NY Publishers are no longer interested in breaking out first time authors. Why?

[Katie-Ellen]

They are lazy. They only want sure things. Now, they want writers who will actively not only write, but help them sell the books.

Video from Michael Levin

 

[Patricia D]

Thank you for sharing, I guess.

 

[Katie-Ellen]

I know what you mean. Well, one does not have to take anyone's word for it. But he does suggest a strategy.

 

[Paul Whybrow]

Thank you for posting this, Katie-Ellen. Michael Levin confirms what I've come around to thinking after four years of writing and submitting—that traditional literary agents and print book companies aren't really interested in discovering or promoting new talent. I'll be changing direction in 2018, to become a one-man band combining writing, self-promotion and self-publishing, as querying feels like a masochistic exercise that guarantees humiliation.

Michael Levin's advice is depressing, but realistic, though it could be argued that he's also part of the problem, for if you look at his website he makes a living ghostwriting:

Home

He's undoubtedly successful and good for him—but bad for we unknown authors if he's penning successful books for famous names who can't write their own books. There's a free PDF download of his collected journalism on the site, called I May Be Wrong But I Doubt It on the site, which includes several articles on writing and publishing.

 

[Katie-Ellen]

So long as there are NY agents advertising that they are open to submissions, I guess they must be seeing some kind of publisher demand, or they'd just shut up shop.

 

[Rachel Caldecott]

Well, that was depressing viewing. I suspect he's right. It has been going that way for a while, though. Most publishers, even in the UK, want their authors to do the majority of the marketing themselves. Which does lead you to ask, 'why do I need a publisher?' (Michael Levin told the truth when he said we need them for the advance).

However, I sent my manuscript to a film producer and after reading it she said, "Let me reassure you that this a good story and I think it not only should be published with support from a good literary editor, but it could make a feature film." So, with that in mind and armed with a few bits of advice (which echoed Agent Pete's comments during the pop-up submissions about my opening chapter) I'm going to give it another shot at finding a traditional publisher. I've tried self-publishing and just couldn't get to grips with the marketing side.

And, although I hate to say this, there is still a slight stigma to self-published books, and booksellers can spot, just from the ISBN number, whether or not this is a self-published/one-off book. One way around that is to print through something called Lightning Source as an independent publisher. You'd still need to do all that pesky marketing stuff, but you might be presenting yourself slightly differently.

It is disheartening. But no one ever got anywhere by being disheartened...

 

[Katie-Ellen]

Indeed. Just because it's disheartening, resilience was always required, anyway, and the mythic lemmings ain't flinging themselves off anything vertiginous just because of a literary weather forecast. Or let's hope not

Interesting that, about the ISBN. This fellow in the vid is saying if you sell enough, self published, your book will get noticed by trad publishers, and that's a way in. But don't choose white paper for printing if you're self publishing. Uh uh. No, no. It has to be cream. So I read in a book called How To Read A Novel, which is actually a history of 'the novel', and of publishing, but things may have changed since this book was published, and someone tell me if that's BS.

 

[Rachel Caldecott]

Indeed. Just because it's disheartening, resilience was always required, anyway, and the mythic lemmings ain't flinging themselves off anything vertiginous just because of a literary weather forecast. Or let's hope not

Interesting that, about the ISBN. This fellow in the vid is saying if you sell enough, self published, your book will get noticed by trad publishers, and that's a way in. But don't choose white paper for printing if you're self publishing. Uh uh. No, no. It has to be cream. So I read in a book called How To Read A Novel, which is actually a history of 'the novel', and of publishing, but things may have changed since this book was published, and someone tell me if that's BS.

A quick look through your shelves will decide whether white or cream is the best. The glance at mine revealed cream as the winner. I self-published my first novel (with cream paper) after being fed up with trying to find an agent/publisher. I had a couple of near misses with agents... my favorite being: "If this is your first attempt at writing fiction you should be immensely proud. No one would expect you to get it completely right the first time. There's so much potential here to build on." So I rewrote and rewrote and took (expensive) advice from The Literary Consultancy and re-wrote. However, the impression I got from talking to agents is that no publisher wants to touch a self-published novel except if they have been huge runaway financial successes. But sod it! If all else fails I'll certainly re-try self-publishing. I did learn though, that you cannot rely on friends and family to buy your work (my own and only brother hasn't bothered to buy/read it).

 

[Katie-Ellen]

Disappointing, but there it is, I suppose. Horses and water, Rachel. I've been lucky with some family members - intensely interested, complaining I'm not keeping them up to date (because they did beta reading of early drafts but now I've gone all secretive because I wanted feedback, and they read a lot and always have. But I didn't want unsolicited suggestions for improvement, and they whipped on the editor's hat before you could say 'typo' ) But their feedback was very valuable, I don't mean to sound ungrateful. And I used what chimed with my own gut and ignored the rest. Hub and daughter at home. Nah. Never read it. Until it's published, if then, it isn't anything 'real.' But then, that's OK because they don't read ...or they do, but not fiction, anyway.

We have created a unique product, come what may. It's not about wanting to be famous, (who needs pests or weirdos) It's only about expediting the product, shipping, innit. A bird sings because it must.

 

[Katie-Ellen]

Why fishy @Quillwitch? You think he has an agenda?

 

[Quillwitch]

Why fishy @Quillwitch? You think he has an agenda?

Well, first off, someone who calls himself " The world´s greatest writing teacher" is obviously pushing an agenda! ( Ugh, whatever dude!)

Second, just by going to his webpage I can see that he is a marketing expert, his job is promoting stuff, and much of what he promotes and ghostwrites and teaches about is non-fiction. Nothing to do with me/us. Yet, he tries to apply the knowledge he has about non-fiction to fiction/novel writing which is a whole other world. Yes, time and again people who are going to write non-fiction are told that they should promote themselves, have web pages, do things to put themselves out there as experts on whatever it is they are writing about--I agree with that. BUT--I think he exaggerates when he says that this also holds true for fiction writers. He´s generalizing, and he´s trying to convince you, mostly, that he knows what he´s talking about. Why? Well, because his videos really serve himself. He makes them to promote himself, and then he says--hey, that´s what YOU should be doing if you want to sell something to NY. Otherwise, forget about it!
( And as aside--maybe I can help you with that...) ( And, did you notice all the name dropping on his page? Looks like he only works with the famous too!)
That´s how I´m looking at it.

Again, I think he exaggerates. Yes, it´s true that promoting your own books, self-publishing and selling thousands of books on Amazon is certainly a great way to draw attention to your work, but that is in no way THE ONLY WAY. Hell no! Seriously, if things were as bad as he wants you to believe, agents would have already been out of a job. And so would publishers, becuase, as he rightfully states--why then, would you need them if you can do it yourself? I would go so far as to say that if you are one of the lucky one selling say 10,000 to 20,000 or more books a year on your own, why would you even turn your head to look at the advance being waved in your face? If you´re smart, you´d realize that advance will only serve to tie you to a publishing house and come next year you will see your profit dwindle compared to what you were making as an indy writer.

Do the large publishing houses promote their writers? Yes, if they are sure they will get their money back. That holds true for a best selling author AND a new author with a book that has super commercial value. Do publishing houses buy work from new author? Absolutely, if it´s something that will bring them money. Publishing is a business. If you have a product that sells well, a publishing company will buy your work. No doubt about it. And if it´s really good, they will fight for it. Do you need to have a following before publishing a novel--of course not. Nobody had ever heard of the authors of books such as gone girl. girl on the train, the girl with the dragon tattoo, Harry Potter, Twilight, The hate you give, etc etc etc... no one knew who the authors were before being published and they all rose to the top. And they all wrote up their query letters and sold their books in traditional form. So, they no longer want to break out a new author? This guys is bollucks!


You write a good story, with commercial appeal, geared toward the correct audience, and someone will buy your book. Will they promote it? Yes, though some will be promoted more than others. But if they´ve invested in your book, they will promote it some way. Do they expect you to help, of course. Why wouldn´t you? Actors are forced to do interviews and tours to sell their movies, why not writers? Do writers have to promote themselves. OFCOURSE, but only AFTER their books have been published, not before. "They are lazy...they want a sure thing..." --no, they are not lazy, they just won´t spend money on something that won´t sell above what they will spend on marketing for a certain product. "They want a sure thing..." don´t we all?

 

[Paul Whybrow]

While I agree that Michael Levin blows his own trumpet too much and that he certainly isn't giving an impartial view of publishing, he also makes some good points from his status as an insider. I increasingly agree with his viewpoint that literary agents and junior publishing executives aren't so much 'gatekeepers', who should be respected as they are gifted arbiters of taste, but that they're more uncommunicative lumps of granite who block the door.

I've sometimes wondered who I'm writing for—not so much my readers—more, who initially casts their eyes over my query package, including a sample of my manuscript. Given that the publishing industry is dominated by white women, according to a recent survey, I've even found myself tailoring my plotlines and cast of characters to appeal to a younger demographic (not that I was previously aiming for older readers).

I read Michael Levin's articles on books in the Books Are My Babies section of the free download I May Be Wrong But I Doubt It available on his website. He makes some good points, including an observation about how writing really long books is less popular. I noticed in the last round of submissions I made, that several literary agencies and publishers actually specified that the manuscript should be no longer than 60,000 or 70,000 words. For ages, 80,000 words has been the expected length of a crime novel. It's all a symptom of increasingly limited attention spans, I guess, where instant gratification is preferable to hard work. I've previously railed against novellas being called novels, as it's inaccurate and vaguely insulting to the intelligence, but the way of the world is for the shorter form. Also, readers don't appear to care about the truth of what's written or who actually wrote it—which is where Michael Levin's ghostwriting service comes in.

 

[Rachel Caldecott]

While I agree that Michael Levin blows his own trumpet too much and that he certainly isn't giving an impartial view of publishing, he also makes some good points from his status as an insider. I increasingly agree with his viewpoint that literary agents and junior publishing executives aren't so much 'gatekeepers', who should be respected as they are gifted arbiters of taste, but that they're more uncommunicative lumps of granite who block the door.

I've sometimes wondered who I'm writing for—not so much my readers—more, who initially casts their eyes over my query package, including a sample of my manuscript. Given that the publishing industry is dominated by white women, according to a recent survey, I've even found myself tailoring my plotlines and cast of characters to appeal to a younger demographic (not that I was previously aiming for older readers).

I read Michael Levin's articles on books in the Books Are My Babies section of the free download I May Be Wrong But I Doubt It available on his website. He makes some good points, including an observation about how writing really long books is less popular. I noticed in the last round of submissions I made, that several literary agencies and publishers actually specified that the manuscript should be no longer than 60,000 or 70,000 words. For ages, 80,000 words has been the expected length of a crime novel. It's all a symptom of increasingly limited attention spans, I guess, where instant gratification is preferable to hard work. I've previously railed against novellas being called novels, as it's inaccurate and vaguely insulting to the intelligence, but the way of the world is for the shorter form. Also, readers don't appear to care about the truth of what's written or who actually wrote it—which is where Michael Levin's ghostwriting service comes in.

You make some good points. I'd like to add that even back in the 80's, (bear in mind my father died in 89 - remember the article of his I posted a while back, 35 years in publishing) dad was already very disillusioned with mainstream publishing because even then, it was starting to be run by accountants. Ideas were less and less important, so was literary skill.

But that doesn't mean we should roll over and die (or worse, give up writing). I doubt most of us could even if we wanted to. I know I've been bitten by the writing bug late in life, but now I'm truly and deeply infected. I have to write or else. Of course, I'd like a big fat cheque at the end (some legacy to leave my kids because they'll be getting sweet FA otherwise), but that isn't the REASON I write.

 

[Katie-Ellen]

"They want a sure thing..." don´t we all?

If I did, I wouldn't even dream of busting my guts trying to turn out a novel, let alone a saleable one. Art is never free of risk.

This chap gets a load of stick on all those counts. Even vitriol too, some of the videos, in the comments sections. I don't mind it myself, as he says, don't shoot the messenger, you can just ignore it, and I rather like that buoyancy and high energy.

Am not deterred from writing, I just note his comments, and that's the bottom line. He is a writer too. Who'd be a ghostwriter? Well, him, obviously, but that's surely a tough job.

 

[Amber]

This is really interesting. I went to Barnes and Nobles yesterday -- I had a gift card -- and they're not even trying to sell books. There are a lot more trade paperbacks than ever before and a lot of them were older books. I only bought one book with my gift card and spent my money on something else. I think he's probably right.

 

[Quillwitch]

I think we´re very fortunate to be living in this day and age in which we have options as to how to get our work out there. Agents and publishers are no longer the ONLY route, and that´s a good thing. I´ve often stated here that agents tend to pick and choose according to their taste in books--everything from genre to voice. It really all comes down to personal taste. Fortunately, there are hundreds of agents to choose from.
In the end, it is the market that decides what sells and what doesn´t, no matter what route you go through.

 

[Amber]

I read a book called The Punch Escrow a while ago which was amazing until the 3/4 mark, then it fell apart. He needed an editor - someone NOT directly compensated by him - someone whose interests were the bigger picture rather than what he - the author - may have wanted or what was easiest.

It is great that we have options because it used to be so difficult to get published. But something I’ve started to consider - Shouldn’t it be difficult for authors to get published? Not all of us deserve to be in print and things worth having are worth working for. I think books need midwives and it used to be if you picked up a book from a particular publisher you could be assured of a certain quality. This is less true than its ever been.

I also read a book this month that brought in 27k for the author. It fell apart after the first few chapters and had so many typos there were sentences which devolved into gibberish.

Stephen Colbert says, “It’s funny because nothing matters” when observing instances where people behave stupidly when acting otherwise would have taken no additional effort - just a degree of attention to the quality of what you’re doing in the eorld. While HE is funny - nothing about what he’s observing usually is.

Which is how I feel about an excess of typos in something one is asking people to pay for. Also - think it’s tragic that a great sci-fi novel is a lot less than it could have been if the author had someone who said, “We won’t publish this until you change the ending.”

I think we’re past the point in our evolution where every innovation is an improvement. I honestly think we would benefit from just saying no to technology sometimes. Or, maybe I’m just getting old.

 

[Rachel Caldecott]

I read a book called The Punch Escrow a while ago which was amazing until the 3/4 mark, then it fell apart. He needed an editor - someone NOT directly compensated by him - someone whose interests were the bigger picture rather than what he - the author - may have wanted or what was easiest.

It is great that we have options because it used to be so difficult to get published. But something I’ve started to consider - Shouldn’t it be difficult for authors to get published? Not all of us deserve to be in print and things worth having are worth working for. I think books need midwives and it used to be if you picked up a book from a particular publisher you could be assured of a certain quality. This is less true than its ever been.

I also read a book this month that brought in 27k for the author. It fell apart after the first few chapters and had so many typos there were sentences which devolved into gibberish.

Stephen Colbert says, “It’s funny because nothing matters” when observing instances where people behave stupidly when acting otherwise would have taken no additional effort - just a degree of attention to the quality of what you’re doing in the world. While HE is funny - nothing about what he’s observing usually is.

Which is how I feel about an excess of typos in something one is asking people to pay for. Also - think it’s tragic that a great sci-fi novel is a lot less than it could have been if the author had someone who said, “We won’t publish this until you change the ending.”

I think we’re past the point in our evolution where every innovation is an improvement. I honestly think we would benefit from just saying no to technology sometimes. Or, maybe I’m just getting old.

Totally agree. As for technology... how many times do I mutter, "just because we can, doesn't mean we should."

 

[Amber]

Totally agree. As for technology... how many times do I mutter, "just because we can, doesn't mean we should."

Right.

 

[Paul Whybrow]

I've observed a decline in editing standards in the last five years. In 2017, I've read novels that contained grammatical, punctuation and spacing mistakes, as well as factual errors. It was hard for me to believe that the manuscripts had been line or copy-edited at all. As for fact-checking, that appears to be too much effort for some publishers. Admittedly, the author should have got things right in the first place, but to let their errors be printed speaks of neglect.

Apparently, editing staff are the first to be axed when cutbacks are made by the beancounters, who are chasing profit rather than quality:

The Decline & Fall of Editorial Quality