What do you make of this article?!!

Just more proof that in today's industry that is inundated with so many new writers that it isn't just how talented you are, but how well you network.

My take of the article is the books and authors became published because their works were viable in the market back in the '70s, which doesn't mean they would viable in todays market.

The same for PT109 about John F. Kennedy by Robert J. Donovan. Would you think that would be viable into todays market?

I think it was an unfair and meaningless exercise. They didn't chose commerical books, they didn't chose even reasonably modern books - they chose literary works from the 1970's. The literary world has moved on substantially since the 1970's and to expect a book written then to be marketable now (especially without any publishing credits in the query letter) with no updating or alteration, is ludicrous. This wasn't about finding out how open publishers are to fresh new talent, because those books weren't fresh and new. They're older then some people on this forum, for heaven's sake! It was just giving the harbingers of publishing doom another chance to moan about how rubbish the world is, and how much better things were in Their Day.

Zolah said:

I think it was an unfair and meaningless exercise. They didn't chose commerical books, they didn't chose even reasonably modern books - they chose literary works from the 1970's. The literary world has moved on substantially since the 1970's and to expect a book written then to be marketable now (especially without any publishing credits in the query letter) with no updating or alteration, is ludicrous. This wasn't about finding out how open publishers are to fresh new talent, because those books weren't fresh and new. They're older then some people on this forum, for heaven's sake! It was just giving the harbingers of publishing doom another chance to moan about how rubbish the world is, and how much better things were in Their Day.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. I Love Lucy was fresh and original for its time. If I saw something with the same plot today, I would think Um, Seen this one before. Show me something different. And I would change the channel.

Old news.

See my commentary here:

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

Books

I'm always surprised when such books find a home to begin with.

But I would also says there's another possible reason for rejection I never see mentioned. The publisher doesn't recognize the book, but does know that 1. the reading public is not highly interested in buying such books in large numbers. or, 2. Someone out there, probably several someones, is already writing books a lot like this.

This tends to happen a lot. A book is a hit to some degree, other writers copy that book, and then the original book under a pseudonym comes in to a publisher. The publisher doesn't recognize the book, but does know eighty-two other writers have been writing similar books for several years.

When an original book becomes just another book in a long line of similar books, who's going to make an offer?

Soccer Mom said:

I completely agree. I Love Lucy was fresh and original for its time. If I saw something with the same plot today, I would think Um, Seen this one before. Show me something different. And I would change the channel.

Click to expand...

PRECISELY! Most agents and publishers love reading and are incredibly well read. Chances are that the people who read those samples either a) recognised them, groaned, and sent a standard rejection or didn't reply at all or b) didn't actually recognise them, but found them pretty familiar, groaned and sent a standard rejection or didn't reply at all. That's why these tests are ridiculous.

Surely the newspaper has something better to do than this trivial exercise?

Books are very much a product of the times they are in. These guys had to go far enough back so they could find books that no one would remember, which meant they were dated by today's market. Thirty years is a very long time, especially when you have major events that affected the book market (i.e., Cold War ending, first woman in the military, 911, new technology, audience tastes, etc.).

I recently picked up a book called The R Document, billed as an International Best Seller. I hadn't heard of it or the author before, and I know of most of the best selling thriller authors. As I read the book, I kept thinking that was it was a thriller, but it was remarkably unsophisticated for a thriller despite its subject. Finally, an oddly dated reference made me look at the copyright date: 1976. It had apparently been rereleased because the subject matter was somewhat current. But the book itself didn't stand the test of time and disappeared rather quickly. The writing was great for its time, but it wasn't sophisticated enough for today's market.

It proves that some publishsers aren't psychic, after all.