In this new world model of publishing, the traditional gatekeepers — editors, agents, publishers — are finding themselves in a slightly different position. Self-publishing is on the rise, and anyone dissatisfied with “the system” can choose to detour around the gates and the gatekeepers entirely. But that does not encourage the gatekeepers to abandon their posts; quite the contrary, in fact.
Over at Black Gate Magazine, my friend Peadar Ó Guilín explains why the gatekeepers are still with us, and why they’re important.
As a gatekeeper, I can tell you that there is a vast sea of fiction out there that is fantastic, but it’s a drop in a larger ocean of work that is unpolished, not self-aware of the fact that it has flaws, and just not ready to be published. It’s unfortunate that the writers who pen great works are the ones who are self-conscious of their writing and are more prone to be the ones to wonder if it’s good enough, while the ones who have the longest way to go are sometimes the most blind to that fact.
The gatekeepers try to add balance and perspective. Getting rejected is frustrating, but sometimes it’s for a writer’s own good. Working with the system and improving to reach that bar requires learning, dedication, and talent. Bypassing the system perhaps seems easier, and in rare cases it can have good results. But in the long run it isn’t necessarily best for the writer (who loses out on a chance for professional advice and guidance) or for the reader (who must wade through more quantity to find quality).
{ 7 comments }
I’m not in the writing or publishing business, but your post reminded me of articles I’ve read about popular works being rejected by multiple publishers. The best example in recent years is probably the first Harry Potter book, which was rejected by something like 8 publishing companies before a relatively small one finally decided to take it — and that mainly happened because an executive’s young daughter read the sample chapters and begged her dad for more.
I guess my point is that people in the publishing business — like those in any business — are out to make money, and they are the most likely to accept books that they believe will be bestsellers; the driving force is not whether the books are actually good, but whether they’ll sell. And although the publishers try, it’s impossible to determine what will be the next big thing just based on past marketing trends; if it were, every book, movie, and CD released would be a blockbuster. It’s impossible to define the qualities that make people love one thing and totally ignore something else, and the people in looking only at the bottom line kind of stifle art — and keep a lot of good stuff off the market — by trying.
I mean, I don’t exactly blame them for trying to make money; no purveyor of art, whether publisher or author, record company or musician, movie company or actor, can afford to keep putting out works that don’t sell well enough to make a profit — we all have to eat. But as someone who listens to several independent musicians, for example, I’m glad I live in a time where I have access to their music — 20 or 30 years ago, I’d never have heard of any of them.
That said, I also see your point; one problem with the vast amount of self-published stuff out there is that no one has the time to wade through it all to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. The problem is that I’m not sure that the people claiming to do the wading for me really know a lot about my tastes. So I think that the rise of self-publishing — and the corresponding fall of commercial publishing (and I include music in this, too) — is really a good thing in general. Yes, that means books and such that are to my taste — and that are good — will be harder to find, and that’s a definite downside, but it also means that (assuming I can find them) I’ll also have access to a much vaster range of stuff that otherwise would never see the light of day. And that can’t be a bad thing.
I will say, though, that I do think editors are *very* important; I’ve read many books that I wished had better editing. But from the admittedly minuscule bit I know about the publishing industry, I get the impression that editors aren’t actually the ones who decide whether a book gets published in the first place; by the time they get the book, someone has already decided to publish it, and those are the ones I have issues with. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong in that assumption. The point of it all long-windedness is that I think some gatekeepers are necessary, and others are, well, not. :-)
While it’s true that self-producing and self-publishing means that there’s more good undiscovered stuff that will see the light of day, it also means there’s a lot that will see the light of day that really shouldn’t.
Which is not to condemn the opportunity for existing. There are some independent bands I really love, and promoting their own work is what brings them to the attention of the larger scene, where they can be appreciated for their talent. It’s just that when that happens in writing, it’s a hell of a lot rarer. A band’s got to have some minimal level of proficiency to even release their songs online and get taken seriously. Even if you don’t like a band’s songs, by the time it’s released it’s going to at least be of a level technically where you can call it music. I think that in writing, where anyone can type into their computer and publish it, there’s a lot more on the low side of that bar of minimum proficiency that sees the light of day. There’s proportionally more self-made product out there that’s the equivalent of someone recording themselves playing “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star” with one finger, complete with the missed notes and hesitant stops and starts.
I think I have to respectfully challenge your point that the people doing the wading for you don’t know a lot about your tastes. I think there’s a wealth and breadth of stuff published out there to fit any taste, and it’s just a matter of being pointed toward the gatekeepers whose taste and tendencies align with yours, and then sticking with them. They’re probably out there — publishers, anthologists, and editors who like what you like, and actively work to put it out there — but you may not have found many of them yet. Reading short fiction is a great way to start. If you find an anthology in which you like most of the stories, you can track down more work by those authors, and track down more anthologies by that editor, and let things branch out that way.
I do see what you’re saying, but then I think how close something like Harry Potter came to never being published, and I wonder how many other great books there are out there that we’ll never see because some marketing type didn’t think they’d find an audience, you know? (Not that Harry Potter was necessarily great literature, but the series does remain among my favorite reads.)
I don’t really have a good solution; in fact, I don’t read any self-published fiction, mainly because I’m not sure where I’d find any to my liking, nor do I really have the time to look (which is exactly your point). I’d just love to see more quality stuff available, one way or another; maybe then I wouldn’t reread so much — something I do partly out of laziness (it takes a certain amount of brain power to focus on something new, as opposed to a familiar story that’s like an old friend) and partly because my favorite authors can only write so quickly.
(Excuse the typos in that last comment; I always proofread when I write anything, but then I add stuff while doing so, and obviously I didn’t proofread the additions. Argh. I’m not a writer, but I do at least like to be reasonably correct in grammar and spelling.)
I do get what you’re saying. Where we differ is that I don’t think Harry Potter ever came close to not getting published. I strongly think that if it hadn’t been picked up there, and if she’d kept at it, it would have been picked up somewhere else.
Sometimes gatekeepers pass on a good thing because it’s not the right thing for them right then, but that doesn’t make it less of a good thing. I strongly believe that the best find homes eventually, if their creators are persistent enough. There is probably a lot of fascinating material out there that never gets seen because someone doesn’t want to take a chance on it, but from my perspective, that’s just more reason to keep submitting and keep trying. Eventually there will be that one person who’s in love with it, and willing to champion it and give it the publicity it deserves, and then it will all have been worth it.
Self-pub cuts that corner and goes right to publication, but without the publicity of word-of-mouth and a reputation already built, or a marketing budget, or the reputability of a publisher behind a book, it takes far more work to stand out and be chosen by actual readers. It’s actually much more work than submitting manuscripts, with far less chance of a payoff. If you’ve got to do twice as much work, or more, to try to get the book into the hands of readers, it doesn’t end up being much of a shortcut at all.
There’s plenty more to say on the subject, and I’ll happily get more indepth on it with you, but the margins are going to start closing in on us if we keep going in comments here. ;)
Thanks for the link! And you’re going to know far more about the subject than I do. I was just mouthing off, mostly.
As a published writer who is in the process of expanding through other gatekeepers to publish outside of my current publisher (Wizards of the Coast), I find myself in an unusual position on this particular topic.
On the one hand, I know that my work has quality and I have the sort of skill necessary to publish (having done it three times now), but on the other hand, I recognize that having a professional editor work with my stuff improves it, sometimes *dramatically.* It’s good as written–it’s better as edited. If I self-published, I might get some of my own fan base to read my stuff, but then I wouldn’t have that crucial editing step to refine it and make sure it’s exactly what I want it to be. And for a reader, new or old, to read something by me that isn’t the best I can make it, it’s going to be disappointing and in turn *hurt* my writing career. I believe there’s no such thing as bad writing, only *incomplete* writing, and if you skip the crucible process of editors/agents/rejection/submission/acceptance, then your chances of putting out a complete and perfect piece are significantly diminished.
Ultimately, I firmly believe that as frustrating and gut-wrenching as the process sometimes is, you *need* to go through it. You need to build up that perseverence and belief in yourself as a writer, and you also need to make sure that whatever you’re putting out there, you are really ready to put it out there.
Cheers
Exactly.
Because…it’s really *easy* to believe this, speaking as as one of the gatekeepers. It means a lot more to hear it from writers — from the gatekept. Writing, all writing, even my own writing, even the best writing, can benefit from that professional outside eye, and writers only cheat themselves and their readers when they sidestep the process.
Thanks for chiming in! :)
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }