Slushkiller...what do you think?

Status
Not open for further replies.

msQTpi

I found the following at nielsenhayden.com/makingl...ml#004641. and have a question.

-------------------------------------------------------
this is the part I question:

Quote:
Anyway, as I was saying, it realio trulio honestly isn’t about you the writer per se. If you got rejected, it wasn’t because we think you’re an inadequate human being. We just don’t want to buy your book. To tell you the truth, chances are we didn’t even register your existence as a unique and individual human being. You know your heart and soul are stapled to that manuscript, but what we see are the words on the paper. And that’s as it should be, because when readers buy our books, the words on the paper are what they get.

-------------------------------------------------------

I agree with the words, but question the sincerity of the author writing them. Is it me or does the rest of the article seem to sound contrary to this quote?

Renee'
 

Lori Basiewicz

RE: Slushkiller

Renee',

I did not find the rest of the article contrary to the quote. The author is an editor. She is just giving the other side of the publishing story. And, honestly, I find the individuals who rant publicly about their rejections and call the editors names to be more than a little immature.

All a rejection says is that particular place is not going to publish my work. It is not about me or the quality of my work. It's a business, after all -- cold and impersonal -- and there are lots of reasons that have nothing to do with my ability to write why a particular publisher/magazine/what-have-you and I may not be able to partner together at that time. Yet there are writers out there who insist on making every rejection a reason for a personal vendetta.

While I understand a rejection on the wrong day may make the writer feel a bit depressed, in the end, it's important to remember that both editors and writers are people and the rules of a civilized society do apply whenever people interact.
 

msQTpi

Lori

Perhaps my question could have been better worded.

I agree with what you said...and the quote I posted as well.

The thing I was questioning was the tone of the rest of the article. Perhaps I am overly tired (probably) but to me it seems to be a little tongue in cheek about writers.

The feel I got from the site was what I think I would feel if I had been secretly privy to a discussion between parents about a child.

I liked the quote, but wasn't sure about the rest of the article. I posted it so I could find out if I was reading something into it that wasn't there.

Thanks..I think your reply answered me quite nicely.

Lord I need to go to bed. :rolleyes
 

maestrowork

Re: Lori

I didn't read the rest of the article, but I think what she said in the quote is true -- for the editor/publisher. I think that's the biggest gap we have between editors and writers. Writers see their work as their heart and soul and VERY personal (I mean, even a matter-of-fact nonfiction piece). Their byline is going to go with it, so of course it's personal. The editors, on the other hand, see only words. Are they well written? Is the story interesting? Would anyone want to buy and read that? They're reader's advocate. I mean think about it, when you go to a book store, pick up a book and buy it, how often do you wonder "hey, what is the author like -- is he/she a good person? How many children she has?..." No really, right? We, as readers, only care about if the story is interesting. If the book IS good, then we would say, wow, Hemingway is a good writer. But we still don't know anything or care about Hemingway...

Just a thought. I've been on both sides of the fence. It's still not easy for the writer in me to accept that I don't matter to them as a person. But that's just reality in this weird business of publishing.
 

MacAl Stone

Re: Slushkiller

The author of the article is also a writer, and has a book of her own out. As such, she's uniquely qualified to understand the perils and frustrations of the whole process.

I've followed that particular blog for a long time (although I hardly ever post there, because her regular commenters are so freakin' smart they intimidate me, just a bit) and she has an entry later-on where she talks about the release of a recent edition of her book of essays--and bemoans an editorial mistake that was supposed to have been corrected, but was not.

So she IS a little tongue-in-cheek about writers. But, on the other hand, we deserve it. Writers are an odd bunch. And I trust that she knows that only too well, since she wears both hats.

The Slushkiller essay is how I found my way to AW--and pretty much singlehandedly convinced me that I COULD submit, be rejected, and live through it. I'd never subbed fiction in my life, til I read the essay.

Whether or not that was a good thing remains to be seen. Heh.
 

ChunkyC

Re: Slushkiller

I too follow and was led here by TNH's blog and have only posted there once for the same reason Mac stated. She and her regulars are wicked-smart and scare the hell out of me at times. I've learned a ton just by lurking. I have also been rejected by Tor and it was a timely response to my submission, and very professional.

TNH does not pull punches. She is very much like Uncle Jim in that she gets right to the point. I'm sure she has no intention of hurting anyone's feelings, but neither will she coddle. What she has to offer us writers in posts like slushkiller is golden. I would probably be so nervous that I'd babble like an imbecile if I ever got the good fortune to be in the same room with her and she deigned to speak to me.

Yes, I have a crush on her brain. :b
 

maestrowork

Re: Slushkiller

The following passage particularly hit the nail in the head:

Thus the reader-mind in action. If you-the-writer can catch that reader’s attention with an intriguing premise, and further seduce them with well-written prose as they go flipping through the pages, there’s some chance they’ll buy it. If they like the book, next time around you’ll be one of the author names they’ll be looking for. And if they really like the book, or if they’ve read and enjoyed two or three of your books, they may begin to wonder about you as a person. But not before.

Many writers write from the writer's perspective. There's nothing wrong with that. But if we can simply write from the readers' point of view, I think we'll have a much better time...
 

MacAl Stone

Re: Slushkiller

Many writers write from the writer's perspective. There's nothing wrong with that. But if we can simply write from the readers' point of view, I think we'll have a much better time...

That takes a level of control that we should all aspire to, Ray. But I don't know as I would have interpreted it exactly that way.

If what you mean is that we can't lose sight of what the reader is interested in, then yes, exactly. But we have to remain in control of the story, and how much we want the reader to know--and when--as well. That's a way to instill tension into the plot, I would think.
 

wurdwise

Re: Slushkiller

The things I've learned that have stuck with me most about doing your best writing.

Use all five senses
You are the camera

These two things put the reader in the story.

And to strive to write so smoothly that the reader forgets they are reading.
 

MacAl Stone

Re: Slushkiller

Hiya, Wurd. Good points, all. Who do you think does those things most effectively?

--and anyone else lurking, feel free to jump in. The Slushkiller essay is quickly becoming one of those seminal reference pieces about writing. I see links to it all over the web.

This is well worth discussing, and if you haven't read it yet--you should.
 

wurdwise

Re: Slushkiller

Oooh, Mac, narrowing who does that most effectively to one author is almost impossible. I am not much on the classics, but the ones who come to mind quickly are Gabriel Garcia Marquez, John Irving, ELizabeth Berg, Barbara Kingsolver.
 

maestrowork

Re: Slushkiller

I think writing is like sex. You have to know what you want and what you need (as a writer), but you also need to take care of your partner's (readers) need. You have to think, what does she want and like? Can I give it to her, make her happy, while not losing myself in the whole thing? I have to be happy and satisfied, too... you're still in control -- even in a give and take... or let me put it this way... a writer is like an experienced, attentive lover and the readers less so (but the readers know, intrincitly, what they want in the "partnership"). So what can the experienced lover (writer) do to make it a mutually exciting and satisfying experience?

The difficulty is, unlike with sex, you don't have immediately feedback of what your partners (readers) want... so it's easy for us to become a selfish lover, so to speak.
 

wurdwise

Re: Slushkiller

Woo hoo! That was a morning eye opener! :eek I need more coffee.8o

(actually, that was a great metaphor, Ray.)
 

ChunkyC

Re: Slushkiller

That is a great metaphor, Maestro. A selfish writer who only thinks of his own pleasure is sure to have a dissatisfied reader on his hands, and they're not likely to want a 'second encounter.'

PS -- if you're reading slushkiller, be sure to check out the pictures. I think that's my ms under that intern's tush. :p
 

MacAl Stone

Re: Slushkiller

I found the list she gives of the top-end rejections tremendously helpful. Of course, the drawback is that it requires rigorous honesty about one's own work. This is often difficult-- sometimes, perhaps impossible.

--It’s nice that the author is working on his/her problems, but the process would be better served by seeing a shrink than by writing novels.

--Nobody but the author is ever going to care about this dull, flaccid, underperforming book.

--The book has an engaging plot. Trouble is, it’s not the author’s, and everybody’s already seen that movie/read that book/collected that comic.

(You have now eliminated 95-99% of the submissions.)


--Someone could publish this book, but we don’t see why it should be us.

--Author is talented, but has written the wrong book.

--It’s a good book, but the house isn’t going to get behind it, so if you buy it, it’ll just get lost in the shuffle.

Nonetheless, to write a book anyone is going to want to buy, we're going to have to ask ourselves those tough questions. Hopefully before we ever send the damn thing out. BUT--I'll add--only AFTER we've finished writing it. Otherwise, it would be too easy to be paralyzed with self-doubt.
 

wurdwise

Re: Slushkiller

I have a multi-published author in my same genre who has volunteeered to read my final draft before I start sending out queries.

Like you said, Mac, there is no way to be totally objectionable about our own work. And she is in the loop, so I think she will have a good idea whether my work is timely, and give me a solid critique. Of course, this won't quarantee anything, but still, it sure can't hurt.
 

MacAl Stone

Re: Slushkiller

Nope--it can't hurt a bit, Denise! What a great resource. :)

And Maestro...your metaphor...that's just almost TMI:b
 

maestrowork

Re: Slushkiller

Oh Mac, you know you LOVE that metaphor. You're just too indignant to admit it. Bwhahahahahahaha.

Of course, a good lover must know his techniques...

A good lover doesn't have to "finish" but his partner should...

A good lover doesn't need reciprocation. He aims to please...

A good lover always have people begging for seconds...

Lovers have egos. But their partners won't care for them. All they care about is to have a good time.

Rejection may not be personal. It doesn't mean you're a bad person. It doesn't even mean your lovemaking stinks (well, it may be true...) All it means is you don't serve their current needs and wants.

Size doesn't matter; it's how you use it...

Sometimes they lie.


See, this metaphor is impenetrable.

Bwhahahahahhaha.
 

wurdwise

Re: Slushkiller

10.gif

Here, let me put that out for ya.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.