Bestsellers That Would Never Get Published Today

[blackbird]

Can anyone think of any monumental past bestsellers that would never cut it in today's marketplace? I'm thinking specifically of my childhood favorite, Gone With the Wind. Here was a 1,037 page manuscript by an unknown author, a manuscript that had obviously received not a lick of professional feedback or polishing (as is painfully and embarrasingly obvious throughout many passages), and yet was not only a runaway bestseller in its day, but continues to be one of the greatest selling novels of all time? Yet how many publishers today would be willing to look at a 1,037 page book about the Civil War from an unagented, unknown writer, and which seemingly breaks every workshop rule of polished fiction? I would be willing to bet, not many.

I was wondering how many other former bestsellers would never cut the mustard today, and why? Do you think this reflects a sadder state of affairs for the publishing business today overall?

[awaitingthemuse]

Not so much a bestseller but an author. Jean Plaidy has sold a ton of novels. I struggled my way to the end of one (a bad habit I have to break I know) and asked myself exactly the same question - would she make it today? I don't think so.

[Garpy]

Okay here goes...(dons helmet, gets ready to duck down inside his bomb shelter)

Lord of the Rings:
Why? Because clearly Tolkein wasn't sure if he was writing a book for adults or for children. It vascilates between the two in a really irritating way. Also, those incredibly long elvish and dwarvish songs....sheesh, sorry, complete indulgence. Then what about those bloody dwarvish names, I mean Gimli son of Bimli, son of Dimli, or whatever, why the hell do they have to rhyme? And let's not forget....Tom Bombadil. Had he rolled himself a big fat one, the day he wrote that chapter?

To be fair...he created an exciting and vibrant world, for which I love him dearly, but as a writer I think he was undisciplined and LOTR really needed a stern editor to tighten the whole thing up. If it were submitted today by an unkown, I would fully expect an editor to tell JRR that he was three or four rewrites away from a publishable manuscript.

Focoult's Pendulumn:
In the end, a great read....but I'm amazed Eco got away with 12 pages describing the swing of a pendulum. I seriously would expect my editor to whip me with a birch if I submitted an opening chapter that dull.

Illuminatus Trilogy:
800 pages of random gibberings....a stream of consciousness that is totally undecipherable. I'll be fair...I only managed to read a 100 pages of this stuff before my eyes started to bleed. So maybe on page 101 the book started to actually have a point

[MadScientistMatt]

I've sometimes wondered if Moby-Dick could be published today, given the way Melville tended to go off on tangents and dedicate entire chapters to exposition, interrupting the narrative. Since he had several prior successes, though, I suspect what would happen would be that it would probably be able to get published - if he'd agree to cut out about a third of it.

[Avalon]

An aside...

Jean Plaidy was a pseudonym for Victoria Holt, wasn't she? So she sold a ton of novels under two names.

People still buy Gothic romance type stuff don't they? I'm thinking she'd be published. Then again, I think I read her voraciously -- when I was about 12.

[maestrowork]

I was just watching To Kill a Mockingbird (with Gregory Peck) the other day and wondered if that book would be published today, and would such a movie be made? I am not sure. It's a good story and extremely well written, but would publishers publish it today? Would Hollywood make a movie like that today?

[The Scribbler]

Okay here goes...(dons helmet, gets ready to duck down inside his bomb shelter)

Lord of the Rings:
Why? Because clearly Tolkein wasn't sure if he was writing a book for adults or for children. It vascilates between the two in a really irritating way. Also, those incredibly long elvish and dwarvish songs....sheesh, sorry, complete indulgence. Then what about those bloody dwarvish names, I mean Gimli son of Bimli, son of Dimli, or whatever, why the hell do they have to rhyme? And let's not forget....Tom Bombadil. Had he rolled himself a big fat one, the day he wrote that chapter?

To be fair...he created an exciting and vibrant world, for which I love him dearly, but as a writer I think he was undisciplined and LOTR really needed a stern editor to tighten the whole thing up. If it were submitted today by an unkown, I would fully expect an editor to tell JRR that he was three or four rewrites away from a publishable manuscript.


I agree totally. I have often argued that if LOTR came out today it would be nothing more than common. It would not have the appeal. I think it is the Eperor's New Clothes syndrome.

I also think some of the older classic such as Brave New World, 1984, and Catcher in the Rye would never have reached the lofty status with which they are regarded in today's literary circles.

[Flapdoodle]

I agree totally. I have often argued that if LOTR came out today it would be nothing more than common. It would not have the appeal. I think it is the Eperor's New Clothes syndrome.

I also think some of the older classic such as Brave New World, 1984, and Catcher in the Rye would never have reached the lofty status with which they are regarded in today's literary circles.


This is a dumb argument - part of the reason these books became famous was due in part to the time they came out. LOTR/Middle Earth was a total original when it was written - and Tolkien's inspiration was the mass industrialisation of the English Midlands that had recently happened/was still happening. I'm sure the others have similar stories.

These days fantasy novels are ten a penny - they're nothing new.

You could say the same about War of the Worlds! However, when WotW came out no one had written a SF novel like that before. Similarly for Jules Verne...

It's pointless speculating on this sort of subject!

[My-Immortal]

This is a dumb argument - part of the reason these books became famous was due in part to the time they came out. LOTR/Middle Earth was a total original when it was written - and Tolkien's inspiration was the mass industrialisation of the English Midlands that had recently happened/was still happening. I'm sure the others have similar stories.

These days fantasy novels are ten a penny - they're nothing new.

You could say the same about War of the Worlds! However, when WotW came out no one had written a SF novel like that before. Similarly for Jules Verne...

It's pointless speculating on this sort of subject!

To state that an older novel is unoriginal compared to more modern books is not a valid argument for stating why a book would not be published...because many of the modern books have used the original books as a model.

To state that due to language use or extensive use of setting or description as an argument as to why a certain book might not be published today, I think, is a valid point.

I love the book LOTR but "AS IS" I doubt if it would be published now. I would think an editor would require some tightening of story - removal of some of the characters and pages of setting description - and probably (much like Peter Jackson did in the movie) would demand that the female roles be increased to appeal to more females (with of course more book time devoted to Orlando Bloom - errrrr, I mean Legolas). :)

As for nothing new in fantasy - I don't think that is entirely true. Sure, there are plenty of big named fantasy authors that churn out book after book in their ongoing series never seeming to draw any closer to an ending - but if you actually search around there are some new names emerging.

Of course, is 'nothing new in the genre' entirely the fault of writers? If the only thing editors/agents/publishers accept are copy-cats of what has sold in the past, what happens to those authors and manuscripts that dare to be different?

How often has a book truly changed a genre? LOTR was said to have changed the face of fantasy...is it possible to change it again?

(Sorry, I end up going off on tangents sometimes).

Take care all -

[SusanR]

Can you imagine a publisher accepting Portrait of the Artist as Young Man by James Joyce? Huh?

SusanR

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

mein kampf

[Garbarian]

I agree totally. I have often argued that if LOTR came out today it would be nothing more than common. It would not have the appeal. I think it is the Eperor's New Clothes syndrome.

I also think some of the older classic such as Brave New World, 1984, and Catcher in the Rye would never have reached the lofty status with which they are regarded in today's literary circles.

flapdoodle is right. this is poor logic. these authors invented/re-invented the genre they were working in. the only reason it would seem common today is because everybody else copied them. it's like reading raymond chandler and thinking, man, he just writes cliche hard-boiled detective stories. well, yes -- but he invented the cliches before they became cliches, if that makes any sense.

[SusanR]

but he invented the cliches before they became cliches, if that makes any sense.

Yeah....if it's fresh and new, it's not a cliche!

SusanR

[Flapdoodle]

To state that an older novel is unoriginal compared to more modern books is not a valid argument for stating why a book would not be published...because many of the modern books have used the original books as a model.

To state that due to language use or extensive use of setting or description as an argument as to why a certain book might not be published today, I think, is a valid point.

I love the book LOTR but "AS IS" I doubt if it would be published now. I would think an editor would require some tightening of story - removal of some of the characters and pages of setting description - and probably (much like Peter Jackson did in the movie) would demand that the female roles be increased to appeal to more females (with of course more book time devoted to Orlando Bloom - errrrr, I mean Legolas). :)

As for nothing new in fantasy - I don't think that is entirely true. Sure, there are plenty of big named fantasy authors that churn out book after book in their ongoing series never seeming to draw any closer to an ending - but if you actually search around there are some new names emerging.

Of course, is 'nothing new in the genre' entirely the fault of writers? If the only thing editors/agents/publishers accept are copy-cats of what has sold in the past, what happens to those authors and manuscripts that dare to be different?

How often has a book truly changed a genre? LOTR was said to have changed the face of fantasy...is it possible to change it again?

(Sorry, I end up going off on tangents sometimes).

Take care all -

That's not what I said. I said the opposite! I said LOTR _was_ an original when it was written, and pretty much one of the novels that invented the genre. There may be new names emerging, but none of them groundbreaking as LOTR.

As you say LOTR changed fantasy, and that was due to the time it was published. Who cares if it wouldn't be published today?

Stating a book wouldn't be published today because of its language and hence contemporary setting is just dumb, sorry. Wuthering Heights wouldn't be published today. Nor Jane Eyre, and most certainly no George Eliot in that case.

I've read books written 10 years ago that wouldn't get published today due to their setting. What does that prove? In fact, numbers of books published ten years aren't in print anymore due to their setting, language and descriptions..! I've got horror books written 20 years ago that wouldn't be published today.

I don't see what the point is! It's almost as if folks are trying to somehow belittle these authors in some way by arguing that they wouldn't get published today...?!?

[emeraldcite]

Can you imagine a publisher accepting Portrait of the Artist as Young Man by James Joyce? Huh?

I think portrait is difficult, but still an excellent book. I don't have a doubt it would get published. It wouldn't be a bestseller, but I think it could make the cut.

[My-Immortal]

Flap - I wasn't arguing with you - I was actually making a similar point as you in your regards to The Scribbler's post.

I also wasn't commenting on "setting" in the sense of contemporary or not - but rather the extent of setting described in books. I've read many older fantasy books that spend PAGES describing the setting of the world - the color of the flowers, the way the river runs through the meadow etc.etc.etc...and THAT I think is something that older books IF they were being turned into todays publishers/editors/agents would be asked to edit or trim.

Flap - you ask: "Who cares if it wouldn't be published today?"

That was kinda the point of the thread. It really doesn't matter - it's just a discussion on what has changed from twenty, thirty plus years ago vs the trends of today. Books that are masterpieces of their times and are often considered classics simply wouldn't be published AS IS in todays world because editors/agents/publishers today aren't necessarily looking for THAT style of writing.

And THAT was the point of the thread (or at least, that's what I understood the thread to be about).

[Aconite]

Why assume they wouldn't be published? If what you mean is they wouldn't be published if written the same way, well, of course not. Each book is a product of its time, and each builds on what came before. Many of those books aren't original now because they've been done--by those books, as other posters have pointed out above.

But not published? Assuming those books had never been written and so their approaches were fresh, why not assume that today they'd have been written and edited differently and then published?

[Unimportant]

Pamela (or, Virtue Rewarded), by Samuel Richardson.

[zornhau]

To bring this back on topic (and away from lit crit), I think that the important point is that it is unwise to blindly emulate the success of the past.

Fiction that rocked in 1950/30/70 whatever, did so because it hit the nail on the head for that time and place.

[Flapdoodle]

I think portrait is difficult, but still an excellent book. I don't have a doubt it would get published. It wouldn't be a bestseller, but I think it could make the cut.

A lot of classics weren't best sellers though, were they?

I wonder how many copies of Wuthering Heights sold :-)

The only classic today is Penitentiary Pacific by Jerome-Buchanan

[AncientEagle]

The only classic today is Penitentiary Pacific by Jerome-Buchanan

Well, yes, but it's hardly fair to even discuss a masterpiece like that alongside other, lesser works.

[Storyteller5]

I was just watching To Kill a Mockingbird (with Gregory Peck) the other day and wondered if that book would be published today, and would such a movie be made? I am not sure. It's a good story and extremely well written, but would publishers publish it today? Would Hollywood make a movie like that today?

I must disagree. I think it would still be published because it is a good story. It maybe doesn't have the huge context that it had at the time it was published but the themes are still relevant.

I agree about Gone with the Wind.

[Linda Adams]

To bring this back on topic (and away from lit crit), I think that the important point is that it is unwise to blindly emulate the success of the past.

Fiction that rocked in 1950/30/70 whatever, did so because it hit the nail on the head for that time and place.

One of the big things we've had to put a stop to in our critique group is writers who start by citing the example of books from 20 years ago as reasons why they're doing something. We even had one who was writing a book just like his favorite, which was published 20 years ago, and there was another writer who was trying to write a romance novel based on the books she'd read in the 1980's (having not read any current ones). The industry has changed a lot, particularly in the last few years. It has changed so much that 20 years ago I probably couldn't have gotten the book I'm working on published, but today it's possible.

[zornhau]

Exactly! As a skint student, I read lots of 2nd had SF. I was well equipped to be the next Lin Carter.

[mesh138]

Anything by Richard Brautigan

[Jamesaritchie]

Can anyone think of any monumental past bestsellers that would never cut it in today's marketplace? I'm thinking specifically of my childhood favorite, Gone With the Wind. Here was a 1,037 page manuscript by an unknown author, a manuscript that had obviously received not a lick of professional feedback or polishing (as is painfully and embarrasingly obvious throughout many passages), and yet was not only a runaway bestseller in its day, but continues to be one of the greatest selling novels of all time? Yet how many publishers today would be willing to look at a 1,037 page book about the Civil War from an unagented, unknown writer, and which seemingly breaks every workshop rule of polished fiction? I would be willing to bet, not many.

I was wondering how many other former bestsellers would never cut the mustard today, and why? Do you think this reflects a sadder state of affairs for the publishing business today overall?

I think it's all speculation at best, and no one can say for sure either way. But I'd bet a hundred dollars against a dime that Gone With the Wind absolutely would be published today. It's a great novel, it's still being read, and there are other novels this long or longer that pop up every few years, and by first time writers. Wordshop, smirkshop. Good writers don't follow workshop rules, anyway. That novel is both polished and great in every way that matters.

It's not like publishers receive so many great novels that they pick and choose only the best. A great novel is a great novel, and there are darned few of them. If you can go to a bookstore today and buy a novel, I'd say the odds are extremely high that any publisher would still take it on today.

[MadScientistMatt]

Can you imagine a publisher accepting Portrait of the Artist as Young Man by James Joyce? Huh?

SusanR

Maybe it shows that I'm a bit of a troglodyte, but if I were an editor, I could easily imagine myself reaching for a form rejection letter after reading the first couple pages of it and reading a few passages from some fluff bestseller with no literary merit whatsoever to clear my head. And I'm pretty sure that in Joyce's day, a lot of editors did exactly that.

[Julie Worth]

I was just watching To Kill a Mockingbird (with Gregory Peck) the other day and wondered if that book would be published today, and would such a movie be made? I am not sure. It's a good story and extremely well written, but would publishers publish it today? Would Hollywood make a movie like that today?

I read Mockingbird recently, and it was very good. Far better than the usual fare.

[Garbarian]

Maybe it shows that I'm a bit of a troglodyte, but if I were an editor, I could easily imagine myself reaching for a form rejection letter after reading the first couple pages of it and reading a few passages from some fluff bestseller with no literary merit whatsoever to clear my head. And I'm pretty sure that in Joyce's day, a lot of editors did exactly that.

interestingly, joyce actually did have an issue getting his first book published -- a short story collection called dubliners that he wrote when he was 21 or 22. the book was initially accepted by the first publisher he showed it to, but as publication date neared the publisher freaked out because the stories were so politically and socially scandalous he feared retribution. the publisher pulled the book, and joyce took it to another publisher, who again initially agreed to publish it. the same thing happened. meanwhile, joyce was garnering huge popular and critical acclaim by the serialization of "portrait of the artist" and eventually "dubliners" did see print, but by this time joyce was already on his way to being a national literary hero. dubliners is a great collection, by the way. "the dead" is one of my favorite all time stories.

[scarletpeaches]

... and there are other novels this long or longer that pop up every few years, and by first time writers. Wordshop, smirkshop. Good writers don't follow workshop rules, anyway. That novel is both polished and great in every way that matters.

Interesting, given what you said in the other thread, about doubting whether or not there are many long novels published these days.

[maestrowork]

Long novels are published today but not by first-time authors. First-time authors without a good track record probably should stay within the "suggested" length. Writers like Stephen King could write The Stand and get it published. JK Rowling could write a 800+ page monster YA book and get it published. People like me can't (at least not yet).

[scarletpeaches]

I disagree on the first time author thing. I won't mention any names, but there are frequently books released here that are way over the supposed upper limit for first timers, many of which I buy and enjoy. It really boils down to whether or not the book is good enough, and deserves to be that length. Many long books don't seem to have enough story to fill all those pages and many short ones leave me thinking, what, is that it? That could have done with a few more chapters! But I digress and go off-topic (yet again).

[goatpiper]

On a quick tangent, even Stephen King had to cut the hell out of 'The Stand' before it was published. The original published work was around 850 pages, I believe. Once he released the new edition with a bunch of stuff added back in, it was somewhere around 1150 pages.
Paper, paper, paper, eh?

[James D. Macdonald]

IMHO, the shorter version of THE STAND was by far the better one.

Novel lengths fall on a bell curve. The closer you are to the ends of the curve, the closer you have to be to genius.

[vipersmile]

I didn't really care for THE STAND as much as I liked SWAN SONG by Mcammon. I thought that was a better read for " The end of the world type stories."

You're right about it being better than the longer version however. The only real added prose I enjoyed was the new charachter " The Kid"

Now that guy is one sick bastard...

[blackbird]

I think it's all speculation at best, and no one can say for sure either way. But I'd bet a hundred dollars against a dime that Gone With the Wind absolutely would be published today. It's a great novel, it's still being read, and there are other novels this long or longer that pop up every few years, and by first time writers. Wordshop, smirkshop. Good writers don't follow workshop rules, anyway. That novel is both polished and great in every way that matters.

It's not like publishers receive so many great novels that they pick and choose only the best. A great novel is a great novel, and there are darned few of them. If you can go to a bookstore today and buy a novel, I'd say the odds are extremely high that any publisher would still take it on today.

I beg to differ, and remember this is coming from someone who has loved this book ever since she was eleven years old. Is it a great novel? Absolutely. But polished? Absolutely not. Yes, I would be the first to say, workshop polish isn't what makes great writing, and that's partly why these very books in question have been so succesful-they were bold and original works by original voices. But my question was, WOULD THEY BE PUBLISHED TODAY? Would they receive serious consideration from agents? And is this an indication that agents and editors AREN'T always in tune with what the buying public wants?

[blacbird]

If you can go to a bookstore today and buy a novel, I'd say the odds are extremely high that any publisher would still take it on today.

Both Barbara Lessing and Jerzy Kosinski are known to have submitted, pseudonymously, manuscripts of their own bestselling (in Kosinski's case, prize-winning) novels, to publishers to demonstrate the falsehood of what you've just said. They got nothing but rejections. Lessing even submitted her manuscript to the very publisher who published the novel in the first place, and they rejected it. John Irving has written that he's convinced he could never get his first novel (Setting Free the Bears, published originally by Random House, I believe, in the late 1960s) published in the post-1980s market.

Tell you what, Jim, why don't you test this theory? Take one of your own manuscripts, retitle it, and submit it under a pseudonym, as a first novel from an unknown writer with no prior credits, and see how successful you are.

caw.

[maestrowork]

What criteria are we using anyway? The market is so different than that of 100 years ago. What readers demand now (e.g. the Da Vinci Code type of books) is probably different than in 1922 or 1884.

Is it the writing style or story structure? That, too, has changed immensely. For one thing, books back then were not as "concerned" about "hooking" the readers immediately.

How about just story and characters? Those seem to be universal and stand the test of time. Or originality? Suppose there's no such thing as epic fantasy today, would Lord of the Rings still make it to book shelves?

To make things more complicated... just because people still read classics such as Moby Dick doesn't mean they would read a "new" book written in the veins of Moby Dick. I would watch a To Kill a Mockingbird with Gregory Peck now, but if the movie is done exactly the same way today with Jim Carrey, I may not watch it... However, if it's modernized with the same characters and basic story with Harrison Ford, I might really enjoy it...

So, in order to compare, we need some kind of guide posts. Otherwise, we'd be comparing apples with oranges.

[Aconite]

Both Barbara Lessing and Jerzy Kosinski are known to have submitted, pseudonymously, manuscripts of their own bestselling (in Kosinski's case, prize-winning) novels, to publishers to demonstrate the falsehood of what you've just said. They got nothing but rejections.
Have you considered that might be because the editors recognized the text and assumed the MSS were plagiarized?

Yes, people really try that. No, editors don't usually tell them why they're rejecting the MS.

[three seven]

I think it's all speculation at best, and no one can say for sure either way.Bloody hell, I'm glad you pointed that out - for a minute there I thought Gone With The Wind had been, like, unpublished or something!

[Garbarian]

Both Barbara Lessing and Jerzy Kosinski are known to have submitted, pseudonymously, manuscripts of their own bestselling (in Kosinski's case, prize-winning) novels, to publishers to demonstrate the falsehood of what you've just said. They got nothing but rejections. Lessing even submitted her manuscript to the very publisher who published the novel in the first place, and they rejected it. caw.

doris lessing, no? also, in lessing's case, the manuscript she submitted was an original, unpublished one, effectively squashing the theory a publisher rejected it thinking it plagiarized. when she presented it under her own name it was quickly published and successful. i think kosinki's manuscript "steps" was the one re-presented years later and rejected by the original publisher. the point is still valid, though.

[blacbird]

doris lessing, no? also, in lessing's case, the manuscript she submitted was an original, unpublished one, effectively squashing the theory a publisher rejected it thinking it plagiarized. when she presented it under her own name it was quickly published and successful. i think kosinki's manuscript "steps" was the one re-presented years later and rejected by the original publisher. the point is still valid, though.

Yeah, Doris. I don't know why I typed Barbara. Might have something to do with the -12 F temperature at my house this morning.

caw.

[scfirenice]

Bram Stokers Dracula

No one publishes horror unless it is erotica written by LKHamilton. hee hee.

[scarletpeaches]

Come on now, scfirenice - that's not erotic!:ROFL:

[Aconite]

in lessing's case, the manuscript she submitted was an original, unpublished one, effectively squashing the theory a publisher rejected it thinking it plagiarized.
Okay. It's possible, though, that the decision was made not to publish this newcomer's manuscript because it so resembled Lessing's work that it would have been dismissed as a copycat book.

It's also possible that the manuscript was mediocre, and wouldn't have been published at all except that Lessing's name sells books. Good authors write blah books sometimes. They'll still sell. A blah book by an unknown author won't.

[Mike Coombes]

I think it's spurious to judge work from times past against current criteria. They are a product of their time, and have to be judged as such. Many novels today are fashionable for a few months or years, then will disappear.

What sets the classic apart from the commonplace is when the work transcends its own time, and has a message or theme relevant to all times. 1984 is a good example - it's even become part of the language. Even if you haven't read the novel you'll know what someone means if someone references it in conversation.

A nice easy test of the theory; read Voltaire's 'Candide'. It was written in 1758, but if you can read it without it making you smile knowingly at the actions of the characters and the sitiuations that Voltaire engineers, I'll eat my proverbial hat. It's every bit as relvant today as it was when it was written.

My favorite quote is "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Pretty relevant to today, don't you thinK?

[Jamesaritchie]

Both Barbara Lessing and Jerzy Kosinski are known to have submitted, pseudonymously, manuscripts of their own bestselling (in Kosinski's case, prize-winning) novels, to publishers to demonstrate the falsehood of what you've just said. They got nothing but rejections. Lessing even submitted her manuscript to the very publisher who published the novel in the first place, and they rejected it. John Irving has written that he's convinced he could never get his first novel (Setting Free the Bears, published originally by Random House, I believe, in the late 1960s) published in the post-1980s market.

Tell you what, Jim, why don't you test this theory? Take one of your own manuscripts, retitle it, and submit it under a pseudonym, as a first novel from an unknown writer with no prior credits, and see how successful you are.

caw.

"bestselling" here has a very different meaning than the classic novels we're talking about. I wouldn't have published their novels to begin with, and we'll have to wait about fifty years, at least, to say whether or not either of these novels has staying power.

Bestsellers can be pure crap. But books that have staying power, that are still being avidly read fifty or a hundred years after they were first published, are a very different matter.

What they did demonstrates nothing except that most publisher don't like their novels. Neither do I, and in comparison to a King or a Grisham today, or a Dickens or a Twain of yesterday, the general reading public doesn't much like their novels, either.

[Jamesaritchie]

Bloody hell, I'm glad you pointed that out - for a minute there I thought Gone With The Wind had been, like, unpublished or something!

What does that have to do with whether or not it would still be published today? Unless you're a seer of some sort, or at the very least own a publishing company and state that you'd be glad to publish it today, there is no way of saying for sure whether or not Gone With the Wind would be published in today's market. I have no doubt that it would be, but it's all pure speculation.

Of course, the fact is that Gone With the Wind, and any other classic novel we name, IS being published today. They are still being published, and they're all still being widely read. On a worldwide basis, Mark Twain is still the bestselling writer in the world.

The public still wants these novels, and still buys millions of copies of them each and every year.

[Jamesaritchie]

Both Barbara Lessing and Jerzy Kosinski are known to have submitted, pseudonymously, manuscripts of their own bestselling (in Kosinski's case, prize-winning) novels, to publishers to demonstrate the falsehood of what you've just said. They got nothing but rejections. Lessing even submitted her manuscript to the very publisher who published the novel in the first place, and they rejected it. John Irving has written that he's convinced he could never get his first novel (Setting Free the Bears, published originally by Random House, I believe, in the late 1960s) published in the post-1980s market.

Tell you what, Jim, why don't you test this theory? Take one of your own manuscripts, retitle it, and submit it under a pseudonym, as a first novel from an unknown writer with no prior credits, and see how successful you are.

caw.


Well, that's how I sold it in the first place. I was an unknown, and the novel sold first time out. But my novels are irrelevant. So are those of Irving, Lessing and Kosinski. Not one of us has written a novel that's stood the test of time. There hasn't been enough time to stand the test of time, so to speak. Certainly Irving's first novel is not going to stand the test of time. And none of us has proven we even belong in the same zip code as the writers of the classic novels, or even the semi-classic novels such as "Gone With the Wind" and "To Kill a Mockingbird."

Would my first novel be published today? It might, but it would be a shame. It wasn't very good, and there's nothing at all about it that has a timeless quality. Classic in the making, it ain't.

Of course not all novels from the past would be published today. Most published novels simply aren't good enough to last five years, let alone five decades or two centuries. Most novels get published because the publisher is throwing things at the wall and hoping some of it sticks. Most just bounce off and hit the floor. My first novel bounced off, hit the floor, and mercifully fell through a crack, never to be seen again.

But novels like "Gone With the Wind" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" stuck. They're still sticking. Comparing them to my first novel, or to novels by Irving, Lessing, or Kozinski is like comparing apple pies to cow pies.

And it's kind of pointless to ask whether or not these novels would still be published today. They are still being published today. Still being published, and still being read by millions. The same isn't true of my first novel, or of Irving's.

[eldragon]

Almost anything by Charles Bukowski. The writing is poor, and after you read them (books) three or four times, you get bored.

[maestrowork]

Got me thinking a bit... are some of those classics still classics today because movies were made out of them? We all the power of movies these days. Or is it irrelevant (since a lot of modern novels have been made into movies -- Jaws, for example -- but they won't necessarily become classics in 50 years).

[blacbird]

And it's kind of pointless to ask whether or not these novels would still be published today. They are still being published today. Still being published, and still being read by millions. The same isn't true of my first novel, or of Irving's.

Irving's first novel has remained in print pretty much continuously for thirty years, and can be found at any major bookstore almost any time. You're the one who made the point that "If you can go to a bookstore today and buy a novel, I'd say the odds are extremely high that any publisher would still take it on today."

[LloydBrown]

Lord of the Rings:
Why? Because clearly Tolkein wasn't sure if he was writing a book for adults or for children. It vascilates between the two in a really irritating way. Also, those incredibly long elvish and dwarvish songs....sheesh, sorry, complete indulgence. Then what about those bloody dwarvish names, I mean Gimli son of Bimli, son of Dimli, or whatever, why the hell do they have to rhyme? And let's not forget....Tom Bombadil. Had he rolled himself a big fat one, the day he wrote that chapter?

Okay, I'm a huge Tolkien fan, and I'm not going to flame you.

On the writing, I've read the trilogy 19 times. Yes, that might be excessive. You'll notice if you look for it that most of the silliness comes from the POV of the hobbits. The initial 3 chapters, where the action takes place in the Shire, contains silly dialogue and actions that are downright "queer" (as Tolkien says 33 times in Book 1). Once they return, a similar tone prevails, albeit tainted by sadness for things lost.

As far as the names, Tolkien took Gandalf and most of the original dwarves from the Elder Eddas.

Also, they rarely rhymed; they usually alliterated. Gimli, son of Gloin. There's a historical reason for that, as Tolkien noted somewhere. Similar names make it easier to keep track of which kid belongs to whom.

Yeah, Bombadil should have been cut. The concept was a character that showed glimpses into the history of Middle-Earth, but the execution was just the crack talking. Actually, he wrote that part in for his then-six-year old son, Christopher. No actual drugs were involved.

To be fair...he created an exciting and vibrant world, for which I love him dearly, but as a writer I think he was undisciplined and LOTR really needed a stern editor to tighten the whole thing up. If it were submitted today by an unkown, I would fully expect an editor to tell JRR that he was three or four rewrites away from a publishable manuscript.

[aruna]

Let's not forget, that top even get their novels READ, all these famous writers of the past would, today, have to do the rounds we are all doing right now: querying agents. Sending in partials, receiving form rejection letters. I am pretty sure that Joyce would have a very hard time gettig past the query stage. Gone With the Wind, I feel, would be accepted once read - it's a great story, and that makes up for much of the lack of polish. But its very length would mean it probably wouldn't even be read.
To Kill a Mockingbird, I'm sure would get accpeted, if she was any good at writing query letters.

[jst5150]

Got me thinking a bit... are some of those classics still classics today because movies were made out of them? We all the power of movies these days. Or is it irrelevant (since a lot of modern novels have been made into movies -- Jaws, for example -- but they won't necessarily become classics in 50 years).

The movie as messenger can't hurt, but those classic had deeper roots. They used themes, characters and archetypes that many could identify with. So, there's that.

There's also the marketing done in different times. It's not some new phenomenon. It's not like Barnum started it. And if people stood to benefit from the sales of "Great Expectations," then someone would go hawk it.

Ray does bring up a GREAT point, however. The media matrix is changing our information gathering and use methods. The methods of stimulus are changing and we're being trained to make different choices by the way TV, films, book, the Web and other methods attach to us. Right now, companies like Microsoft and Adobe are trying very aggressively to change the way we read books (e.g., transform them into software).

As storytellers, we need to be able to keep up with how our markets and audiences want their stories served, whether you're in it for the quick cash or the long-haul legend status. To do otherwise would be career suicide.

[blacbird]

And if people stood to benefit from the sales of "Great Expectations," then someone would go hawk it.

A slight digression, but three or four years ago, when the (godawful, by all indications) modernized version of "Great Expectations" was released to theaters, an accompanying modernized novelization from the movie, under the title "Great Expectations", was released in paperback. This event, more than any other I can think of, summarizes current literary marketing.

Do you suppose at any point past the initial script-writing anybody associated with this marketing even knew who Charles Dickens was?

caw.

[maestrowork]

We know movies sell books -- no matter how awful the movie is. Memoirs of a Geisha jumped back into top 10 (I think) and the movie isn't even out yet. The same happened to Cold Mountain...

[three seven]

What does that have to do with blah blah blah.Nothing at all - I don't give two hoots about Gone With The Wind. I was actually commenting on your (repeated) suggestion that this conversation is pointless and invalid due to its being based entirely on speculation. Why not head on over to the Fantasy section and offer the same opinion there?

[My-Immortal]

Nothing at all - I don't give two hoots about Gone With The Wind. I was actually commenting on your (repeated) suggestion that this conversation is pointless and invalid due to its being based entirely on speculation. Why not head on over to the Fantasy section and offer the same opinion there?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you (or perhaps not), but are you actually stating that Fantasy is pointless and invalid because it is based on speculation?

[jst5150]

No, I think he's saying the discussion's in the wrong area. Or that he wants to drive a large, jagged, rusty knife into the soft, thin sweet smelling flesh between the lower bones of your skull and upper part of your neck.

Though, I may just be a bit off.

[My-Immortal]

No, I think he's saying the discussion's in the wrong area. Or that he wants to drive a large, jagged, rusty knife into the soft, thin sweet smelling flesh between the lower bones of your skull and upper part of your neck.

Though, I may just be a bit off.

When did you start sniffing my neck and how would you know it is 'sweet smelling'? :)

Of course, I'm incapable of smelling the back of my neck so I suppose a "thanks" is in order for telling me that it is "sweet smelling".

I'm curious why such a discussion can't be held here? I think the discussion is actually one of merit - in that times HAVE changed and so have the styles of books that are published today vs what was published many years ago. It is not so much the story matter or content that should or should not be published but rather perhaps the styles - would they or would they not still be chosen now. Yes, it is all speculative - we can't go back and unpublish anything (though it sounds like many would wish many books COULD be unpublished - or perhaps even 'unread')...but there are many similar things of the past that occupy people's conversations - elections, how the titanic may have been saved, wars etc.

If 3-7 was attempting to belittle fantasy - that is his opinion and I'm sure it is shared by some. I don't share that opinion with him. I don't believe fantasy is invalid and pointless. I think some of it reflects some very valid themes that are faced by everyone still today - but some readers simply don't care to look that deeply inside a book to find them.

All genres have their gems - all genres have their stinkers.

Take care all - :)

[Garbarian]

three-seven was pointing out the perceived faults in james's argument, not belittling fantasy.

[Perks]

Guys, I think three seven was talking about it not making a whole lot of sense to dismiss a "what if" discussion by pointing out that it's speculative. The comparison would be to go over to the Fantasy board and say, "Why are you talking about battles between trolls and elves with swords of legendary repute? There are no such things."

(And before you start in on me, I know there is more to the Fantasy genre than my example - loads more. I'm just drawing you a picture before you report one of our mods as a man in the premeditative mode.)

[PeeDee]

It's useful to remember that, in the real world, 90% of the stuff that surrounds us "did not exist" at some point or another in human history. I'm using a computer, mostly made of plastic and copper, channeling electricity, bringing me to the internet, allowing me to talk to people on the other side of a round world.

(am not belittling three-seven. I understood and agreed, I'm just making a general comment.)

I'm pretty sure Homer's classics wouldn't make it in the printed world today. I like to think that Victor Hugo could still get published, I'm pretty sure Charles Dickens would too. I hope.

H.P. Lovecraft, too, I wonder about. He made it in the pulps, sure, but what about today's publsihing industry? Dunno.

Then again, a lot of them are a product of their times, who write books that are published within their times. I mean, in 150 years, I doubt any of my books coming fresh into the market would be published.

But regardless, keep talking. A good "what if" conversation is cool,and it means I can find out what you fine feathered folk are/have been reading. :)

[three seven]

three seven was talking about it not making a whole lot of sense to dismiss a "what if" discussion by pointing out that it's speculative. The comparison would be to go over to the Fantasy board and say, "Why are you talking about battles between trolls and elves with swords of legendary repute? There are no such things."Thank you, that was exactly what I meant.

[jst5150]

And there I was going for the knife in the neck deal. So misguided, I ... ;-)

[maestrowork]

A lot of classics are not just about the timeless themes and stories. They're also very well put-together, so to speak. Even though writing styles have changed considerably, good writing is still good writing. To Kill a Mockingbird, for example, not only has a great story and characters and universal themes, but it's also simply so darn well written -- it allows the readers, young and old, to see and experience that world through those kids' eyes...

[PeeDee]

Sure. I mean, even if the punctuation has changed, the use of the exclamation point fallen out (it always surprises me when reading Asimov's stuff) and we're living in two different worlds, a great writer really trandscends that and tells you a story no matter what.

I enjoy Geoffery Chaucer. I think we're, what, 500 years apart? doesn't matter.

[blacbird]

We know movies sell books -- no matter how awful the movie is. Memoirs of a Geisha jumped back into top 10 (I think) and the movie isn't even out yet. The same happened to Cold Mountain...

True, but my point (which I guess I didn't entirely clarify) was that the "novelization" made from the movie wasn't a new printing of Dickens' classic; it was an entirely new book, ghosted from the script of the movie. It would be akin to somebody producing a new Memoirs of a Geisha novel, based on the movie script.

caw.

[maestrowork]

Novelization is an abomination in general.

[My-Immortal]

Thank you, that was exactly what I meant.

I'm glad that was straightened out. :)

Take care all -

[PeeDee]

Novelization is an abomination in general.

Sometimes, it gets silly. LIke the Judge Dredd novelization, for example. You have a book, based on a movie, based on a video game, based on a comic book.

I mean....geeze.

Sometimes, novelizations are all right. I enjoyed the Chronicles of Riddick novelization (Alan Dean Foster) very much. But then, I enjoy the Riddick story so far too, and I suspect I'm a minority in that regard.

I'm surprised someone hasn't done a "Harry Potter: The Novelization" yet... :)

[My-Immortal]

Sometimes, it gets silly. LIke the Judge Dredd novelization, for example. You have a book, based on a movie, based on a video game, based on a comic book.

I mean....geeze.

Sometimes, novelizations are all right. I enjoyed the Chronicles of Riddick novelization (Alan Dean Foster) very much. But then, I enjoy the Riddick story so far too, and I suspect I'm a minority in that regard.

I'm surprised someone hasn't done a "Harry Potter: The Novelization" yet... :)

Question - how many Riddick movies are there? 2? Pitch Black (right?) and Chronicles...? Are there other stories about that character / world?

I'm waiting for the "LOTR: The Novelization"...

[maestrowork]

South Park: the novelization.

[My-Immortal]

The Jerry Springer Show: The Novelization

[zeprosnepsid]

It seems several people are taking this fun little topic very seriously.

I agree that Gone With The Wind would have a hard time getting published today. I agree that Lord of the Rings also might not be published, because while I like it, I don't think it's written very well.

As for whoever mention Foucault's Pendulum, I disagree. In a post-Da Vinci Code world that book would still get published. It would also get published because it was the second novel by an author who had a very successful first novel. Which brings me to what I think is almost a better question -- who shouldn't be automaticalluy published. People who have a successful book are secured publication for quite a long time afterwards. Although I suppose we could look at each book they've written as if it was their first novel to really judge if it'd be published today.

My contribution to books I think wouldn't be published is Catch-22. I don't know if there's a place in an increasingly genre-based market for a book like this. And without modern day circumstances to parallel it, I don't think it stands up very well. But I agree that perhaps 1984 would get published because while it reflected modern day circumstances of the time, it's an interesting speculative, genre-based look at a topic that would be interesting even without a parallel.

[DivaNicoletta]

Can anyone think of any monumental past bestsellers that would never cut it in today's marketplace? I'm thinking specifically of my childhood favorite, Gone With the Wind. Here was a 1,037 page manuscript by an unknown author, a manuscript that had obviously received not a lick of professional feedback or polishing (as is painfully and embarrasingly obvious throughout many passages), and yet was not only a runaway bestseller in its day, but continues to be one of the greatest selling novels of all time? Yet how many publishers today would be willing to look at a 1,037 page book about the Civil War from an unagented, unknown writer, and which seemingly breaks every workshop rule of polished fiction? I would be willing to bet, not many.

I was wondering how many other former bestsellers would never cut the mustard today, and why? Do you think this reflects a sadder state of affairs for the publishing business today overall?

Gone with the wind was the exact one I was thinking.

[PeeDee]

"Yo my baby's daddy, an I luv U!" say da girl strayt up in the hizzy.

(that hurt my poor little sane mind to type. You should pity me.)

There's Pitch Black, and then there's The Chronicles of Riddick. There's a cartoon mini-movie by the folks who made the Animatrix, and while it's vaguely interesting, it's mostly crap (I can't even remember what it's called)

There's the novelization for Pitch Black, which is horribly horrible. Then there's the Chronicles of Riddick novelization which is not deep, especially, but I do enjoy reading.

There's nothing else. hey! Power That Be! I will write you a line of Riddick books! PM me!

Oh, and there is a Lord of the Rings, the novelization out. Haven't you heard?

It's called "The Wheel of Time."

:box: ZING!:box:

*runs pell-mell for cover*

[blargh]

Since it's fun speculating about this, I'd like to throw into the ring Finnegans Wake. I think it was a miracle it ever saw publication in the first place, and I seriously doubt it would make it today. Then again, I've never made it past the first five pages or thereabouts, so maybe I'm missing out on something.

[blacbird]

I've never made it past the first five pages or thereabouts, so maybe I'm missing out on something.

You are. 500 more pages of the same.

caw.

[Garbarian]

Since it's fun speculating about this, I'd like to throw into the ring Finnegans Wake. I think it was a miracle it ever saw publication in the first place, and I seriously doubt it would make it today. Then again, I've never made it past the first five pages or thereabouts, so maybe I'm missing out on something. Well, if the author had the same standing Joyce did when he wrote it, it would definitely still get published. He could have just written random nonsense and made up gibberish and been published...oh wait. The point is, the guy was already a world icon by the time it came out. A first novel, though, today? Never.

[PeeDee]

Thisis the first I've heard of this book, and there's obvioulsy some particular joke about it I'm missing out on. The beans need to be spilled, pronto.

[reph]

Pete, it's a classic, and it's unconventional.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0141181265/102-9604188-6192153?v=glance

[aruna]

Pete, it's a classic, and it's unconventional.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0141181265/102-9604188-6192153?v=glance

Hmmmm. I like this quote from the first review:

Upon first looking at the pages of "Finnegans Wake," one inevitably must wonder what it's supposed to be. My explanation of it is an extension of my theory about "Ulysses," which is that "Ulysses" was Joyce's effort to write a novel that used every single existing word in the English language, or at least as many as he could. (Among its 400,000 words, "Ulysses" certainly has a much broader lexicon than any other novel of comparable length.) Having exhausted all the possibilities of English in "Ulysses," he had only one recourse for his next project, which was to create an entirely new language as a pastiche of all the existing ones; the result is "Finnegans Wake."

[banjo]

If so many well read and esteemed books from the past would not be published today, does that mean the readers, who in theory drive the market, would not read the books, or does it mean that commercial publishers of today would miss the mark and fail to publish brilliant books?

Does the question originally raised by this topic truly address a change in readers' tastes, or the shortsightedness of a largely monopolistic modern publishing industry, given its 20/80 percentage success/failure performance ratios?

[blargh]

You are. 500 more pages of the same.

caw.

*shudder* The idea of 500 more pages of that makes me want to reach for the BC powders. Oh, my head.