Agents plus provocateurs
I have just finished a book by Noah Lukeman called, The First Five Pages (to review later). Lukeman is a very experienced editor and now runs his own New York literary agency. The title is based on the claim that an editor or agent can tell how bad or promising is a book by its first five pages. It is a comprehensive analysis of the craft, and the art, of writing. But for the purpose of this post, I just want to relate five details from the book:
* Agents and editors don't read manuscripts to enjoy them; they read solely with the goal of getting through the pile, solely with an eye to dismiss a manuscript.
* Bill Thompson of Doubleday rejected four of Stephen King's submissions before they published 'Carrie'.
* Jerzy Kosinski won the National Book Award in 1969 with his novel 'Steps'. Six years later, one Chuck Ross typed the first twenty pages of 'Steps' and sent them to four publishers under an assumed name. All four rejected them. Two years later he copied the whole novel and sent it to fourteen publishers, including Random House who had originally published the book, and thirteen agents. All rejected the novel that had won the National Book Award.
* John Kennedy Toole wrote a comic novel called 'A confederacy of Dunces'. It was rejected by so many publishers that he killed himself. His mother refused to give in and sent the book over and over to publishers until Louisiana State University eventually published it. In 1980 it won the Pulitzer Prize.
Is that why we self-publish? Are we just hoping we have another 'Confederacy of Dunces' or a 'Carrie'? Or are we just refusing to believe that our book is not that good? 'The First Five Pages' is a good place to start if we really want to test the water.
The trouble with self-publishing, as I'm sure you have all discovered, is that the work that a publisher or an agent does is a profession in itself and one we are not trained nor inclined to do. My own experience of agents with my book GETTING TYSON might be of interest. One London agent wrote back to me: 'You write with grit, realism and great drama and the premise behind Getting Tyson are fascinating. However it is vital that I fall completely in love with an author's work...' Complete love? Now there is an illusory concept.
The owner of another big agency took the trouble to write in ink on their rejection letter, 'And don't give up; I enjoyed what I read of Getting Tyson.'
A small publishing house wanted to publish Tyson but the editor told me I should publish it myself because she didn't think her employer would handle it properly.
While I considered this, Getting Tyson was shortlisted, from over one thousand entries, for the Yeovil International Literary Award. So, flushed with pride I self-published. And now I'm in the doldrums of nothingness; like a teenager waiting for someone to notice her and to ask her to dance.
My final quote from The First Five Pages; 'The ultimate message of this book, though, is not that you should strive for publication, but that you should become devoted to the craft of writing for its own sake. Ask yourself what you would do if you knew you would never be published. Would you still write?'
If your answer is 'No' it's time to get off the train.
* Agents and editors don't read manuscripts to enjoy them; they read solely with the goal of getting through the pile, solely with an eye to dismiss a manuscript.
* Bill Thompson of Doubleday rejected four of Stephen King's submissions before they published 'Carrie'.
* Jerzy Kosinski won the National Book Award in 1969 with his novel 'Steps'. Six years later, one Chuck Ross typed the first twenty pages of 'Steps' and sent them to four publishers under an assumed name. All four rejected them. Two years later he copied the whole novel and sent it to fourteen publishers, including Random House who had originally published the book, and thirteen agents. All rejected the novel that had won the National Book Award.
* John Kennedy Toole wrote a comic novel called 'A confederacy of Dunces'. It was rejected by so many publishers that he killed himself. His mother refused to give in and sent the book over and over to publishers until Louisiana State University eventually published it. In 1980 it won the Pulitzer Prize.
Is that why we self-publish? Are we just hoping we have another 'Confederacy of Dunces' or a 'Carrie'? Or are we just refusing to believe that our book is not that good? 'The First Five Pages' is a good place to start if we really want to test the water.
The trouble with self-publishing, as I'm sure you have all discovered, is that the work that a publisher or an agent does is a profession in itself and one we are not trained nor inclined to do. My own experience of agents with my book GETTING TYSON might be of interest. One London agent wrote back to me: 'You write with grit, realism and great drama and the premise behind Getting Tyson are fascinating. However it is vital that I fall completely in love with an author's work...' Complete love? Now there is an illusory concept.
The owner of another big agency took the trouble to write in ink on their rejection letter, 'And don't give up; I enjoyed what I read of Getting Tyson.'
A small publishing house wanted to publish Tyson but the editor told me I should publish it myself because she didn't think her employer would handle it properly.
While I considered this, Getting Tyson was shortlisted, from over one thousand entries, for the Yeovil International Literary Award. So, flushed with pride I self-published. And now I'm in the doldrums of nothingness; like a teenager waiting for someone to notice her and to ask her to dance.
My final quote from The First Five Pages; 'The ultimate message of this book, though, is not that you should strive for publication, but that you should become devoted to the craft of writing for its own sake. Ask yourself what you would do if you knew you would never be published. Would you still write?'
If your answer is 'No' it's time to get off the train.
No comments have been added yet.
