How Publishing Really Works (HPRW) is a [now-archived site] I’ve found and lost several times, as well as the gateway to several other interesting sites. I’m adding it to the blogroll because I’m tired of spending frustrated hours trying to find my way back.
Run by Jane Smith, HPWR aspires to make the complexities and absurdities of the publishing world a bit less obscure, particularly for people who have an interest in writing themselves. A sister site to HPWR — and here I will beg your keen attention for a moment — is The Self-Publishing Review (TSPR), which should not be, but easily could be, confused with Henry Baum’s Self-Publishing Review. On TSPR Jane reviews self-published works using what I think is very fair and useful criteria:
What’s the catch? I’m an editor, and expect published books to be polished. I’m going to count all the errors I find in spelling, punctuation and grammar and when I reach fifteen I’m going to stop reading. I’ll work my way through up to five pages of boring prose or bad writing before I give up. And I’ll list on this blog every single book I’m sent, including the books I’ve not completed, along with how far I got through each one.
TSPR, like SPR, engages the most important question hanging over (and being lorded over) the self-publishing movement: are self-published writers creating works worth reading? HPRW attempts to pull back the curtain (if not the wool) on the publishing industry, which also helps would-be authors decide how best to approach the self-publishing movement. As to how Jane Smith manages to keep multiple blogs going while also finding time to write, I have no idea — but I am taking notes.
Update: It’s with mixed emotions that I’ve killed my blogroll link to this site, on the heels of [a now defunct] this post by Jane. We can all agree to disagree, but honestly I can’t square Jane’s condescension on her HPRW site while also respecting the work she’s done reviewing self-published authors on her Self-Publishing Review site. If, as she says in a follow-up post —
…while “good enough” can be a little difficult to define, “not good enough” is very easy to spot: almost every single one of the self-published books I’ve been sent for my self publishing review blog has slotted into this category, some far more easily than others (and bear in mind that I’ve got a backlog of book reviews waiting to be scheduled for publication, and most of them didn’t make the grade).
— then I’m hard-pressed to understand why she’s wasting her time. If, as she argues, unpublished writers are unpublished because their writing stinks, why in god’s name is she defying her own logic and reviewing self-published books? Simply to prove her own logic? If that’s the case, what kind of legitimacy can her reviews really have?
Honestly, I liked Jane’s posts on both of her sites. But having this bit of ugliness spew forth feels like a revelation of the worst kind. It colors everything of hers that I’ve read, and make me wonder what other hostile sentiments have been left unsaid.
— Mark Barrett
Mark,
I really like your “Site Seeing” posts, great idea, nicely done.
Mark, I’m so sorry that you found that part of my comment upsetting: but I have to tell the truth as I see it and it’s true that the vast majority of the self-published books I’ve been sent for review have been quite spectacularly awful.
When I set up TSPR I was hoping that I’d discover all sorts of interesting little books. I love quirky, peculiar books: the exact ones which are very unlikely to get picked up by commercial publishers. I hoped I’d find a good few of those. Instead, most of the books I’ve been sent for review have ranged from dull to almost incomprehensible and I can’t pretend otherwise. Why do you find it so offensive when I tell the truth about this?
There’s also the issue of what “good enough” means. You’ve left a very passionate comment on my blog in which you object to my use of that phrase: I’m using it in a “good enough to get published and earn their publisher money” sense, not in a “good enough at writing” sense. Those two judgements can often be poles apart and I agree with you that that’s not always a good thing. But if publishers can’t make money with the books they publish then they close down, which is no good at all for the writers under their care.
I asked you on my blog and I’ll ask you here: how do you think publishers could get around the problem of routinely publishing gorgeous writing they know won’t sell? Because I’d love to know, as would many of the other people who work in commercial publishing and every now and then have to turn down a book they love because they know it won’t be able to earn its keep.
Jane,
I think it’s a given that many, perhaps even most, self-published books (by formerly un-published writers) are pretty bad. But this sentiment, which you express in your comment above, is quite different from the statement you made on your own site that I so strenuously disagreed with:
The assumption in this statement, a priori, is that anyone who hasn’t been published is a bad writer. That’s the inevitable and only conclusion that can be drawn from your quote above. It may not be what you intended to say, but it is what you said.
I’ll frame all this in a more personal context momentarily, but for right now consider the implications Effectively you’ve portrayed the publishing industry as both a body concerned with literary merit, which it often is demonstrably not, and as infallible. How many badly written books by celebrities or established writers suddenly off their game have been reworked, rewritten or otherwise retooled by others in order to meet the same qualitative test you accuse unpublished writers of failing? If the industry was serious about dispensing with bad writing because it’s bad writing then wouldn’t such examples be passed over?
The answer is that the industry as a whole doesn’t care about good writing, it cares about sales, and properly so. If a salable writer (by name or prior reputation) can’t deliver the goods qualitatively, but sales are to be had, then resources will be brought to bear to fix the book — perhaps even against the author’s wishes. This then creates a class system whereby your own statement must be restated {brackets mine), as follows:
“The real problem for writers who can’t get [a book deal] isn’t that barriers to publication exist, but that their [celebrity] just isn’t good enough.”
I.e., if you don’t have enough celebrity to induce publishing to work with you, then you’ll have to demonstrate some sort of other salable quality — like, say, the ability to actually write — in order to get published. But again this too implies that publishing is interested in quality as quality, and that publishing never dismisses a well-written book.
Whether or not you intended to make either of those arguments, that’s the inevitable logical conclusion one must draw from your statement.
For the following reasons:
If you’re going to hold yourself out as a judge of other people’s words, then you should expect to be held to the highest account yourself. What am I to do with your imprecise language? Do I assume that it’s your words that are imprecise, or your reasoning? (If you really meant what you now say you meant, at the very least you might make a broader clarification, if not also offer an apology, instead of continuing to assume that I’m too daft to understand you.)
I admired the fact that you were determined to sift through the slush pile of awful self-published books in order to find good writing. But in light of your comment I’m now suddenly given to wonder whether you are not in fact using bad self-published works to justify your belief that unpublished writers are unpublished “because their writing just isn’t good enough.” Can you not see how this damages your credibility?
One of the goals I had in putting a POD version of my short story collection together was to send you a copy and get your response. I cannot now imagine doing so given that your stated view is that my work is unpublished because I’m a bad writer — a conclusion you have reached without reading my work. I honestly feel a sense of loss that you have done this, because there are so few people willing to review unpublished writers.
Finally, and perhaps most obviously, because the truth as you wrote it and the truth as you have restated it here are — as noted — demonstrably different. If you meant to say that most self-published writers won’t sell enough copies to warrant publication, regardless of their writing skill, then that’s what you should have said. What you did say, categorically, was that unpublished writers deserve to be unpublished because their writing is bad. And that’s what I disagreed with.
I’m sorry, but I not only cannot accept that this is a reasonable interpretation of your original statement, I can’t accept that this was your original intent. Your statement here (and the very premise of your review site) is quite clear: when you say that most of the books you’ve been sent to review “have ranged from dull to almost incomprehensible” you’re making a qualitative appraisal. That such poor writing would be undeserving of publication flows naturally from the author’s literary failings, meaing you are saying it’s not “good enough” in a writing sense.
I confess that this late appeal to economic merit seems a constant in the publishing world. Too many times I’ve read comments from professionals akin to yours, appealing to the idea that literary merit is somehow a function of the publishing industry rather than the author’s pen. When challenged on this rhetorical larceny, editors and agents are prone to fall back on economic justifications for their qualitative claims, as you yourself do here:
Obviously one can’t make a business succeed if the products one has to sell are of no interest to the consumer. But have you ever heard anyone say anything to the contrary? I’m not arguing that you should publish well-written books that no one will buy. This is not my premise, or any part of my response to your original statement. Your argument along these lines is prompted not by me, but by your own statement that “their writing is just isn’t good enough.” (In effect, you are offering a clarification, which in itself would seem to suggest that you didn’t do a very good job of saying what you meant the first time.)
To put a point on all this, if a world-famous celebrity sent you a self-published book that was “dull”, I’m reasonably confident you might pursue revisions of that book where you would not with a writer of anonymous standing. I’m also confident that after said “dull” book was massaged by a team of people that I (from your offending blog post) “perceive as barriers—agents, editors, publishers”, said book would be marketable, even though in its original incarnation the writing just wasn’t “good enough” by anyone’s measure.
Again, I’m left wondering from all this why you’re reviewing self-published works. If your assumption is either (or both) that self-published writers are qualitatively inferior or commercially nonviable, what’s the point? To prove you’re right in these beliefs? If you really do think there might be one or two writers out there who are “good enough” — in both the qualitative and commercial senses — then doesn’t that seem to fly in the face of this statement by you?
If you’re not reviewing self-published books in order to help a very few talented self-published writers around barriers to entry that exist apart from talent, then why are you doing it?
My position is that barriers to publication exist for writers who can meet any qualitative test, and who might be viable economically if given a chance to reach an audience. Publishing’s response is that any barrier to entry exists in order to allow the industry to survive, including barriers which prevent the industry from taking a chance on new writers. The internet and the explosive growth of the self-publishing industry, and, more importantly, the apparent acceptance of self-publishing by consumers, seems to provide a means by which unknown writers might demonstrate viability outside of traditional publishing channels — and your review site until very recently seemed to suggest that you yourself believed that to be the case.
If that is the case, then again I say that this flies directly in the face of the statement by you to which I took offense:
No. The real problem for writers is that there are barriers to publication which have nothing to do with storytelling ability or literary quality, and everything to do with celebrity or economic viability. And if you really, really believe you said all that in your offending quote, I can only suggest you ask a few trusted editors to give you their unbiased opinion.
In closing, for another example of someone inside publishing who made these same sleight-of-hand arguments, and for my similar response in that instance, see this post —
http://cba-ramblings.blogspot.com/2009/11/self-publishing-rant-and-q4u.html
— and my comments below:
http://cba-ramblings.blogspot.com/2009/11/self-publishing-rant-and-q4u.html?showComment=1258732978345#c8088876247670227956
http://cba-ramblings.blogspot.com/2009/11/self-publishing-rant-and-q4u.html?showComment=1258733014623#c8915149616721792244
I’d like to speak as one of the self-published writers Jane has reviewed on her site. As you will see on her site, most books by far that she reviews don’t have more than a few pages read until they hit the “15 fault” rule. I was lucky – seomehow my book, Songs from the Other Side of the Wall, saw her get through to the end and join the very few to have achieved this. When I look at my book now (2 editions further improved from the one I sent Jane), I am almost embarrassed by it. It’s nowhere near the standard of anything I’d see in the slush bins at remainder stores. I have since started a small press – and have “rejected” my own work form it becasue it’s just not up to scratch. It’s hard for me to conclude anything other than that Jane is right – if my book is in the top few percent, and I can see it’s nowhere near good enough – then yes, most self-published books almost certainly aren’t. I disagree with lots of what Jane says, and agree with other bits, but she is always scrupulously fair and, whilst frequently a little scurrilous, always courteous and a delightful interlocutor.
Dan,
I know something of your history through your web presence, and I applaud your efforts at YZW.
I also think your attitude about improvement and growth will profit you as a writer over time.
https://ditchwalk.com/2010/08/06/ffw-the-most-important-thing-1010/
I’m not saying Jane Smith is a war criminal. I’m glad you still have confidence in her. But if you’re going to hold yourself out as an expert, as Jane does, then you have to deliver the goods.
Saying that barriers to publication are not a problem, and that unpublished writers are unpublished because “their writing just isn’t good enough” is not only condescending, it rules out the possibility of any other reason for a work not being published. In effect, she’s claiming both that all good books get published (no matter who writes them), and that any book that isn’t published is bad. Simply from the point of view of basic logic those claims are both false.
Attempting to clarify this position by claiming that the phrase “good enough” is a market-driven appraisal, rather than a qualitative appraisal of the “dull to almost incomprehensible” (her words) failings of self-published works is disingenuous. As noted in my reply to her, I’ve heard this kind of back-peddling rationale before from industry professionals. In effect, a book that can’t make back whatever costs a publisher tacks onto manufacture and marketing cannot be “good enough”. There are no “good enough” authors other than those that make money. Ever.
Even allowing for Jane’s clarification, her opinion now is that if an illiterate moron can sell a million ghostwritten copies through celebrity, that author is “good enough”. If a talented writer can’t get a book deal because their work is not commercial, that writer is not “good enough”.
That’s a fail. Three times in a row. Not including the incapacity to even allow for the possibility that she was muddled in her meaning, which is in fact demonstrated by her attempted clarification here.
I don’t tell anybody who they should respect. I can’t respect a person who spends all of their time pointing out other people’s mistakes, yet can’t fathom their own.
I’m sorry, Mark, I don’t have time to reply to every single statement that you made in that very lengthy post. But here’s the gist of what I’d say if I did have the time.
I wrote this:
And you replied to me with this:
You seem determined to misinterpret everything I say, and to refuse to accept all attempts I make to clarify your misinterpretations. Your logic is way off in all sorts of ways, you ascribe meanings and motives to me which are utterly fantastic, and you take an awfully long time doing it.
I said it before, and I said it again: the real problem for writers who can’t get published isn’t that barriers to publication exist, but that their writing just isn’t good enough. That includes writers who are nearly, but not quite good enough to get published, writers who write dull, incomprehensible stuff, and all variants in between. And I see nothing wrong in saying so because however strongly you object to me saying it, it is the truth.
I strongly agree with you Mark, that “good enough” is not the phrase to use when “commercial enough” is what’s meant. And it seems obvious to me that of course non-qualitative “barriers to publication exist” when the trad pub world can only handle a certain number of books. It will always be partly a function of playing the odds.
But it seemed to me that a key omission from this discussion was to explore Jane’s use of the words “can’t get published.” This assumes a writer who has spent a great deal of effort banging on the doors of traditional publishers and not one of them will let him in. Quality argument aside, that is absolutely not a picture of many self-published authors, myself included (and you too, right?).
So it can’t be presumed by either her or you that the people she reviews on TSPR have been rejected by traditional publishing. I can only hope she keeps that uppermost in mind so she doesn’t approach our SP books with an ingrained prejudice. And perhaps you don’t need to question her motivation so strenuously (“If, as she argues, unpublished writers are unpublished because their writing stinks, why in god’s name is she defying her own logic and reviewing self-published books?”) because her statement did not mean ALL unpublished writers are bad, only those who have repeatedly tried to get a trad pub contract and failed. (Still not true, but maybe slightly more logical.)
I take your point about the phrase “can’t get published”. I’ve noted elsewhere that I took a stab at the publishing industry on two occasions, but the feedback I received on my work made it clear that market forces — and in particular the appeal of celebrity — were the critical factors for just about every agent and editor. Another writer might have stuck it out. I don’t handle that kind of blind-luck gamble very well, particularly when the majority of responses I get are perfunctory at best.
I always knew that a collection of short stories would be a hard sell, and in retrospect I’m glad I turned away and refused to alter the work to fit the marketplace. The novel I wrote was more commercial, and intentionally so, but I found that there just wasn’t much opportunity — either because the genre was full, or because I had no celebrity to leverage.
I don’t disagree with your logic about Jane’s claims, either, but I think you’ll acknowledge that you’re giving a very close reading to a very slight aspect of the original claim. As I think you’ll allow, it’s also probalby not the case that the people submitting their works to her are confessing the number of attempts they’ve made to be published.
As to my strenuousness, I plead guilty. I’m a work in progress, and that’s one of the things I’m working on.