intent on defending a system which has many, many wonderful aspects to it but which is nonetheless faulted at certain key points.

I'm afraid I'm hardwired to listen to any opinion, and then try to see why it might not be the case; testing a hypothesis against the evidence is what I was brought up to do. Since I prefer to hang out with people with liberal and creative opinions, I end up sounding conservative disconcertingly often. What WW's never heard is me in the company of a load of merchant bankers trying to explain why Andrew Lloyd Webber is not the sum total of the possibilities of dramatic art, or why arts funding should exist at all, or why even though I can write, I'm still not planning on writing fat thrillers based on obscure myths about the Merovingian kings.

I'd certainly agree that the system has crucial faults. Most people in the trade see them as well, even regret them, but it's hard to know what to do about it. I do think it takes some good fortune - an aspiring writer's temperament and circumstances have as much to do with it as talent - and I'm absolutely certain that there are terrific writers whose work never sees the light of day.

The point about work not being good enough is that improving our work isn't beyond any of us. What doesn't get said often enough - though I hope it does on WW - is that any rejection isn't a rejection of the writer, but of the work. It's horrible, having work rejected; I've had several million of my words rejected over the years, but they're only my words, not my entire being (though it feels like it on the day!). Agents and editors know it, and when they say, 'it's just my opinion' or 'it's a very personal decision' or 'good luck placing it elsewhere', what they're trying to say is, 'don't give up, you might get there'.

As to luck, last time I discussed this with an editor she said the statistics for them ran something like this: 99% of ms in the slush pile are instant rejects: poetry (they don't publish poetry), non-fiction (ditto), incomprehensibly illiterate, obscene, insane, utterly incompetent, handwritten, or plagiarised. 1% get a second look - and obviously WWers work is in that 1% - so the odds (all other things being equal) are not as bad as you'd think, though still not encouraging.

It's undoubtedly got tougher in the last few years, partly because so many publishers are owned by conglomerates with more interest in the bottom line than in their contribution to the cultural life of the nation. Enormously important is the appalling decline in library book budgets, which is probably what we should all be voting about in May: not so long ago there were authors and publishers who did very nicely almost entirely by supplying libraries. Then there's increased competition for leisure spending. Maybe we should blame the rise of the DVD, or all-day TV, or Starbucks, or multiplex cinemas, or the iPod, or WiFi on trains, for the fact that editors can no longer follow hunches, and agents have to present each author as a star for today, rather than a constellation three books down the line. I don't know, they don't know and I doubt if anyone else does either.

Emma

Good woman, Emma. Well countered. Food for thought.

A.

Exactly. Well said, Emma – as usual.

Actually, I don't think we're saying anything more here than what's already been said. I agree with both Nell and Emma, in the sense that the situation is bad for authors (particulaly in the UK) and it exists - unfortunately.

What I do think is that there's room for the "lucky" (or perhaps not so lucky - Goldenford has already been approached by two local-ish much-published authors who are fed up with how they're being treated by the "big guys" and want a fairer deal and a smaller, more personal company - which is an interesting position for us to be in!...) people who are taken up by the commercial big guns AND for the quality self-published/small publisher author. As long as the work is good, I don't give a skinned rabbit how it got there.

How I long for the day when both ways to publication are seen as equal, and both sides of the fence support and value each other.

It's not "either-or", guys - thankfully, it's "both-and"!

A
xxx

Goldenford has already been approached by two local-ish much-published authors who are fed up with how they're being treated by the "big guys" and want a fairer deal and a smaller, more personal company

What a tribute to you guys!

It's not "either-or", guys - thankfully, it's "both-and"!

So true! Every time I hear someone (usually a politician but often a journalist) trying to turn a complicated situation into a tidy binary opposition, I find myself yelling this at the Today Programme.

Emma

Anne, sounds like Goldenford is doing very well. I think the idea of a collective of writers is very attractive; but then of course comes the difficult bit: deciding who you publish, because you still won't be able to publish everyone. I don't know how a true writers' collective/co-operative would work, but if it could be made to work it would probably offer a strong model.

Emma - goodness I'm glad it's not just me (grammar??!) who yells at the TV. Actually, I also yell at the radio, but that's sadder ...! Ooh, and in the privacy of my own home, I yell at books - which always terrifies my poor husband.

Roger - yes, there should be more collectives, and thus more quality publishing (I hope!)... Ooh, and loved your article/picture in the latest Writing/Writers' News mag - you looked very committed!!

)

A
xxx

Anne, fantastic news! What a tribute to ‘small but beautifully formed’.

Roger, I'm particularly interested in collective marketing and distribution, rather than collective publishing. The idea is we self-publish our own books, then deposit them at a central distribution centre, and collectively market them.

Gardners have been mentioned, but there are others. Does anyone know what we’d have to do to get stock into them?

(did someone answer this question last night? I'm having trouble keeping up with this thread!)

Dee

Anne - is it out then?!? (The interview?) I thought it was in the April issue, due the end of March, haven't even thought of looking for it yet. I shall head for Borders tomorrow lunchtime - they have a good array of mags there. Thanks for the heads-up!

Ooh, Anne, good for you!

Roger - yes MNW is specially interesting, because it's the industry itself trying to buck the industry's economics. I'd have thought a writers' circle that felt comfortable with being honest about each others' work could mutate quite easily into a publishing collective. They could then operate as an editorial board for people submitting from outside.

Dee - would a look at The Bookseller give you some leads? Or The Author, which is the Society of Author's mag. I know they carry self-publishing ads. Indeed, printers who specialise in self-publishing may know who they deliver to, even if they don't do distribution themselves.

Emma

It's undoubtedly got tougher in the last few years, partly because so many publishers are owned by conglomerates with more interest in the bottom line than in their contribution to the cultural life of the nation.

I think that's spot on. I guess the hope would be that in answer to that tendency small publishers will mushroom, perhaps some starting up like Goldenford as self-publishers.

I wonder if to make up for the inability of small outfits to benefit from economies of scale across the whole process there could be some way of identifying books so produced, so that readers might think, well I'm prepared to pay over the odds here because I know how this book got made, and I know what these people stand for etc etc. Bit like how locally sourced food is bought by some people despite its extra cost...

Be nice to think so.

Pete

I don't know, they don't know and I doubt if anyone else does either.

-I certainly don't, that's for sure. Thanks for listening to me bang on (again).

Dee, as far as I can remember, all the info you need can be found on that site I posted a link to earlier in the thread.

Nell.

I would love to read this whole thread - it seems like there is a good debate going on here - unfortunately I have to write a novel! How do you all get time to write these long posts???? Get back to the writing guys

Thanks, Nell. That’s probably where I thought I saw something about it!

Dee

How do you all get time to write these long posts????

I think it's called procrastination! It's quite healthy though. Philip Pullman says so...!