Blue13, you've given me a lot to think about but I'm still going to disagree with you.
Honestly, what most publishers really wants is to make $.
Well, of course they do. They're a business. They've always wanted to make money - that shouldn't surprise anyone. But what MOST publishers really want is to publish great books. Yes, they want to make money too, but that won't stop them publishing a book that's not a definite sell if they feel strongly that it's a great book.
If you arrive with a sellable product, no matter how much pride they have, they will have a tough time turning it down.
The operative word is 'sellable' here. If you are a first time author who has asked a friend/relative/even professional to draw the pictures, it is unlikely that you have a saleable product. If you are a first-time author, it is likely that the text will need work, and thus the illustrations are redundant until the text is up to scratch. Equally, if you have asked someone who is not a professional artist, their drawings are unlikely to be of good enough quality. There are so many other things to take into consideration too. Many publishing houses have a certain 'style' with their illustrated books - some prefer big, simplistic pictures with bold colours, others like watercolour paintings with lots of detail. The publisher has an established track record in this field and you don't want them to reject your book on the basis that the illustrations don't fit their usual style.
A little tip, many illustrators/designers prefer to be hired before it goes to the publisher
You may be right about this, I don't know. But if I were an illustrator, I'd prefer to be contacted by the publisher because then I know that if I do a good job with the samples, I will definitely be hired and paid. Some illustrators can take up to six months to illustrate a full-length picture book. Why would anyone want to do that on a book that wasn't even under contract? There would be no guarantee of acceptance and thus no guarantee of payment. I am assuming that illustrators need to eat and heat their houses, just like the rest of us. That seems like a crazy way to do things (from the illustrator's point of view)
Very rarely will someone choose talent over popularity
Oh, rubbish. The pop world is nothing like the book world. If you followed this maxim, then no one new would ever break into either market. Books are accepted because they are GOOD. Whether they SELL or not is another matter - of course someone is more likely to buy a new book by their favourite author than by someone they've never heard of, but that's what a publicity department is for.
It could go down one of 4 ways:
They like the writing but not the illustrations. (good for writer)
The like the illustrations but not the writing. (good for illustrator)
They don't like the writing or the drawings. (bad for everyone)
They like both the writing and the drawings. (good for everyone)
You forgot no.5: they like one or the other (words or pictures) but can't separate the two in their visual minds (ie seeing the text without the pictures as you submitted it) and they don't have time to type out a new ms to see whether the text stands up on its own, so they simply reject the lot. They have hundreds more submissions to look at, most of whom have followed the guidelines they set out.
Are publishers gonna pair a world renown illustrator with a completley unknown writer?
No, of course not. My first picture book was illustrated by someone who had two or three years in the business and who had illustrated a couple of easy readers. She had a track record but was certainly not world renowned. Your two extremes are a ridiculous comparison; there is a grey area, you know.
The best chance of being published, is to have been published.
No. The best chance of being published is to have written an outstanding book. Then of course, you need the luck of it landing on the right person's desk at the right time. Of course being published before is going to make them take you more seriously. But if you haven't written a great book, they still won't take it (unless you are a household name and they know people will buy your book just on the basis of that - in which case you are probably submitting to a publisher you have already worked with)
Begining writers should write and if necessary have their books illustrated and publish on their own! Do this not to make $ (that's being an amateur), but to help you build your own publicity and fan base.
No, no and no. Miss Snark's blog says quite clearly that self-publishing DOES NOT COUNT. Why? Because anyone can do it and it is no indication of quality. You are also neglecting the issue of the type of person who is writing. Many writers are not performers and are not happy about 'selling themselves'. Actors, singers and film makers all HAVE to be good at this as part of their job. Writers just have to be good at writing.
The one occasion in which your point of view would be correct is if you have written a very specific non-fiction book and you know that there is a certain market out there that will buy it, and you know also how to contact those people. But where fiction is concerned, the fact that you have self-published and have sold two hundred copies does not matter a jot to your new publisher. Two hundred is peanuts - they want to sell thousands. And, no matter what you might think, practically no one sells thousands of their self-published book.
The publisher has a publicity department. They are the ones who will sell the book. They are the ones who will have ideas about who to market it to and how to sell it.
But none of this matters a jot if you haven't written a great book. Regardless of your track record, if you have written an outstanding book, then someone will want to publish it. It might take years to find the right publisher, but it will happen. End of.
