Thanks, Dee - much appreciated. We'll have to form a support group at some stage - Writers' Anonymous?? ("Hello, my name's xxxx and I'm a writer"). The plot thickens ...

Hmm, I imagine Susan Hill's blog is fairly popular, so you may indeed have already answered the question, Jess. I certainly can't see that it would be a disadvantage.

And actually I'm not holding up poor Marie for a basting - I'm sure she's a literary giant in the making who's written next year's bestseller (though, funnily enough, aren't they all classed as such these days?...). I'm simply saying that if I had a big name author behind me - however informal the support - I wouldn't be backward in mentioning it now and again in the right circumstances. After all, I had thought the publishing business was 99% about networking & marketing hype. Sad to say.

A

Well, I don't know. I'm not sure I'd mention it if I were her, seeing as her novel wasn't shortlisted to be published by Long Barn. Hardly unequivocal support.

And if you read what SH has actually said on her blog, it's not anything that I would class as having her might behind me. She hasn't been talking it up for weeks, or raving about it, or going on some campaign.

http://blog.susan-hill.com/blog/_archives/2006/9/30/2376123.html

And that was after Marie got her deal with Cape.

Sorry to be pedantic, but I feel quite strongly that it's exactly comments like yours that perpetuate this feeling of an in-club that it's impossible to break into, with people giving each other the wink etc. I think it can also take something away from those writers, which I'm sure isn't what you are intending at all.

Jess, as you’ve provided a link to the specific topic on Susan’s blog, I'm assuming she won't mind me quoting a few sentences:

Nobody wants first novels. Nobody wants to publish unknown writers.

How many times do we read and hear agents saying they don’t consider unpublished writers?

Nobody can find a publisher unless they have an agent

Again, it’s a well-known fact that the big mainstream publishers won't look at unagented work, and it will remain a well-known fact until those same publishers start telling us that, actually, they will.

and nobody can get an agent

Probably the most common standard reason for rejection is We’re not taking on any new clients at the moment. Now, fair enough, this is probably a catch-all phrase – no doubt originally intended to take the sting out of the rejection – but, if they keep telling us that, are we in the wrong to believe them?

Dee


<Added>

I don’t want anyone to think I'm having a blast at all publishers. Many of the small indies, like Long Barn and Snowbooks, are taking great strides to encourage new writers and break down the barriers that we – rightly or wrongly – believe exists between writers and readers. It’s the big corporate houses that dominate the book charts and the publishing news that I'm talking about at the moment.

I haven't followed Susan Hill's blog, but I do remember a piece she wrote about Long Barn in The Guardian a while back. She was taken aback by one submitter (is that a word?) who said in her letter something along the lines of, 'I wouldn't want to write anything commercial,' and SH's reply was, 'commercial means something that sells. Why on earth wouldn't you want to write something that sells?'

People use 'commercial' to mean three different things. In the strict economic sense, publishers have to publish books that they think will sell - commercial books. I don't think we can blame them for wanting to sell books and stay in business. Then there's the 'genre' sense that they use, meaning (shall we say for a quick definition) a book whose readability is more important than its 'literary' qualities of language and ideas. But the word's also acquired a patina of 'lowest-common-denominator', which confuses things, and I think that's what dedicated writers don't want to be.

The less obviously a good book ticks the basic boxes that publishers know mean a seller (and they still get it wrong 90% of the time), the harder it is for them to do the sums right to make it cover its costs. And they do want to - all editors have terrific books on their desks they long to publish, and can't see how. Some agents go on for years with one or two authors like that. On the other hand, we as writers don't want to be ticking boxes most of the time. (Though all hope is not lost when Julian Barnes's latest is number six or whatever it is in the bestseller charts.)

I absolutely take your point, Dee, about the infuriatingness of trying to work out what to do about the range of different comments about work - and that's before they've mixed your work up with someone else's. I had fifteen years of it, and it's now just transmuted into the same problem in the form of reviews, and I'm not sure what the answer is. I think some of the problem is that an agent/editor/reviewer's first reaction to a book is actually extremely instinctive - either they love it, or they don't. If they're Long Barn, or if they loved it almost enough to take it on, or if they're a reviewer and are being paid, they try to give you some reasons why they're not going to. And those are often not constructive reasons: they don't help you change things, or they talk in book-trade terms which (I've ranted on about this on WW before) however true, are completely unhelpful to the creative writer. Because it's instinctive, it's also extremely subjective: the next person may not-quite-like-it-enough and say something completely different about why. I've had diametrically opposing views of the same work many times, and it's really hard to know what to do, except go with the one that seems to make most sense at my own instinctive level, and ignore the others.

I was re-reading Dorothy Sayers' Strong Poison the other day. Harriet Vane's agent says, 'her books have always done reasonably well in this country - 2-3,000 copies,'. That told me a lot about how the economics of the book trade have changed. An equivalently commercial author now would have to sell - I don't know, 50-60,000? That's a lot of people who need to be pesuaded to buy a book written by someone they've never heard of.

Which is why I agree with you that one way round the problem is the small press/self-publishing route, and I'm watching it all with huge interest.

Emma

Dee, I'm not trying to claim it's easy to get an agent to represent you. I quite agree that it's frustrating that the big publishers won't often look at first time novelists. But it does happen. At Frankfurt at the moment it seems that there are lots of first novels flying about. They've got agents without being published. I don't know of any agents who say they will never consider unpublished writers - could you tell me who does? Just out of interest.

Are you wrong to believe agents who say that? Personally I'd say no, and yes. No because I do think it's a cop out ontheir part, and a bit of an unfair one, but one that is understandable. I think mostly (not always) they just don't like the work enough, for whatever reason. And in an ideal world they'd say that, and explain why, and what you might be able to do to change that. But they just don't have the time, so they send out standard rejections. I'm not sure what could happen that might change that.

There are one or two agents who don't take on unpublished writers, but from what I remember of doing the trawl a couple of years back they're few and far between. Most know there has to be new blood coming it. My agent, for example, says she would 'never close the door' to new writers, but because she has 100 clients already, and they're her priority, she's extremely selective about who she takes. (Sorry, that looks boastful. It's just that she's the agent I know most about. I'm sure that's a pretty standard position) My publishers aren't closed to unsolicited submissions either - they know there's a small but worth-the-bother chance of finding a cracker in the slush pile. Though I know many are closed, and it's foolish of them.

'We're not taking anyone on at the moment' doesn't actually mean they're not, and certainly not that they're closed to unpublished writers as a policy. As Jess says it's just the most tactful kind of rejection they've come up with: it isn't unkind, but closes the door to further communication, because they haven't got time for it.

I admire Susan Hill enormously for what she's done, but I have to say that the pieces of hers I read show me that she was one of the unusual and lucky ones in having a consistently successful career from her first submissions. She was obviously wholly taken aback by all sorts of things about the world of aspiring writers and the book trade they're trying to get into. Many a WWer could have enlightened her.

Emma

Actually, I do stick by what I say, and yes in many ways the publishing world is or can be in my opinion a mismanaged in-club. We will have to agree to disagree, Jess. If it doesn't wish to be seen like that, then it should do more about it. 90% of my experience (thankfully not with my current agent or indeed current - small - publishers) of agents and mainstream publishers has been horrendous and soul-destroying - I am glad that yours and Marie's has been better, but that doesn't take away from my experience. Maybe I've just been really unlucky with those whom I've come across, but I actually don't think I'm entirely alone. I do find myself regularly offering support to writers (both at conferences and via email) who've been burned by the business, and encouraging them to carry on writing, improving and also looking at other routes to publication.

Yes, for some people the road to mainstream publication can be wonderful, but for others it never will be - and the division is not in the quality of the writing but in the narrow focus of the business. Speaking personally and realistically, I think that even if I am ever published by anyone mainstream (which is increasingly unlikely), it will be for no more than one or two books, and if I am then to carry on writing and enjoying it, then I have to keep open the self- and small-publishing channels. It is an eye-opener that our own small press, Goldenford, has had two or three enquiries from authors who live locally and who've been dropped or severely curtailed by their previous mainstream publishers. We have indeed to keep all the options open if we are to survive as writers. And people should know what these options are - before, after and during any mainstream career they might have - before they enter the ring.

And if writers (thankfully, no-one on WW to my knowledge) get published with something that's rubbish, then yes, they do deserve to have something of their reputation taken away from them. Of course, not having read Marie's book yet, I can't comment on it. I will read it when it's out and let you know - by ww-mail if necessary.

A

Jess, I think I was reacting to the words ‘whingeing voices’ when I posted that. Yes, I know unknown, unagented writers get published – and I'm delighted to hear there were a lot at Frankfurt – but it’s relatively uncommon. I can’t tell you which agents, specifically, are saying they don’t take on new writers, because I don’t know. I used to have an agent, but we parted company a couple of years ago and – for various reasons - I haven’t tried to get another one, so my personal contact with them is out of date. But, here on WW, I see the comment so many times from other members who are trying unsuccessfully to get one.

What could happen to change that? I'm not sure either. I sometimes wonder if this is the only negative side of being on WW – we hear the same thing from so many people, we begin to think they can’t all be cop-out phrases. Perhaps, working in isolation, we’d not be so jaded about the chances of publication. But it would help if agents were more consistent in their approach. It must hurt like hell to read in the WAYB that an agency is keen to encourage new writers, and then be rejected because they're not taking on anyone unpublished. In the longrun, it would be so much more honest to say the work isn’t up to standard.

Dee

two or three enquiries from authors who live locally and who've been dropped or severely curtailed by their previous mainstream publishers.

This is a real issue, and in many ways I feel even more indignant on their behalf. It's much more brutal and does much more damage to their lives to take someone on and then drop them than it is not to take them on in the first place. I'm busy trying to develop a second-string career, in case this happens, but it will still hurt like hell if it does.

It must hurt like hell to read in the WAYB that an agency is keen to encourage new writers, and then be rejected because they're not taking on anyone unpublished. In the longrun, it would be so much more honest to say the work isn’t up to standard.

It would be more honest, but I doubt if it would hurt less, would it?

Some of the problems are simply because everyone thinks they can write a book. If the 10% of the slush pile that's worth a second look - i.e. the kind of work WWers are doing - was all the slush pile was, then publishers wouldn't have to close their doors (in as much as they do) and serious aspiring writers would get their work properly considered and even perhaps discussed.

For this I think there's not much answer, though I think the publicity world and the media are partly responsible (not to blame, but this is where some of it comes from). If the stories keep on being 'I just sat down and wrote a book and sold it for 6 figures,' then people think it's easy, and they try it. If people thought it was as hard and took as much studying to write a good novel as it does to write a string quartet or a syphony - which it does - the slush piles would be manageable.

Emma

Emma

it’s a well-known fact that the big mainstream publishers won't look at unagented work, and it will remain a well-known fact until those same publishers start telling us that, actually, they will.

Quoting myself here… do I have nothing better to do on a Sunday lunchtime?

If this is a myth, that unknowns can't get accepted, then the publishing world should do something more constructive to dispel it. Perhaps they ought to divert some of those megabucks they're currently giving to ‘celebs’ into a fund, or a new imprint specialising in first novels. Macmillan are doing it with the MNM scheme, and finding some very talented writers – so why don’t more of them follow suit?

Dee


<Added>

MNM? I need an editor! MNW…

Jess, I think I was reacting to the words ‘whingeing voices’ when I posted that. Yes, I know unknown, unagented writers get published – and I'm delighted to hear there were a lot at Frankfurt – but it’s relatively uncommon.

Yes, that's a bit of a harsh way of putting it, I agree, but there is alot of moaning (not from you, I hasten to add).

I can’t tell you which agents, specifically, are saying they don’t take on new writers, because I don’t know. I used to have an agent, but we parted company a couple of years ago and – for various reasons - I haven’t tried to get another one, so my personal contact with them is out of date. But, here on WW, I see the comment so many times from other members who are trying unsuccessfully to get one.

I shall keep an eye out for that because I'd be interested to know.

What could happen to change that? I'm not sure either. I sometimes wonder if this is the only negative side of being on WW – we hear the same thing from so many people, we begin to think they can’t all be cop-out phrases. Perhaps, working in isolation, we’d not be so jaded about the chances of publication. But it would help if agents were more consistent in their approach. It must hurt like hell to read in the WAYB that an agency is keen to encourage new writers, and then be rejected because they're not taking on anyone unpublished. In the longrun, it would be so much more honest to say the work isn’t up to standard.

Yes, I quite agree with this.

the publishing world should do something more constructive to dispel it. Perhaps they ought to divert some of those megabucks they're currently giving to ‘celebs’ into a fund, or a new imprint specialising in first novels. Macmillan are doing it with the MNM scheme, and finding some very talented writers – so why don’t more of them follow suit?

I agree, that would be excellent.

If this is a myth, that unknowns can't get accepted, then the publishing world should do something more constructive to dispel it.

I suppose they don't, if they're aware of it at all, because the slushpiles would get even more unmanageable than they are.

I think the point that was made a while back is a good one: that in some ways it's a drawback to discuss these issues as much as aspiring writers do, because that's where the myths grow and are fed. Publishers know virtually nothing about the aspiring-writer world - for the most part it's completely below their rader. Since they do publish unknown writers - even if not enough of them, WWers would think - they don't have much idea of the power of these myths. And they can't be that powerful, or there'd be no slushpiles at all. Sadly, the ones who are put off are probably the ones who are serious enough to be discussing these things.

MNW is a brilliant scheme, but it's worth remembering that it wasn't set up to make money, only to break even and act as a feeder for Macmillan 'proper'. It's succeeded brilliantly in that, but it's not a model that every publisher can follow. Interestingly, as I remember, Macmillan were one of the first to close their doors to new submissions, and I wonder if they backed MNW partly because they knew that it was a way of opening their doors again to much-needed new writers, without being flooded. For the record, my editor at Headline said, 'I've never scoffed at MNW, I'm watching it very carefully.'

Emma

<Added>

And yes, I'd have to agree that some of the people who most vigorously propound the theory that it's impossible to get published as an unknown are the kind of people for whom what goes wrong is anyone's fault but theirs. That doesn't of course apply to WW, where I hope things are more realistic about writing as well as publishing. But it's is a well-known fact among teachers and slush-pile readers that the worst writers are the ones who least know it.

And, just for the record, may I point out that I'm an unknown, in the publishers' sense, and they don't see that as a problem. In fact most publishers would say it's easier to sell an unknown author to a bookshop than to keep selling an author on their fourth book when the last three haven't done too well. There are agents who specialise in taking on unknowns, too, and it works for them, or they wouldn't do it.

Well said, Dee - ditch the celebs and "me too" follow-the-trend so-called writers, and let's have more of the real thing instead.

A

Sadly, the ones who are put off are probably the ones who are serious enough to be discussing these things.

Exactly! It’s those of us who are serious, who learn the craft, do the research, invest in things like WAYB and WW, who are discouraged from offering our work to what we perceive as closed doors. We’re out here, trying to get in, banging on the doors that we believe are locked… perhaps we should just try the handle…

*rattle rattle* … ahah! Just as I thought… not locked… jammed by a collapsed slushpile.

Dee

may I point out that I'm an unknown, in the publishers' sense

True, Emma, but you have done an MA and a 15 year/7 book apprenticeship to become an overnight success – and you're a shit-hot writer to boot.