A dreadful error

I've given up on agents entirely. am trying the small genre route and seems to have more success.

however, the article does end on a hopeful note (at least for that guy).

blacbird said:

I'm back at the Why bother? point again.

caw

Click to expand...

Because you write wonderful posts and somewhere in there there must be a book worth reading

I've plodded through the really small fonts of the article (aaargh!) and it actually ends with this: " Ultimately, of course, no is no, and I still don’t have an agent. But that’s my fault: I haven’t written a book an agent can sell yet.At this point, I am seriously thinking about revising the book from beginning to end before I send it out again. "

Fact is, the author of the article does admit that his work was below par. All the rant above was a misdirection. Agents do know good from bad and can do it very quickly. It's good to keep in mind that small mistakes aren't actually that small when they reveal big gaps in the writer's abilities. A trained eye can catch those very quickly. The author of the article said how they eventually did got more attention and more time from top agents, and more advice. But none of that attention, time or advice helped their book. It just wasn't good enough. That's the point, again.

Sure, but to paraphrase Ms Monroe...

...you wouldn't take on a manuscript just because it's recommended, but my goodness, doesn't it help?

If the literary market is ever-shrinking, then authors in that genre are bound to suffer from a bell curve effect, whereby only the small percentage at one end can be taken on, even if most people in the curve are perfectly competent.

I just can't fathom how connections are *not* a factor. Surely they must be. Surely it helps. There will always be a degree of attribution bias for people who extrapolate a universal experience from a personal one, but that goes both ways; I see a fair few people in the comments who got agents straight away, remarking (rather smugly) that they accomplished this by writing a good query and having strong knowledge of the market, in addition to "polishing" their book. I mean jesus cthulhu, why didn't the rest of us think of that? >.>

It's the same argument in any industry for achieving success. Yes, you can be an impoverished illiterate quadraplegic orphan from an ethnic minority who manages to become the next Richard Branson, but in practice your chances are vanishingly small, and would be higher with connections and/or a wealthy background.

I think there is a sort of seductiveness in believing our work capable of being so amazing that it rises above the rest, shining amidst the dross to elevate us into publication, but this to me seems borderline delusional in comparison to the other extreme. Certainly it is nothing but advantageous to have strong connections, and also, there is just *so much* material that being not-dross isn't enough. Timing, market, agent/publisher whim, miniscule aspects of presentation, style trends, and so many other factors are influential.

It doesn't surprise me that people turn to self publishing out of sheer exasperation, and it's always heartening to see them successfully carve out a niche that the traditional route couldn't or wouldn't provide for them. In many respects, I think self publishing might more accurately reflect a writer's hard work and quality writing, since poor books make nothing while canny writers pull in dosh.

Blacbird, Imho you should just self-publish at least one thing right away and get around this hurdle that's grown to take on more importance than it deserves. We know your writing is certainly competent enough for publication. If it doesn't fit a category that many agents or publishers think they can make money off, okay, so take it to the readers and let them have a shot at weighing in on it. Especially since you hate sending it out anyway. I'll buy one!