I don't pretend to be all that important. I run a small...tiny...itsy bitsy...press, Bards and Sages. It turns a profit, but I don't do it full time. I haven't published a novel with a major publisher. While I've had success placing my poetry and short fiction with small magazines, you've never seen my work in Reader's Digest. I have no illusions about my place in the literary world.
But what I have done is become involved in the literary community. I've been involved with the International Women's Writing Guild since college, and attended several of their Skidmore Conferences. I attend workshops and seminars in order to network with other professionals in the industry. I go to conventions and talk to people in my industry. I open up dialogues with book reviews and site administrators and editors.
Why do I mention this? Well, it seems I touched a nerve with my last article about rejections. Most of the comments have been positive, but I got a few private messages that typify what I believe is the biggest problem with modern writers. And that problem is that they cling to a myth that has no basis in reality. It is a myth that says the very desire to be published is all the justification an editor should need to publish a story, and attempts to engage in any manner of a selection process based on any sort of criteria are in effect denying the writer some innate right. And it is a myth that can be summed up in this message I received.
"You should give people a chance just because sumbody has bad grammer doesn't mean they cant right good! People have a right to be published not just the elites like you you don't know everything!"
I'm always amused when I get lumped in with these mythical "elites." But I want you to read that statement again. And I want you to follow it through to the logical conclusion. Under this logic, a person's desire to perform a job is more important than his ability to perform the job. Let's apply that to other crafts for a moment. I'm fascinated by artists. I wish I had some artistic ability. I can barely draw a stick figure, but I really think I have a right to draw my bad stick figures. Moreover, I think the Museum of Fine Art is obligated to hang my bad stick figure in their museum, and not just the paintings of those elite people. In fact, I think I'll submit some of my bad stick figure art to the New Yorker to use for their cover art.
Crazy, isn't it? But too many writers fall into this delusion. To be clear, you are free to write whatever you want. You are free to put your stuff up on your personal website and post it on forums. Heck, you're free to submit your sub par work to real editors. BUT, you do not have a god-given right to be published. Publishing is not a right, it is a privilege. A privilege you earn by honing your craft and fulfilling your obligation to the reader by present a good story.
This isn't to say your work is expected to be flawless. If all writers were flawless, then proofreaders and editors would be out of jobs. But you do need to possess some basic skill, and if you have not developed those skills, don't cry when your work is rejected. If you don't know how to use a wrench, chances are you aren't going to make a good mechanic. If you don't know how to use a hammer, working in construction probably isn't a good career choice. And if you cannot construct a complete sentence, being a writer is not for you. That doesn't make you a bad person. It's not a value statement.
Hey, I'll never strut down a catwalk in a size 4 evening gown. That doesn't make me more or less valuable as a human being. It's merely a statement of fact. Fortunately, I have never fixated on strutting down a catwalk, and have instead focused on my true skills. But what troubles me is the number of writers who are more fixated on publishing than they are actually developing their craft. Again, it's as if the desire to see ones name in print is more important than the desire to craft masterful stories.
What bothers me most is this sense of entitlement many writers have. There is this sense that "I wrote it. My mom said it's good. Therefore I want you to publish it." Forget the fact that it's a first draft and I didn't even run it through a spellcheck. No, it is perfect as I originally envisioned it, and if you don't see that then you are being an elitist. Many writing forums have become combination backslapping/pity parties overrun with people who don't read, but want to be writers. But they don't actually want to work at becoming good writers. Check off the phrases you have heard in some incarnation in forums you frequent:
"They're just censoring new writers" (people, please learn what censorship is if you are going to use the word in any format...please)
"They only publish bestsellers" (Publishers WISH every book was a bestseller. For every Harry Potter, there are a thousand books published that barely sell 5,000 copies)
"They don't want you to be creative" (sweetheart, there is a difference between being creative and being unreadable...)
"They don't appreciate that I'm breaking the rules" (maybe it would be a good idea to learn what those rules are first? Just a passing thought)
"You shouldn't judge people" (why are you writing if you don't expect people to read, and by extension think about, your work? Writing is about communication, and communication is a two-way activity between the writer and the reader.)
Ladies and Gentlemen, there is no conspiracy. There is no secret cabal of mystics that preordain which authors get published. There is no lottery to determine who will get the next contract. There is a certain amount of luck involved, but that is true in every single career field.
But in the end, if you want to call yourself a writer, then you must learn how to write. You must learn how to use the tools of your craft in order to tell a story. Those tools include bare basics like spelling and grammar. They include plot development, character development, pacing, dialogue, setting, mood and form. These are the tools of a writer. And when you present your work to an editor, that editor doesn't care if you have wanted to be a writer since you were five. He doesn't care if your brother's friend's dad said your story is good. He doesn't care if you posted a bunch of poems on your website and you get a lot of hits. All he cares about is if you can demonstrate that you have mastered the use of these tools.
Publishing is not a right. It is an opportunity. It is an opportunity you must earn. And you earn it by becoming a competent writer. No one owes you a contract. No one owes you a byline. But you do oweit to yourself to carefully examine your writing and, instead of pointing fingers and making excuses, determine what you need to do to prove your work is worth publishing.
==========
Julie Ann Dawson's work has appeared in Black Bough, Lucidity, Gareth Blackmore's Unusual Tales, The New Jersey Review of Literature, Happiness, Demonground, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and a variety of other traditonal and electronic media. She launched Bards and Sages in 2002 to publish speculative fiction and roleplaying games. She also writes book reviews for Clubreading.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 46
Julie, bulls-eye (as usual) It does amaze me that people slap something together, rush it through publication and call themselves an author (in the process give the other people who publish through POD a bad name. Personally, I have moved back the release date of my second book, three times already and may do it again, if the rewrite doesn't meet my standard, or "Attilla the editor" ( my editor, the grammar Nazi). I am also learning the process and hopefully get better.
But, I digress. Writing is a craft. If your work isn't good enough, the only one you have to blame for it not getting published is you.
I
I'll be more than happy to put your stick figure drawing on my fridge, however you'll have to provide your own magnet and shipping fees. Actually come to think of it, in order to view your drawing there must be light. Therefore if you'll provide the cost of the electricity needed for the light bulb above it, then I'll be able to hang your picture.
I'm sure there are any number of publishers out there that would be more than happy to publish whatever is submitted to them, if the writer would pay all expenses. This would also include any loss of readership due to sub par products.
Publishing isn't just about the craft, the art, or in the humanitarian value of the work, it's a business first. In order to turn a profit a publisher has to produce something that someone will buy. Not every written word is a work of art, if proof needed, see my post-it notes.
An excellent (and well-written) article. Thank you so much for putting this into words. It amazes me the sense of entitlement that many of us have.
Heather - let me know when you publish your post-it notes.
For the first one I'll be nice. Rejection isn't a pleasant thing, and writing can be an intensely personal process - even more so when what you're writing is connected in some way to a person's life, be it in the form of heartfelt poetry scrawled in a journal, or a story based on actual events. So rejection of that work can feel like rejection of the self. Which means it's important to teach people that rejection is very rarely personal (to the point of almost never happening unless there's a personal issue between writer and editor, or they found a given piece of work personally offensive). Editors and publishers want every new writer to be a best seller and genius, because that's how they make their quid, innit? It's equally important to teach would-be writers how to draw on personal events and personal feelings for inspiration, without becoming slavishly devoted to the literal truth of those feelings or events.
I think another factor comes from some of the misconceptions people might have about being a working writer. Like the fact that it's lucrative. Sure, it can be, but for every writer making the big bucks there are another 100 only making as much as you would from any regular (sadly often minimum wage) job, and for every writer making even a meager living from nothing but writing there are plenty more who don't. I won't mention the exact amount of my last royalty statement from Bards and Sages, but it certainly wasn't nearly enough to put me into the mythical realm of "fuck you" money. There's also the fact that certain publishers (in this case not Julie, who has always kept up with me when it comes to payments) have outright stiffed me. Fortunately not for huge amounts - I'm short a couple of hundred dollars total, but it's a frustrating experience, and while it isn't a frequent happening it is one that sadly happens far more often than it should. Which leads me to the next bit.
Writing isn't a terribly sexy occupation. There are no hordes of fangirls (ok, fanwomen, I may be an utterly unscrupulous bastard, but I don't sleep with teenagers) ready and willing to indulge my every whim. I don't drive a flashy car, wear tailor made clothes or have huge wads of quid to flash around. I wish it was a sexy profession, because I won't even mention when the last time I was in anything resembling a relationship. Which isn't to say the profession is without its fringe benefits - mostly in that you get to meet some cool people, and if you're lucky, do things like pub crawl with them (though by that same token caution is advised, dear would-be writers - half of us would nick your wallet while you're passed out under the table).
Now the part where most people think I'm starting to get mean, and I'll wrap it up here because this has long since bloated beyond the reasonable bounds of a comment: having ideas is not what being a creative person or working in a creative industry is about. Everyone has ideas. Many of those ideas are at best mediocre, and at worst are atrocious, but it doesn't matter even if the idea is bloody grand. Because ideas are cheap. I have so many ideas that I will never, ever get around to using them all. I toss out or forget far more than I keep around. Anyway, what I'm saying is that having ideas isn't enough; you have to be able to do something with those ideas. Creative industries pay creative people for their ability to do interesting things with an idea, and approaching a writer with an offer of a 50/50 split for having them write a "brilliant idea" is not a good thing (most writers seem to greet such offers with polite disdain - I, on the other hand, prefer a swift kick to the groin).
There is more that can be said on this subject, but like I said, it's time to wrap things up.
Not all writers do this. I've actually worked with some wonderful writers who took suggestions very well, or came up with completely different ways of solving problems I noted.
Heather: That post-it note sounds like a good title for a self-help book!
By the way---how is that play coming?
So I shelved it until I can come up with a stronger ending, and wrote a short play that explores the events that I think might have made Iago (yes, that Iago) into Iago. I'm currently waiting to hear back from a magazine that publishes short plays, and in the meantime am trying to dig up information on 15th century Venice as I toy with the idea of expanding it into a prose piece (possibly even undertaking the daunting task of turning it into a novel).
I am disappointed to learn, however, that "there is no secret cabal of mystics" that perhaps I could join. Are you sure? Hmmm.
There are - they're called Vanity Publishers and any writer who ever plans on being taken seriously should avoid them.
To quote Preditors & Editors: "vanity publisher: This means that the publisher charges you to publish your book. This is also known as self-publishing. The fee can occur at any point in the process. In other words, vanity publishers sell primarily to their authors who then attempt to sell their "published" work to the reading public."
Very well-written article. Thank you.
A Writer is only a ...
W O R D S M I T H
Far too much importance on 'being published' ... it is not always the mark of success ...
There is much that has been published that is pure trash, drivel, & poorly written.
Check out a real bookstore near you.
and if I may.....may I wish you Happy 4th of July!
(image from photobucket)
Here's hoping you have a great 4th of July!
(image from photobucket )
Thanks for the article.
marty
Julie Ann, that e-mail you received had to be a joke. It had to be.
Maybe someday when I get the balls to really work on my writing and not just play around on occasion I can build the confidence to take things further... until then, I'll just have fun. :)
No, I don't think it was a joke. One of these days I'm going to go through my submissions file and repost some of the crazy submission e-mails I get. What frightens me is this: I have this little tiny press, and I get maybe a half dozen of these things a week. What are the big guys dealing with?
I not sure about your stick figure art example. I have seen way too much of that kind of art on display in galleries and museums. I have yet to be convinced the abstract school is anything more than marginal artists being handed a venue regardless of talent.
Which brings up a publishing question: Why is there so much crap being published? Judging from the offerings, there does seem to be some secret handshake to cross the threshold, and from there, the writing talent hurdles appears to be low.
(Wendy: at least Rubicon didn't reveal how we get up to that treehouse....)
My family has raved about my work for years. Big Grin It doesn't make any of it worth spit if I can't spell, puncuate and string smooth, well constructed sentences. 'No' that's not what editors are for.
Self-entitlement seems to be on the rise in all aspects of society. It's nice to see I'm not the only one it drives a bit nuts.
You might want to read the article I just finished. I talk about how I came about having one particular idea/inspiration. I then go on to talk about how unless I do something with that idea it isn't important. That's what I'm saying. An idea can only get the fuse lit. If you don't do something with that idea then it's valueless. Not only from a commercial point of view, but from any point of view. An idea not acted upon is like any other thought, and contrary to Descartes's opinion of same, thinking something does not make it so. It doesn't matter if you're trying to make some quid or change the world: you have to do something with the idea in order for it to matter.
It also doesn't serve as the worst example, because A: I'm not the only one to have the idea, I knicked it from some other guy and B: If it was only an idea I had in my head, and I didn't actually do something with it you wouldn't have been able to think about it, even if that thought was to disagree with me. :D (As for your example of content being different from one to the next, well that's exactly why copyright protects the unique expression of an idea, but not the idea itself.)
Years ago, because I can recognize good from bad writing, and I make helpful suggestions, I used to read and critique others' work. That stopped after a few years when I discovered that it was rare indeed to find an amateur writer who really wanted any constructive criticism. The last time I was dragged into one of these projects was the last for good. The story was so bad and so badly written that it took me more pages than the first chapter had just to critique the first page.
Where do I begin? First the story itself perhaps: there is a disaster in New Jersey when a nuclear sub off the coast accidentally launches a nuclear missile. It goes all but straight up and then turns over and comes all but straight down. Somehow it arms itself and blows up part of New Jersey. No fail safe. No abort. No emergency detonation. No trajectory apparently either. The story starts three years later. There is a permanent nuclear winter cloud hanging over New Jersey (apparently the missile destroyed the prevailing coastal winds as well), there was no evacuation, the streets run with nuclear waste, and everyone and everything has mutated. The government finally acts and sends in a rock band.
No. I'm not kidding. And believe it or not the story gets worse from there. The guy who wrote it swore up and down he wanted constructive criticism. I had a bad feeling. I was right. What he wanted was praise for his genius. At first I attempted to be kind and helpful. After one too many nasty letters and calls I lost it and gave a genuine critique. I believe comments about the laws of physics were the kindest of my comments. He's never spoken to me since. *sigh*
So your comments are well taken. Good luck on your endeavors.
Geoffrey, my experience taught me that sometimes you simply cannot be kind when people are determined to be defensive and nasty about the smallest things. I would have done the above-mentioned artist no favors by praising his genius.
I couldn't agree with this more. What people don't seem to realize is that when an editor rejects a work, they reject the BOOK not YOU. It's the same with reviews. When you get a bad one, it's reflecting the book, not you as a person.
However writers (and artists in general *yes, I believe an author is an artist*) take things VERY personally. Why? Because their creations are an extention of themselves, a peek into their imaginations, and so it's hard for them to make that disconnect between talking about the book and talking about them personally.
I have gotten a few canned rejection letters. The "Thank you for submitting, but at this time we are not publishing books of this type" blah blah blah. I've also gotten the constructive rejection. "Thank you for your submission, however, we must decline due to plot points A, B, & C." I've even been invited to revise said plot points or submit something new. But they're not degrading ME as a person.
When a publisher is in a business, and their business is to meet their bottom line, then of course they're going to take the cream of the crop (in their eyes, because great writing is subjective). The nitty gritty is they're not here to fill the world with flowers and sunshine. They're here to make a buck, plain and simple.
Good ol' American capitalism. :P
~~Becka
Good article.
There are lots of well published authors whose agents have said no to a third or tenth book as unsaleable. And lots of small press authors who won't make the best seller list because there are only 2000 copies of their book out there in the world to begin with.
Thanks for the article, for helping writers see that being realistic will not only help you sleep at night, but will bring you to the realization that you write because you have something to say, and if the powers that be with the money think there is an audience, they'll print it, otherwise they'll say no. And you get to decide if you are satisfied with having written it or whether you want to make it good enough to attract the kind of wide audience that a publisher needs to have to stay in business.
All that said, connections do help. And lots of mediocre books are being published because the author knows someone who wants to promote that author. It's true that if you know someone, they'll let you in the door. But if your story is bad, even if it's published it probably won't sell well, and it won't win literary prizes. The most frustrating thing to a serious writer is the bad books that do sell well because that is a reflection on readers, who think The Notebook is brilliant, and don't ever pick up Gilead.
Best advice I can give to aspiring writers is read books like yours, books about writing, practice, and edit and edit and listen to critique groups and edit and write some more. I haven't yet met a best selling author who doesn't have a novel in the closet, their first, that they will never let see the light of day it's so awful. I have one.