does the publishing industry need revising?!

Good luck with your thesis. I'm not a published author, but am a veteran of the rejection slip. That said, the thing to make the publishing process easier on the writer, quite frankly, would be better writing. There, I said it. I think a lot of us send in material that isn't properly polished and because it's far easier to produce material than it was 20, 30 years ago with computers instead of typewriters, we clog up the process with stories that aren't quite ready (blame it on our I-want-it-now culture) if not outright crap.

That said, even though agents and publishers may have a lot more crap to sift through, I wish they could find a way to speed up their process of replies, whether rejection or acceptance. Especially frustrating is when an agent/publisher decides from your query that they want to read the full manuscript, then take months to get back to you. I'd rather know sooner than later that they are/are not interested. The best would be if they could provide feedback with a rejection but this is not feasible.

I'm sure the folks here, both published and not published, will chimein with some good comments for your paper.

My particular fantasy in this line of thought is that agents would be courageous enough to take on good books as opposed to saleable ones. I can't tell you how many rejections I've got that tell me my material is great, my writing is awesome... but "I just don't know how to market this effectively."

I realize that agents are business people, but novel writing is also an art. We need "patrons," as it were, who are willing to support excellent writing based on the fact that it is excellent, not just because it will sell a million copies. Fiction that sells like hotcakes is more than likely crap, because it appeals to everyone-- the lowest common denominator. So how many really, really good books, that might have become classics, are not being published because agents and publishers just wanted eye candy?

I'm not published myself, but from what I've read of (UK) agents' blogs, I'd say it would be an improvement for writers if editors' careers depended less on their ability to make the next Big High-Profile Sale. There seems to be a push from above to focus on finding one author who can be offered an impressive six-figure advance - with all the risk that that one book could flop - when that same money could further the careers of five or ten hard-working writers and would probably provide a more reliable return on investment in the long run.

Just my two ha'porth

(I realise that this isn't true of every genre - category romance seems to favour cheap newbie advances over the more expensive midlist author.)

Yes. The publishing industry needs a good rejection letter to straighten itself out and start redrafting itself. See if it likes its own medicine.

I think publishing is a pull economy. If it needs to change it will have to be by encouraging people to read what we want to right rather than blaming businesses for not buying it.

If I'm not mistaken isn't the publishing business publishing more books and making more money than ever before?

Obviously it's not a perfect industry. (I personally hate returns.) But all in all I think functions pretty well.

Tish Davidson said:

To me the biggest problem with the publishing industry is that huge advances go to a few writers and this cuts into the pool of money available for moderate advances to more risky writers. Huge advances are especially prevalent for people who aren't really writers, but who are celebrities in some other field, usually politics or Hollywood, and occasionally in sports. The books they write (or most often have ghostwritten) may sell a lot of copies short-term, but have little lasting value. They won't make it to the next decade, let alone the next generation. The publishing industry is essentially creating disposable literature. This simply mirrors many other aspects of American culture in which products or ideas have a short run of popularity and then become disposable when the next fad product, diet, or movie star hits. The unfortunate part is that thoughtful writers who are producing works with lasting value get squeezed out. They are marginalized by an unwillingness of the publishing industry to take a chance on something that may have long-term value but lacks a quick bang for the buck.

Click to expand...

For better or for worse, the industry is just responding to the culture. Can you blame it?

(Personally I think pulp humor SF writers should get HUGE advances and that authors with last names that begin with Z should always be shelved at eye level in bookstores.) ;-)

rebew said:

... to make the process less painful.

Click to expand...

Less painful for whom?

The one thing that you must know about the publishing industry is that the readers drive it.

Bookstores, publishers, agents, editors, authors: All are the readers' slaves.

Publishing is a business.
People buy what they want to read. It is naive of us to say that we need to give the public "better" books -- The public buys what it wants to read. With self publishing and ebooks authors have even more venues if they want to see their words in print. With computers more people are able to complete novels. An industry can change but that change comes from within and is due more to financial pressures rather than some outside entity deciding what "good" books are.
I think (and maybe wrongly) that if a writer writes well, has a great premise, and doesn't ever give up -- then most likely they will be published.
Of COURSE editors want to find best sellers...that's their JOB! To make money for the publishing house.

IMO Sports need to be changed -- I mean all those obscenely large salaries to only a few when there are such DESERVING little leaguers out there...

The publishing industry in the U.S. is starving by it's own hand: denying itself the nourishment of new authors because it has limited it's markets to the big chain booksellers. Independent and small bookstores can not compete with the big chains and have closed in record numbers changing the landscape of publishing. I am a published writer here in the U.S. and ( full disclosure) a series acquisitions editor with a British traditional publishing house.
Thanks for getting the word out!.
Talkwrite

talkwrite said:

The publishing industry in the U.S. is starving by it's own hand: denying itself the nourishment of new authors because it has limited it's markets to the big chain booksellers.

Click to expand...

This is being overly dramatic. There are plenty of new authors coming into the business every year. Just a mere dozen years ago there was this new author called Rowlings and I understand she went on to have a nice little career.

I'm sure she won't be the last of the new authors to make a living at this fair trade.

I just think the business could be streamlined. A lot. There are too many middlemen, too many people coming between the publisher and the author and diluting the money.

The publishing industry needs a Bill Gates/Mark Cuban type with tons of money and wild ideas to come in and shake things ups.

I'm not a published novelist or anything, but I do work in publishing, so take this for what it's worth.

Regardless of how it looks from the author's perspective, the publishing industry works just fine – within the parameters it's been given. Media in general is in a very risk averse mode right now, but they still have to produce a vast amount of material to keep the markets stocked (regardless of size). So they have to figure out a way to produce a great deal of material (which they absolutley do) without risking too much. Hence those large advances to famous personalities who can guarantee at least some kind of return. Just like movies, publishers count on blockbusters to help finance their slate for the following year. It's the way it is.

Frankly, anything we could change would involve going back in time. We can't undo the WalMart effect and increase the number of independent booksellers. We can't change the highly politicized climate that makes even marginally "edgy" books a much bigger risk than they used to be. Efforts to increase readership in children and young adults may yet pay dividends, but those will only benefit certain segments of the market with each passing year. Even more the point, as I said at the start - the industry isn't really broken. And if it ain't broke, it isn't gonna get fixed.

I believe the method of reporting sales to be archaic. In today's world of instant notification, for booksellers to not be required to report sales (to the public) back to the publisher for six months to a YEAR is ridiculous. Authors are forced to wait for up to two years for payments due them, because the publishers hold reserves out pending those bookseller reports. If publications such as USA Today and BookScan can get numbers weekly then why not publishers?

This is really a silly argument. We can complain all we want about the system but is a pretty established one and I don't see it changing all that much. Especially since a fair number of people are making nice livings off of this system.

It's not locked to anybody. There are more publishers and distribution channels than ever. Write a good book and it will find a home.

Sure, it's tough to get a blockbuster, but it should be tough to get a blockbuster.

Sure a massive marketing budget helps a lot. That's the way of the world. Coke and Pepsi aren't much different than Brand ABC cola but the big boys just spend way more on marketing.

All we can do is keep writing our books and hope enough people notice.

I'm a big fan of the Woody Allen quote, "80% of success is just showing up." (Or something like that/)

I think that it pretty much works fine, although not the way we necessarily want it to.

In a perfect world, agents and publishers would all give us a detailed rejection form, telling us exactly how to fix it in order for them to buy it. Of course, as soon as we do, someone else will send us a note telling us the exact OPPOSITE. Because publishing is run by people, and people have different tastes in books.

In a perfect world, replies from agents and publishers would come in a week, but we know that can't happen because publishing is run by people.

But, so far, what we've got is what's working. More new authors are being published, can't say they don't get a fair shake.

If I had to say anything, I'd say that the biggest problem is so many good authors not seeing their books on shelves. That returns reall ARE a big problem, although I see the need for them.

Oh, hey, I know. I'd like to see less money paid in big giant advances (because I think I read that most books aren't earning out, not that publishers aren't making money, it's an overall effect of ones that don't earn out and ones that make far above and beyond.) and that money spent on marketing. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so to speak.

Tish Davidson said:

To me the biggest problem with the publishing industry is that huge advances go to a few writers and this cuts into the pool of money available for moderate advances to more risky writers. Huge advances are especially prevalent for people who aren't really writers, but who are celebrities in some other field, usually politics or Hollywood, and occasionally in sports.

Click to expand...

I never have understood why some believe this. The huge advances go to writers who are making the publishers huge profits. They don't cut into money for other writers at all. They make money for other writers.

Even if publishers stopped giving out huge advances completely, other writers wouldn't get one dime more. There is no shortage of cash. The primary factor in handing out an advance is how many books are expected to sell, not how much money the writer needs or wants. When marketing think a book can earn back 5K, they won't give it 10K, no matter how much cash is lying around.

Most huge advances are not handed out to celebrity writers, but to proven, bestselling writers. But celebrity writers do receive large advances because experience tells marketing that these books will earn back the advance, or at least enough of it to make a profit.

Publishing is a business, and no one is going to hand out money if they have reason to believe they won't get it back.

With most first time writers, publishers do error on the side of caution, but this isn't going to change, even if they stop handing out large advances to celebrity writers.

Umm...not sure how things are going in the states, but over here in the UK, there have been quite a number of high-pofile deals for celebrities, getting ridiculously large advances and then failing to sell very many books.

Here's some recent examples Linky

And yes...I think if a publisher commits a ton of cash to a Sleb book that utterly tanks, there's almost certainly going to be less revenue to spend on up and coming mid list authors. C'mon, that's just simple maths.

Orion said:

"People buy what they want to read. It is naive of us to say that we need to give the public "better" books -- The public buys what it wants to read."

If they can find it. I have a great deal of difficulty finding anything interesting in the new books list. In the library, I find almost all the books I borrow (and enjoy) were written before 1990.

A gunshot or bed jump on every page (or any page) doesn't interest me at all. I want to read about ordinary people in a different milieu than my own and how they deal with their problems.

historian

Garpy said:

Umm...not sure how things are going in the states, but over here in the UK, there have been quite a number of high-pofile deals for celebrities, getting ridiculously large advances and then failing to sell very many books.

Here's some recent examples Linky

And yes...I think if a publisher commits a ton of cash to a Sleb book that utterly tanks, there's almost certainly going to be less revenue to spend on up and coming mid list authors. C'mon, that's just simple maths.

Click to expand...

That Gary Barlow £1,000,000 advance was the one that popped in my head when I read the post before yours.

I really have to wonder what was going through the publisher's head when they agreed a £400,000 advance on that Chantelle book.

I regularly dine out on the impressive sounding little factlet that...I've sold more books than Ashley Cole (famous football player) Shayne Ward (X factor winner) and Chantelle (ummm....) Michael Barrymore (Tv presenter/comedian) combined.

It usually draws a gasp from whoever I say that to. For a fleeting moment I get to feel awfully cool, then I concede how few books each of them actually sold.

In fact if you add up their combined advances....£1,150,000.00. For that money you could publish 115 debut novels.

I think what happens with the big celebrity book advances, and even the big famous author advances is that you hear all the details, so you assume that that's all that's going on. I was just at BEA. The number of books coming out this year is insane. Yes if all you did was read the reporting on it, you would think only Rosie O'Donnell and Stephen Colbert had books coming out, but there were thousands of new books there.

Yes maybe I am writing this from a skewed perspective. I am a first time author who got a decent advance, who knows several other first time authors with decent advances. None of us are famous or celebrities.

I'm not saying the publishing industry is perfect. But when people rail about the celebrities etc, I can't help but shrug, because yes it is annoying, yes I HATE that Chantal and Paris have books. But at the same time, there are thousands of new writers published a year, and every established author was a new author once.

And I am sorry, but to the person who claims there are no good books since 1990, I think that is simple ignorance. There have been some beautiful works released in the last decade, plain and simple.

Finally, as for "the middle man". I for one am so glad I have an agent. Someone who can talk with my editor, and who knows the business inside and out and better than I ever would. Who is in my corner, and gives me random pep talks if I am feeling insecure. I am so glad I don't have to deal with contract stuff, or foreign deals, and just you know . . . get to write.

Okay now to answer the actual question, one thing I would change is the exclusive submissions policy. While I understand why agents/editors want exclusives, it seems to me slightly selfish, considering it takes months to hear from them. If they knew from the beginning that they were one of five, let's say, who had the MS, I think that knowledge could be enough. Yes it sucks for them to put all the effort into a MS only to find the author has given it to someone else, but it sucks equally for the author who gets rejected and has put all his eggs into that one agent's basket for almost half a year. The agent/editor always has other MSS to choose from, and is also working with their current list. For the author this one MS is their life, and a rejection means back to square one, and a wasted couple of months. So that maybe is what I would change.