I know Rosemary Canter of PDF requests a single (although not necessarily opening) paragraph, by which she'll judge whether to ask to see more material. I was initially shocked by that, but as I doubt she got to work for PDF without being shit-hot at what she does, I'm prepared to accept she usually can tell by a paragraph alone. It was a real eye opener, though, to how incredibly brutal publishing is.

The advantage, obviously, of using a reader is getting the chance to put the problems right before your manuscript falls under the scathing eye of an agent/editor. But I've learned to be careful about which agency/reader to use.

After the report I criticised earlier in the thread, I had another done which was a pleasure to receive, being utterly glowing, but which I wasn't quite convinced by - I'd love to think the book was that good, but can't quite conjure up the necessary self-delusion.

The final report was by our own Terry Edge, which was easily the most useful of the three - unnervingly accurate and certainly liberal with the criticisms, but because he was prepared to be so blunt I could also believe the considerable encouragement too - and I could see his suggestions would hugely improve the book.

Moral of the story, seek out - by trial and error if need be - a reader you feel you can really trust, and then be grateful you're hearing it from them while you still have chance to put it right.

Andrea



<Added>

Beadle - re "don't the critics want to be criticised?" - isn't the difference that we actively sought them out and asked them to criticise us? I complained to the agency that my reader was clearly out of touch with my market, which the agency in retrospect completely agreed with. I didn't though complain about the criticisms, because I had, after all, invited them. My perogative though to disregard them ...

If you're wanting second, third, fourth etc opinions on that piece, why not post some of it here on WW?

I don't know what you're saying here. Seems like more special pleading to me and you don't understand how this business works.

A consultant and the consultancy does have something commercial at stake. Should the consultancy recommend a writer to an agency and that writer sells, the consultancy gets a small percentage. The consultant is also generally delighted if he or she recognizes a good novel and it then sells. The consultant gets a reputation. Several published novelists come back and use me as a first reader, which is great.

Furthermore, publishers recommend consultancies to writers. If the consultancy recommended bad novels to publishers in return, this relationship would not work.

Of course, consultants are not above criticism, but in the end, we should not be expected to flatter poor, boring, unmarketable novels. Why ask for a professional opinion if that opinion is going to be rejected should it not match what you expected? You say the report you received, however bruising, was right. Why pick on the consultant? He or she didn't write your novel. You did. What did you want? A new friend? That's what writer's circles are for.

In the present climate, where editors don't edit and now agents don't edit, and publishers have no breeding pool for promising writers, it falls to consultants and CW teachers to give new writers advice and install a sense of first principles, maybe also a sense of how hard it is. You learn nothing specific from rejection letters.



F

<Added>

This is a reply to Beadle's last post. Agree with what Andrea says above.

There's that term again 'professional opinion'. What's your definition of a professional?

I know a lot about mortgages and I have opinions on them. It doesn’t make me a mortgage ‘professional’.

I echo what Faze says. The publishing business is much harsher than when I started out, around 20 years ago. Personally, I think it suffers from being too short-term focussed now – or rather, the writing suffers from it. Writers are no longer given time to develop; indeed, they're expected to hit the ground running. So, yes, your first paragraph better be a belter or the second one won't get read. Then again, consumers are harsher too – I suspect most will read only the first paragraph of a book to decide whether or not to buy.

And consultancies can take the flak from writers who don't realise this is the situation and who find cold, blunt, unexplained rejection hard to take. They take the flak because, unlike publishers or agents, they are in the position of having to explain exactly why the book was rejected.

No one's saying this is an ideal situation. It isn't; it's harsh and difficult for a new writer. 20 years ago, my first editor turned down my book (after many rejections from other publishers) but she relented when I pushed her to give me a chance (which wouldn't happen today). Then she kindly and patiently led me towards a massive re-write – by first dealing with the major things (one re-draft), then the many, many, technical points that needed changing (two more drafts). But editors can't invest this sort of time in new writers anymore. Unfortunately, neither can consultancies – they have only one report in which to cover the several phases of re-writing that needs to be done.

So, I understand why it can be a huge blow to receive a report from a consultancy that tells you your book needs a lot of work, that in its present state it's not publishable. However, the best way to deal with that is to listen to old farts like me who can tell you that it's tougher today, and that it's not ideal, it may not even be fair, then get on with writing something that is so good it will fly through every consultancy, agent, editor, marketing man, bookseller, right into the reader's heart. And as Faze says, this does happen still, and when it does everyone's excited by it.

Terry

Beadle,

The qualifications of consultancy readers are usually listed on the website and the manager will happily talk to you should this aspect of things worry you. A consultancy employs many different types of reader and matches up projects to suitable people. If the reader is constantly off the mark, gets an undue number of complaints based on reasonable objections, or writes shoddy or brief reports, he's dropped. As I said before, unlike agency readers, a consultant is accountable and must be thorough.

I started this thread to talk about a reader who lied in a report where a commercial propositon was on the table. We now seem to be straying into special pleading for bad prose and naive writers, and a disliking of those who do their best to help them at least get the train on the track.

F

Nice sentiments Terry.

I'll get back to the keyboard.

It might be rubbish and boring, but it's not going to anybody else any harm.

Thanks. I think I've got that out of my system now.

Are you criticizing the postings now?!

Chill out dude. We're all just airing our opinions.

I'm off to watch Scooby Doo with my kids.

Cheers!

<Added>

that was for F, by the way