The Truth about Publishing

[pianoman5]

Here's a useful page that summarises rather neatly the fiction writer's place in the publishing industry, and the monetary realities of the business.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~irvinei/publishing.html

While written from an Australian perspective, its truths are universal. It includes also figures for the US, UK, and other markets.

It's a sobering read for those whose fantasies extend beyond their texts, but worth reading nonetheless.

[Ace]

Don't try and shove your optimism down our throats. :D

[Savannah907]

And we want to become writers because? ???

LOL, well, none-the-less, we will write, won't we? And we will submit and some of us will even succeed.
It's good to know what we are in for, though...and yes, it is a tough business.

[Liam Jackson]

The truth may be ugly, but it's still the truth. In my limited experience, the article seems valid.

I'm a rookie and I sure as hell don't pretend to have all the answers. As the old saying goes, I'm just now learning the right questions. If we (new writers) take anything from this article, it's this:

Writitng may be the love of your life, but it's also WORK. Writing isn't a shortcut to fame and wealth. Generally, the only people who are guaranteed money and noteriety from writing already have both.

Making a living from writing is by God, roll up your sleeves and prepare to get down-and-dirty WORK. But if you have a "damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead" attitude, then do it. Challenge the odds and go for it. But do it to the best of your ability and don't settle for a 90% effort. Even then there's no promise of success, but if you don't give it everything you have, there's nearly a 100% chance of failure.

Thanks for posting, PianoMan5.

[clara bow]

That article was a good reality check. Thanks for posting the link.

[E.G. Gammon]

Personally, I don't see any problem having high expectations. I'm not going to lower my expectations just because the odds are against me. It's like going in for a job interview. Go in with a "realistic" attitude knowing that there are 40 other people in the waiting room and that your chances are horrible at getting the job, you'll go in unconfident and unenthusiatic and you'll fail. But if you walk in with confidence and hope, you still may not get the job, but you'll know that you gave it all you had. Dwelling on how hard it is to get into the writing business will only affect your writing because you'll think "Well, what's the point if my chances suck?" Right now I'm thinking "My novel series will be published and people will get to experience the story I have been developing for over seven years." I'm writing the best I can, I know it. And I get excited because I know that the positive possibilites are amazing. What's the point of having dreams if we dwell on the fact that the odds may not be good that they will come true? Let us dream. If we fail, we fail. But we fail knowing we gave it all we had.

[Liam Jackson]

<<<But we fail knowing we gave it all we had.>>>

Therein lies the key.

I looked at his intent from a little different perspective. I don't believe the author was trying to dissuade serious writers or cripple anyone's dream. I'm betting that he knows the serious writer can't be dissuaded. Discouraged at tmes, yes. Talked out of giving it a sincere shot, not a chance.

If the information he provided is factual, there's no sense blaming the messenger. Just take what is useful from that article and send the rest to "file 13." To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Just my take.

LJ

[azbikergirl]

Take note of the Final Lesson. I think it's a good one.

[Mistook]

deleted

[Mistook]

Look, just read the first paragraphs of every one of Ian Irvine's opening chapters, and you'll understand why he's so bitter. He's a hack! He's not much better than Travis Tea.

"Pain! More pain!"

I picked out several passive voice sentences in the opening paragraphs of his books, which all open with formulaic suck-drama - dead babies, burning cities, purple prose. I'm frankly amazed this guy ever got published at all!


Anybody care to share a nightmare experience trying to get through one of his books? Because this is one of those entrenched hacks who's very existance on the market should give us all great - wonderful hope of getting published.


I've seen better openings in "Share Your Work" - seriously! And that's not even the slush-pile so what gives? Why is this published man whining about the fact that he won an award and discouraging everybody else from ever getting into the biz?

In the much vaunted first chapter of "Mutah" we have a passive in the first paragraph, followed by tons of cheep narrative, and learn that the MC's adopted sister is dead (of course she's dead) and that sister's name is...

"Little Orphan Haani" - (C) Irvin Lavine, Matah


COME ON! If i tried to get away with something like that, five authors on this site would be whipping my butt into the cold ground! Thats ridiculous!


And what kind of drugs are they smoking at the publishing house if they let this stuff through, but for some reason won't ever, ever, ever, give your manuscript a read.

Give me a huge, frikken, frakken, mullah farking BREAK!

[pepperlandgirl]

Due to Mistook's post, I went and checked out his first chapters. I saw this line first.

It was the final night of the Graduation Telling, when the masters and students of the College of the Histories at Chanthed told the Great Tales that were the very essence of human life on Santhenar.

ARGH!!!!!! The masters and students of the College of Histories at Chanthed told the Great Tales, the very essense of human life on Santhenar, on the final night of the Graduation Telling

Any book that begins with a sentence I need to edit--and indeed, can edit with 10 seconds worth of thought--is a book I will not bother with.

[pdr]

And read that sentence aloud.

[pepperlandgirl]

I did, and the sentence was still passive.

[DeadlyAccurate]

It's insane with prepositional phrases.

[Mistook]

Due to Mistook's post, I went and checked out his first chapters. I saw this line first.

It was the final night of the Graduation Telling, when the masters and students of the College of the Histories at Chanthed told the Great Tales that were the very essence of human life on Santhenar.

ARGH!!!!!! The masters and students of the College of Histories at Chanthed told the Great Tales, the very essense of human life on Santhenar, on the final night of the Graduation Telling

Any book that begins with a sentence I need to edit--and indeed, can edit with 10 seconds worth of thought--is a book I will not bother with.





Not to mention - who's POV is this? Why are we being told and not shown? What's with the out-world monikers that take 20 minutes to decipher a proper pronunciation? And... as they are so fond of asking, anywhere you go with your manuscript... WHO CARES?

Seriously, why am I breaking my back trying to satisfy the critics when this stuff has made it to print? I'm not an idiot, I know this must have passed through 20 or 30 opinionated professionals, with several re-writes before market. I can see the penguin on the cover!

So why is such a lucky barstool whining about how unfair things are in the industry?

More or less, he's proven that you don't have to even be a writer to get a book in print.

[pianoman5]

Well, he's published at least a dozen books, with respected publishers, so it suggests that either the great unwashed public has tastes that differ from your own, or that they are not quite as sensitive to the use of the word 'was' as some putative writers are. (I wouldn't read his stuff myself. The silly names put me off straight away.)

I'm not sure where you get the idea that he's bitter, Mistook. He makes the point at the top of his article that he's not whingeing in any way. He has merely come to terms with the fact that publishing is a high-risk, low-margin business, and that that is the reason why they are leery about taking a chance with any writer who doesn't have what it takes to succeed and make money for all concerned. As he says, "successful authors work with their publishers, not against them. After all, both parties want the same thing: to sell truckloads of books." (Agents, too, share in this common dream.)

The article contains more facts than opinions, and one could glean an almost identical set of insights from Uncle Jim's esteemed thread. It's just that when they're laid out end-to-end they make a somewhat morbid read for anyone whose hopes are not tempered with a healthy dose of realistic expectation.

Should one be positive? Of course. That is a philosophy for life, not just writing. Should one kid oneself about one's own capacity to write commercially successful prose? Well, that's a matter of personal choice. Self- delusion is one of mankind's most powerful and endearing features. For some reason, it expresses itself strongly in the field of writing, more so than in most other facets of existence, perhaps because it is so intensely personal.

(The only other comparable activity I can think of is singing. As a play-anything-you-like-in-any-key-by-ear pianist I am often called upon to accompany would-be singers at gatherings, and I am constantly amazed by how many talent-free persons are eager to demonstrate their lack of skill to a captive audience. The world is full of microphone snatchers. It may not surprise you to hear that they always want to sing My Way.)

What are the odds of convincing an agent or publisher that your work is worth their risking several tens-of-thousands of dollars and possibly their career? One in a hundred? That seems to be the generally agreed figure, roughly. Is that a reason to slash your wrists in despair? Nah. It's simply a reminder that you'd better be bloody good at what you do (and consummately professional in every sense) to improve your chances of being selected from a ceiling-high pile of dross, interspersed with some rare examples of quality comparable to your own scribblings.

Does it hurt for Ian Irvine to lay out the dismal statistics for our perusal? Well, it would if he had an unworthy motive, but as a fellow Aussie, a breed renowned for its cheerful optimism combined with an intolerance of fatuous, ego-stroking, worthless, have-a-nice-day bullsh*t, I'm prepared to give him credit for just wanting to tell it like it is.

[Mistook]

Well, he's published at least a dozen books, with respected publishers, so it suggests that either the great unwashed public has tastes that differ from your own, or that they are not quite as sensitive to the use of the word 'was' as some putative writers are. (I wouldn't read his stuff myself. The silly names put me off straight away.)

I'm not sure where you get the idea that he's bitter, Mistook. He makes the point at the top of his article that he's not whingeing in any way. He has merely come to terms with the fact that publishing is a high-risk, low-margin business, and that that is the reason why they are leery about taking a chance with any writer who doesn't have what it takes to succeed and make money for all concerned. As he says, "successful authors work with their publishers, not against them. After all, both parties want the same thing: to sell truckloads of books." (Agents, too, share in this common dream.)

The article contains more facts than opinions, and one could glean an almost identical set of insights from Uncle Jim's esteemed thread. It's just that when they're laid out end-to-end they make a somewhat morbid read for anyone whose hopes are not tempered with a healthy dose of realistic expectation.

Should one be positive? Of course. That is a philosophy for life, not just writing. Should one kid oneself about one's own capacity to write commercially successful prose? Well, that's a matter of personal choice. Self- delusion is one of mankind's most powerful and endearing features. For some reason, it expresses itself strongly in the field of writing, more so than in most other facets of existence, perhaps because it is so intensely personal.

(The only other comparable activity I can think of is singing. As a play-anything-you-like-in-any-key-by-ear pianist I am often called upon to accompany would-be singers at gatherings, and I am constantly amazed by how many talent-free persons are eager to demonstrate their lack of skill to a captive audience. The world is full of microphone snatchers. It may not surprise you to hear that they always want to sing My Way.)

What are the odds of convincing an agent or publisher that your work is worth their risking several tens-of-thousands of dollars and possibly their career? One in a hundred? That seems to be the generally agreed figure, roughly. Is that a reason to slash your wrists in despair? Nah. It's simply a reminder that you'd better be bloody good at what you do (and consummately professional in every sense) to improve your chances of being selected from a ceiling-high pile of dross, interspersed with some rare examples of quality comparable to your own scribblings.

Does it hurt for Ian Irvine to lay out the dismal statistics for our perusal? Well, it would if he had an unworthy motive, but as a fellow Aussie, a breed renowned for its cheerful optimism combined with an intolerance of fatuous, ego-stroking, worthless, have-a-nice-day bullsh*t, I'm prepared to give him credit for just wanting to tell it like it is.


Everything you said is predicated upon the presumption that a writer has to be good to make it. Any college freshman can poke holes in Irvine's writing, and I doubt you'll find an enthralled fan of his who doesn't suffer from brain damage.

Yes, we're all willing to work hard, and to work again with the publishers, but if Irvine can sell even half a truck-load of books... I think most of my sweat is going to come from rewriting active openings into passive, and throwing out dialogue in favor of cheep exposition. I'll probably bite off a few nails as I remove demensions from my main character to keep with market expectations of a cardboard lead with no personality.

And despite any caveats, he's being despirately negative about the whole "truth" of publishing. Just look at his headers. Nothing encouraging, only warnings about the bad, scary industry, always looking to steal your thunder, remaindering your books after you get a cheesy award, how dare they?

Just because somebody's published doesn't mean they're good. Just because a published author was good once, doesn't mean they're still good. What've you done for me lately? That's the market, right?

I listen to UJ, JAR, and the rest because I know they can write. This Irvine guy's full of bull.

[pianoman5]

It's an interesting word, "good".

I'm sure we'd all prefer that all published work was good, and well worth our money. That's the judgement call publishers make. Their brief is to consistently deliver desired value to the market, or else they will surely fail.

I'm sure also that most of us could pick holes in Mr Irvine's books, or anyone else's for that matter; but he makes the point that his books have been properly edited by people who know what they're on about, so who are we to question their ability? We can rail from the sidelines, write scathing critiques, and vote with non-relinquishment of our own hard-earned dollars, but so long as people are buying them, who gives a rat's what we think?

Books only have to be 'good enough' for their market slot, not potential Pulitzer/Booker Prize winners (some of which have been almost unreadable). That quality varies considerably from genre to genre, of course, but if Mr Irvine's work is at all representative of the Fantasy genre, it suggests perhaps that a fairly generous latitude applies in it, as long as the conventions are observed.

I take your point, mistook, that his headers are not redolent with hope. But the point of the article is neither to spread hope, nor despair, simply to highlight the ironies that may beset an apparently successful writer. Nor is he criticising the publisher's decision to remainder a book, since he clearly understands that the publisher's resultant pain is even greater than that of the writer (who can gleefully hang on to his advance.)

[Mistook]

It's an interesting word, "good".

I'm sure we'd all prefer that all published work was good, and well worth our money. That's the judgement call publishers make. Their brief is to consistently deliver desired value to the market, or else they will surely fail.

I'm sure also that most of us could pick holes in Mr Irvine's books, or anyone else's for that matter; but he makes the point that his books have been properly edited by people who know what they're on about, so who are we to question their ability? We can rail from the sidelines, write scathing critiques, and vote with non-relinquishment of our own hard-earned dollars, but so long as people are buying them, who gives a rat's what we think?

Books only have to be 'good enough' for their market slot, not potential Pulitzer/Booker Prize winners (some of which have been almost unreadable). That quality varies considerably from genre to genre, of course, but if Mr Irvine's work is at all representative of the Fantasy genre, it suggests perhaps that a fairly generous latitude applies in it, as long as the conventions are observed.

I take your point, mistook, that his headers are not redolent with hope. But the point of the article is neither to spread hope, nor despair, simply to highlight the ironies that may beset an apparently successful writer. Nor is he criticising the publisher's decision to remainder a book, since he clearly understands that the publisher's resultant pain is even greater than that of the writer (who can gleefully hang on to his advance.)


"Who are we to question their ability?"

We're the starving nobodies who grind our noses off trying to avoid shotty sentences and blocks of harf-arsed, exposition. We're the ones who actually beleive it when they tell us not to be clumbsy and confusing with descriptions, nor pedantic.

I'm sorry to have to be so combative, but according to every dire warning, and sage bit of council I've ever read on this here website, Irvine's manuscripsts should have been thrown into the shredder before any slush-veteran ever finished the first page.

The opening chapters of every single work violate every rule we are taught to hold dear, and violate common taste, ten ways to Sunday. And he doesn't violate convention in a clever, or rebellious way - he just plain sucks.

I don't begrudge the man his line of novels. More power to him, but if he hasn't finaggled a Pulitzer yet, I'm not exactly weeping over here. This isn't even about "fine literature". We're talking - remedial math, and this guy sucks.

I've heard of teachers passing flunk students, but this is ridiculous! What's going on? That's my question.

If he satisfies some carp, genre formula, then let's all just be forking honest and admit you don't need skill, all you need is a horrible rendition of a formula story with a proven market, and the professionals will dummy it up to market.

If that's not the truth, then somebody tell me what's going on, because I'm putting in a lot of hours here, actually trying to write.

[pepperlandgirl]

It's an interesting word, "good".

I'm sure we'd all prefer that all published work was good, and well worth our money. That's the judgement call publishers make. Their brief is to consistently deliver desired value to the market, or else they will surely fail.

I am the market. Me. Before I'm a writer, I'm a reader. As a reader, I looked at the first chapters of his novels and winced. Maybe 99 out of 100 readers think his writing is fine--I don't know, I don't care. I do know that as a consumer, with money to spend, I would not spend money on him.


I'm sure also that most of us could pick holes in Mr Irvine's books, or anyone else's for that matter; but he makes the point that his books have been properly edited by people who know what they're on about, so who are we to question their ability? We can rail from the sidelines, write scathing critiques, and vote with non-relinquishment of our own hard-earned dollars, but so long as people are buying them, who gives a rat's what we think?

Who are we to question their ability? What a perfectly ridiculous notion to have. They are editors, not Gods of the Written Language. And as writers and edtors whose very work and livelihood depends on what "we think," they better care. Shoot, if we follow through with your line of reasoning, there wouldn't be book critics, English majors, or literary criticism at all. Everybody would simply shrug and say, "It's not our place to judge! We're not the all mighty editors!" As an English major, I find this stance particularly baffling. I've been trained to pick authors apart--all authors--regardless of how popular they are. Maybe it's an excerise in futility, or navel-gazing, but I'm not going to stop because some editor somewhere along the way decided that some author is marketable.

[Richard]

It must be said that I am not driven into a blinding rage by the occasional deployment of a passive...

[Mistook]

It must be said that I am not driven into a blinding rage by the occasional deployment of a passive...


Neither am I, but when the repeat offender gets to market and then whines about how the industry is tough - demoralizing the efforts of struggling writers such as we have here, and such as I hold dear...

Screw the mooda Fookra!

Read the early posts, before I came out with guns blazing. Everybody was scared shirtless by this guy's "article".


Not in my town! I don't care if I'm not deputized.

[Richard]

Why? It's basically the same stuff that you'll find anywhere else, the only difference being that people are attacking him because of something totally unrelated in his books rather than what he said in the article - something which to be honest smacks of sour grapes rather than righteous indignation.

[SJB]

I did, and the sentence was still passive.

You're talking about this sentence, right? "It was the final night of the Graduation Telling, when the masters and students of the College of the Histories at Chanthed told the Great Tales that were the very essence of human life on Santhenar."

That sentence doesn't contain a single passive. Maybe you should check your understanding of grammar before slagging off at someone else for a supposed error.

[SJB]

My beef with this guy is that he underestimates the reading public. He asserts, "Judged awards are generally assessed by a panel of judges, usually from academia or literary figures. They tend to be looking for literary qualities, originality and themes that are of concern to them. These are often not the qualities that would appeal to the reading public."

Isn't that insane? He continues,

"Lesser awards... won’t have a significant impact on sales (and winning them may indicate that you’re [sic]writing is at the literary rather than the popular end of the spectrum)."

Again, he seems to suggest that there is almost something shameful about turning out a book with - gasp - literary merit, and that quality and popularity are mutually exclusive.

Would he consider Margaret Atwood popular, I wonder? I sure wouldn't mind her royalty cheques.

Overall, though, I thought it was a decent article. Well worth the price.

[Christine N.]

Ugh, I have to agree that that first line is bad. It's long, it's unweidly, and really doesn't make me wanna read the book.

Maybe that's why it took him nine years to get published.

Some of the things he's saying are valid. Writers should go in with their eyes wide open, no doubt. But, as UJ says, anybody who can put together two pages of coherent English is already in the top 10% of the slush.

Comes down to this - if you have a book that's well written and what publishers want, you'll sell the book. If you don't, you won't.
Sometimes the well written part is negotiable. And it's incredibly subjective.

[James D. Macdonald]

How does one go about underestimating the reading public?

"No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
-- H. L. Mencken

As I've said before, elsewhere, "His books are crap but he sells a ton of them" is a genre all its own, and a particularly difficult one to break in to.

"Literary" is also a genre. "Literary" doesn't mean "high quality" or "well written." It means "what literary award committees are pointing at when they say 'literary'."

Pro baseball gets more viewers than synchronized swimming. What of it?

He's also correct that once you get outside the realm of the Nobel/Pulitzer/National Book Award that literary prizes don't have a big effect on sales. The Gold Seal from some college with an MFA program doesn't mean much at the cash register.

[Note On]

And you know... despite what anyone may say, there's nothing wrong with the passive voice. It's just another color on the palette.


Keith

[Jamesaritchie]

Due to Mistook's post, I went and checked out his first chapters. I saw this line first.

It was the final night of the Graduation Telling, when the masters and students of the College of the Histories at Chanthed told the Great Tales that were the very essence of human life on Santhenar.

ARGH!!!!!! The masters and students of the College of Histories at Chanthed told the Great Tales, the very essense of human life on Santhenar, on the final night of the Graduation Telling

Any book that begins with a sentence I need to edit--and indeed, can edit with 10 seconds worth of thought--is a book I will not bother with.




Well, I guess I'll be the dissenter here. I have no problems at all with this sentence. As opening sentences go, I think this one is pretty decent.

[brokenfingers]

I don't see anything wrong with it either.

It's a scene setter, kind of like "Twas the night before Christmas..."

It was the final night of the Graduation Telling, when the masters and students of the College of the Histories at Chanthed told the Great Tales that were the very essence of human life on Santhenar.

ARGH!!!!!! The masters and students of the College of Histories at Chanthed told the Great Tales, the very essense of human life on Santhenar, on the final night of the Graduation Telling


There's a big difference between these two sentences. They don't both say the same thing at all.

I think it's really the author's style that's being debated here. Some might like it and some might not.

[maestrowork]

I don't either (though I don't like the "It was" in the beginning because it's a weak verb). The focus of that sentence is "Graduation Telling," and not the other stuff. There's that "once upon a time" or "it was a dark night, when a dark man appears with a dark purpose" feeling to it.

[Jamesaritchie]

I don't either (though I don't like the "It was" in the beginning because it's a weak verb). The focus of that sentence is "Graduation Telling," and not the other stuff. There's that "once upon a time" or "it was a dark night, when a dark man appears with a dark purpose" feeling to it.

But let's not foget "A Tale of Two Cities."

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair,. . ."

Sometimes a weak verb is the stongest word you can find.

[Note On]

Especially in genre fiction (he said, straightfaced, after reading the essay at Mistook's website), the point is the idea, not the language. Get to the idea. Language can be pedestrian if the idea's compelling.

I'd rather see both (and I'm using the word "genre" in a divisive way more to be a wiseass than because I think there's such thing) but if you only have one talent, let it be ideas.

I'm not crazy about that first sentence; that kind of writing (and genre) are among my personal allergies. But as storytelling and publishability to a certain audience go, it's fine. Not great, not awful. If a good story follows it, well----end of story.

[Christine N.]

But let's not foget "A Tale of Two Cities."

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair,. . ."

Sometimes a weak verb is the stongest word you can find.

Yes, but this passage contains lots of drama. Adjectives, opposites like "Despair" and "Hope", "Light" and "Darkness" make me want to find out why the author/character/narrator feels this way. It's very strong, absolute language. It pulls me in. That, and the repetition of "it was". Again, absolute. Not wishy washy or soft.

This thing about the Graduation Telling is just boring by comparision. I just don't care. Not that the GT is a boring ritual, but there is a better way to describe it. I might start this scene with a description of the room they were in - an ancient, torch-lit room filled with shadows of teachers and students.
Then I might say who was speaking - Shamen Whatisface's, for example, and how he was speaking. What is he saying?

Then I might tell the reader what was going on. But first I gotta make him care about it.

[mistri]

The sentence read fine to me. And I've read four of Irvine's books, though admittedly, it was before I really started doing any writing of my own (now I see books through writer, rather than reader eyes).

[Jamesaritchie]

Here's a useful page that summarises rather neatly the fiction writer's place in the publishing industry, and the monetary realities of the business.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~irvinei/publishing.html

While written from an Australian perspective, its truths are universal. It includes also figures for the US, UK, and other markets.

It's a sobering read for those whose fantasies extend beyond their texts, but worth reading nonetheless.

First, why is it that so many new writers cringe when they see the word "was." Is it because passive/active has been harped about so much? "Was" is a perfectly good word, and there's no reason at all to avoid it. It does not automatically make a sentence passive, and even when it does, sometimes good writing needs passive sentences. Beyond this, it's usually only where action is involved that active/passive really becomes an issue.

Same with show and tell. You can't show everything, and you shouldn't even try. Again, generally speaking, you want to show the action, but there are many times and places where tell works much better than show.

I can see the Austrailian perspective in this article, and Austraila is an odd country where publishing is concerned. It's been called "The country where no one reads." This isn't true, of course, but for the size of the population, the publishing industry there is remarkably small.

This aside, from my experience, I can't find much at all to disagree with in this article. Only one thing, really. I don't think it's necessary to spend your advance on promotion, and even if you do, my experience says it probably won't help. I could quibble about some of the numbers he gives for the US market, but the differences are minor, and really not worth any fuss.

But I can't really think of a reason why any writer should be surprised by what this article has to say. I don't care what creative field a person chooses, writer, painter, or scientist, only a few will rise to the top, and most won't make it at all. This strikes me as a good thing, however, and it's what makes success worthwhile.

It's true that 90% of all who try writing fiction will never be paid a single penny for a single word they write, and that only about one fiction writer in 1,000 will earn anything like a living. So what? If anyone could do, it wouldn't be worth doing, now would it? And the only way on earth to know if you're a writer who can do it is to try, and to keep on trying. And I can tell you this, writing is not good because no one will buy it, or because it's too literary, or because no one understands it, or because publishers only want stinky crap and you write perfume.

It's also true that publishng is a business, and that for the most part, "good" can be defined as "How much money will it earn." Again, so what? Is there any field where this isn't true? And publishers do look for quality. So does the reading public. But both publishers and the reading public often disagree with new writers about what quality really is. I tend to side with the publishers and the reading public. Both make mistakes, but the mistakes are usually quickly discarded, and the quality goes on and on for generations.

I was going to say that I'd never had a year where writing expenses totaled $79,000 or more, and then realized there were such years, and still are. It's just that most of the money doesn't come out of my pocket, and what does come out of my pocket is pretty much 100% tax deductable. So I can't even complain about that part of the article.

As for this guy's writing, well, with a few exceptions, I generally don't like this kind of fantasy, no matter who writes it. I like Tolkien because of the quality of his stories and his characters. I like Harry Harrison because he paints a picture like no one else. I like Fritz Leiber because his imagination is unequaled. But as a general rule, I avoid this type of fantasy completely.

But I see nothing at all terribly wrong with his writing as writing. It may not be as good as some I've read, but it's certainly not as bad as most I've read outside of published novels. And the writing was certainly not so bad that I didn't see the images he was trying to create.

The thing is this. Many new writers have an odd notion of what makes writing good or bad. Bad, incompetent writing always sucks, but outside of new writers who simply can't write a proper sentence, who are choppy, who don't seem to understand pace and flow, it's seldom the quality a sentence that makes for good or bad writing. All this part of writing has to be is competent. Great sentences and phrases are a bonus, the icing on the cake, and they're usually more important to writers and reviewers than to editors and the general reading public.

There are many new writers I've read who can write rings around me when it comes to quality of sentences and phrases. They outshine most published writers. But they can't tell a good story, they can't create likelike characters, and they can't write realistic dialogue that matches the character. So they simply are not going to sell.

Competent writing and great storytelling beat great writing and poor storytelling every time. I see an awful lot of incompetent writing from new writers, and when the writing is competent, I see even more bad storytelling, and still more lack of ability to create lifelike characters. I won't even mention dialogue.

Complaining about this guy's writing reminds me of this quote. "It took me fifteen years to discover that I had no talent for writing, but I couldn't give it up because by that time I was too famous." Robert Benchley

I've yet to see a pro writer who isn't called a hack by many, who doesn't have a bunch of detractors who think he couldn't write a phone book without a ghostwriter. It doesn't matter whether the writer is Stephen King, Nora Roberts, Ernest Hemingway, or William Shakespeare, I've heard them all called no-talent hacks.

Now, King sometimes takes 100 pages to get to the story, and Nora Roberts head-hops and knows it, but says she can't help herself. Ernest Hemingway was not exactly the master of the colorful phrase, and Shakespeare boasted that he "Never blotted a word."

Faults aside, the public keeps going back to these writers time after time after time. So do I. I read all four of these writers as often as possible, and despite their individual faults, I think all four are very good writers.

There is, in fact, an old rule of thumb that states "No matter how popular and/or famous a writer is, half those who read him will think he's a hack."

I do think there's a lot of "shoot the messenger" going on here.

[Nateskate]

It boils down to why do writers write? Honestly, publishing wasn't even a secondary objective for me until a few years ago, but I've been writing for years. It would be like saying everyone bakes pies to sell pies to the supermarket. I bake pies or write because I enjoy having a creative gift I can share with others. Nah, most people don't intend to start a "Little Debbies" of their own, they bake pies to eat them, and with ice cream no less! And they are more happy in the process.

Long before I decided to give publishing a try, I was writing serious works that were being given away.I was told countless times they were good enough to publish. Why didn't I? My objective wasn't to be published. I wrote about things that were meaningful to me. It was to speak and be heard, and as long as I had a venue, I wasn't looking for the title "Pro-writer."

But, being that I have a creative mind, I was also doing fanciful stories of far away lands. Why? I had an audience of friends that loved my stories. That's my pie. I did it soley to enjoy creating and sharing what I do with others. People were making copies of my stories and passing them out. Countless times I heard, "What are you doing working here...you have a gift..."

Now, if I happen to get published, it's all icing on the cake. But if not, I'm not going to tuck this thing (WIP) away. I'm certainly not going to have a hissy fit. I'd post a website and make it a free story, and I'd send you all a link, and links for others who know me from other boards as well. And then you could all say, "You fool...that was really good...why didn't you publish it..."

So, it's not discouraging to hear numbers that are negative. Also, I just happened to have been one of those stubborn kids that never gave up once I made up my mind to do something. Perhaps that trait will do me some good as far as sticking it out long enough to be one of the few.

The last thing I am is a great salesman. That's why self-publishing or vanity publishing doesn't appeal to me. Perhaps I could take advantage of some door openings (mover and shaker friends) and hawk a few thousand books. But honestly, if my greater objective is to be heard, and it's a great story; and it's clear I can't find an agent, I'd find the best way possible to allow the most people possible to read it. I'd find more people to read this story on the internet than ever in going to bookstores pleading for them to display my book.

And frankly what money I could make selling a few thousand self-published books wouldn't be worth the effort to me. I'd make more money doing overtime at work. (Hour for hour).

[Liam Jackson]

Posted deleted. I posted about the same time as James Ritchie. He said everything I wanted to say, and said it far better.

[James D. Macdonald]

I'm going to agree with James R. here.

And I'm going to quote myself again:

You can get farther with beautiful prose and a story than you can with beautiful prose alone.

and

All your grammar has to be is workmanlike or better.

[Jamesaritchie]

Not to mention - who's POV is this? Why are we being told and not shown? What's with the out-world monikers that take 20 minutes to decipher a proper pronunciation? And... as they are so fond of asking, anywhere you go with your manuscript... WHO CARES?

Seriously, why am I breaking my back trying to satisfy the critics when this stuff has made it to print? I'm not an idiot, I know this must have passed through 20 or 30 opinionated professionals, with several re-writes before market. I can see the penguin on the cover!

So why is such a lucky barstool whining about how unfair things are in the industry?

More or less, he's proven that you don't have to even be a writer to get a book in print.

I don't see him as whining in any way. I also don't see him as saying anything is really unfair. As far as I can tell, he's just telling it pretty much like it really is. There's an awful lot of truth and good advice in this article.

I also think it's highly unfair to say he isn't a writer because you don't like his writing. His writing isn't the kind I enjoy reading, but it isn't horrible, and it's better than a lot I've seen over the years.

And from a single chapter, I can't say what kind of story he tells, or how well he develops characters over the course of a novel, or several other things that matter more than the quality of the prose.

And the names he gives his characters seem pretty tame when compared to the names I encouter in much fantasy fiction. At least, I didn't have any trouble pronouncing these, and I sure can't always say that. And at least I didn't see any blasted apostrophes in the names.

Actually, his novels may have passed through only a couple of professionals. Possibly only one where the writing itself is concerned. When I sell a novel, the editor makes the first decision, and if she likes it, it probably then goes to the acquisition board. But from my experience, odds are high that no one on the board will actually read the novel. They may read a synopsis, an outline, maybe the first chapter, but that's it. Sometimes they don't read anything at all. It's the marketing report they care about, and this is often based on the genre, the length, the history of the writer, etc.

The important factors for a new writer are everything but the sales record of the writer. The number one factor, just about the only factor, for an established writer is how many copies did your last novel sell?

I've never heard of a novel going through many professionals before it was bought, and his may not have gone trhough a single rewrite.

I will say this. If you're writing to please the critics, you are probably making a serious mistake. Critics can't buy your novel, critics are generally given free copies after someone else buys it, and critics seldom have a clue about what makes for a good or bad novel.

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

Thank you, everyone who said "there is no passive voice in that sentence." You kept me from exploding on my way down to the end of the thread. And, believe me, The Tea Spot is too nice a tea shop to deserve having to scrape exploded me off their walls and out of their tea pots.

For those who are confused: "To be" alone does not a passive make. Passive voice goes like this:

[Verb] was done to [object noun] {by [subject noun]}.

Compare it with Active Voice:

[Subject noun] did [verb] to [object noun]

The absolute abhorrence of the passive voice probably comes from journalism, where hiding the object of the verb from the reader goes directly against the putative purpose of journalism, which is to inform the reader. In fiction, passive voice can indicate a certain amount of laziness on the part of the author, but sometimes it is necessary and appropriate. There is more that could be said on the subject, but I'm probably already halfway through eating my left foot here and I have no intention of risking sticking the other in my mouth, too. So there. Nyah.

Now, if'n *I* had to critique Irvine's opening sentence, I'd just cut off the sentence right after the main clause: "It was the final night of the Graduation Telling." Then I'd urge him to show us what Graduation Telling means, instead of telling us.

"It was the final night of the Graduation Telling. The remains of dinner had cooled long ago, but not even the banquet hall servents stirred to clean the tables. They, along with all the masters and students of the College of Histories, crowded close to the stage as Professor Starkney cleared his throat and began, 'Once upon a time...'"

[reph]

"It was the final night of the Graduation Telling. The remains of dinner had cooled long ago, but not even the banquet hall servents stirred to clean the tables. They, along with all the masters and students of the College of Histories, crowded close to the stage as Professor Starkney cleared his throat and began, 'Once upon a time...'"
Now, that's interesting, and the original sentence isn't.

[James D. Macdonald]

Talking about individual sentences isn't particularly useful. The smallest unit of meaning is the paragraph. Even more useful would be talking about the whole scene.

[pepperlandgirl]

First, why is it that so many new writers cringe when they see the word "was." Is it because passive/active has been harped about so much? "Was" is a perfectly good word, and there's no reason at all to avoid it. It does not automatically make a sentence passive, and even when it does, sometimes good writing needs passive sentences. Beyond this, it's usually only where action is involved that active/passive really becomes an issue.

Actually, "was" doesn't make me cringe because I'm a "new writer." Was makes me cringe because I am a reader. I don't like the word. I don't like the construction of sentences that uses "was." This is the beginning of his other book: "The hall was dark." Everybody else may think that sentence is just fine. I hate it. What hall? Why do I care? Where is it? How big is it? I just plain don't like it. Sometimes I can think of a better sentence--and I don't think my "edit" is substantially different from his sentence--and if I can, I won't read the book. Why? Because I have no doubt I will spend the rest of the book thinking of "better sentences" and then what's the point of reading? I may as well go write my own and have done with it. Sometimes I can't think of a single other way to say what the author is trying to say, and then I think, "Okey-dokey, this one won't drive me crazy!" and I buy it.

I do think there's a lot of "shoot the messenger" going on here.
Also, I'd like to add that I really didn't have an issue with what the article said. It didn't shock, offend, or horrify me. Writing is hard. Cool. I get it. I've understood that for a long time. Life is hard. Pain is a necessary side effect, etc etc. I just don't like unwieldy sentences that must be deciphered before I can continue on to the next sentence.

[Note On]

Hi, Jim. Nice to bump into you again.

Talking about individual sentences isn't particularly useful. The smallest unit of meaning is the paragraph. Even more useful would be talking about the whole scene.

Well, I don't agree that the smallest unit of meaning is necessarily the paragraph, but I do agree that picking on individual sentences in a plot-driven story is sort of pointless. In a story that's carried more by tone and rhythm, the individual sentence becomes more important. Sentences can throw up clams as bad as any first-year trombonist.

How the words sound matters, sometimes more than what they mean. (Which is why I left the "'s" off of 'trombonist'.)

In a straight-ahead what-happens-next genre story, though, an unlovely sentence makes very little difference. The appeal is not on that level.

[Note On]

"The hall was dark." Everybody else may think that sentence is just fine. I hate it. What hall? Why do I care? Where is it? How big is it?

Most readers give you a page or two of trust. "Why do I care" doesn't have to be earned in the first sentence.

I'd venture, in fact, that it's impossible in the first sentence.

[pepperlandgirl]

Most readers give you a page or two of trust. "Why do I care" doesn't have to be earned in the first sentence.

I'd venture, in fact, that it's impossible in the first sentence.

Not at all. Go look at the "best first lines" thread. Based on those first lines alone, I want to go buy the books I haven't read. Maybe they don't answer "why do I care," but they sure make me curious to find out. "The hall was dark" does not.

[maestrowork]

I think someone here once said "go over your ms and change all the 'was' and 'were' to something more active." I found that advice odd and counter-productive.

Also, there are times when true passive voice ("he was killed") is a good thing. Just like anything, contrast is good. When you have too much light, it's good to have some shadows and darkness. So if you have too much active voice, some passive voice is good. The opposite is not true, however. If you have too much passive voice, you definitely need to make your prose more active.

[Christine N.]

Generally, I agree. But this is the first sentence. The hook, what people read when they first open the book. I think it should have something interesting to say.

I'm not personally trying to shoot the messenger. The rest of the book could be fabulous. Not that I wouldn't read it with a boring first sentence, but it's going to take some work to get me into the story.

Anyway.. back to the article. I do think he makes some good points, but that the whole thing sounds a little jaded. I like this one better.... http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/004641.html

[HConn]

I read the article. It isn't whining.

I didn't read the guys samples, because they don't matter to me. He's not my measuring stick, adn I'm not competing with him.

However, if he has gotten himself published, multiple times, I have to assume that he's doing something that readers like. I think it's more useful to figure out what that is rather than declare the guy isn't a writer.

[Note On]

Maybe they don't answer "why do I care,"

We agree!

[Note On]

I think someone here once said "go over your ms and change all the 'was' and 'were' to something more active." I found that advice odd and counter-productive.

I think the search for "to be" verbs is useful. It doesn't mean you need to change them all, but it often points out places where there would be a benefit.

[cwfgal]

I found the article to be very realistic and I suspect it will serve as a much needed eye opener to many aspiring writers who think simply being published is a guaranteed road to success. The information in the article mirrors my own experiences and those of many of the published writers I know.

Whether or not you like his writing (and he has been published many times so clearly his writing is liked by a significant number of people) should have nothing to do with accepting the information in the article. Dissing a published writer's work may make another writer feel better about themselves but it doesn't accomplish much else. Time might be better spent analyzing what it is about the author's writing -- if not the quality of the writing itself -- that makes it work.

Beth

[maestrowork]

I think we put TOO MUCH emphasis on the first line, especially in this MTV/reality-TV/instant gratification era. I agree with Uncle Jim -- the smallest unit is not a sentence; it's a paragraph or even the whole scene (sometimes the whole chapter). I don't have to be "hooked" on first sentence, but if the first paragraph is "ho hum" then something is wrong. I think there's a danger for a reader to make a decision of buying or not buying a book based on one sentence. And the "who cares" thing is so subjective. I mean the first line of Mrs. Dalloway is "Mrs. Dalloway said she would buy the flowers herself." One can easily say, "Oh, who cares?" But it turns out to be a very important line... but you won't know it until you read on...

"The hall is dark." Well, it sets up a location and possibly a time. And it makes you ask questions: What hall? Where is it? Why should we care? The issue is what follows that sentence. If it's a single-sentence paragraph and that's that, then indeed it's weak. But if it's followed by some interesting stuff, I have no problem with "The hall is dark."

It also depends on the genres. Thrillers probably hook quickly: "She died drowning in her own blood." Literary fiction probably starts very slowly.

[Note On]

Without the context of the story, there's no way to call it a "great first line." Great first lines are great because of how they relate to the rest of the story. Out of context, they're just a bunch of words, either pretty or not, either with a little self-contained punchline or not.

Regardless of the prettiness or cleverness, the writer is making a promise by putting it on paper at all. He's saying, "Trust me. This matters. You'll see."

A great promise is great because it's delivered on. Not because the promise itself is pretty.

[alaskamatt17]

The article was about one percent whining and ninety-nine percent useful.The majority of posts harping on Mr. Irvine's supposed passive voice contain at least one spelling or grammatical error. In addition, they contain the same sort of sentence construction for which Mr. Irvine is criticized (uh oh, passive voice).

I haven't read any of Mr. Irvine's books, nor do I intend to--I have too many other books to read--but I think that he had every right to compose the article that instigated this thread. He obviously has experience in the publishing industry, which would be the most important credential for writing an article about the challenges facing new writers seeking publication.

[Richard]

I don't usually READ the first sentence. Well, not specifically. I usually grab a book because I know the author, it's been recommended, or I heard the plot somewhere and liked the sound of it. I've read plenty that have been real Bulwer-Lytton contestants but have turned out okay. I just never really assume the first page is likely to tell me anything except the author's prefered tense and person.

[NicoleJLeBoeuf]

Now, that's interesting, and the original sentence isn't.And that's very sweet of you to say, reph. *preen* ;)

Re: the word was -- I had a Sophomore English teacher (the same one as had the overly dogmatic approach to symbology) who penalized us for use of the verb "to be" after the first five. (Our papers tended to run to about 5 or 10 pages.) Instead of "the hall was dark; the hero risked being eaten by a grue" she probably would have preferred something like "the darkened hall suggested an immenent future in the grue chow industry" and I guess I can't blame her. Of course, she didn't teach creative writing; she taught literature. So, "the dark hall symbolizes an uncertain future for the protagonist" might have arisen in class and pleased her well.

Gotta give her kudos here: she permanently ingrained in me a habit of making my every use of "to be" justify itself. But there's skills for the editing toolbox, and then there's inflexible dogma, and I find she erred on the side of the latter a smidge too often.

And it's a really inconvenient habit to be in during the rough draft stage, lemme tellya.

[Jamesaritchie]

Yes, but this passage contains lots of drama. Adjectives, opposites like "Despair" and "Hope", "Light" and "Darkness" make me want to find out why the author/character/narrator feels this way. It's very strong, absolute language. It pulls me in. That, and the repetition of "it was". Again, absolute. Not wishy washy or soft.

This thing about the Graduation Telling is just boring by comparision. I just don't care. Not that the GT is a boring ritual, but there is a better way to describe it. I might start this scene with a description of the room they were in - an ancient, torch-lit room filled with shadows of teachers and students.
Then I might say who was speaking - Shamen Whatisface's, for example, and how he was speaking. What is he saying?

Then I might tell the reader what was going on. But first I gotta make him care about it.

Yes, but it is largely a matter of individual taste. That first sentence pulled me in just fine. It made me wonder what comes next, and this is all I ever ask of an opening sentence. Not the best I've ever read by a mile, but far from the worst, it worked for me. For my own taste, I'm not at all big on opening sentences that start describing something. Descriptions and weather are two things I tend to dislike in opening sentences.

[Jamesaritchie]

But honestly, if my greater objective is to be heard, and it's a great story; and it's clear I can't find an agent, I'd find the best way possible to allow the most people possible to read it.


Well, I believe firmly that if it is a great story, you'll find an agent for it immediately, and a publisher for it almost as quickly. The world is not awash with great stories that can't find a home.

[Jaws]

I have several problems with Mr Irvine's piece; with one exception, they're more in the nature of emphases and personal style than of substance.

But that disagreement in substance is a doozy.

Mr Irvine suggests signing the publisher's first-offered contract if you're previously unpublished, on the ground that as a previously unpublished author you have no negotiating leverage. Hogwash. What you don't have is as much leverage as an established writer has, or the ability to radically change the economic things in the contract. Keep in mind that in the publishing industry, or at least in the fiction end of the publishing industry, that first contract is what the publisher hopes to beat you into; it can, and will, live with much more favorable terms. Here are a few, relatively random examples:
The publisher wants movie and TV rights, and will generously pay you 50% of its net. In the 1950s, this might have been an acceptable starting point for further negotiation; as it is, it's an unjustified rights grab. As a rule, no serious film/TV producer ("serious" meaning "has the ability to actually get it produced and the connections to follow through") relies on the publisher for these things, except in the rare instance of a media tie-in work. Even if you decide to leave the rights there, the 50-50 split is not the market rate, even for newbies.
If you sign an indemnification clause without trying to negotiate some of the more abusive aspects of it, you pretty much deserve what you're going to get. At minimum, you need "finally sustained" language in there for the timing of indemnification, and there are a whole bunch of other considerations. And we won't go into my other pet peeve, the warranties; you'll have to come to the session in Chicago on 28 April to hear that rant.
Option clauses. Get rid of 'em. If you're happy with the publisher, and the publisher is happy with you, why wouldn't you give the publisher the first shot? You'll be discussing that next project with the publisher in any event! Option clauses just don't make sense any more for previously unpublished fiction writers, and precious few established fiction writers.
And, if you're a nonfiction writer, remember that Mr Irvine is a novelist. His experience with fiction publishing—and, worse yet, commercial-category-fiction publishing—will not reflect the nonfiction world that makes up well over 70% of the publishing industry. It might not even reflect your situation in a different commercial category, or in the "mainstream," within fiction. I'm not saying ignore what he has to say, because much of his piece is valuable; I'm saying keep your eyes open for what appear to be exceptions.

But then, I say that a lot, don't I? Part of the problem is that there is no monolithic "publishing industry" with truly standard contracts, procedures, etc. that mean anything. Publishing isn't like recorded popular music that way. Publishing isn't like film and TV that way. Anybody who pretends otherwise either has limited experience and just doesn't know about the exceptions, or is trying to sell you something.

[Jamesaritchie]

Not at all. Go look at the "best first lines" thread. Based on those first lines alone, I want to go buy the books I haven't read. Maybe they don't answer "why do I care," but they sure make me curious to find out. "The hall was dark" does not.

This just means you wouldn't buy the book. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the sentence, or that many others wouldn't buy. Sometimes, the hall is just dark and there's no reason to portray it as anything else. If "The hall was dark" says what you want to say, then go with it. If it doesn't, then find another sentence.

I love good opening lines, but I've yet to base my book buying decision on a single line. If I did, I would have missed reading some of the best novels of my life. There have even been times when the first fifty or sixty pages of a novel didn't do a thing for me, but then the writer capured me and wouldn't let go.

[Jamesaritchie]

Without the context of the story, there's no way to call it a "great first line." Great first lines are great because of how they relate to the rest of the story. Out of context, they're just a bunch of words, either pretty or not, either with a little self-contained punchline or not.

Regardless of the prettiness or cleverness, the writer is making a promise by putting it on paper at all. He's saying, "Trust me. This matters. You'll see."

A great promise is great because it's delivered on. Not because the promise itself is pretty.

That is an excellent point, and as true as anything I've heard.

[Jamesaritchie]

I have several problems with Mr Irvine's piece; with one exception, they're more in the nature of emphases and personal style than of substance.

But that disagreement in substance is a doozy.

Mr Irvine suggests signing the publisher's first-offered contract if you're previously unpublished, on the ground that as a previously unpublished author you have no negotiating leverage. Hogwash. What you don't have is as much leverage as an established writer has, or the ability to radically change the economic things in the contract. Keep in mind that in the publishing industry, or at least in the fiction end of the publishing industry, that first contract is what the publisher hopes to beat you into; it can, and will, live with much more favorable terms. Here are a few, relatively random examples:

The publisher wants movie and TV rights, and will generously pay you 50% of its net. In the 1950s, this might have been an acceptable starting point for further negotiation; as it is, it's an unjustified rights grab. As a rule, no serious film/TV producer ("serious" meaning "has the ability to actually get it produced and the connections to follow through") relies on the publisher for these things, except in the rare instance of a media tie-in work. Even if you decide to leave the rights there, the 50-50 split is not the market rate, even for newbies.
If you sign an indemnification clause without trying to negotiate some of the more abusive aspects of it, you pretty much deserve what you're going to get. At minimum, you need "finally sustained" language in there for the timing of indemnification, and there are a whole bunch of other considerations. And we won't go into my other pet peeve, the warranties; you'll have to come to the session in Chicago on 28 April to hear that rant.
Option clauses. Get rid of 'em. If you're happy with the publisher, and the publisher is happy with you, why wouldn't you give the publisher the first shot? You'll be discussing that next project with the publisher in any event! Option clauses just don't make sense any more for previously unpublished fiction writers, and precious few established fiction writers.
And, if you're a nonfiction writer, remember that Mr Irvine is a novelist. His experience with fiction publishing—and, worse yet, commercial-category-fiction publishing—will not reflect the nonfiction world that makes up well over 70% of the publishing industry. It might not even reflect your situation in a different commercial category, or in the "mainstream," within fiction. I'm not saying ignore what he has to say, because much of his piece is valuable; I'm saying keep your eyes open for what appear to be exceptions.

But then, I say that a lot, don't I? Part of the problem is that there is no monolithic "publishing industry" with truly standard contracts, procedures, etc. that mean anything. Publishing isn't like recorded popular music that way. Publishing isn't like film and TV that way. Anybody who pretends otherwise either has limited experience and just doesn't know about the exceptions, or is trying to sell you something.

A fifty/fifty split on movie rights is what I still get, all my agent ever asks for, and what most pro writers I know get. It's worked out very well for me. I find it more profitable to let the publisher have 50% of the movie and TV rights.

You do have to look over a contract carefully, but with the large publishers, at least, I see very little a new fiction writer is going to get changed.

On the other end, except for very rare circumstances, I wouldn't cut the options clause for any writer, new or established. That's a flat out ironclad clause. It's a deal breaker, I don't care who the writer is. A good options clause should never mean a writer has to sell you the next novel in the same genre, just that they have to give you first crack at it. The publisher deserves this, but I can think of a hundred silly reasons why a writer would not do so without this clause, and I've seen most of them.

[reph]

I find meaning (and esthetic pleasure or displeasure) in units smaller than paragraphs. More to the point, given that we're discussing the opening sentence of a novel, the Graduation Stories sentence didn't make me feel like reading the next sentence, and the next, and however many it would take to get to the end of its paragraph. As someone said a couple of pages ago, the first sentence has the job of hooking the reader.

[azbikergirl]

There's only so much a first sentence can do. Its #1 job is, IMO, to get the reader to read the second sentence, whose job is to get the reader to read the third... If we had the entire first paragraph to examine, I could say whether the first sentence did its job or not (for me). Without it, we'll never know. It doesn't send goosebumps down my spine, but that's a tall order for a first sentence -- and not its primary function anyway.

As an "optimistic realist," I found the article helpful despite the author's perceived skill in writing fiction. Apples & oranges.

[Medievalist]

Passive voice has its uses.

Sometimes you don't know know who the "doer" or subject is--for instance, in intelligence or science or sociological writing.

Sometimes you want to avoid responsibility "Mistakes may have been made"--an especially effective technique if you use passive voice and the subjunctive.

Sometimes there really isn't an agent: "Your monitor can't be repaired."

"All employees will be given driving tests."

[DeadlyAccurate]

If I picked it up in the bookstore, I wouldn't ignore that book based on its first sentence, but I did have to read it three or four times to actually get it. I don't mind it starting with "it was," but the overuse of prepositional phrases makes me do a verbal waltz when I read it.


of the Graduation Telling,
of the College
of the Histories
at Chanthed
of human life
on Santhenar.

Perhaps I'm just more sensitive to prepositions than most, though, because in 6th grade, I had to memorize a long list of prepositions and recite them at the front of the class. I could recite that entire list perfectly fifteen or more years later, and I can still recite most of it now.

Regardless, I did feel his information was interesting and informative, and from what I could tell, accurate. I didn't feel he was bitter, either.

[oswann]

Damn. From he who started a thread asking for favorite first lines, I agree wholeheartedly that a crackerjack opening is purely contextual. If the book is crud the beauty of the first line will be quickly forgotten.


Os.

[Jaws]

A fifty/fifty split on movie rights is what I still get, all my agent ever asks for, and what most pro writers I know get. It's worked out very well for me. I find it more profitable to let the publisher have 50% of the movie and TV rights.You're entitled to your opinion, particularly on the ever-elusive profitability/convenience issue, but the numbers are against you here. I've seldom run into an established writer who, in the instances in which he/she did give up movie rights, kept less than 75%—and I'm limiting myself to the 90 or so fiction contracts I've seen in the last five years. Certain marketing categories do seem to trend down from 75/25 at first offer, but I've never seen a contract negotiation founder on that point absent a preexisting intellectual property issue.
My point was that if you don't ask, you won't get better terms.

You do have to look over a contract carefully, but with the large publishers, at least, I see very little a new fiction writer is going to get changed.We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. My experience differs from yours; more often than not, even a first novelist can get some pretty significant changes made (just not always in the financial terms), and in serious nonfiction I don't know of a major or mid-sized publisher that does not expect routine, significant changes in the initial contract offer. I do know of some speciality nonfiction publishers that don't; but even there I'd say that a majority are at least open to some significant changes.
I think the key here is what we're considering significant. Too many authors consider only the financial terms in a contract significant; too many agents think the same way. It shouldn't surprise you that most of the litigation that occurs over publishing contracts, though, comes from the nonfinancial terms, such as indemnification for libel judgments (http://scrivenerserror.blogspot.com/2005/04/freedom-to-choose.html).

[Zolah]

My agent managed to negotiate substantial changes to my first contract, and I thank God for it.

She got an increase in my advance that effectively paid for her 15% cut and changed the percentage of receipts on export sales from 10% net to 10% gross. Most significantly, she managed to change an option clause that would have made it impossible for me to take my work elsewhere OR demand a decision from the publisher for two years after the contract was signed, and which would have tied me to the same terms in any subsequent contracts.

The wrangling over this took about two months, and I was jiggling with anxiety and impatience by the end of it. But thank God it did happen, or I'd be in a very nasty position right about now. And that's dealing with a really NICE publisher! God knows what a less than great one would have tried to snow me into. I'd say, always negotiate if there's room to do so.