I've just thought of another two factors to consider in this argument. The first is probably more attributable to editors than to agents, but it's that of trends and market forces and risk. You only have to look on the supermarket bookshelves to feel the impact of trends - my local Sainsburys for instance, every other title in the adult paperback section looks either inspired, or a blatant rip-off of The Da Vinci Code, and not only in blurb, but in the typography, graphic design and illustration of the cover, which makes me think that when these novels were accepted, the agents and editors involved were actively seeking tales of international treasure-hunts because they knew fine well that they would sell. If that was the case, then a contemporary romantic tragedy set in a nightclub in Ibiza might well be overlooked, no matter how fine the prose is.

The second thing is that some agents have their submissions screened by readers. In those cases, you can't blame the agent for not spotting the award winner.

Colin

For those interested, here's a link to the story.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1965623,00.html

<Added>

And if you're interested in other examples of this kind of thing...

http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com/

...it seems that though we can tell everyone what’s wrong with it, we no longer [can do it]...

Sounds like a good definition of "Britishness" to me :-(

This whole thread reminded me of the many stories I've heard of people in other walks of life, especially in IT. People see their own jobs advertised at massively higher salaries than they are getting, apply for them through agencies... and are turned down at the CV stage (before the employer even knows who they are) on the grounds of not being qualified.

It also argues the case for self-publication, in much the same way that lack of job security in large companies argues the case for self-employment.

Incidentally, Emma's point about Doris Lessing's experience illustrates something else. The use of pseudonyms can enable a single person to write in multiple genres without feeling that their previous work must necessarily colour readers' expectations and opinions.


Alex

Colin's right, in my opinion. These days agents' decisions have very little to do with good writing (even if they are capable of spotting it, which, judging by the gramatical and spelling errors littering their responses, I doubt) and everything to do with what they think will sell. I'm afraid that, like most other occupations, publishing is dictated by market forces. This of course explains why any micro-celebrity/Big Brother Contestant/footballer etc. who so much as works out which way round to point the crayon is rushed into print within months.

What it doesn't explain of course is why almost every new 'unknown' author is currently, or has been, a journalist. This phenomenon is known as 'risk management' and the lazy sloppy thinking goes something like this:

Uh...if he/she has writted something in the papers, he/she must be able to rite.

Memo to self: Send snottie-arsed rejekshun leters to the wrest of the pile who are not jurnolists or celebs.

Best
Sion

We never get to hear about the more romantic side of things, like an agent loving a piece of work so much she takes it on despite niggling doubts about it's marketability, she bursts a blood vessel trying to sell it and several editors fall in love with it too but the number-crunchers just won't let it get through the system. 'Computer says no' etc. I know that happens, but those aren't the great news stories. Perhaps it's just as easy for agents and editors to become as disheartened and disillusioned as writers do.

Myrtle

I suppose Susannah Clarke should cheer us all up, and there must be others, (can only think of Zadie Smith and Mark Haddon at the moment, but I'm bored by industry hype on this subject and don't take much notice of it). I don't think she's a journalist, and it's a terrific book. Nor am I a celebrity, if it comes to that, or a journalist or a pseudo-celebrity or a footballer, and I think I can spell, and my agent and publisher and all the agents I've had letters from definitely can, so there are some out there on the side of the angels.

Emma

I have to agree with Emma: I haven't noticed bad spelling, grammar or punctuation from agents I've approached, and I do tend to notice that kind of thing.

There is something else to consider, though. Let's suppose that submissions like the ones described were recognised as being virtual carbon-copies of published work. What would an agent assume about such a submission? I suspect that the most likely presumption would be blatant plagiarism. But if they say this to the submitter, they may well find themselves being threatened with legal action. Turning the work down on other grounds may therefore be a way out that avoids such a problem.


Alex

Good point, Alex, I hadn't thought of that.

Emma

I always suspected that this could happen in theory. I wonder in fact how many agents or publishers actually read the works - I imagine that they didn't get past the readers and editorial assistants. It's interesting to read about this experiment - if this is the state of today's publishing industry, then perhaps the Macmillan new writing scheme isn't such a bad idea after all.

>ahem<

As much as I loved Susanna Clarke's novel, please do not forget that she was, for quite a while, an editor at Simon and Schuster. Before that, she worked in various areas of non-fiction publishing, including Gordon Fraser and Quarto.

She had insider knowledge and obvious connections, and as great a writer as she is, is hardly the rags to riches (or A4 scribble to nice-boxed-edition Bloomsbury) as certain media-types would have you believe.

JB

Insider knowledge...what sort of thing do you mean? I can't think of much that isn't available to anyone who wants to find out, these days. As for obvious connections, yes she may have known someone who knew someone who agreed to read her manuscript, but I'm not sure how much of an advantage that really is when all's said and done. She worked in non-fiction and cookery, and it's all rather separate in these big publishing houses in my experience, except for stumbling over people at ghastly Christmas parties. Then again, my perspective is skewed so I'm probably missing something.

Myrtle

Didn't know she was in the trade. I do know it took her 10 years to write, so it can't have been tossed of in few months and published by a friend.

Emma

<Added>

Besides, I think we should be cheered when there are real writers or about-to-be writers in the trade - at least they know how to judge writing and think about it the terms that we do. My editor won the John Llewelyn Rhys prize for her second novel and has taught on an Arvon course.

Only trouble with them is, you lose the sense of superiority that their whole industry revolves around only something you can do, which is what sustained me for years.

Emma

That is a very interesting idea and I have wondered that in the past. Still, the more I think about it, the less surprised I am. I mean, let's be honest, publishers want to make money. Maybe some of them want to publish great stories, great novels but if they did that maybe they wouldn't exist for long. A book has to make money and in that way a supposed dumbing down of society as a whole, or the increase in other forms of entertainment, could have a negative effect on the sales of books, for our purposes here, novels (if you believe in the dumbing down arguments of course. When you get involved in those conversations there are fine lines to to walked all over the place).

Some stories will always remain successful though. Things that work on more intuitive levels like murder mysteries, should hopefully work in most cases. More, shall we say, celebral works may pass people by a little. I don't know. You trust the people you send it to Judge the worth of your work, but they are probably in no better position to judge its worth, only its potential retail value. I really don't know. I guess we need to sell the media of the book over other forms of entertainment and, as John Banville would unashamedly say, art. It has to be about selling the joy that can be realised in reading a book. Sell that, hopefully the potential audience of books will increase and the 'education' of people (ourselves included - readers are more important that writers, I believe) hopefully then the more 50/50 books that at the moment don't sell through no lack in 'worth' may start to. That's up to the publishing industry though I guess.

Sad as it is, I honestly believe there are great books out there unpublished, and dire ones selling well. The ultimate judge is sales figures. Publishers aren't charities after all.

Although, some great publishers will always exist, after saying all that. Three cheers and hurrahs for John Calder. (I met him once, as a humble booksller doing new title subs and he came in as the rep! What a man!)

That is a very interesting idea and I have wondered that in the past. Still, the more I think about it, the less surprised I am. I mean, let's be honest, publishers want to make money. Maybe some of them want to publish great stories, great novels but if they did that maybe they wouldn't exist for long. A book has to make money and in that way a supposed dumbing down of society as a whole, or the increase in other forms of entertainment, could have a negative effect on the sales of books, for our purposes here, novels (if you believe in the dumbing down arguments of course. When you get involved in those conversations there are fine lines to to walked all over the place).

Some stories will always remain successful though. Things that work on more intuitive levels like murder mysteries, should hopefully work in most cases. More, shall we say, celebral works may pass people by a little. I don't know. You trust the people you send it to Judge the worth of your work, but they are probably in no better position to judge its worth, only its potential retail value. I really don't know. I guess we need to sell the media of the book over other forms of entertainment and, as John Banville would unashamedly say, art. It has to be about selling the joy that can be realised in reading a book. Sell that, hopefully the potential audience of books will increase and the 'education' of people (ourselves included - readers are more important that writers, I believe) hopefully then the more 50/50 books that at the moment don't sell through no lack in 'worth' may start to. That's up to the publishing industry though I guess.

Sad as it is, I honestly believe there are great books out there unpublished, and dire ones selling well. The ultimate judge is sales figures. Publishers aren't charities after all.

Although, some great publishers will always exist, after saying all that. Three cheers and hurrahs for John Calder. (I met him once, as a humble booksller doing new title subs and he came in as the rep! What a man!)

<Added>

Sorry about the double up by the way. My 'puter crashed and, well, you know the sort of thing.

Myrtle, I guess what James means is that someone who actually works within an industry always has a better understanding of the ropes than people on the outside. They will also know who to talk to, to find out those things they don't know, and who best to contact to move their own project ahead.

Reading about how an industry works is one thing. Actually being inside it, experiencing how it works, is a different matter entirely. It's the difference between "learning" and "experience". As for the distinction between non-fiction and fiction, the genres may be completely different, but the mechanics of publication and marketing can't the that far apart. People also network with others in their own industry more often than just at Christmas parties.


Alex