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 (NEW!), my guide to writing a novel and my guide to publishing a book.
And if you like this post: subscribe to my newsletter!
More ways of finding slush:
1) Search for Amazon e-books with sales ranks > 1,000000
2) Anything from Publish America
In any job where you read other people's writing — as an editor, agent or even if you work in a corporate communications department — you will see a lot of writing that begs to be edited and improved.
If slushpiles fall by the wayside, and the hordes (including myself) can self-publish, I still wouldn't rely on yea or nay sayers on the web to help me choose what I should read. After all, it's only someone else's opinion, in this opinionated world.
(and that's IMO)
Wow, I'm completely depressed now…thanks a lot…lol. I wasn't even able to make your slush pile, I have no hope.
Heather N.
I think I've been reading from the slush pile already and didn't even realize it until you wrote this post.
Nathan –
You ask us where we find the books we're reading now. I'm not sure about anyone else, but I find all my books through institutional sources.
None of my friends read as much as I do, let alone have the same tastes. So, I rely on book reviews from professional critics, and whatever looks good on the front tables at bookstores.
These venues for finding books are built entirely on the current publishing model. I have never purchased a self-published book, nor do I wish to. When there are so many great traditionally published stories out there, why take a chance on a book no one else seems to believe in? Amazon reviews alone do little to sway my interest.
My favorite comment on this thread so far is Dan's at 2:06 p.m. It's like he climbed into my head and stole my thoughts. Thanks, Dan, for so eloquently stating this opinion.
An eBook future means fewer publishing houses and fewer agents. As a result, a lot of authors will either have to hire freelancers, which are costly in this economy, or package and promote their products themselves. All of this time and commitment, and maybe nothing to show for it.
Quite frankly, some of us have to work for a living.
Even the music industry is somewhat better off in this scenario. In addition to selling their singles on iTunes, they can also earn money through concerts and merchandise.
With authors, there's generally one main income stream: the book. And if they're fighting for the consumer's attention in a marketplace of thousands of previously unpublishable writers, it's a toxic environment for those who have honed their skills.
So, Nathan, while I agree that eBooks might give more first-time authors a chance to be read, it simultaneously decreases their odds of actually finding an audience. Especially if we lose national publishing houses and professional reviewers.
There's such a thing as too many options.
Scott – While you certainly have a valid opinion, I do take issue with your Hollywood comparison.
While word of mouth is playing a bigger role in what movies are successful, by and large, most movies are made by Hollywood studios. They have the marketing muscle to make their products visible to millions of potential consumers.
People who make home movies generally won't see them in theaters across the nation.
That's the thing about what's happening with the book industry. New authors might be thrust into the world with no backup. If we no longer have publishing houses to make our work visible, it doesn't matter what the "value" of the book is. Stephenie Meyer published her books traditionally, and they were a huge success. What're the odds she would've sold as many copies if she self-published?
I think it's hard to know how authors will ultimately be affected by the eBook revolution, but I'm unconvinced that it'll play entirely in the author's favor.
I think people once the majority have e-readers and most reading is done electronically, people will still need editors, publisher, and agents. Once people read the garbage that's bound to flood the system, they'll demand some type of "gold standard". A seal of approval that says, this is a good book. (Not even necessarily a well written book, but a good book.) And you can trust me becuase I published the same books you read on paper.
The publishers and book sellers who find ways to exploit the technology, will be in business in the coming era, and those that can't figure it out will go bye bye.
I tend to disagree with arguments saying that authors will have fewer opportunities to make money under an ebook / slush system. I think it's an exciting time for new authors. There will be an opportunity for any subject to reach its niche audience thanks to tools like google and internet forums. While a traditional publisher might frown on a book about vampires who sell babies as delicacies to other big-spender vampires, there is surely an internet audience that is looking for something exactly like that. Not me, but someone. 🙂
Anyway, self-publishing or publishing through an ebook store will give us a broader range of stories and yes, that will include both gems and crap, much like the slush pile. But the stories that resonate will always find readers. It's just the nature of this crazy art. I say, bring it on!
Having recently joined a few online writing groups and critiqued other people's work I actually do have an inkling of just how awful the slush pile probably is.
Are Monet's haystacks supposed to look like slush piles?
That's interesting. I'd consider it far more useful to inundate oneself with positive examples (classic literature) than negative examples (the slush pile). More enjoyable, too.
An interesting and valid point about the slush pile and how much you can learn about the art of writing by dredging through it.
While quite happy to read pb and buy hc of my favorite authors, I also own an e-reader and enjoy digital books (I did a "test drive" for Sony last summer and had to write reviews on my experience). I don't fear a digital world of books, nor do I feel a world that allows anyone and everyone access to publishing. I can decide for myself if I like a book, just like I can decide if I like a website…granted visiting a website is free and buying an e-boo isn't but most books offer some type of "blurb" and if it was good enough to convince me to spend my $, slush pile quality or not, that's my own problem – at least it's me making the choice.
Nathan,
I have read "slush," as you refer to it. I have read what some consider to be "bad writing."
And the I Am a Nobody wins. One agent's slush is another's blockbuster.
Publishers, in my opinion, may find gold by searching through the slush.
Competition is! With that said, the issue is subjective. The reality: Who you know may override how well you write. Has publishing ever really been about talent or rules? And we can not forget arrogance!
Emily Dickinson wrote the lines “I'm Nobody! Who are you? Are you — Nobody — too? Then there's a pair of us! …
She was in the slush pile. Compromise is not necessary.
It is better to live and die true to oneself than to live in the confusion of rules set forth by intellectuals.
Vivian Dixon Sober
victoriouswomen.wordpress.com
As much as I don't look forward to a barrage of bad e-books, this post oddly brought me comfort. Thanks Nathan! *tired of slushing around*
It seems e-publishing could follow in the footprints of Authonomy, where books are as much a popularity contest as a piece of writing. Rate my book, I'll rate yours. Reading not necessarily required.
Books become vehicles for ads (banner ads and skyscrapers in the margins of your e-books, anyone? Skip this ad to go on to the next page.)
This is our dystopian e-book furute.
WORD VERIFICATION: cannu. As in, cannu handle the coming a-pocalypse?
Damn it, that was supposed to be e-pocalypse…
WORD VERIFICATION: solan. And thanks for all the fish.
Nathan: "There is already, literally, a million books to choose from and we manage to find the ones we want."
I agree. The volume of new books published each year is like a slushpile for me (I'm using "slush" to mean "a lot of something," not "crap"). I never even consider reading the majority of those books, however. I have a set of informal rubrics that help me sort through the slushpile, ranging from my preferred genre to recommendations from friends or other trusted sources. Once a book passes the "get my attention" phase, there are additional filters that help me decide whether to actually purchase the book.
My point is, we all have some mechanism in place to help us find something we want to read. I, for one, am sort of excited about the possibility that I might have more to choose from. Since I like to read in a genre that's not too popular with mainstream publishers right now (historical fiction dealing with something other than royalty), maybe e-publishing will bring me some choices I wouldn't have had otherwise.
(I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago on my blog and was more eloquent there, ha ha – Musing Reader )
I have read slush. I also feel like I have to wade through the visual equivalent of slush watching You Tube. Particularly if I'm watching with my kids, I'm wary of clicking on random videos, never sure if I'm going to find adorable muppets or someone's smutty-mouthed satire of adorable muppets.
That said, it just makes sense to use the hive mind to sort through the slush, rather than destroy souls one intern at a time.
Authors ought to think of the value of having their work in a private slush pile rather than on a public forum, where that First Novel is available for all time — even after they have finally learned to write.
Sounds like a distopian future for us the way it was put there. I hate the idea that slush piles WOULDN'T exsist. As much as I hate them, they ARE a gateway, a needed gateway. And I have become very thankful for the rejections I have received in the past because they told me I wasn't ready and made me strive to do better.
…but that's just me.
Regarding your comment:
"if you haven't developed the ability to instantly tell good writing from bad: well, you're missing out."
So is everything you reject "bad writing"? Are you saying that there is no one you have rejected who has gone on to publish with a good agency and publisher?
I'm just curious.
I've read slush…from the book rack at Walgreen's!
I want to add to my first post: I don't think that being part of a critique group is comparable to being faced with a never-ending slush pile day after day after day. There is a significant volume issue, and I appreciate that difference, and I feel indebted to agents and editors and assistants for wading through it every day.
At the same time, reading slush – as horrible and demoralizing and frustrating and mind-numbing and sometimes wonderful (when you find that gem) as it is – is part of an agent's job and an editor's job and an assistant's job. Even if it isn't what they spend most of their time on, it is an essential part of their job – it's how they find the next book – so they find a way to build it into their day.
But it isn't part of my job, and I just don't have the time to build it into my day. It isn't about wanting a gatekeeper to do the thinking for the general public because, as Scott and others have suggested, I doubt that there is enough intelligence to find quality in slush. It's about the time. I just don't have it, and most people don't.
Another, separate thought: there are only so many people in the world. These people only have so much time available to them. In other words, a finite number of books will be read in any given year. That's just reality; it's just numbers. If the number of books out there explodes to be 1,000 times what is currently available in the bookstore, what do you think will really happen in terms of all those newly self-published e-books actually being read? I think their odds are pretty awful. Much worse than if their authors revise, get input from professionals, continue to revise and improve, and get published by a company that has the savvy to package their work well and market it properly.
It takes at least 3-6 months of steady, 9-5 writing just to get a novel out. Even forgetting the many stages of revision and editing and polishing and assuming that an author will just write it and self-publish it as an e-book, that's a lot of hours. Is it really financially viable to spend that kind of time, and end up with something that doesn't get read by more than 5 people?
It's not because a book is well marketed that it will work for me.
Now i find books via goodread, by trusting the star rating system of people who share my tastes.
In a way, my goodread 'friends' go through a slush pile of published books for me. You have to start somewhere, and peer group has been reliable. The risk of course is to see my horizon slowly shrink.
anon-
I'm absolutely not saying everything I've passed on is bad writing. Far from it. I have to pass on really good stuff all the time.
Let's vote about it!
But seriously, those of us who are elitist, academic book snobs need to know that our accomplishment won't be cheapened just because publishing a book takes just a little more effort than blogging. We hate that there are gatekeepers keeping us out, but we know it'll be a lot worse without them.
I'm half-kidding about the elitist part, but really… consider all the work you put into a novel and the standards many writers set for themselves. It means something to be able to say x-agent and y-publisher and a-,b-, and c-reviewers vouch for my work.
I can't recall where I read it recently, but it spoke about how this turn toward the readers being the tastemakers is going to backfire in the long run. It said something about how the general reader will basically burn out on trying to sort through the slush of poorly self-published material, and will gradually turn to picking from a narrower, more trusted source. They'll choose they authors they already know and trust to write good stories.
I tend to agree with this. The general reading public isn't going to want to surf the slush. It's too much work. They want to know the books they are going to look at are good, even if it's not the thing for them. I'll be the first to admit I don't like having to hunt high and low for something good to read. I don't look online for reviews. I go to the bookstore and I get recommendations from friends. That's pretty much it. I honestly hope that the general public doesn't become the gatekeepers, because I don't believe they really want to do it. It will hurt authors in the long run.
"I'm absolutely not saying everything I've passed on is bad writing. Far from it. I have to pass on really good stuff all the time."
What would be really great is if, when agents or editors have to pass on something really good, they had time to let the author know somehow that the book really is good, it's just not for them because of x, y, and z, instead of giving no response or sending out a form rejection.
(I don't mean you, Nathan; I mean agents generally.)
I use my Kindle to download the free samples of all new releases in my genre and then read them to figure out why they got published or if they are self-published, whether I would publish them if I were a traditional publisher.
Most, even the trad-pubbed ones, I don't get past the first page.
It's a great learning experience!
Wonderful post, Nathan. To me, the slush pile is both a teacher and a diamond mine. You see the best and worst kinds of writing from the slush…and you never know what little diamond you'll discover.
Two important sides of the discussion are implied in Nathan's post:
"… any book that makes it through represents the collective seal of approval of quite a few people in the publishing chain."
There is an old saying about "poor" design:
"a camel is a horse designed by a committee"
Point is, the camel is still an awesome animal in its own terrain. Similarly, authors like Stephenie Meyer have achieved success because they wrote stories that millions of people enjoyed.
High Art is there for those who wish it, with plenty of experts pointing the way.
Back in the day, Pauline Kael was my guide on great movies. Kael could write with such a combination of knowledge and passion that she told me which movies to watch – whether she liked the movie or not.
Some were blockbusters, some not. BUT every movie I watched added to my understanding and enjoyment of film making.
Similarly, some books will be best sellers, some not. READING BOOKS leads to great books, unless you find a critic to trust.
I agree with the commenter who said that the general reading public when overwhelmed with e-books are likely to turn to the authors they usually enjoy.
I'm all for supporting self-publishing e-books but after reading samples pages from dozens upon dozens on Amazon, I am mostly* turned off by the quality of the writing and the story idea. But I'm a writer, so I pay a lot of attention to the quality of the writing of the books I pick; however, the general reading public might not as much. Don't know. So far, I've never purchased a self-published book because none of the ones I've come across have been remotely interesting to me. Yet, I'm open to it.
On the other hand, there are dozens of authors traditionally published that I've read a sample of writing and really enjoyed. I have a to-read list from those authors to keep me well read for years to come. And I suspect that I'll turn to those writers for new books first before their self-published counterparts.
I would be curious to know what you think of my writing.
I read Laura Miller's article previously.
I've critiqued a bit of work (slush) since I started writing. And I admit, it can lead to burn out. Not everything in the slush pile is good or enjoyable to read. But purchasing a book isn't the same thing as reading through a slush pile.
When I go to the bookstore, I typically head to my favorite section. I don't have to read through every single book in every single genre in order to select a book. In fact, I usually already have a book in mind before I walk through the door. Any browsing is just extra.
The E-book shopping experience is very similar. However, I get this nifty tool called a search engine. There's no need to comb through every book to find what I want. No. I type my interest and browse through the condensed list. If the list is too long or doesn't have what I want up front, I narrow my search to something more specific.
I'll be honest. Sometimes I feel like articles like that are scare tactics to turn readers against self-published authors. The truth of the matter is most self-published books fly under the radar and receive very little recognition. If people don't know about the book, it's rather difficult to look it up.
Sometimes I wonder if the fear is a reader will enter a search term and a self-published novel will pop at the top of the list instead of a novel which went the traditional route.
I'll end by saying, my experience in the publishing industry is limited to research and likely quite naive. These are just my thoughts on an issue which seems to have little impact to the reader.
In the “Amazon as slush” model, the publisher of choice will be hubris. This comment section is a prime example.
I have some strong, well-cogitated thoughts on the matter (I started this post 12 times in fact) but I saved myself the time of articulating them because, well, who cares? What will they achieve other than to sate some misplaced belief that my opinions deserve to be aired somewhere? And therein lies the problem.
At the moment I’d say I have a realistic evaluation of my writing, and a realistic valuation of my chances of publication. But remove the mechanism of professional appraisal and my 1 in 5000 chance becomes 1 in 5000000. I am not Mylee Cyrus who will explode across chat shows, promoting her career, until the only legal way to shut her up is to go and watch the damn thing. I am not without confidence; I’m modest.
While I welcome e-books as a mechanism and a format and laud the potential for increasing worldwide readership through value and innovation, while I believe an average reader’s habits may likely change very little, the continued degeneration into the shouty, shouty world of internet excess fills me with a little sadness and despair.
I understand and accept the shift will unlikely make things worse or better, perhaps a pure a ‘change’ as possible with no value added or lost, but it will favour different people and hinder others, the entrepreneur over the accountant, Mylee Cyrus over Bill Murray. The question is do we favour the arrogant, charismatic swagger or the quiet, solid confidence? I am not qualified to make that judgement – not that anyone is listening anyway.
Maybe it’s because I’m English.
This is, of course, nonsense.
People who want to see their name on a cover in Waterstones want to even though they could go down the vanity route. That avenue cannot appeal more simply because it is easier or cheaper to do so via an e-book.
You do seem to have ignore a fairly relevant point though:
Without a slushpile, you have no incoming manuscripts, and nothing to publish….
You know, there is an entire slushpile available on the net, free to read. It's HarperCollins' slushpile, and it is available at http://www.authonomy.com
It is a really good example of the bad, the ugly and the awful. No doubt there are undiscovered gems too. Somewhere in there.
These sorts of posturing comments about how agents can pick what's good and what's bad are just so much self-important crap.
Explain why it took Rowling, Meyer, Connolly and many, many others, dozens of rejections before they were published.
Sheesh!
This is what bothers me about the nice rejection letters I get (such as yours!) — I have no way of knowing if I am one of those truly awful writers that make up the majority of slush, or if I am one of the promising ones who isn't quite what you are looking for.
How will books be selected? For the impoverished, it will be the libraries who will act as filters for the use of public funds for reading material.
To Anonymous
Nathan has frequently explained why one agent will reject and another accept.
Did the author pick an agent from the correct genre? Did the author need to polish the query letter until something sparked with a particular agent? Did the author need to polish the manuscript before an agent liked it?
To Ted Cross
Nathan has also explained that TASTE is involved. Therefore a book is not bad or good but is "on taste" for one agent/reader but "off taste" for another.
I love the analogy of releasing the slush out into the wild as if it was some fierce creature, dangerous to the public. It made me laugh. Thanks!
I doubt I'll ever get the chance to read through a slush pile, but I am currently judging a few writing contest entries. A similar experience perhaps, on a much smaller scale.
A great post, and absolutely right. I spent a happy few months at the start of my career reading for publishing houses, and as an editor still get through not only piles of slush, but also the often traumatically awful first drafts of legitimate authors. And there's nothing quite like this experience for fuelling my own ambition. "Hey, I can do better than this…" is one of the most important thoughts any writer can have.
To Brian –
I know what you are saying, but all agents state that the vast majority of what they see is real garbage. Taste only gets involved when the stuff has potential. When we get a rejection letter, we don't know if we fell into the garbage category or the 'has potential' category.
What about magazines that publish short fiction, could they act as "slush" readers?
A lot of writers write both novels and short stories. I'm not sure about other genres, but SF and fantasy still have a good assortment of magazines that can introduce readers to new authors.
I think when people read a short story they like, they can easily do a search for the creator of the piece and see what else they have to offer.
This can also work with well established anthologies. Readers find short stories that appeal to them then look for more work by those authors.
anon-
Here you go.
Slush is… let's just say slush is.
I don't agree with that op-ed piece by Laura Miller. I think she's an unmitigated snob, and that's me saying it. Art is subjective and there's thousands of books I think are complete dreck, but I do understand that they may sing with utter Truth (capitalized) for someone else.
We usually get much better quality slush at The Battered Suitcase than Dan Brown. Perhaps because we're labeled a "literary" journal, commercial wannabes don't bother to submit.
We actually offer internships to writers so they can look at our slush pile and get an idea of the level of quality of short fiction stories that are being submitted. It's extremely enlightening and will make you much less bitter towards any agent or editor who rejects your masterpiece with a copy/paste thumbs down.
Having been on both, I can say that it's actually not much fun on either side of the slush pile.
No, I don't have the answer.
I say self-publish if you like. It's just electrons.
Poorly written books exist as high as the mind's eye can imagine and it doesn't bother me that many more will deluge the ewaves.
When I am in the mood to discover a new author, there is nothing greater than a strong recommendation. For example, after reading When Nietzsche Wept, I was intrigued to read that Dr. Yalom highly recommended David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas which in turn became one of my faves!
Inevitable conversion to primarily e-book reading… I don't know. I have an e-reader and spent a lot of time reading on it for the first four months. The novelty, curiosity, etc. Now I can hardly make myself use it, and it hasn't been touched for months, except to turn it on every week, notice that although I haven't used it, it needs recharging, and plug it in.
The stack of paper books is back at the bedside. I like them better, for various reasons. I'll use the e-reader when I can't get the hard copy, but given a choice, I have a feeling I'll still be buying a lot more books on paper, even at greater cost. My primary objective in reading is not, after all, to buy the cheapest book I can get; it's to buy one that gives me the greatest pleasure.
I've got nothing against either one, but that's how it's turned out for me. I don't think e-reader improvements are going to change my preference.
Donna
John – fair enough, good point.
I appreciated the comment made comparing blogs to books. I think the blogosphere is a great model for how the electronic book world may turn out: it's free, there is no standard for quality or editing except the self-imposed ones, and out of the millions of blogs out there, only a few rise to the top and get a readership (like this one). Many of the other minor ones may have a small fanbase of enthusiasts, a niche audience, and that's fine.
Maybe all this will follow the film world's studios vs. independents model. Currently the two industries share a lot of similarities (95% of audiences watch major studio features, but for niche enthusiasts there are a lot of small-time independent films out there to look through). Perhaps as the major publishers wane, we will see an "indy" book industry made up primarily of niche enthusiasts (those who read any and all vampire novels that come out, or those that are looking mostly for steampunk crime dramas with a western setting).
What a fascinating discussion!