The (weird) state of publishers

[SLake]

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]

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]

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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/opinion/14kenney.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%2 0Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fContributors).

Jackie

[Jamesaritchie]

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]

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]

\

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://nytimes.com/2005/07/17/fashion/sundaystyles/17LOVE.html?pagewanted=1) some speculation (http://subvic.blogspot.com/2005/07/sorry-to-disappoint-you.html) that the editorial staff at NYT are permanently out to lunch (http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006563.html) these days.

[Zolah]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.






http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/im/rotflmaotid.gif
Sam

[maestrowork]

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?

...

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

Now you have me curious. What does my name look like?If I squint a little, it looks like the handle of a gal named Katherine who was married to a guy named Nathan.

(I seem to recall you saying how to pronounce it, and that it wasn't how it looked to the average English speaker, but I forget the specifics.)

[--E]

Two thoughts:

1. Nateskate = Nate Skate to me.

2. Publishers hype lots of books. Only a few of them sell like mad, and even fewer of them continue to sell 20 years later. Other books, unhyped, may not sell much at the outset, but then take off, or continue quietly selling a few thousand copies year after year.

Any publisher will tell you, the reliable money is in the backlist. When the advance is earned out and the type is set, all you have to do is reprint often enough to meet demand. It's a lot more reliable than looking for the magic bestseller.

All publishing houses know that marketing and promotion has something to do with the success of some books, but they don't quite know what, nor which books its going to work with. Currently, the most reliable method is to "build" an author. But they may break out at book two, or they may break out at book ten, or they may never break out. No one really knows. But if you can keep a backlist going, then at least the overhead is covered.

And this plan doesn't explain Harper Lee, who only published the one book. I don't know if it would be possible to have a *To Kill a Mockingbird* kind of success today. And in the case of TKAM and, say, *Gone With the Wind*, it's impossible to quantify how much of those books' longevity is owed to them being made into very good movies as well. (Compare their Amazon rankings with *Peyton Place*.)

"Hype" can indeed simply be a matter of getting a lot of attention on a book that's been sitting there all along, but that works best if the book has something to it in the first place.

If anyone could predict what would be a runaway bestseller, the total number of titles published would not be going up while the total units sold remains flat or decreasing. Publishing houses want even more than writers to have bestselling books; writers can at least always take other jobs. If pub houses could reliably "make" bestsellers, they would.

I read a great quote the other day, that described the current publishing climate as "throwing books at the wall and seeing what sticks."

--E

[maestrowork]

I read a great quote the other day, that described the current publishing climate as "throwing books at the wall and seeing what sticks."



Could we say, with enough confidence, that today's publishing business resembles more and more the movie/entertainment industries? Big studios are chasing the surefire "blockbusters" and celebrities. Branding is important to get built-in sales. Everyone's looking for a sequel. Still, the blockbuster "formula" may not stick and you have stink bombs all over the place. And it leaves the small indies to come up with great, little movies that become sleeper hits... then the small studios get swallowed up by the big fish and start to churn out duds as well....

[Zolah]

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.

I know that. The point I was making was that the books are not and have never been 're-packaged' as YA books. The adult versions are a separate phenomenon altogether and came long after the books hit the best-seller's lists.

[SLake]

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?[/QUOTE]

Sure, the old dude is long dead, but people don't have to rub it in with op-ed Stoneage reminders, which could only look funny after several large caliber shots of mom's moonshine.

Kennedy's op-ed contrasted so starkly with the ouput I'm used to from NYT that his article was like gum stuck on my page.

'Tongue-in-cheek?' From an insincere standpoint, I guess so. Help me here -- a bit like British comedy these days -- they laugh at a turd on the road? Oops -- no offense, not all British comedy! Just the stuff I've seen.