UK Publishers/Agents Reject Prize Winning Novels

Flapdoodle · Jan 2, 2006

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1965623,00.html

Interesting. This is not the first time the UK publishing industry has had this sort of "trick" played on it. Not sure what it means - is it pointless to even bother submitting to a UK publisher? Or are they only interested in Celebrity written books. I have to say that in the horror field, a lot of authors don't seem to be getting published by UK publishers anymore - either new or established.

I suspect that the UK industry has been doing the same as the music industry -stripping away it's "middle" selling stuff and concentrating on big sellers - and thus removing what amounted to its "steady" income - authors with steady sales and decent followings.

Richard · Jan 2, 2006

There's another alternative of course, which is that what was marketable and innovative in 1970 doesn't still have the same status now. I don't know if that's the case with these books of course - I've never heard of the authors they're talking about.

waylander · Jan 2, 2006

Flapdoodle said:
I have to say that in the horror field, a lot of authors don't seem to be getting published by UK publishers anymore - either new or established. QUOTE]

That's pretty much true. If you want to sell horror to a UK publisher call it dark fantasy or make it a crime story - not my words, but the advice given by Jo Fletcher of Gollancz to my writing group.
Michael Marshall Smith is a good example of this.

Flapdoodle · Jan 2, 2006

waylander said:
Flapdoodle said:

I have to say that in the horror field, a lot of authors don't seem to be getting published by UK publishers anymore - either new or established. QUOTE]

That's pretty much true. If you want to sell horror to a UK publisher call it dark fantasy or make it a crime story - not my words, but the advice given by Jo Fletcher of Gollancz to my writing group.
Michael Marshall Smith is a good example of this.

Click to expand...

I used to e-mail Mr Smith occasionally, some years ago. Seems like a nice bloke - glad he's doing well. I thought he'd vanished until I saw one of his "crime" books in ASDA - and was even more suprised to see that it was more horror than crime.

What is "Dark Fantasy"? I notice a lot of magazines claim to be "dark fantasy" - but I haven't a clue what it means!

Flapdoodle · Jan 2, 2006

Richard said:
There's another alternative of course, which is that what was marketable and innovative in 1970 doesn't still have the same status now. I don't know if that's the case with these books of course - I've never heard of the authors they're talking about.

Perhaps. Maybe Abby Titmus's breasts are more marketable than decent writing these days.

Richard · Jan 2, 2006

I'd not advise sending them to an agent with an SASE.

MacAllister · Jan 2, 2006

Actually, there's a much more reasonable and obvious possibility (I wish I could take credit for thinking of it, but I can't--I once saw an editor blog about it. If I could find the link, I'd post it): Editors send out reams of rejection slips for a million reasons. One of those reasons is something is obviously plagiarized.

It's entirely both possible and likely that the manuscripts were recognized as swipes right away, and rejected out of hand for that alone.

Since I can't find the link I want--I'll link once more to Slushkiller. Because all of us should read it over, and over.

loquax · Jan 2, 2006

Richard said:
There's another alternative of course, which is that what was marketable and innovative in 1970 doesn't still have the same status now. I don't know if that's the case with these books of course - I've never heard of the authors they're talking about.

I agree. The fact that Christopher Little accepted Rowling's first MS and not Naipaul's is testament to this. We've had quite a few threads discussing whether best sellers from fifty years ago would be sold today, and the response is always mixed.

I don't think there's too much cause for concern.

aruna · Jan 2, 2006

Doesn't sur[rise me ion the least - am din fact it makes me feel better about my own rejections.

Flapdoodle said:
Perhaps. Maybe Abby Titmus's breasts are more marketable than decent writing these days.

Well, Jordan's biography is apparently one of the top sellers for 2004.
And one of the worst novels i've read for a long long time is PS I Love You, which was pushed heavily by my own publisher and is now a top international seller. I didn't get it - until I found out that the author is the daughter pf Ireland's Prime Minister and it was sold as a celebrity novel. She's lalso very young and very pretty. It's one of those books that's so badly written it's hilarious (almost all the amazon reviews say this); though the concept behind it isn't bad.
She has however gone on to write more books and I hope she has now improved her writing.

AnneMarble · Jan 2, 2006

MacAllister said:
Actually, there's a much more reasonable and obvious possibility (I wish I could take credit for thinking of it, but I can't--I once saw an editor blog about it. If I could find the link, I'd post it): Editors send out reams of rejection slips for a million reasons. One of those reasons is something is obviously plagiarized.

It's entirely both possible and likely that the manuscripts were recognized as swipes right away, and rejected out of hand for that alone.

There was a discussion on that on the NEPAT thread a long time ago. Here is the Uncle Jim take on a similar sting:
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3247&postcount=1754

I really think he has a point here. In the 1970s, I heard about a the Kosinsky sting. Even then, I was doubtful that it proved anything. First, it's a dark (not to mention highly controversial) literary novel, the sort of thing that's hard to place with a publisher to begin with. Even when it was published and got lots of acclaim, not everyone liked it. Second, many of the editors (if not all) probably recognized it. In fact, I can imagine them having lunch together and saying "I just got the craziest manuscript today. It was Kosinsky's Steps submitted under another name." "Hey, I got that one, too!")

Also, what I'd like to know is you never hear about those stings taking place with something more commercial, such as a retyped Grisham novel. Heck, today, you wouldn't even have to retype it -- just scan it and use OCR to turn it into text, and then change the names. But the editors will still recognize it.
:tongue

People will do this sort of exercise once in a while. Some are doing it as a "test," others are just loonies who think no one will figure out what they are doing. But they forget that editors are smarter than a lot of writers give them credit for. Also, even if they don't recognize the work, someone else will along the way. Finally, we know that teachers enter phrases and lines from student essays into Google to make sure they weren't stolen. So why can't we imagine that editors aren't doing the same?

Flapdoodle · Jan 2, 2006

Richard said:
I'd not advise sending them to an agent with an SASE.

If I had them, I wouldn't be sending them anywhere. Slurp.

Flapdoodle · Jan 2, 2006

aruna said:
Doesn't sur[rise me ion the least - am din fact it makes me feel better about my own rejections.

Well, Jordan's biography is apparently one of the top sellers for 2004.
And one of the worst nopvels i've read for a long long time is PS I Love You, which was pushed heavily be my own publisher and is now a top international seller. I didn't get it - ubtil I found out that the author is the daughter pf Irel;and's Prime Ministerand it was sold as a celebrity novel. She's lalso very young an dvery pretty. It's one of those books that's so badly written it's hilarious (almost all the amazon reviews say this); though the concept behind it isn't bad.
She has however gone on to write more books and I hope she has now improved her writing.

This got quite a lot of press at the time.

victoriastrauss · Jan 2, 2006

C.E. Petit's Scrivener's Error blog provides an extremely trenchant deconstruction of this "experiment." I think he's 100% correct, especially in his analysis of how the submissions were probably sent out and who actually looked at them.

Another point he makes is that the sample size--20 publishers and agents, with no word as to how many of each--is much too small to draw conclusions, especially given larger publishers' unwillingness to look at unagented work.

Much ado about nada, IMO.

- Victoria

Edited to add: What the heck, I figured I might as well blog about it too.

Jaws · Jan 2, 2006

I am somewhat less generous and understanding than is this group about that wretched "experiment" described in The Times: And the Gold Medal in Conclusion Jumping Goes to…
The "experiment" means precisely nothing.

aruna · Jan 3, 2006

Jaws said:
The "experiment" means precisely nothing.

I disagree. It DOES mean something, though perhaps not that what you have so expertly proved.
By a very wide consensus, VS Naipaul is one of the best writers in the English language. He is one of those writers who - at least in the case of his early books - can write for a universal audience, and whose books are timeless, and are bound to become classics of the English language. I don't need more authors snet in to more agents to know that something is wrong when his work - I haven't read this particular book, but I assume it;s good - gets such a clear message of rejection.
It's true that the taste in novel changes over time,. and books that were popular ten or twenty years ago wouldn't be popular now. But This wasn't a popularity contest, and it's a shame when good books are turned down soley because they are not commercial.
Sure, publishers have to make money. But there are dozens of smaller publishers who are interested in upholding quality, even if that quality is not in synch with popular demand. Sone of themn operate on a shoestring; but there are also bigger literary publishers such as Faber and |Faber which don't chase the next blockbuster but seek quality first and foremost.
I think the reason behind the rejection is not that the agents didn't recognise the quality of the work, but that they are looking predominantly for books that will earn them large advances. They are just not intersted in shopping around to the less commercially oriented publishers, no matter how good the book is. I know this from my ex-agent. She simply does not approach small publishers. She is not interested in advances below five figures.
That said, I am sure that Naipaul, if submitting today, WOULD eventually find a publisher. Who could resist such as delightful work as A House for Mr Biswas!
But I wonder what agents would say to that book these days, if it arrived ontheir desks. Perhaps, "Trinidad is not a salable setting for a novel."
Who knows.
I can't comment on Middleton as I have not read the book in question, and a Booker Prizewinner is not automatically a book of timeless quality - some of them are very trendy and so shortlived.
Remember, too, that this is Britain, not America, where there are far fewer agents and publishers. Twenty rejetions may seem like nothing in the US, but for Britain that IS a lot.

Mike Coombes · Jan 3, 2006

Yeah. what Aruna said.

It's also worth remembering that plenty of bestsellers got rejected plenty of times before they found a home, even without the jiggery-pokery. I think Forsyth's 'Day of the Jackal' got rejected many times, as indeed did Harry Potter. Does anyone know how many times Naipaul got rejected before he got a deal?

Big name, big writing or otherwise, the trick is matching author to agent to publisher.

PeeDee · Jan 3, 2006

You know, I think authors are the most wonderful and amazing people in the entire world...but I think that some times, some of them just need to shut the hell up and get back to work. All they've proved is that they all need girlfriends, a drink, and a decent story idea. I'm thoroughly unimpressed. Of course any given published-amazing-work-of-literature could be rejected today. So could any given piece of drivel, so what have you proven?

...Scrivner's Error, though, makes me applaud, as always.

Flapdoodle · Jan 3, 2006

victoriastrauss said:
C.E. Petit's Scrivener's Error blog provides an extremely trenchant deconstruction of this "experiment." I think he's 100% correct, especially in his analysis of how the submissions were probably sent out and who actually looked at them.

Another point he makes is that the sample size--20 publishers and agents, with no word as to how many of each--is much too small to draw conclusions, especially given larger publishers' unwillingness to look at unagented work.

Much ado about nada, IMO.

- Victoria

Edited to add: What the heck, I figured I might as well blog about it too.

Remember the experiment took place in the UK. Over the last ten years the number of publishers has dwindled as most of them have been merged with larger companies. I'd be amazed if there were even 20 publishers who publish fiction anymore in the UK.

Jamesaritchie · Jan 3, 2006

Books

I can't say this impresses me, either. Being a Booker winner is no guarantee of quality. Far from it. And it's certainly no guarantee of having anything like mass appeal. In my opinion, the only reason these books ever sold well at all was because they won the Booker, and winning such a prize impresses some readers.

James D. Macdonald · Jan 3, 2006

See my essay on this here:

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/007138.html

PeeDee · Jan 3, 2006

Eerily enough, I just went off to see what Making Light had to say about this, and found your article just a bit before you posted it here.

At any rate, you're right. But my favorite point is your (I think) second comment to the post. That all this proves is that the system works, and plagarized books aren't bought.

Exactly. But unfortunately, the twits who are crowing about this "Major Victory Against Publishers" will not think about that.

(Why on earth are we trying to have Major Victories Against Publishers anyway? I mean, they're not our enemy, we're not the enemy....there is no enemy here. Honestly.)

ChunkyC · Jan 3, 2006

I must admit, the very first time I heard of this gambit (the 1969 one, I believe), I was very much intrigued, having just had my first science-fiction novel rejected for, among other reasons, being set in Canada. Like Canada is just too weird for folks who read voraciously about two headed aliens and alternate universes... but I digress.

Anyway, I think grasping onto this one the first time is understandable for someone who is only just beginning to experience the stark reality of trying to break into the publishing biz. Thank goodness for folks like Jim and Victoria, etc. here at AW, and for places like Making Light, who teach the neophytes among us without making us feel like fools.

And I agree completely with PeeDee. Publishers and Editors are not the enemy. They are (hopefully someday for yours truly) our partners.

Flapdoodle · Jan 3, 2006

Jamesaritchie said:
I can't say this impresses me, either. Being a Booker winner is no guarantee of quality. Far from it. And it's certainly no guarantee of having anything like mass appeal. In my opinion, the only reason these books ever sold well at all was because they won the Booker, and winning such a prize impresses some readers.

Of course it impresses some readers - it's a prestigious prize that has been awarded to some excellent books. When confronted with A.N Authors latest book (Let's say, Clyde Hussler's latest "A Berk ****"(tm) novel - The Tripe of Aunt-Lantis) next to one labelled "Booker Prize Winner" some readers are going to plump for the booker prize winner. Although I imagine most of those will (As I do) pick it up and have a quick read to see if they'll enjoy it. And perhaps some of those then put it back when it looks like it's not their cup of tea (As I have done on many occasions.)

aruna · Jan 4, 2006

Jamesaritchie said:
I can't say this impresses me, either. Being a Booker winner is no guarantee of quality. .

I agree with you with this. But I repeat, VS Naipaul IS one of the best English language writers living today, and it should make the publishing world think when someone of his quality shoud find so much rejection.

The article doesn't say it, but I believe in that ist there were far more agents than publishers; as Flapdoodle says, there are very few fiction pubishers in Britain and most of them do not accept unagented work. Bloomsbury, the only one mentioned, is one of the few that DOES.

I believe that editors of good fiction would accept Naipaul, but were probably not approached. (I deliverately limit myself to him alone and not "Booker Prizewinners" beause I agree that the latter description means nothing). But today's agents are a different cup of tea altogether.

Ever been to the Frankfurt Book Fair? It's like the Stock Exchange. It's not at all about the quality of books, it's about making money. The two don;t always go together.

Jaws · Jan 4, 2006

aruna said:
I agree with you with this. But I repeat, VS Naipaul IS one of the best English language writers living today, and it should make the publishing world think when someone of his quality shoud find so much rejection.

Two points that should be obvious (and these are not criticisms):

Whether Naipaul is "one of the best English language writers living today" is irrelevant. An editor or agent's job is primarily to buy a book, not an author. Besides which, there is plenty of room for taste, and for admission that no "best" writer is great at every type of writing. VS Naipaul's literary criticism, for example, isn't even pedestrian; conversely, the fiction written by an otherwise excellent legal writer like Alan Dershowitz leaves a lot to be desired. The other corollary of this is that not every work turned out by a good (or great) writer is equally good. Among Booker Prize winners and finalists, just look at Salman Rushdie's various novels, only two of which (Midnight's Children and Shame) manage to maintain a consistent tone and scope.

Whether one particular publisher rejected Naipaul's work is irrelevant. It would be trivial to make up a list of certain rejections merely by relying on how "big" a publisher is instead of whether it is publishing that kind of work. In the US, for example, I could send the retyped first chapter of, say, A Frolic of His Own (NBA winner by the late William Gaddis) to the flagship imprints at each of the five majors and ten midmajors and come up with fifteen rejections even if nobody recognized the book. I could even do the job properly, by retyping the first three chapters and including a synopsis and well-constructed query letter, and get the same result. There's a simple reason for this: The flagship imprints are no longer doing semiexperimental work by previously unpublished writers, because it has proven a losing commercial proposition for them. Instead, the "high literary" work from unpublished writers is coming from specialty imprints.

UK Publishers/Agents Reject Prize Winning Novels

13th Triskaidekaphobe

Who's going for a beer?

13th Triskaidekaphobe

Tired and worried.

I verb nouns adverbly

On a wing and a prayer

Nefarious Ghost Fan

Writer Beware Goddess

Apex Predator

On a wing and a prayer

Guru

Where's my tea, please...?

Your Genial Uncle

Where's my tea, please...?

It's hard being green

On a wing and a prayer

Apex Predator