Boucheron is coming up soon...a conference I love. Each year I find that (writers, especially) come back buzzing with energy and enthusiasm, and also some strange ideas they have picked up along the way. So I thought it might be fun to debunk some myths. The guiding principle behind all this debunking is the unarguable fact that we operate within such a subjective industry. I believe it was John Maynard Keynes who talked about the "animal spirits" of people as the only key force that drives the stock market--and I think that publishing is just as subject to animal spirits as Wall Street.
MYTH #1 - Editors prefer manuscripts written in third person.
Debunk: It really depends on the editor. We all have our strange little quirks (it is the agent's job to figure these out, hence the lunches), and what's right for Editor A could be completely wrong for Editor B. I personally do not care for present-tense narratives, and I almost always have a difficult time getting interested in a "cold case" manuscript, because I feel that these often lack urgency, immediacy, relevance. But Lord knows there are plenty of decent present-tense books out there, as well as plenty of cold case books. There are some editors out there who prefer third person (I know a couple of them), but if first person feels right to you, then go for it. I doubt Sue Grafton or Janet Evanovich (or James Patterson) would disagree.
MYTH #2 - When I get my first contract, I'll be able to write for a living.
Debunk: Oh no, not any more. Advances have gone way, way down at many houses, especially for first-time novelists. The people who get the large advances are those who are already pretty well connected - usually writers for New York-centric publications like The New Yorker and The New York Times. These books have a built-in audience, and that Inner Circle of writers is able to finagle some pretty sweet deals. Look at Elizabeth Gilbert with Eat Pray Love, Colin Beavan with No Impact Man, who both got large advances--enough to live on for a year. It's not the norm, though. Even more challenging is the fact that many agents have stopped taking on new fiction because the advances aren't what they used to be.
MYTH #3 - Editors don't read manuscripts these days.
Debunk: I really don't understand how intelligent people can bandy this one about. OK, granted, if Angelina Jolie sent me a manuscript, I'd be offering that contract before I turned the first page. (Of course, others would offer much more than I would, so I wouldn't get it.) But of course we read manuscripts. We have to be very, very persuasive when trying to convince an editorial board to buy the book - how do we do that if we don't have the first idea of what it's about?
MYTH #4 - Editors don't edit the manuscripts they acquire.
Debunk: Another insane idea. A lot of people think that "editing" means adding missing punctuation and fixing spelling errors. Well, of course there are people who do that, and they are called copy editors--they are the last pass through a manuscript before it goes out for typesetting. But every editor reads manuscripts and offers feedback--some at a macro level, some at a more micro level--intended to make the story work and the book have a better chance with reviewers and book buyers. This sort of feedback is much more valuable than simple copy editing. (I don't mean that copy editors don't add value, because the best of them really polish a manuscript to a fine sheen. But the acquiring editor is the one who has shaped the book and helped get it ready for the market).
MYTH # 5 - My book doesn't stand a chance if it's not in bookstores.
Debunk: This is a tricky one, and getting trickier. We all know what trouble Barnes & Noble and Borders are in. Local bookstores / indies have been having a hell of a time lately, and it's not getting any easier. The odds of a first-time novelist (especially those who aren't already famous) getting any shelf space at all are diminishing as the retail spaces get smaller. Then, of course, we have the issue of returns, which have destroyed the profitability of many a book. (Many contracts these days make allowances for massive returns.) I don't think the printed book is going away, but I do think that online retail is the wave of the future--as are the electronic readers like Kindle. Right now we're in a period where anyone can publish anything on those things (B&N has been marketing PubIt! like crazy), and the nature of technology makes me think that won't change much. But I expect we'll see more and more books being sold via electronic retail (nobody can beat Amazon's prices, a least for the time being) and probably fewer via bookstores. SO, while it is of course good to be in bookstores, I don't think it's a necessity any longer. Mass-market publishing is going to probably be limited to a few really big names -- trade paperbacks are the wave of the future, at least until someone makes a name. I love a good hardcover, and they'll always be there for the library market especially, but I do predict some big changes there, too.
Okay, about #3 & #4 because I'm one of those so-called intelligent people who's bandying this about. When I see all kinds of errors in published books, I assume someone's not reading or editing. I have a friend who writes mysteries. I can't begin to tell you the things that get by her readers, her agent, her editors and I guess her, if she's the very last reader. It's ridiculous. If a man starts out bald and has a complete head of hair 8 or 10 chapters later... someone isn't paying attention. Dumb things like that are always popping up in her books. I think it's embarrassing for fans to be catching these booboos and that editors aren't. Am I wrong? I would be absolutely mortified! Of course, I probably have too much pride for my own good ... but honestly, it shouldn't happen.
Posted by: jess | October 14, 2010 at 08:37 PM