THEY can’t judge a book without its cover.

jerry phoenix · Nov 19, 2008

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article784051.ece

The exercise by The Sunday Times draws attention to concerns that the industry has become incapable of spotting genuine literary talent.

KTC · Nov 19, 2008

I actually don't like that this stunt was pulled. It's insulting to the publishers and agents who were victimized to prove this point (I couldn't see anywhere that anyone knew that this trick would somehow be played on them). I can totally understand how published books could be rejected. Each well written book has its own home. To put the talent of these agents/publishers into question is underhanded and despicable. To have the two authors say that there is NO TALENT these days because their books weren't pounced upon when this test was done...that's just as despicable. Shame on them. Shame on all involved.

KTC · Nov 19, 2008

There's more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article784029.ece

jerry phoenix · Nov 19, 2008

'It's insulting to the publishers and agents who were victimized'

were you one?

KTC · Nov 19, 2008

Yeah. No.

Nakhlasmoke · Nov 19, 2008

Oh please.

So the form rejections of a few agents are a sign that the industry is incapable of spotting talent.

*sigh*

We've seen this kind of stunt before and I'm sure the agents have too.

Boring.

Exir · Nov 19, 2008

Times change.

Each writing has a historical, social, and political background and context to it, so good writing 100 years ago is not necessarily good writing today.

Take Charles Dickens. His writing style is directed at a very specific audience, and his style of writing would be considered as way, way too wordy by publishers today.

I don't think the studies prove anything, other than the fact that things have changed.

Exir · Nov 19, 2008

Oh, and it also shows that writing is extremely subjective.

Go figure.

jerry phoenix · Nov 19, 2008

so good writing 100 years ago is not necessarily good writing today.

?????

what rubbish.

Marian Perera · Nov 19, 2008

The world changes?

what rubbish.

Nakhlasmoke · Nov 19, 2008

*sigh again*

Let me guess, the next thing we're going to get is a rant about how publishers and agents can't see genius when it's slapped in front of them and so you're going to self-publish?

I could be wrong. I'd like to be.

jerry phoenix · Nov 19, 2008

a (hopefully well writen) rant is never far away on this board.

Marian Perera · Nov 19, 2008

Feel free to write one, then. Unless you have another link to something we've all read before?

Captain Ian · Nov 19, 2008

If I don't like a book, I will not suddenly like it if it has won a prize.

Exir · Nov 19, 2008

jerry phoenix said:
so good writing 100 years ago is not necessarily good writing today.

?????

what rubbish.

Perhaps all you are trying to do here is to start an argument, and nothing I say will change your mind, but let me just elaborate on my point with another example.

Let me give another example of a writer whose writing is very time specific. Jules Vernes.

His books are very good books, and many would call them classics, but if you show the books to a modern readership unaware of their background, it would be pretty darn hard to get them excited about electricity, submarines, flying machines, light bulbs, etc. Try submitting Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea to any modern publisher, and I guarantee that it will be rejected. Why? Because submarines are not novelties anymore.

Okay, that may be a clumsy example, but my point is to illustrate that books can not be judged and taken outside of its background and context.

KTC · Nov 19, 2008

Many tremendous books were rejected prior to publication. If published books remain unknown to agents and they review them for publication...they might see any number of reasons why they would not sell in today's market. Good writing is only one factor. This scam is the rubbish. Books go in and out of fad. The two authors should have just kept their mouths shut when asked their thoughts, or said that it was a ludicrous thing to do.

jerry phoenix · Nov 19, 2008

Queen of Swords said:
Feel free to write one, then. Unless you have another link to something we've all read before?

oh meeow

Exir · Nov 19, 2008

And yes, that would apply to literary novels as well. They are also affected by time, albeit more subtly.

Marian Perera · Nov 19, 2008

jerry phoenix said:
oh meeow

You're funny. Post more.

jerry phoenix · Nov 19, 2008

Nakhlasmoke · Nov 19, 2008

Jerry,

Because you're fairly new to the site, you won't know that we see this kind of thing quite regularly.

It's not that we're pissed with you - but rather with the stupidity that goes into these kind of stunts just so that some reporter with only the vaguest grasp of the book publishing industry can go" nyah nyah nyah, agents don't know shit and that's why they rejected my amazing work of great and terrible beauty etc"

Sorry it seemed as if we were attacking you, it just gets tiring.

Stick around, and you'll soon see how the industry really does work.

Marian Perera · Nov 19, 2008

jerry phoenix said:
more

You should submit this creativity to an agent, Jerry.

Polenth · Nov 19, 2008

So how many rejections did they get the first time around, back in the 1970s? I noticed the article didn't mention that. Twenty rejections is peanuts (and it was then too... things haven't changed that much).

KTC · Nov 19, 2008

What I would find interesting is if the same ~~witch-hunter~~...er, I mean reporter...polled the same number of present day book buying/reading public to find out what their thoughts are on the two books. The 'reporter' may find that none of the readers like the aforementioned books either. This would reflect on present market...not on the writers who obviously had their egos flogged. If the readers were to give the books the thumbs down...then it is obvious that they agents/publishers made the right decision in rejecting the books.

scarletpeaches · Nov 19, 2008

Everyone is allowed to not like a particular book; even agents and publishers.

There are plenty of prize winners I'd toss aside because quite frankly, they bore me.

And maybe, just maybe, these people concerned recognised the books and rejected them because they were bored with the same old trick being pulled on them which countless idiots have played before.

So they rejected these novels? So what? Does that mean every agent and pulisher in the land would? Even if so, big deal. They're allowed to not like them.

THEY can’t judge a book without its cover.

Almost expert!

Stand in the Place Where You Live

Stand in the Place Where You Live

Almost expert!

Stand in the Place Where You Live

yes

Out of the cradle endlessly rocking

Out of the cradle endlessly rocking

Almost expert!

starting over

yes

Almost expert!

starting over

Out of the cradle endlessly rocking

Stand in the Place Where You Live

Almost expert!

Out of the cradle endlessly rocking

starting over

Almost expert!

yes

starting over

Mushroom

Stand in the Place Where You Live