The (weird) state of publishers

SLake · Jul 15, 2005

Anyone see 'The Editor's Tale' by John Kennedy NY Times Op-ed July14'05?!!
What a sadly weird picture he paints of an editor at a publishers. He reckons he's pretty good at spotting talent. He rejected JK Rowling's Harry Potter and a few other star writers. No big deal, he says, mingling his comments with stories of luncheons and scaling fish. He's embarrassed by fledgling writers because they are usually 'sad, lonely people with no real means of income.'
Yeah, and 'by the way,' he says, 'my wife left me.' She felt rejected, I wouldn't be surprised.
So the moral, to all you 'sad and lonely' out there,' is be aware of the blubber and baloney you may find yourself wading through before getting into print.

Button · Jul 15, 2005

No one is perfect. There are writers who can't write, there are editors who can't pick out a good book from slush.

Maybe he should consider another line of work, like writing. Since he seems a sad and lonely person... now.

jackie106 · Jul 15, 2005

Hi SLake,

Welcome to AW!

Don't get too upset about the article. Read it again. Unless he is the Forrest Gump of publishing, he didn't have a chance to pass on all those bestselling novels. If any real editor (as opposed to a first-time novelist writing a tongue-in-cheek op-ed) rejected Cold Mountain and Harry Potter, he sure as heck wouldn't be bragging about it in the NY Times.

For those who would like to read the article, here is the link.

Jackie

Jamesaritchie · Jul 15, 2005

SLake said:
Anyone see 'The Editor's Tale' by John Kennedy NY Times Op-ed July14'05?!!
What a sadly weird picture he paints of an editor at a publishers. He reckons he's pretty good at spotting talent. He rejected JK Rowling's Harry Potter and a few other star writers. No big deal, he says, mingling his comments with stories of luncheons and scaling fish. He's embarrassed by fledgling writers because they are usually 'sad, lonely people with no real means of income.'
Yeah, and 'by the way,' he says, 'my wife left me.' She felt rejected, I wouldn't be surprised.
So the moral, to all you 'sad and lonely' out there,' is be aware of the blubber and baloney you may find yourself wading through before getting into print.

\

That's a tongue in cheek article. It isn;t meantto be taken seriously. This is a dead giveaway: "N. Wizbicki for her manuscript "Spontaneity and How to Plan for It!" I remember it because earlier that day I had passed on Charles Frazier's "Cold Mountain." This was on the heels of "I Climbed Everest Without a Hat," to my mind a far superior book than either "Into Thin Air" or "A Perfect Storm," both of which I passed on. "

SRHowen · Jul 15, 2005

Not that this has anything to do with anything, but with my weird way of seeing things--my dyslexia, I kept seeing your name as Butt on the Cat LOL not Button The Cat =^.^= Sheesh.

LOL

And I so often almost sit on a cat around here that it made sense to me. I appolgize. But I am laughing myself silly over my own mistake.

Mistook · Jul 16, 2005

Jamesaritchie said:
\

That's a tongue in cheek article. It isn;t meantto be taken seriously. This is a dead giveaway: "N. Wizbicki for her manuscript "Spontaneity and How to Plan for It!" I remember it because earlier that day I had passed on Charles Frazier's "Cold Mountain." This was on the heels of "I Climbed Everest Without a Hat," to my mind a far superior book than either "Into Thin Air" or "A Perfect Storm," both of which I passed on. "

Well, it's a bit more than tongue in cheek isn't it? More like a blatant mockery. Much as I enjoyed it, the article seems to make the NYT look no more sophisticated than my High School Yearbook.

Garpy · Jul 16, 2005

Hell, if I'd been an editor, I think I would probably have passed on Harry Potter too. I'm not sure whether it would be the laboured, witty-narrator style, or the over-reliance on Tolkienesque ideas, or perhaps the flaky internal logic of her world, that might have put me off.

And, if it was being pitched to me as kiddy literature I would have thrown it out instantly....I mean back '97-98, kids were ga-ga about power rangers, lazers, robots that transformed, tamagotchis, beanie-babies and boy bands....not spotty little oiks in wizard outfits.

I believe HP originally was marketed in the UK as fantasy and had very minor success, was bought up by an American publisher who repackaged it as YA lit. It's 'englishness' caught on at a time when Four Weddings, and Notting Hill were charming the states....and then it was repackaged back in the UK as YA too, and then marketed much more aggressively....at which point the herd instinct took over.

As an editor, I would never have taken it on. But....just goes to show you can never predict these things.

Mistook · Jul 16, 2005

Whether or not the original HP manuscript was a work of genius... how difficult is it for some hack to come along after the fact and write a little peice that plays (very artlessly) on stereotypes about editors?

I couldn't have written Harry Potter. I'll easily admit that. But any 8th grader with an ounce of pluck could have written the article we're talking about. So why is the New York Times publishing his arse?

Nepotism? wha? Somebody explain this to me.

Jamesaritchie · Jul 16, 2005

HP

Garpy said:
Hell, if I'd been an editor, I think I would probably have passed on Harry Potter too. I'm not sure whether it would be the laboured, witty-narrator style, or the over-reliance on Tolkienesque ideas, or perhaps the flaky internal logic of her world, that might have put me off.

And, if it was being pitched to me as kiddy literature I would have thrown it out instantly....I mean back '97-98, kids were ga-ga about power rangers, lazers, robots that transformed, tamagotchis, beanie-babies and boy bands....not spotty little oiks in wizard outfits.

I believe HP originally was marketed in the UK as fantasy and had very minor success, was bought up by an American publisher who repackaged it as YA lit. It's 'englishness' caught on at a time when Four Weddings, and Notting Hill were charming the states....and then it was repackaged back in the UK as YA too, and then marketed much more aggressively....at which point the herd instinct took over.

As an editor, I would never have taken it on. But....just goes to show you can never predict these things.

Harry Potter's success in England was why the American publisher bought it and put 100K behind it. Considering the distribution it originally had, the book sold very well in England.

I don't think I would have passed on it as an editor, but as a publisher I would certainly have fired any editor who did. Herd instinct my ***. Those are great books. The best of the type I've seen in my entire life.

Jamesaritchie · Jul 16, 2005

Mistook said:
Whether or not the original HP manuscript was a work of genius... how difficult is it for some hack to come along after the fact and write a little peice that plays (very artlessly) on stereotypes about editors?

I couldn't have written Harry Potter. I'll easily admit that. But any 8th grader with an ounce of pluck could have written the article we're talking about. So why is the New York Times publishing his arse?

Nepotism? wha? Somebody explain this to me.

John kenney is an op-ed writer for The New York Times. He regularly does the Tales From the Help Desk columns.

zarch · Jul 16, 2005

That Butt on the Cat thing is dang funny.

And about Harry Potter, I think it's part herd mentality and part just plain good. The brilliance lies in the fact that Rowling made it perfectly clear that this was a series of books. Hence, an eleven year-old reads the first book and loves it. Though the final book may come out when that person is twenty, and though the books may not be targeted at twenty year-olds, she wants to know how the story ends, for crying out loud. After all, she's invested half of her life in the story.

Will Rowling be able to produce good books that have nothing to do with Harry Potter? Or will it even matter?

Jamesaritchie · Jul 16, 2005

Harry Potter

zarch said:
That Butt on the Cat thing is dang funny.

And about Harry Potter, I think it's part herd mentality and part just plain good. The brilliance lies in the fact that Rowling made it perfectly clear that this was a series of books. Hence, an eleven year-old reads the first book and loves it. Though the final book may come out when that person is twenty, and though the books may not be targeted at twenty year-olds, she wants to know how the story ends, for crying out loud. After all, she's invested half of her life in the story.

Will Rowling be able to produce good books that have nothing to do with Harry Potter? Or will it even matter?

I don't think herd instonct has anything at all to do with Harry Potter. People simply love thsoe books. I think being a series helps, but I think this applies to those who start reading them as adults, as well as the kids. I know far more adults than kids who love the books, and these people were adults when book one came out. Many of them, like me, were old adults when book one came out. Shoot, I have a friend who's in his eighties and his biggest fear is that he'll die before the last book is published.

I know a number of adults who bought the first book for a child, read it themselves, and were instantly hooked.

People simply love the Harry Potter books, and most of those people aren't kids. And as the books have progressed, they've become much more adult in nature, getting more complicated and considerably darker. I'm not sure I'd want a really young child to read the lastest novel.

In my ever so humble opinion, these books have it all, plot, story, and characters. It's a rare novel that has all three. I can't get enough of them.

I suspect the last time England invaded in such a manner was when Dickens was still alive. His novels were serialized, and so many people jammed the New York docks each month on the date when the next part of the serial was due to arrive via ship that the docks had to be shut down for the day.

The NYT has a good review on the latest offering. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/16/books/16choc.html

Garpy · Jul 16, 2005

Sorry James, I'll have to disagree ;-)

I'm pretty certain HP didn't do very well before it was picked up in America...I've heard that from three or four people...ahh here..

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05191/534527.stm

You'll see here it did 50k units on the initial print in the states, so for the original UK print you're looking at one fifth of that.

Personally I think the series is poorly written, and highly derivative, the characters are paper-thin charicatures...it's Lord of the Rings meets Tom Brown's School days....BUT....JKR is to be applauded for her role in getting kids to actually read more than a MacDonalds breakfast menu. I salute her for that...she has my undying gratittude for putting books back on the radar.

ted_curtis · Jul 16, 2005

Garpy said:
Personally I think the series is poorly written, and highly derivative, the characters are paper-thin charicatures...it's Lord of the Rings meets Tom Brown's School days....BUT....JKR is to be applauded for her role in getting kids to actually read more than a MacDonalds breakfast menu. I salute her for that...she has my undying gratittude for putting books back on the radar.

You know, I really don't see much LOTR in the Harry Potter books, other than the Gandalf-like master wizard, wich I see more as an achetype (ie. Merlin). Of course, I may be a bit obtuse.

Yeah, I agree that there are some YA/MG series that I think are more original and better written, but I'm looking forward to buying my copy of the new HP tomorrow and starting it right away.

Ted

Mistook · Jul 16, 2005

Jamesaritchie said:
John kenney is an op-ed writer for The New York Times. He regularly does the Tales From the Help Desk columns.

Op-ed writers are like underwear models - If you look in your own down town, you'll find a few dozen girls before sundown who look as hot if not hotter.

SLake · Jul 18, 2005

Unedited editor?

Hmmm -- sure... tongue-in-cheek was an option. Another was NYT editor not editing. So yeah, I guess I should give editors a break. Hail NYT!

AncientEagle · Jul 18, 2005

Lighten up

Mistook said:
Op-ed writers are like underwear models - If you look in your own down town, you'll find a few dozen girls before sundown who look as hot if not hotter.

I'm an op-ed writer, I take my work seriously (even on the rare occasion when it's intended to be humorous), and I don't believe I'm in any way like an underwear model.

As for Kenney's piece, it struck my as a mildly humorous and enjoyable bit of fluff, an entertainment. Nobody expects it to be nominated for a Pulitzer. What the hell are we looking for on the NYT op-ed page - Shakespeare?

NicoleJLeBoeuf · Jul 18, 2005

SLake said:
Hmmm -- sure... tongue-in-cheek was an option. Another was NYT editor not editing. So yeah, I guess I should give editors a break. Hail NYT!

It could be a little from menu A and a little from menu B. There has been some speculation that the editorial staff at NYT are permanently out to lunch these days.

Zolah · Jul 20, 2005

Garpy said:
Sorry James, I'll have to disagree ;-)

I'm pretty certain HP didn't do very well before it was picked up in America...I've heard that from three or four people...ahh here..

Ahem. I'm afraid you're wrong there. The first HP book did very well in England. It's initial print run was very low, you're right, but that print run sold out and it was in a third or forth printing by the time the second one came out. That became a bestseller in the UK, and it was THEN that Scholastic bought the rights in America. Also, I'm afraid that the HP books are not marketed as YA books in the UK, and have never been 're-packaged'. They all still sell with their original cover art, and back in the days before they got their own shelving units in the shops, they were selved with Fiction for 8-12.

I'm not a big fan of Potter myself, and I don't think that Rowling is a great writer, but I DO think that she's a pretty darn good storyteller. She didn't sit down and think: 'Right, I'm going to create a huge sensation that will make me millions from film deals and merchandising'. She just wrote a cracking good story for kids. Her books became successful entirely through word of mouth selling - kids loved them and got their friends to buy them, and their friends did the same. Good on her I say.

Nateskate · Jul 20, 2005

SRHowen said:
Not that this has anything to do with anything, but with my weird way of seeing things--my dyslexia, I kept seeing your name as Butt on the Cat LOL not Button The Cat =^.^= Sheesh.

LOL

And I so often almost sit on a cat around here that it made sense to me. I appolgize. But I am laughing myself silly over my own mistake.

Now you have me curious. What does my name look like?

aruna · Jul 20, 2005

Zolah said:
Also, I'm afraid that the HP books are not marketed as YA books in the UK, and have never been 're-packaged'. They all still sell with their original cover art, and back in the days before they got their own shelving units in the shops, they were selved with Fiction for 8-12.

.

In the UK, HP books come in two editions, children and adult, with two completely different covers, and sold in children's AND adult bookshop sections. Check on amazon.co.uk and you'll see.
I personally am not an HP fan and never understood the phenomenon as far as adults are concerned, though I think the first two (the only ones |I read) are well written children's books. I think there is sometimes a kind of "magic" that springs from author to reader, sometimes in a tidal wave, and inthis case it didn't happen with me.

Link for the adult HP edition on amazon:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/074758110X/

maestrowork · Jul 20, 2005

Kids are great word-of-mouth machines, what with all the peer pressure and influence.

How about adults? Do we recommend books enough, or are we wrapped up in the hype/marketing machine just the same?

(p.s. I read the first two HP books and I thought they were good, but juvenile -- just the way they should be. As an adult and non-fantasy reader, I wasn't totally into it... but obviously, a lot of adults love it, maybe even more than the kids!)

BlueTexas · Jul 20, 2005

I read the first two, and enjoyed them, but haven't kept up. The schools here keep trying to ban them, which makes KIDS want to READ them even more. How on earth can anything that makes kids want to read be bad?

My husband's two best friends, 35 year old men with no kids who are not normal readers, both have been at the midnight bookstore deliveries twice now. Non-readers are reading. Again, how can that be bad?

Just because everyone likes it doesn't mean it's something that should be looked down upon as a "herd mentality". If that's to be avoided, quit drinking coke and eating at McDonald's, too.

Rowling did was every last one of us would love to do...she got millions of people to read her work. Again, how can that be bad?

samgail · Jul 20, 2005

you guys are killing me

SRHowen said:
Not that this has anything to do with anything, but with my weird way of seeing things--my dyslexia, I kept seeing your name as Butt on the Cat LOL not Button The Cat =^.^= Sheesh.

LOL

And I so often almost sit on a cat around here that it made sense to me. I appolgize. But I am laughing myself silly over my own mistake.

Sam

maestrowork · Jul 20, 2005

BlueTexas said:
Rowling did was every last one of us would love to do...she got millions of people to read her work. Again, how can that be bad?

I don't mean to say Rowling doesn't deserve it. Just this past weekend, she may be $100 million richer -- it would be every writer's dream come true! But having worked at Scholastic myself, certainly I've seen the marketing geniuses at work, trying to stir up a feeding frenzy and I don't know if it's healthy.

(I mean, the pageantry and fanfare surrounding the release... interesting. Did you see how they treated the first autorgraphed copy like it was the crown jewel or something...)

To me, for example, The Da Vinci Code, is more hype than substance. Is it a bad thing that it keeps people reading? Perhaps.

And Sue Kidd's The Secret Life of Bees sold almost 5 million copies in the US alone, but we don't see that kind of "hype." (And by the way, it is a GREAT book) Honestly, I'd like to see her getting more hype than what's she getting with The Mermaid Chair...

With all the hypes surrounding a few select authors, though, it may leave little room for other authors. As the publishing world gets into the celebrity worship mode much like the film and music industries, I do question: is it a good or bad thing?

...

The (weird) state of publishers

Resident in Question

Erotica is not a four letter word!

Neverending WIP

keyboard monkey

Neverending WIP

GOML.

keyboard monkey

Neverending WIP

Old kid, no need to be gentle.

a work in progress

Over the hills and far away

On a wing and a prayer

Fear the Death Ray

Back from self-exile land.

poll dancer

Fear the Death Ray