting the word out. That's why this time around I'm steeling myself for the long, dark rejection process.
But thanks to your article I think I'll sign up for an internet marketing class, too. Your insights are always valuable – thanks for the superb blog. -Bethany
Great post, Mr. Bransford!
Considering my chances at publication *at all* are practically zero, I didn't hold off on ePublishers when I first started querying. I know that flies in the face of agents who adamently oppose ePublishing, but they should try toiling away on this side of the Slushpile for a few years.
As for form rejection letters, I LOVE THEM! Anything is better than not knowing what happened to my query or requested material. I absolutely hate a form rejection on a Requested Full because it takes an enormous amount of work and emotional energy to get that far, but I'll happily take it over no response at all.
This may have been addressed already, but say if an author chooses to digitally self-publish his/her book first for e-readers, and the book has success in that format, would a traditional publisher ever pick it up for print publication?
I read unsolicited mss for a few years–it's very depressing rejecting mss. Rejecting all those people feels terrible–no way I'd ever do that again. So I see where Nathan is coming from, about how these people will have opportunities to get their works in print. I think the problem is that 99% of people have no perspective on their writing. I don't think hiring a freelance editor is the answer either. I hired a well-known freelance editor (industry insider) to give me an overview of my mss. He gave me a totally softball critique–said it was great blah blah. My friends gave me better critiques. He was just doing a job, not putting his reputation on line as an editor at a publishing house would. Same experience when the last five of my children's books were farmed out to an outside editorial service–practically no revision required, while I had to completely rewrite several of the first books in the series when the inhouse editor was working on them. So I don't think epublishing or self-publishing is the answer–at least for quality work.
Gazing into a crystal ball, scrying, foreseeing the future in the present, what is it about editing and reviewing that will change in the marketplace due to technology?
Freelance editors presently employed in the U.S. roughly 130,000, twelve percent self-employed freelancers. Government growth projections remain flat over a ten-year forecast. I disagree. Freelance editors providing editing services for emerging writers will grow by twenty percent.
Authors and writers presently reporting writing as the main source of income, 150,000. 25,000 expected increase over a ten-year forecast. Review writers are included in Bureau of Labor Statistics.
My predictions don't agree with BLS in either regard. I expect growth of twenty percent, mostly from dual income source writers keeping their day jobs and developing writing careers.
I'm a freelance editor. Here's the thing. Most writers, all writers in my opinion, want or need an editor and are willing to pay for the service. Nondiscretionary editing for mechanical issues, like spelling and punctuation and grammar, averages about $0.50 per Standard Manuscript Format page, known as light copyediting. For that matter, I need a copyeditor for my writing too.
Medium copyediting does the nondiscretionary things and fact checking and touches on big picture structure and aesthetics filtering and legal concerns. Rates vary widely from $1.00 a page up to several dollars per page.
Heavy copyediting does all the light and medium things and scrutinizes structure and aesthetics at the tiniest level. Rates vary widely from $0.35 per word into dollars per word.
Conscientious freelance editors don't make changes. We offer suggestions.
An emerging type of editor is the developmental editor. Developmental editors don't rewrite manuscripts or even write them in the first place. We offer suggestions for enhancing structure and aesthetics. I'm but an apprentice in that regard. However, the writing trends I see most often are unsettled voices, overt author surrogates, and unreconcilled plots.
That's the nitty-gritties of editing.
Reviews. First of all, most readers make up their own minds about what they'll read or won't. In many instances, it's a nonconscious process of selection. Marketplace conventions "code" covers, blurbs, jacket flap synopses, front matter, back matter to appeal to target audience brackets. Savvy book buyers seek out secondary discourse, reviews, blog commentary, Google Books and Amazon and B&N book sampling before purchase.
The growth area up and coming for promotional reviewers is in online reviewing and commentary. Good reviewers generate promotional buzz. Excellent reviewers write enticing pitches, bracket content for target audiences' interests, and report on accesses and sources. Promotional reviewers don't bad mouth like a restaurant critic panning the local bistro. But they don't sugar coat a sow's ear either.
I foresee promotional reviewing emerging as a new art form due to technology.
I foresee freelance developmental editing emerging as a new art form due to technology.
I foresee some heavy hitting online review and editor personalities emerging as superstar celebrities, the way film and sports and entertainment cultures celebrate superstardom.
I foresee more people reading, more people writing, more people reviewing, and more people editing, and all turning a worthy profit as well as enjoying the rewarding satisfactions of contributing to the arts.
You're being aggressively reasonable again, Nathan. Stop it–the other agents will start talking about you.
Publishing is beginning to follow the music industry. And there's a lot of crap being peddled by their gatekeeper system as well. Sony kill dreams and Universal buries them. Musicians are getting better feedback directly from their audience. Even if it's only 40 people in a gutted church. A couple of those gigs, and soon they have a 1,000. They sell direct to the fans, online. Word of mouth spreads. They make an experience of it, they provide artist/audience interaction.
Criminey, look at Amanda Palmer and how much her career has taken off in the last two years. She's not rolling in dough, but she's undoubtedly successful.
Konrath may be the AFP of the book world.
And I agree with someone else here who noted the errors, bad editing, half-hearted distribution, and passive aggressive marketing–the big houses are no longer your assurance of quality.
I appreciate the article, but like many others, am still unsure of what to do with my own manuscript. Maybe I should go over it one more time, then try this digital publishing thing.
I found one posted comment here offensive. The commenter doubted that, "people will have the knowledge and experience to pick great books," and "there is something to be said about people not being able to continually choose only books that speak to their own biases. I worry that people's reading will become even more insular than it already is."
Holy Cow. That type of thinking is truly scary. Not only does it carry the 'superior' tone of one who feels elite and believes he knows better than the 'masses,' it brings to mind the "insular" thinking of oppressive dictatorships who have little understanding of the freedom and independence we cherish in America. It is a lack respect for those that think and feel differently on issues. I sure hope this person is never in a position to decide what the rest of us can and can't read.
Fortunately, his statement was also naive. We already have, as you noted, a wealth of reading material at our disposal and the freedom to choose what we wish from it. The lack of digital material does not diminish our ability to read what we want to read.
The one thing that confused me about the article itself, though, was that you were "standing in a rice field." From what I know about rice fields – frequently referred to as "rice paddies," I'm having a hard time picturing that, much less shooting at dirt clods. Perhaps there is a method of growing rice I haven't heard about.
Now I have to decide if that bit of knowledge was overlooked due to lack of available books on modern rice agriculture, or my own insular tendencies to avoid boring reading material.
A very cogent argument. I, for one, appreciate the insight. Even though I have a technology background, I’m having difficulty embracing the idea of the digital book. I don’t think I could enjoy reading an entire novel from an electronic display of bytes but apparently, as usual, I am in the minority. My debut thriller novel, rejected by many of the best agents, was shortlisted for a Debut Dagger by the Crime Writers’ Association and won first prize in the Genre Fiction Category of one of Writer’s Digest international contests, among other awards. I’m wondering now whether it should be released as an e-book. Many people have told me that it would make a great movie and has a timely plot: identity theft. Would an e-book release help to get the attention of a film agent?
c. 1450. Very, very early publishing industry conference.
"No, really, Hans. We'll no longer be constrained by anything when it comes to print media–seriously! Anything and everything in print, now that we don't have to funnel everything through those pesky monks and their slow copying skills. No more gatekeepers, no more rejections. This printing press thing is crazy-awesome!"
Well, almost how it went down.
Fascinating post, thank you. Thanks also to Mystery Robin for those interesting quotes by Martin Luther and Edgar Allan Poe.
lisa-
Ha – I wasn't usually standing literally in the field, but on the small levees that separate fields (we call them checks). Because yes, while it's growing rice fields are flooded. And since it's extremely dry in Northern California during the summer there are lots of huge dirt clods.
Any thoughts on where this will leave literary fiction?? Most of the self-published works that seem to make it "big" appear to be more genre oriented. Plus, lit fiction writers, I think, are more wedded to the notion of traditional publishing as a marker of quality–and I think lit fiction writers "need" that approval more, based on the hoops they jump through to try to get short stories published in literary journals, many decent ones which now charge submission fees.
So psychologically I think just putting your work out there will be harder for the literary fiction writer (who has probably been over his work a million times and is unlikely to have the sorts of errors people still assume self-publsihed works have) because he needs outward approval. Couple with the smaller audience to begin with for lit fiction, I'm just wondering how this will go…
Second (and last post) on this thread:
I am surprised by the number of people that think the quality of books/writing will take a downward spiral come the deluge of self publishing. No offense to Nathan or other literary agents, but I have long felt that the publishing industry in the US often caters to the lowest common denominator (as does television and the film industry) because, sadly, the lowest common denominator sells.
How many people even read Ulysses any more? I am not trying to sound like a snob but the greats are greats for a reason and I'm curious if anyone that's been on a bestseller list in the last 5-10 years will be compared to the greats in a few generations. Maybe, but probably not.
For me, I choose to read/buy books that are short listed for the Booker or other similar awards as I trust the judges (vs. literary agents which have to represent works that will SELL) that don't care about capitalism as much as they do about quality. Sorry for the rant and I hope I didn't offend anyone!
Nathan,
I've been reading your blog for several months now, so, first of all, thank you for being so open and for sharing your knowledge and words advice for those of us learning how to navigate the world of professional publishing. For someone who is accustomed to the world of peer-reviewed scientific publishing, even with months of reading and research under my belt, I know I still have a lot to learn and I very much appreciate your insights.
This post in particular really helps to put the position of any agent into perspective. With electronic submissions, there isn't even the cost of a stamp to dissuade an author from querying a plethora of agents, but 20,000 letters a year for one agent is more than I ever envisioned. It's rather mind boggling actually (good heavens, how do you have time to do anything but read queries???). I can't even begin to imagine how difficult it must be to find that diamond in the rough and how many manuscripts come close but are just not quite what you're looking for. Even those that are close will get that much-loathed rejection letter.
As the digital deluge grows, I think the role of the agent and, in fact, the role of everyone in the 'print funnel' will be to separate the wheat from the chaff. Variety is a wonderful thing and the digital age will allow those who can't pursue their dreams in the traditional manner to still produce and share their work on the global stage with those who are interested. But now, more than ever, the 'traditional' industry will have a more selective role and will be instrumental in bringing forward the best of the best.
Thank you for a very thought provoking post…
Your calm and hopeful tone is so welcomed in this discussion. Thank you.
I think you hit the nail on the head. As trusted filters develop, be they review sites, sales stats, etc, readers will come to find ways to sift through the noise of all the available titles flooding the market and find the real gems. Writers will have more direct access to markets and readers. Roles will certainly change, for everyone involved. It will be interesting to see how it all evolves.
~jon
Just by way of a side note.
Before copyright laws had some force of law behind them protecting writers' interests, literary agents were copyright pirates.
Publish a popular book through serial publication first, then through a bookmaker, and before the first production run is even off the presses the darn thing is wending its way to all corners of the globe. Literary agents were first in line at new releases, if not pirating from the galleys or piecing together serial publications. That was a hundred years or so ago and had been going on since Guttenberg. Cultural evolution in practice as a consequence of the spread of technology.
Very good article that will be debated longer than you think, since there are emotion-laded opinions on both sides. E-publishing and self-publishing satisfy the growing need of people to share their writing, and since none of us can be objective about our own work, we could make the mistake of presenting material before it's ready.
Nathan –
This change bothers me on two levels.
First, there's something to being published that confirms that "you made it." It's like taking that first Major League at bat. All that work and all that time has paid off and you've been recognized by professionals in the field. More than that, a finite few get to that level so you will always have that satisfaction regardless of the success of your book.
Second, I don't really trust "the masses." The masses have already taken over music. It's getting increasingly harder to turn on the radio and NOT hear somebody associated with American Idol or some other fabricated art producer. I'd hate to see the literary world dominated by generic books. Maybe it already is. Maybe I'm old fashioned. I just like to know that the art I'm reading was created by somebody with a passion and an idea rather than a corporation with $$ sign goals.
This post makes a lot of sense, Nathan. Your most interesting point is what traditional publishing workers will still provide in the new digital publishing landscape. I'd love for you to expand that paragraph into a full article some day – it's something that needs expounding from people in the know, like yourself.
Nathan,
I'm looking for some advice. I have the first of four novels in a YA Fantasy series finished. I have put it through the hands of some really talented people, and I think it is good, and extremely marketable. That being said, I would really like to get it in the hands of an agent, because I'm sure a true professional could do amazing things with it and my MS would be so much better.
This is my first novel, and I have no credentials. I have yet to hear a positive response from an agent (0 for 9 so far).
Do you recommend self-publishing or continuing in the traditional route?
Part of me feels like I would be selling my dreams short if I publish myself. And call me old-fashioned, but I've dreamed of holding an actual, physical copy of my book in my hands, complete with my name on it.
Advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for this blog and opening up the clouded world of the publishing industry to regular schmucks like me.
I think now is a time of great change and your follow up comments helped me to understand more plainly what wasn't expressed in the article about your personal approach. It's always a good time to become a better writer and navigator of the rich spectrum of life experiences aye, that never changes.
brianw-
Since at this point 95% of the market is still print, and the best way of reaching the most people via print is via a traditional publisher, and since the best way to reach a traditional publisher is via an agent, I would still advise people to try and find an agent first.
Times are changing though, and there are authors who have had great experiences self-publishing electronically. So I think it's up to everyone, and don't forget about this post on whether you should self-publish.
The big money is still in traditional publishing. Sarah Silverman received a 2 million dollar advance for her book, "The Bedwetter."
If an author just wants to write and share his work without thought to profit, many avenues are available: create a blog and post the book, self-publish, and in the summer of 2010… perhaps consider "pubit." All of these other options, in my opinion, will generate small financial gain.
And the traditional market has changed. Look at the NY Times list of bestsellers. You have two books that are listed: "Skinny Italian," (I love love love Teresa Giudice), and "Sh*t My Dad Says." I think I can correctly conclude the first book was co-authored? Maybe not.
"Sh*t My Dad Says!" I don't know… It is marketing genius. It gives the public what they want, I suppose. Times sure have changed. Years ago, that crap would have been used for toilet paper. It is the sort of note-passing stuff that used to get kids sent to the principal's office. It is the stuff that would make a Bill Paley turn in his grave. I showed some of that to my friend and he said, "This is proof the end is near."
I taught grade 6 and my students could write more creative, impressive, and imaginative work. I do not like referencing the material of other authors, but it was necessary to make a point regarding this topic.
Jack Kerouac layered his work with profound themes. J.D. Salinger knew the art of true wit. And Charles Dickens? He never would stand a chance today.
Yes, indeed. Publishing has changed because what is published seems to be determined not by quality but by what will sell. So authors should be happy they have these other options. At least it gets the job done. It gets the work out there.
But in the end, it's sort of sad, huh?
marjorie-
I don't know, it seems to me that books like SHIT MY DAD SAYS have always always been published. We remember the classics from every era, but it's not like those were the only books published, and in most cases they weren't the most popular either.
Nathan—I found this blog post heartening. It is very important to delineate between those who write and market books as a business concern, and those who write primary as a means of self-expression and connection with others. As a writer, and yes, a cancer survivor with a story to tell, I would be perfectly satisfied if I ever published a book that sold thousands, hundreds, heck— even tens of copies. Success is in the eyes of the beholder. What might be a piddling number of sales for a large, profit-driven publishing house, sure doesn’t sound like silence to me!
Really great post with a lot of speculation and insight about the future of publishing. People say that the printing industry's going down in the dumps. Maybe so, but publishing and literature itself is certainly here to stay. 😀
~TRA
https://xtheredangelx.blogspot.com
Very nice, Nathan. Your sensitivity and caring show, and that's why we like you.
Ray Rhamey
This makes sense… but there's one glitch in the "filtering". Even if you have a brilliant book, it can be very hard to generate sales equivalent to those for an awful book pushed by a publisher: and there's no guarantee that a publisher will pick up a book that has poked its head above the water level. I've sold 4,000 books since September, almost all at primary schools, all through my own efforts. But I can't persuade any publisher or any agent to represent me…!
I had a neighbor in Baton Rouge 30-something years ago who used his air rifle to shoot stinging caterpillars on the trunks of his trees. These buggers have prickly, pronged stingers that cover the top and sides of their whole bodies. A stinging, burning sensation occurs at each point these little spears come in contact with your skin, occurrences which by design almost always happen in multiples. Many people wrap foil around the bottom of their trees to make it hard for the little pests to climb up them. I think John used the air rifle method for its therapeutic benefits. I can see how dirt clods can provide education and entertainment, as well as therapy. It is no wonder that you are so normal and well adjusted except, of course, for your monkey fetish.
I really liked your post. It was very informative. Equilibrium will prevail. Writers can get their work out there by mainstream or otherwise, and readers will have broader choices. The Wild West lives.
re: Agents aren't middle men
yes, hadn't thought of that, point taken