Amid news from Amazon that another domino has fallen in our inevitable (yes… inevitable) conversion to a primarily e-book reading society, there is one relic of the print publishing process that could very well end up falling by the wayside: the slush pile.
Much maligned, much feared, much sneered at, the slush pile is a repository of hopes and dreams for the authors who populate it, and a Herculean and Sisyphean task for those charged with making the pile go away to make way for the deluge still to come. The slush is full of half-baked ideas, the truly out-there, the very occasional undiscovered gems, but mostly good-solid efforts by perfectly respectable writers, who are up against simple math that simply isn’t in their favor: maybe one in a thousand, if that, make it from slush pile to publication with a major publisher, and the odds are getting steeper by the day.
And yet with the transition to e-books, the slush pile could very well be one of the print-era relics swept out in the digital tide. When publishing one’s book is as simple as uploading a document to an e-bookstore, who needs someone to sort through all those manuscripts to decide which ones should be published?
Writing in Salon, Laura Miller wrote a cautionary article about the literary consequences if everyone can easily become a published author, and she had harsh words about the slush pile, while respecting its importance:
You’ve either experienced slush or you haven’t, and the difference is not trivial. People who have never had the job of reading through the heaps of unsolicited manuscripts sent to anyone even remotely connected with publishing typically have no inkling of two awful facts: 1) just how much slush is out there, and 2) how really, really, really, really terrible the vast majority of it is. Civilians who kvetch about the bad writing of Dan Brown, Stephenie Meyer or any other hugely popular but critically disdained novelist can talk as much trash as they want about the supposedly low standards of traditional publishing. They haven’t seen the vast majority of what didn’t get published — and believe me, if you have, it’s enough to make your blood run cold, thinking about that stuff being introduced into the general population.
Needless to say I don’t share Miller’s fear about releasing the slush into the wild for the reading public to sort out, but I definitely agree with her on one count: the world is divided between those who have read slush and those who haven’t.
If you haven’t been exposed to the constant fire hose of submissions, if you haven’t had to spend afternoons rendering instant value judgments on short summaries of magnum opuses, and developed the ability to instantly tell good writing from bad: well, you’re missing out.
If you’re a writer, in my opinion there’s no better education than reading slush.
Reading slush, of all kinds, trains you to spot what works and what doesn’t. It forces you to spot clues that will instantly tip you off to whether a manuscript is working or not, and even better/worse, you’ll start spotting them in your own writing. And when a terrifically written book comes along and sucks you in you’ll appreciate it that much more, knowing just how rare they are.
Maybe most importantly: reading slush reminds you that publishing is a business.
While I don’t know anyone who thinks any slush pile-based sorting process is perfect and surely there are gems lost along the way, any book that makes it through represents the collective seal of approval of quite a few people in the publishing chain.
At least…… it does now. Soon, we could very well have a world where the slush pile is sourced out to readers themselves, who will likely turn to tastemakers and trusted publishers and brands to find the books they are interested in reading.
I by no means think the slush pile will go away entirely – anywhere there’s a bottleneck and a tastemaker there will be slush – but it could lose its primacy in the author’s (and agent’s) life. Instead of the agents being the first line of defense, slush will become more diffuse among different and varied people, and will be less of the place where a book’s ultimate fate is decided.
And if you’re a writer, I say: read it while you can.
Need help with your book? I’m available for manuscript edits, query critiques, and coaching!
For my best advice, check out my online classes, my guide to writing a novel and my guide to publishing a book.
And if you like this post: subscribe to my newsletter!
Re: Are Monet's haystacks supposed to look like slush piles?
A reference to "needle in a haystack," when it comes to finding good material in a slush pile?
Speaking of slush…I think it's easy to tell if your work is "awful" or "garbage," or any other colorful description of poorly-written work…just read passages from several books considered good, or successful, then immediately read a passage from your own. You either stack up against the others, or you don't – it's quite glaring (I find).
Here's something I really hate – you go to a lit journal website, and they have a list of author's names…no bio info, no info about their work, no quotes, nothing…you've never heard of any of these people before…and you're just supposed to click on the link to their story or whatever, based only on their name….it's like when you go in to vote, not realizing judges are on the ballot, or some obscure commissioner, and there you are in the voting booth, staring at 2 or 3 names of people you've never heard of…now I take the names of everyone I vote for with me, even if it's for "dogcatcher," so to speak…
I thought the "catalog" I got from Graywolf Press the other day was really good, every author got their own page, a photo of the book cover, a few paragraphs of quotes and explanatory material…it only had 20 pages. That is, it's easier to make the decision to buy something, when there are fewer choices presented…
Also, I'm reading a book of Marina Tsvetaeva's prose (great writing, so modern), and it's from the Ardis Russian Literature Series…I like the idea of a series of books on a certain topic (or authors from a certain geographical area) etc, because again, it makes it easier to make a decision to purchase, than randomly trying to figure out on your own.
Now how this relates to slush piles…gatekeepers, maybe…
Crap. Then there'd be no Slush Pile Hell, either.
Hillsy: I'll take Bill Murray over Miley every single time. In fact, I'll take him over just about any celebrity being offered.
I've also had the slush-reading experience on Authonomy, and I also recommend it.
I gave up on participating heavily site once I realized that the only way to reach the top was to spam the heck out of people, but I had a great experience there with both receiving and giving critiques, and by meeting other writers.
I've also kept my book on the site as a way to share my early chapters.
Interesting. I've heard that writers should try to avoid bad writing, so they don't have their own writing tainted. Yet, I've always been a critical reader, even more so now that I'm writing. I learn just as much from the bad writing as I do the good. And let's be honest — those bad stories that got published give me hope that my story is probably good enough.
I had a minor skirmish with the microcosm of slush piles – cold reads for a writing conference. As the coordinator, I read all the offerings, ditched those that didn't follow the rules, and then took the first thirty that were left. (I did say micro, lol) Since it was my job to read them to the panel, I read them beforehand so I wouldn't screwup anyone's story.
OMGoodness. I did find a couple of gems, but the majority made me pine for those papers my tenth graders gave me – the ones that caused me to grind my teeth and left my eyes in a permanent expression of surprise.
I love that the readers are able to find more to read, with indie authors able to sell their work directly to the public. Is some of it horrible? Sure. But the slush won't sell, and the good will rise. It's happening right now. Awesome.
I tend to agree with the general premise: more of the slush will be, and is being published.
But what, besides an individual's own taste, preference, and perhaps knowledge of what "sells," determines a "great" book versus one that is rejected because, while not "bad," it just isn't what will sell millions of copies and make a publisher tons of money?
I still contend what is wrong with the premise is the implication that books that do make it out of the slush pile are necessarily better than some that don't. After all, whether a book remains as slush or doesn't is up to someone's subjective taste and decision. As it has always been.
Except now it's interns, or poorly paid entry level folks, as opposed to say, an actual editor (as in the days of Maxwell Perkins). Even, obviously, at a literary agency.
Or, for that matter, that some agents'–present company, of course, excepted–opinions, or publisher's determination, is somehow better or more "qualified" than the general reading public.
It appears to be true that people like to be given recommendations, suggestions on who or what to read next. That does not, however, necessarily translate into a fact that what people are reading based on a friend, family member, or even well-known or respected critic's recommendation is, in fact, any good.
It just means that, because of the recommendation, people will buy it.
That's one reason I'm a huge fan of the customers' reviews on Amazon. Presumably, the review is by someone who has bought the book, read it, and now wants to share an opion of it. As opposed to someone either given an advanced, free copy, or with a financial interest in the success of the book, such as a publisher's publicity department.
I disagree that essentially subjecting readers to the slush pile is an end to the filtering process, or will requuire a return to filters after the initial shock wears off.
What exactly is wrong with the "reading public" becoming the true arbiters of taste? Other than, of course, its eventual relegation of the existing arbiters to the status of, essentially, all the other readers out there with opinions–based on their interests, preferences, etc?
Picture, if you will, where a river meets the ocean. Imagine the flow going upstream. That's more or less the ocean of slush agents must contend with before passing on a purified version to the editors at another bottleneck and from there to the end customer.
Marketing vs word of mouth will probably play a key role in any such dystopic literary future where each reader must trawl the ocean waters for good reading.
Marketing, as a top down approach, pushes what the publisher thinks the reader wants. Word of mouth generally works from the grass roots.
Neither is perfect, but in a world without a filter of some sort, I don't look forward to a new job as slush comber simply to find entertainment.
Whoops! Sorry anon, my reply came off more strongly than I intended and in the process of deleting mine I deleted yours too. I wasn't offended by the question, which was about the instantly recognizing good/bad writing. As I had said further up in the thread, I have to pass on good writing all the time, and yeah, every agent has passed on books that have gone on to be successful. I'm not trying to say I can instantly divine the quality and prospects of books, just that in general I feel that time reading slush makes a reader better attuned to good/bad writing.
This is interesting. I was speaking with a member of my writer's group the other day, and we both observed that when reading other writers' work for our critique group, finding things that we didn't like, or even blatant mistakes helped us look for and avoid these same foibles in our own work.
So I agree that reading from the slush pile would be excellent training for any writer.
Nathan –
If you're still reading comments…!
Can you explain the new service that Bowker is introducing? Sounds like they will read the slush for publishers?
See:
https://www.bowkermanuscriptsubmissions.com/publisher/learn-more.php
Most important, what will this mean for my favorite web site, Slush Pile Hell?
(Yes, I've read slush. Lots and lots and lots and lots of it. And you do get very fast.)
URL got cut off. Let's try that again.
https://www.bowkermanuscriptsubmissions.com/publisher/learn-more.php
I think any writer who has spent a significant time workshopping their book on a site where peer reciprocation is involved, can get the basic idea behind the slush pile.
Only in the workshopping arena, we're also required to read a certain amount, pick nits, offer editorial advice. We can't just say, 'Pass, thanks'.
So, while we aren't required to go through a slush pile daily, we are fully aware of the 'really horrible writing' out there from writers who could eventually go on to self-publish if they wish.
That said, I've read some really bad books on workshops that were SO BAD, they'd come around to somewhere in the campy/funny area. Sometimes BAD writing is fun to read. That's why there are websites devoted to those types of things.
That said, I wouldn't want to have to go through a pile like that daily AND be the dream-squasher!
I'd prefer to read, reveiew, give a thoughtful, helpful critique and move on, guilt-free.
The Catholic girl that I once was still has guilt issues, and giving some writing help for a 'bad' piece of work feels like sowing seeds in the garden of heaven;)
Ha!
😉
closetspacemusings.blogspot.com
Nathan:
What do you think of the blog, SlushPile Hell?
Having spent a good part of the previous year reading the slush on Authonomy.com, I concur that it is definitely a most valuable experience. And yes, a means of asking the readers themselves to sort the pile for the publisher that runs it. You get to see all kinds of stuff that will never make the grade, and it's easy enough after a while to see how your own work compares. It was the best and worst part of being on the site, an experience to which one can truly say "been there, done that." How you guys at the agencies manage to sort through it day after day, year after year is beyond my ken.
Having spent a good part of the previous year reading the slush on Authonomy.com, I concur that it is definitely a most valuable experience. And yes, a means of asking the readers themselves to sort the pile for the publisher that runs it. You get to see all kinds of stuff that will never make the grade, and it's easy enough after a while to see how your own work compares. It was the best and worst part of being on the site, an experience to which one can truly say "been there, done that." How you guys at the agencies manage to sort through it day after day, year after year is beyond my ken.
1 in 1000 from slush to publication? That has to be the most disheartening statistic I've ever heard.
I was in charge of a short story contest for a few months. The most entries I read in a month were about twenty, but I definitely understand what you're saying. My writing can easily be divided into what I wrote before, and after, the contest.
And during, I suppose.
I read manuscripts for eighteen months. It was a valuable lesson and a horrible experience. The poor quality of writing, the lack of believable characters, and plot holes big enough to drive a Buick through were disheartening. The majority of manuscripts were submitted way too early, lacking editing or even spellcheck! I believe the experience has made me a better writer in general, and I don’t trust that self published works are as good as the author thinks.