Slog
News & ArtsFriday, September 4, 2009
Books Cash-Starved Publishers Allegedly Raise Their Standards
Posted by Paul Constant on Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Publishers are getting sneaky about hiding their cash-poor ways by canceling titles for weird contractual reasons:
One crime writer, who preferred to remain anonymous, said she and others had had books cancelled on the grounds that the delivered manuscript was not up to standard, even though in some cases foreign publishers were happy to accept them. “The easiest way [to cancel a title] is to say: ‘This book isn’t what we expected of you.’ Four authors I know have all been given the same reason, and it is almost as though the publisher is reading from a script,” she said.
It's bad enough that authors have to deal with rejection letters all the time; now they're getting rejection letters after the acceptance letters.
1
Sadly, writers are often also easy to take advantage of. If you're a writer, you need to have a competent lawyer review your contracts and make sure your contracts have provisions to ensure you get compensated, even if publication doesn't occur. For instance, the publisher should still pay you a set amount simply for delivering the manuscript, even if it's an advance against royalties (whether earned or not), and the assignment of copyright should revert to you as as the writer within a shortish period of time if the publisher declines to publish it so that your agent can shop it around to other publishers.
PEN has great resources about these kinds of things for writers who are just starting out or who are worried about future bumps.
PEN has great resources about these kinds of things for writers who are just starting out or who are worried about future bumps.
4
Christ, now they're sounding like musicians.
One would assume that a "writer" would have a good relationship with "words" particularly in the context of a "publishing deal", and would be aware of the numerous clauses which translate to "As needed, you will be fucked over", but, apparently not.
One would assume that a "writer" would have a good relationship with "words" particularly in the context of a "publishing deal", and would be aware of the numerous clauses which translate to "As needed, you will be fucked over", but, apparently not.
5
@4:
There's a world of difference between Novel-writing, and the complicated Legalese of contracts that use Weasel Words (thanks Wiki!) and are generally written in small print
There's a world of difference between Novel-writing, and the complicated Legalese of contracts that use Weasel Words (thanks Wiki!) and are generally written in small print
6
Publishers won't raise standards much, because it screws over their broad demographic (as many people as possible, specifically in this economy). They'll keep things simple, and just take on less. Yes, more writers getting fired in view of gaining cheaper writers, for saving money, and to relieve the publisher of extra work he/she is no longer getting paid much for.
Standards won't go up. Certain publishers will just take on less work. Not necessarily better work, but likely whatever work appeals to the most people (to a marketer, this is better. To a publisher, this is more lucrative. To a writer, this is torture. To a reader, this is the story equivalent of Taco Bell's menu).
The change is that getting a decent publishing deal will become (and this is already a decade-old process) more like a lottery setup than ever before.
Keep writing books. It's what you do. Get over the lack of money, or it will only make you miserable and your books will suffer.
Standards won't go up. Certain publishers will just take on less work. Not necessarily better work, but likely whatever work appeals to the most people (to a marketer, this is better. To a publisher, this is more lucrative. To a writer, this is torture. To a reader, this is the story equivalent of Taco Bell's menu).
The change is that getting a decent publishing deal will become (and this is already a decade-old process) more like a lottery setup than ever before.
Keep writing books. It's what you do. Get over the lack of money, or it will only make you miserable and your books will suffer.
7
My only question to the unnamed crime writer is about the quality of her books. There are plenty of publishers pushing absolutely shitty books, having signed a writer for whatever reasons. When I think of some of the horrible stories I've read over the years—Allen Lee Harris' Deliver Us From Evil stands out in my memory, and, frankly, Shatner's Tek series was unreadable—I do wonder how these people got signed in the first place. Well, in Shatner's case, that's clear, but it only speaks to the problem.
That these might be bad writers doesn't exonerate the publishers, though. You signed 'em, you need a better reason to cancel a title than, "They delivered what we signed them for, but the economy's bad."
I attend a writers' conference in California at least once a year (my associates organize two or three annually) and, to be honest, some of the manuscripts I've encountered there have challenged my sentiments about telling people to not write. It's a hard call, but I've encountered manuscripts that make me want to say, "Do something else. Learn to paint. Or dance. Or play the saxophone. Anything but this, because, well, it's hopeless."
And I don't ever want to say that. To anyone. If I can help them get a manuscript in shape for publication, I will. But some of these writers literally don't understand what they're trying to do.
And some of those, eventually, will be signed.
I should also add that the professional editors and agents I know tend to be formulaic. One of the reasons American "literature"—read, "genre fiction"—seems so generic is that very few writers are so damn good that their editors have to shut up. Most, unfortunately, follow certain trends in order to be published. Early action is good. Philosophical narrative is bad. It'sRay (#6 above) makes the point about a broad demographic; it's as if publishers are looking at market statistics and trying to sell the book to everyone. Best sellers? I'll take ten unknown, competent literary fiction writers over gambling on the next Stephen King any day. I can imitate King on some days, or at least I could when I was 16. But I have yet to get the hang of Randall Kenan, Jack Cady, or Abby Frucht, to name a few. Give me books that are as good as Let the Dead Bury the Dead, Inagehi, or Licorice, and I'm happy. They may not sell as much as a Lisey's Story, but I prefer excellence to unreadability.
More...
That these might be bad writers doesn't exonerate the publishers, though. You signed 'em, you need a better reason to cancel a title than, "They delivered what we signed them for, but the economy's bad."
I attend a writers' conference in California at least once a year (my associates organize two or three annually) and, to be honest, some of the manuscripts I've encountered there have challenged my sentiments about telling people to not write. It's a hard call, but I've encountered manuscripts that make me want to say, "Do something else. Learn to paint. Or dance. Or play the saxophone. Anything but this, because, well, it's hopeless."
And I don't ever want to say that. To anyone. If I can help them get a manuscript in shape for publication, I will. But some of these writers literally don't understand what they're trying to do.
And some of those, eventually, will be signed.
I should also add that the professional editors and agents I know tend to be formulaic. One of the reasons American "literature"—read, "genre fiction"—seems so generic is that very few writers are so damn good that their editors have to shut up. Most, unfortunately, follow certain trends in order to be published. Early action is good. Philosophical narrative is bad. It'sRay (#6 above) makes the point about a broad demographic; it's as if publishers are looking at market statistics and trying to sell the book to everyone. Best sellers? I'll take ten unknown, competent literary fiction writers over gambling on the next Stephen King any day. I can imitate King on some days, or at least I could when I was 16. But I have yet to get the hang of Randall Kenan, Jack Cady, or Abby Frucht, to name a few. Give me books that are as good as Let the Dead Bury the Dead, Inagehi, or Licorice, and I'm happy. They may not sell as much as a Lisey's Story, but I prefer excellence to unreadability.
8
I always thought there were too many new books out there anyway, and browsing through them from time to time a lot of them aren't particularly interesting, leading me to wonder how the hell it got green lit in the first place.
The houses are getting a clue a little too late. Maybe send out fewer acceptance letters?
The houses are getting a clue a little too late. Maybe send out fewer acceptance letters?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (8) RSS