Moan, moan, complain...this is NOT a hate thread!

[scarletpeaches]

A few days ago I bought a novel from my local supermarket. Less than £4 so I thought why not...

Turns out it's a blatant ride-on-the-back-of-DVC, man and woman get together to solve a centuries-old mystery, assassination at the start, romance at the end, lots of bad men, religious fanatics, child-level puzzles in between...

My point is this. Right from the first chapter there are glaring linguistic (?) errors such as "They descended down the stairs...", head jumping, "She couldn't see him, but he was thinking such and such..."

It makes me think, if sh!t like this can be published, why am I still languishing in obscurity?

I know people will say, "Keep trying SP, you'll get there in the end," but...jings! I know for a fact my command of the English language is better than this man's, and yet HE is published? He even thanks his agent at the back of the book and it's an agent who's knocked me back!

So then I got to thinking, maybe my story isn't quite as wonderful as I like. The language is good, I know that, but what about the story?

Thing is, another agent who knocked me back more or less said, "The story's good, it's just not my thing."

It really p!sses me off that people can get books published when they simply cannot write 'good' English. I mean, that's one of the basic tools of the trade, right? You wouldn't try to build a house with defective bricks. How can you get published if you can't use words correctly?

I know, I know what you're all thinking. "This agent liked that book," "It's a matter of preference," etc etc...

But when a book has such glaring errors...it makes me spit!

Or am I being picky because I'm not just a reader, I'm a writer too?!

[RedMolly]

Oooh, Peaches, trust me... I know whereof you speak. As a fantasy reader/writer, I know all too freakin' well.

But then, I've not yet completed or submitted anything, so my snarls over bad bad books tend to be tempered with a little inner thrill of "gol-lee, if this crap can get published, my chances are surely more than zero!" So I'll be exactly where you are in about a year and a half. *sigh*

[NeuroFizz]

Just keep building on your strengths, Scarlet, and know when you are published, writer-readers will not pick up your book and comment on your loose grip of the craft.

[Becky Writes]

I get ya.

My big peeve is when the book is obviously mediocore but becasue it's the author's umpteenth novel, it gets published anyway.

Maybe some of us un-discovered would have a chance if publishing companies would reject less than great from established authors. They expect close to perfection from the unpublished, but once you get in the door the bar on what's acceptable doesn't seem so high.

JMO, of course.

[Scrawler]

I'm with Becky! I like "women's fiction-romantic comedy" type books, but 3 of the most unreadable books I've thrown across the room are second or third books from some mediocre yet inexplicably published authors. Unknown first timers like me wouldn't even get the MS, which reads like a poor first draft, looked at, much less published.
Anyway, I've used these awful books as tools to help me spot flaws and holes in my own work. Mentally editing, stumbling over horrible paragraphs, and becoming frustrated with weak plots just makes me thank the agents who rejected me. I can do better.

[scarletpeaches]

I'll give you all 'menshies'* in my first book. (First PUBLISHED book I mean)!

* Dundee slang for 'mention' or 'acknowledgements', in writer-speak. :)

[Del]

A famous name sells books. A publisher wants to make a buck. He cares less about delivering a story then he does of the money.

I want to deliver the story. The money is enticing but most of us will never really see much of it. I think it is inherent in the success that writing drops off after you attain it. The effort to be accepted is no longer essential.

I think it is like almost any job. Once you've made it, the effort you employed to get there wanes.

[rugcat]

... 3 of the most unreadable books I've thrown across the room are second or third books from some mediocre yet inexplicably published authors.
You're missing the most important point; publishing is a business. If there is a second or third book, that means that the first book sold a bunch of copies.

Yes, it's sad, but the reading public is as much to blame as any agent or publisher. We may complain that inane, predictable, poorly wriiten sitcoms often dominate TV, whereas quality shows sink with barely a trace. But surely that's not a surprise. You may believe the book reading public is of higher quality, but I think the jury's still out on that one.

That said, yes, it is frustrating. It's tempting to think, "well, if that crap is getting published, I certainly have a real chance." But it doesn't work that way; all you can do is produce the best work you're capable of, send it out, and accept rejection, even underserved rejection, especially undeserved rejection as part of the game.

To succeed you need talent, luck,and perseverence, and the only thing totally under your control is perseverence. Sadly, perseverence doesn't guarantee success, but lack of it does guarantee failure.

Keep at it.

[Summonere]

If two agents bounced your work but one said the story was good but wasn’t his kind-o thing, your trick is to match an apparently good story with an agent who likes the kind-o thing you storytell. After all, you now know that at least one pro in the biz sez groovy-groovy-gumdrops, but I like licorice… Keep the story circulating. Write some more. Welcome to the netherworld in which hope, like twilight, ever yields upon the horizon neither darkness nor light. This is the half-light of almost there.

[Allie]

Sometimes horrible is compelling. Like Howard Stern, you can't stand watch him, but you can't turn him off.

[aadams73]

Was it a really well-known bestselling author? Because he could be one of the types who refuses editing.(uhem, Anne Rice) I think everyone needs to be edited.

[Simon Woodhouse]

A famous name sells books. A publisher wants to make a buck. He cares less about delivering a story then he does of the money.

I was thinking along similar lines the other day. I write sci-fi, and I've had plenty of rejects. But I was wondering what would happen if on my query letter I said I had a degree in astro-physics, and was a former employee of NASA who worked on the Hubble Telescope. I've noticed that the blurb on lots of sci-fi novels often includes a list the author's credentials, especially if they're in any way science related. But does this make what he's written any better story-wise? Maybe, maybe not, but I get the feeling it would have helped to get his novel taken seriously, and perhaps influenced the publisher, because his credentials can be used as a marketing tool.

[SpookyWriter]

Some infamous names have also done well on the book circuit. I read stories of well know authors and cringe sometimes when I come across a horribly written scene. I think there are times when even a poorly written book makes it into the book world simply by chance. There are also times when, as others had pointed out, that the name carries the book into publication.

Is this fair? Probably not, but given that there are market forces in play I'm sure any publisher would rather take a known commodity that sells over an unknown any day of the week.

All I can say is keep writing great stuff and continue to improve until you get the attention of a savvy agent. Don't fall into the trap that there are worse writers publishing so why ain't I? Do better by proving it to an agent or publisher.

Just a rambling along...

[Maprilynne]

I think my worst moment of This-is-crap-ness (it's a real word, I promise) was when I picked up a *cough, cough* Danielle Steele novel to find out what all the hype was about. It was the second worst book I have ever read. (The first was one I had recommended to me by my grandmother and I threw it across the room it was so badly written.)
I have also been known to take a book and highlight all the unecessary "that"s just because they were driving me nuts!! The book looked like it had green measles when I was done.
Unfortunately, loads of crap out there doesn't improve your chances of being published. But write a damn good story and somebody's got to see it. We all hope.:)

Maprilynne

[stormie]

What I really hate is when I go on Amazon, see a book that sounds interesting, buy it, go to read it and...ugghh. Yet, as you said, scarlet, the author is thanking his/her very reputable agent, and the publisher is one of the big ones. And yeah, it's usually a book from an author who's been proven to sell.

Oh well. Back to writing.

[kuatolives]

I think my worst moment of This-is-crap-ness (it's a real word, I promise) was when I picked up a *cough, cough* Danielle Steele novel to find out what all the hype was about.

You picked up her book to see what all the hype was about and wondered why it was crap then wondered why people buy crap and why publishers sell crap.*shakes head*. Think about that for a few minutes. It's your fault, nobody elses. If you never picked it up in the first place just because of hype, you wouldnt have to wade through an ocean of crap just to read something decent.

Consumers dictate what sells. By picking up that Danielle steele book 'to see what all the hype was about' you just feed the feedback loop. Publishers dont give a damn if you enjoy a book or not, they just care if you buy it.

As for the original poster bummed because she can't get published yet sees garbage being published...same goes for you. Stop buying crap and crap will stop being published. You're the consumer. The money flows from your pocket. By buying that book, you just helped ensure 3 more books gets published by the same jackass who wrote it.

[Ad Astra]

But how will you know the book is crap unless you read it?

[John61480]

I get the opposite feelings. When I see that kind of writing, I get excited knowing I have somewhat of a chance in getting published. Especially if its the same genre and so on.

[janetbellinger]

I feel the same way but dammit, nobody ever said life was fair.

A few days ago I bought a novel from my local supermarket. Less than £4 so I thought why not...

Turns out it's a blatant ride-on-the-back-of-DVC, man and woman get together to solve a centuries-old mystery, assassination at the start, romance at the end, lots of bad men, religious fanatics, child-level puzzles in between...

My point is this. Right from the first chapter there are glaring linguistic (?) errors such as "They descended down the stairs...", head jumping, "She couldn't see him, but he was thinking such and such..."

It makes me think, if sh!t like this can be published, why am I still languishing in obscurity?


I feel the same way but dammit, nobody ever said life was fair.
I know people will say, "Keep trying SP, you'll get there in the end," but...jings! I know for a fact my command of the English language is better than this man's, and yet HE is published? He even thanks his agent at the back of the book and it's an agent who's knocked me back!

So then I got to thinking, maybe my story isn't quite as wonderful as I like. The language is good, I know that, but what about the story?

Thing is, another agent who knocked me back more or less said, "The story's good, it's just not my thing."

It really p!sses me off that people can get books published when they simply cannot write 'good' English. I mean, that's one of the basic tools of the trade, right? You wouldn't try to build a house with defective bricks. How can you get published if you can't use words correctly?

I know, I know what you're all thinking. "This agent liked that book," "It's a matter of preference," etc etc...

But when a book has such glaring errors...it makes me spit!

Or am I being picky because I'm not just a reader, I'm a writer too?!

[ShannonC_77]

I find this moreso with non-fiction magazines in the fitness industry. Being a past personal trainer myself I cannot believe the loads of garbage that get published. I seriously want to scream when I read something like what was in the last "Woman's Health" about how you should walk backwards on the treadmill because apparently you burn more calories. It's soooooo annoying.

[Del]

Sometimes horrible is compelling. Like Howard Stern, you can't stand watch him, but you can't turn him off.

Howard who?

[ChaosTitan]

I think my worst moment of This-is-crap-ness (it's a real word, I promise) was when I picked up a *cough, cough* Danielle Steele novel to find out what all the hype was about.

I tried this maneuver with James Patterson.

:e2yawn:

From now on, I'm doing my "hype checker" shopping at the flea market so I can waste fifty cents instead of eight bucks.

[Del]

But how will you know the book is crap unless you read it?

I buy bulk bags of books at thrift stores (5 paperbacks for $2.00). I found John Nance that way, whom I enjoy. The other 4 crapouts didn't get a cent from me but I've since made John a few bucks.

Yard sales, used book stores...theft. (j/k) :D

[Del]

I get the opposite feelings. When I see that kind of writing, I get excited knowing I have somewhat of a chance in getting published. Especially if its the same genre and so on.


OPTIMISM!!


Great stuff.

[Del]

I tried this maneuver with James Patterson.

:e2yawn:

From now on, I'm doing my "hype checker" shopping at the flea market so I can waste fifty cents instead of eight bucks.

LOL, I have two Paterson flea market books by the bed as I type. I've not been able to immerse myself in the first. Perhaps I'll send you the second.

[ChaosTitan]

LOL, I have two Paterson flea market books by the bed as I type. I've not been able to immerse myself in the first. Perhaps I'll send you the second.

No thanks. I'm sure someone else out there needs a nice coaster. I've already got one. ;)

[Scrawler]

You're missing the most important point; publishing is a business. If there is a second or third book, that means that the first book sold a bunch of copies. No, I understand the point. Those are clearly the "contract had to be fulfilled by X deadline" books. Publishing is a business- a tough one- and I generally feel that if crap like that is published it makes it harder for unknowns. When the "knowns" skate by with crap (surely crap is easily recognized by those in the business) and cause a publisher to lose money or an agent to lose credibility, it's just that much tougher for everyone don't ya think?
But I'm still very excited about making mine extremely non-crap!:D

[rugcat]

Absolutely.

And, publishers only have so many books they can publish, and every bad book by a known writer is one less space for someone else. But just because a book is bad doesn't necessarily mean it won't sell or that the publisher loses money. Name recognition is huge in selling books.

[Novelhistorian]

Scarlet, if it makes you feel any better, about twenty-five years ago, I was a free-lance copyeditor in New York, and this particular client sent me a soon-to-be bestseller by an author from your country who'd had a string of successes already.

I took one look at the ms. and said, "Are they kidding?" The characters were paper thin, the prose creaked and groaned from the horrors being inflicted on it, and factual errors abounded. One scene took place in a well-known museum; anyone who'd ever visited it would have known right away that the author hadn't. . . we're talking world-famous museum, not hard to research. More to the point, I thought, the climax and resolution made no sense and were patently unbelievable.

I pointed this out to the publisher as tactfully as I could, and a friend of mine within the company showed me a memo from one of the company directors. It said, essentially, that I must think the author was a better storyteller than s/he actually was if I bothered to get hung up on these matters. The bottom line was, This author sells. Nobody asks questions.

[Jamesaritchie]

If you don't pick up a Danielle Steele novel you have no clue. It may be the best novel you've ever read. You don't have to buy it new, but even if you do, you are NOT giving that writer three more books.

Readers picking up one book changes little or nothing. Numbers are made when readers like a writer enough to keep coming back book after book after book, and when a book is good enough that friends tell friends who tell friends who tell friends who tell friends you have to read this book.

I can't say I'm crazy about Danielle Steel novels, but the woman has now sold more than half a billion novels. You can call what she writes crap all day long, but when you do so you're saying a huge, huge portion of the reading public wants crap. Pretty hard to write for the reading public if you really believe this.

It's simply nonsense to say you shouldn't try a Danielle Steel novel, or that trying one means three more will get published. It just doesn't work that way. It the first place, the numbers don't work. In the second place, the reason Danielle steel, or any other successful writer, sells so many copies, book, after book, after book, after book is purely because millions of readers love what she writes.

It's also nonsense to think a bestselling writer, whoever that writer is, stops new writers from getting published. There's infinite room at the top, and no publisher has ever said, "Well, here's a new writer with great talent, one who can make us a lot of money, but, shoot, Danielle Stelle is already making us enough money. We don't need any more."

It's also nonsense to think effort drops off after you get published. With every writer I've known, effort increases dramatically after a first novel is sold. The only thing that really increses in a negative manner is all the wannabes taking potshots at you because you managed to do something they can't do.

It isn't the crap being published that stops writers from finding a slot, it's the crap they submit. There's infinite room at the top, but there's darned near no room at the bottom. Publishers publish the best they can find, and it's not their fault if they can't find more than they do.

Instead of looking at what Danielle Steel is doing wrong, new writers should be looking at what she's doing right, and it's considerable. She hasn't sold half a billion novels by accident, and she hasn't sold half a billion novels because someone bought one of her books and gave her three new ones. She's sold half a billion novels purely and simply because massive numbers of the reading public would rather read her novels than ours. It's that simple.

As for rejecting a bestselling writer in order to publish a new writer, that doesn't make sense in any way at all. In the first place, if that new writer is any good, you don't have to reject the bestselling writer in order to publish him or her.

It's also bad business.

But far, far worse, it's nothing but an ego trip. It's telling the reading public, "We don't care what you like or what you want, this is what you're getting instead."

Most of the talk about bestselling writers publishing crap is nonsense. Nothing jore than a matter of taste. . .or spite.

Not all novels are going to be equal from any writer, but by and large, bestselling writers who last are still producing novels the public wants, and novels that are better than anything else a publisher can find.

When a bestselling writer stops writing novels the public wants, that bestselling writer starts a steep slide. Many, many, many writers have been on the bestseller list, and then vanished from sight because subsequent novels weren't good enough to keep readers coming back.

Now, it's true that Anne Rice doesn't allow her books to be edited. But, dang it, she still managed to take something old and make it new. She still managed to find millions of fans. She still managed to tell stories and build characters the reading public wanted to shell out hard-earned money to read.

Sometimes bad books manage to get published, and sometimes the reading public buys a lot of them. But it never lasts. They know the difference, and when a writer writes novel after novel after novel after novel that sells in droves, the reading public is saying very loudly that the writer is doing something incredibly right. And they always, without exception, are.

If you don't like the taste of the reading puiblic, you're going to have a devil of a time writing anything they want to read.

[aruna]

If you don't like the taste of the reading puiblic, you're going to have a devil of a time writing anything they want to read.

Well, as far as Danielle STeele and Dan Browne are concerned, I don't.
Miss Snark once made a very pertinent comment; she was talking about being able to tell a good manuscipt from a bad one, and went on to say she can't tell a bad manuscript that will sell from a bad one that won't, and mentioned Danielle Steel in this context.
Some very bad writers simple have something that the reading public likes, and it's not in the writing. Who knows what it is?
I'd rather write my best and offer what I believe is quality and have "only" 10000 copies sold, than sell hundreds of millions and know I'm writing lowest denominator trash.

[Jaycinth]

But how will you know the book is crap unless you read it?

Unless I am familiar with the author, I get the books from the library. (Yes I go to bookstores, make a list and carry it with me.) If I like them then I'll drop $7.95 to $40.00 buying the author's book(s). If I don't, the only thing I've wasted is reading time.

Friends who insist on loaning me books are wonderful, but half the time they get the book sent back bristling with post-it notes pointing out bad grammar, spelling, etc.

Come to think of it, I send books back to the library the same way.

[arkady]

It's tempting to think, "well, if that crap is getting published, I certainly have a real chance." But it doesn't work that way; all you can do is produce the best work you're capable of, send it out, and accept rejection, even underserved rejection, especially undeserved rejection as part of the game.

To succeed you need talent, luck,and perseverence, and the only thing totally under your control is perseverence. Sadly, perseverence doesn't guarantee success, but lack of it does guarantee failure.

Keep at it.

Very well said, rugrat. This is surely the hardest and bitterest pill for most of us to swallow.

[Sassenach]

I'd rather write my best and offer what I believe is quality and have "only" 10000 copies sold, than sell hundreds of millions and know I'm writing lowest denominator trash.

That's the thing...I doubt Danielle Steel, et al think they're writing "lowest denominator trash." Plus they're rich and powerful and famous and have millions of readers. If I was in their position, I'd figure I'm doing something right.

[aruna]

Plus they're rich and powerful and famous and have millions of readers. If I was in theat position, I'd figure I'm doing something right.

The thing is, I don't think "rich and powerful and famous" really mean anything at all in the final analysis - certainly not that the person is doing something right. I guess Paris Hilton also thinks she's doing something right. As you can guess, I;m not a great cheerleader for culture of the masses.
I know a lot of people who are really doing everything right and are poor, unknown and have no power. And yet they are admirable in the extreme..

OK, I agree that trash was a strong word - I was in a hurry and didn't bother to search for something mroe appropriate. And I really can't be bothereed to do so now either - people know what I mean.

[janetbellinger]

God only knows I admire anybody who has succeeded in getting a novel published by a reputable, commercial publisher. I am not in a position to judge Danielle Steel's work, not by a long shot.

[aruna]

God only knows I admire anybody who has succeeded in getting a novel published by a reputable, commercial publisher. I am not in a position to judge Danielle Steel's work, not by a long shot.

But of course you are! Why do we think we have to be more successful than the authors we have opinions about? You are a writer struggling to get published and working on your work. You are learning to recognise good and bad writing, and you MUST if you want to be a good writer.

Being taken on by a reputable publisher means only one thiing: they think they can make money with that book. And some editors have an eye for what will sell, even if the writing is bad.

Last year I read a chick-lit book that was making waves, and I was horrfied, perfectly horrified, by the cliches, head-hopping, repetitions, flat characters in the book. But the book was heavily promoted (by my own publisher, that;s why I was watching it so closely!), possibly because the author's father was very famous and she herself was young and very presentable. The story wasn't bad, but nothing at al special. Now that book is an international best-seller. Doesn't make it a GOOD book, and even though she outsells me by hundreds of thousands I don't feel I am now honour bound to say it's a good book. I stand by the opinion I had then; why should I change it just because she was so successful?

There's a point in a published book where the PR machine takes over. ANother book published by my company, and whose author shares an editor with me, is Girl with a Pearl Earring. After the publication of my third book I was trying to get my publisher to organise some more events for me,. I suggested a "readers' day", a particular event where two or three authors spend the day with readers giving talks and just hobnobbing with them; I'd done one before and knew the person who organises them, a guy called Guy. The PR person said she'd see what she could do.
A few wekks later she clalled to say she;s sorry, but Guy had chosen Girl With a Pearl Earring instead.

It makes sense; that book was already famous, and so the PR machine continued rolling to make it even more famous. At one point the books that haven't grabbed the spotlight fall back into the shadows, while thos ethat have continue to roll forwards.

[Allie]

Think about the publishers for just a minute. Consider the expense of producing a hundred thousand books. These are huge corporations, with large staffs, medical benefits to pay, and executives with million dollars price tags. Every book is a risk.

Authors with name following are less of a risk, people will buy their books because of who they are. Those of us who aren't so lucky have to consider what publisher's will buy. And that might not be what we want to write. In which case, rejection will follow, not because we can't write, but from the business side, our wonderful book won't sell enough to make the corporate giant a profit.

My thought for that wonderfully written book in a niche market, self publish, self market. It's tough for fiction, but it's better than giving up.

[Atlantis]

Well, if the book was going for $4 bucks in a supermarket, you can at least take pleasure that the author is probably working in starbucks for a living to keep his head above water as he pumps out novel after crappy novel. He was probably published by some cheap over-the-hill publishing house that makes it money by spitting out tacky cheap novels that they can sell for almost nothing at all then send the author a couple of bucks a month in royalty through the mail, if he's lucky. There is alot of badly written books out there. I flipped through a Danielle Steel book the other day for the first time and it was written in past tense the whole way through "Mary and Anne went to New York, then went shopping, then made snow angels on the ground..." that sort of thing. How can anyone get into that? My mother got sent a "literary" novel once by my sister's mother-in-low. In the opening pages, it had "a ball of fire rolled past..." that was enough to make me put the book down. Since when does fire ROLL ACROSS THE GROUND IN A BALL SHAPE? *shakes head*

[ORION]

Well said Jamesarichie.
*clap*
*clap*
I applaud your honesty. Many times there is an elitism expounded by writers.
They say that they'd rather be unpublished than "sell out"
They'll probably get their wish.

[Sassenach]

Well, if the book was going for $4 bucks in a supermarket, you can at least take pleasure that the author is probably working in starbucks for a living to keep his head above water as he pumps out novel after crappy novel. He was probably published by some cheap over-the-hill publishing house that makes it money by spitting out tacky cheap novels that they can sell for almost nothing at all then send the author a couple of bucks a month in royalty through the mail, if he's lucky. There is alot of badly written books out there. I flipped through a Danielle Steel book the other day for the first time and it was written in past tense the whole way through "Mary and Anne went to New York, then went shopping, then made snow angels on the ground..." that sort of thing. How can anyone get into that? My mother got sent a "literary" novel once by my sister's mother-in-low. In the opening pages, it had "a ball of fire rolled past..." that was enough to make me put the book down. Since when does fire ROLL ACROSS THE GROUND IN A BALL SHAPE? *shakes head*


Dear Atlantis, Up There On Your High Horse:


1. Scarletpeaches said 4 pounds (£4), not dollars. That would make the book cost around US$7.40, which is fairly standard for a mass market paperback.

2. If you knew anything about the publishing business [which I doubt] you'd be aware that the companies publishing mass market paperbacks aren't "over the hill."

3. I'm not a Steel fan, but apparently millions of people can get "into that."

4. Perhaps, just perhaps, the "ball of fire" was a metaphor?

[Atlantis]

Dear Atlantis, Up There On Your High Horse:


1. She said 4 pounds, not dollars. That would make the book cost around US$7.40, which is fairly standard for a mass market paperback.

2. If you knew anything about the publishing business [which I doubt] you'd be aware that the companies publishing mass market paperbacks aren't "over the hill."

3. I'm not a Steel fan, but apparently millions of people can get "into that."

4. Perhaps, just perhaps, the "ball of fire" was a metaphor?

Spoken by an author who most likely has quite a few books on the "Cheap" rack at the supermarket, eh? Keep trying! You'll get there!

[Sassenach]

I'm just being candid. This is rude: you can at least take pleasure that the author is probably working in starbucks for a living to keep his head above water as he pumps out novel after crappy novel.

[Elektra]

Er--if Sassenach is the author I think she is, her books certainly aren't cheap (in the deragatory sense of the word). Though she does have quite a few of them.

And I may very well have missed something, but what's wrong with writing in past tense?

[Elektra]

Also, if a book hits the supermarket, isn't it usually because it's done quite well and is a book that lots of people will enjoy? And even if it did cost only $4, it's still published. Someone out there liked it enough to buy it. People will read it--probably lots of people, because it's affordable. Hey, I'm not too good to work at Starbucks if it means I'm developing a fan base while I'm at it.

[janetbellinger]

Well, if the book was going for $4 bucks in a supermarket, you can at least take pleasure that the author is probably working in starbucks for a living to keep his head above water as he pumps out novel after crappy novel. He was probably published by some cheap over-the-hill publishing house that makes it money by spitting out tacky cheap novels that they can sell for almost nothing at all then send the author a couple of bucks a month in royalty through the mail, if he's lucky. There is alot of badly written books out there. I flipped through a Danielle Steel book the other day for the first time and it was written in past tense the whole way through "Mary and Anne went to New York, then went shopping, then made snow angels on the ground..." that sort of thing. How can anyone get into that? My mother got sent a "literary" novel once by my sister's mother-in-low. In the opening pages, it had "a ball of fire rolled past..." that was enough to make me put the book down. Since when does fire ROLL ACROSS THE GROUND IN A BALL SHAPE? *shakes head*

You can say a lot of negative things about me, but one thing I know for sure I would never do and that is to feel pleasure that another writer had to work for Starbucks etc. God only knows, I know how it feels to work at something I'm uninspired and bored by.

[scarletpeaches]

I console myself with the fact this 'author' to whom I refer in the OP was previously a non-fiction writer, and I HOPE for his sake, his NF is better than his fiction, he had an agent for those books, and he got an 'in' that way.

His writing is still cr@p, though; no two ways about it. He broke every rule of grammar and syntax known to man.

And nowhere did I suggest we need to get rid of the 'bad' writers at the top to make room for the 'good' ones at the bottom. I was merely making the age-old complaint, "He's published and he's crap; I'm better than that so why am I not rich and famous yet?"

Yes, keep trying an' all that...you still lose sight of it from time to time when the despair kicks in and you get yet another knockback from an agent who prefers to work with people who can barely write in English...and that's supposedly their first language...

[RedMolly]

There is alot of badly written books out there.

Uncertain where, exactly, to start with this statement.

[The Lady]

Yeah, I want to chime in on this, what's wrong with the past tense? If I ever so much as dare to break into present, I get slammed immediately by critters poised to spot the obvious mistake. What other tense is left? Somebody please explain.

[Scarlett_156]

If you think something is bad and you paid for it, then the joke's on you.

[Elektra]

Yeah, I want to chime in on this, what's wrong with the past tense? If I ever so much as dare to break into present, I get slammed immediately by critters poised to spot the obvious mistake. What other tense is left? Somebody please explain.

Future, of course:

"Mary and Anne will go to New York, then they may go shopping, depending on whether or not they feel like it, and then will make snow angels on the ground, provided nothing gets in their way..."

[RedMolly]

Future, of course

*snort*

I think the default literary style should be second person, future tense. "You will enter a room. You will sense something is not right seconds before you see the body."

[The Lady]

*snort*

I think the default literary style should be second person, future tense. "You will enter a room. You will sense something is not right seconds before you see the body."

Ah, thank you, thank you guys. At last I know what I was doing wrong. I'm off to rewrite my 200,000 word masterpiece in second, future. see ya in print:)

[Carrie in PA]

*snort*

I think the default literary style should be second person, future tense. "You will enter a room. You will sense something is not right seconds before you see the body."

OOH OOH!!! Can we use this in conjunction with the flip-to-the-page books???

If you will see a knife on the floor, flip to page 132. If you will see a gun, flip to page 241.

[scarletpeaches]

If you think something is bad and you paid for it, then the joke's on you.

What was the alternative? Judge the book before I'd read it? STEAL the book and read it?

[Carrie in PA]

What was the alternative? Judge the book before I'd read it? STEAL the book and read it?

:roll: Yeah, and then you go back and pay for it if it was good. If it was bad, you just sneak it back onto the shelf.

[stormie]

Future, of course:"Mary and Anne will go to New York, then they may go shopping, depending on whether or not they feel like it, and then will make snow angels on the ground, provided nothing gets in their way..."
Ah, gee. All these years I've been writing in the wrong tense.

[cattywampus]

Rugcat is absolutely right. Publishers, no matter what they call themselves, if you trace them back, are often owned by some big outfit like Time-Life or a conglomerate of Saudi princes, etc. They're not in it to give newcomers a break or to publish books by unknowns - why, because they don't sell. I'm talking about sales in the high hundred thousands, or even millions of copies. Like it or not, in recent decades, American business has set all its policies in terms of the bottom line. Altruism doesn't enter into it. Unfortunately, good writing doesn't, either. The publisher can always hire a ghost.

The person whose book you bought slid in under the back door somehow. I would write his publisher and ask why he was published. They won't tell you, but it would be interesting to see what they would say. I would guess the book was self-published.

[Sassenach]

Rugcat is absolutely right. Publishers, no matter what they call themselves, if you trace them back, are often owned by some big outfit like Time-Life or a conglomerate of Saudi princes, etc. They're not in it to give newcomers a break or to publish books by unknowns - why, because they don't sell. I'm talking about sales in the high hundred thousands, or even millions of copies. Like it or not, in recent decades, American business has set all its policies in terms of the bottom line. Altruism doesn't enter into it. Unfortunately, good writing doesn't, either. The publisher can always hire a ghost.

The person whose book you bought slid in under the back door somehow. I would write his publisher and ask why he was published. They won't tell you, but it would be interesting to see what they would say. I would guess the book was self-published.

No one knew JK Rowling, Dan Brown or Daniel Handler when their first books were published.

I'm trying to remember a time when altruism trumped the bottom line in American business [or business in general], and coming up empty.

[Gwenzilla]

I do sometimes feel that way about books I pick up and read. My responses range from annoyance to hopeful optimism when I find a book that falls so far below what I would consider decent quality has been published.

Apropos of nothing, there is such a phenomenon as ball lightning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning), which does indeed look like a ball of fire-- but it's extremely rare. It was in my house once when I was a kid. Skeeeery.