# Slush - are we going to have to dive through it ourselves? Are we already?



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

Salon writer and co-founder Laura Miller wrote a very thoughtful piece on self-publishing's potential effects on _readers_ (because usually the discussion revolves around writers and the publishing industry):

http://www.salon.com/books/laura_miller/2010/06/22/slush/index.html

Some highlights:



> _*1.*
> "Readers themselves rarely complain that there isn't enough of a selection on Amazon or in their local superstore; they're more likely to ask for help in narrowing down their choices. So(...) What happens once the self-publishing revolution really gets going, when all of those previously rejected manuscripts hit the marketplace, en masse, in print and e-book form, swelling the ranks of 99-cent Kindle and iBook offerings by the millions? Is the public prepared to meet the slush pile?"_


To be honest, as a reader I can't imagine wading through hundreds of thousands of books. As Miller said, the typical bookstore is already overwhelming -- so many shelves! so little time to read! -- so do we really need more? Do _readers_ think the system is broken, or just (aspiring) writers who are dying to break in?

(By "more" I mean, more new work than the volume of new work that is already produced each year. Obviously I'm not suggesting we stop producing any books at all and just read the ones already published. )

(Also, a note/disclaimer: I am an aspiring writer. I do not necessarily think the system is broken, although like anything I'm sure there are probably ways it could be improved. I have also self-published an ebook at this time, though my aim is still to write other books to be traditionally published.)



> _*2.*
> "People who have never had the job of reading through the heaps of unsolicited manuscripts sent to anyone even remotely connected with publishing typically have no inkling of two awful facts: 1) just how much slush is out there, and 2) how really, really, really, really terrible the vast majority of it is. Civilians who kvetch about the bad writing of Dan Brown, Stephenie Meyer or any other hugely popular but critically disdained novelist can talk as much trash as they want about the supposedly low standards of traditional publishing. They haven't seen the vast majority of what didn't get published -- and believe me, if you have, it's enough to make your blood run cold, thinking about that stuff being introduced into the general population.
> 
> Everybody acknowledges that there have to be a few gems out in the slush pile -- one manuscript in 10,000, say -- buried under all the dreck. The problem lies in finding it. A diamond encased in a mountain of solid granite may be truly valuable, but at a certain point the cost of extracting it exceeds the value of the jewel. With slush, the cost is not only financial (many publishers can no longer afford to assign junior editors to read unsolicited manuscripts) but also -- as is less often admitted -- emotional and even moral."_


All I could do was agree with this part. 100%.



> _*3.*
> "Contrary to the way they're often depicted by frustrated authors, the agents and editors I've met are in fact committed to finding and nurturing books and authors they believe in as well as books that will sell. Also, bloggers or self-appointed experts on particular genres and types of writing are, in my experience, just as clubby and as likely to plug or promote their friends and associates as anybody else. Above all, this possible future doesn't eliminate gatekeepers: It just sets up new ones, equally human and no doubt equally flawed.
> 
> (...) If, on the other hand, you're a civilian, and reading is something you turn to, seeking fun or transcendence, during your precious hours of free time, how long will you persist when book after book has exactly the opposite effect, crushing your spirit instead of refreshing it? How long before you decide to just give up?"_


What I take her question to mean is this: Will self-publishing end up being bad for readers? Will the overwhelming volume turn readers off?

And then: Will that, in turn, make it harder for writers to earn a living? Will THAT, in turn, make it harder for writers to be GOOD writers?

I don't necessarily have an opinion one way or another right now. I just find the discussion interesting.

Thoughts?

Kristan


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I honestly wouldn't worry about it.  The good books will rise.  The bad will fail.  

And to every agent that says they've seen thousands of bad books... I say Pish Posh.  They rejected my query letter.  A QUERY LETTER.  They didn't read one sentence of my book.  And how many agents take unsolicited manuscripts and actually read them

Let the floodgates open.  I would love to have more choices of books to read.  I can tell by a simple sample of the first chapter if I want to read it or not.

Vicki


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

This article acts like people choose what books they read by randomly picking one off a shelf. If people go by recommendations of friends, they'll not be affected by the slush. If they read reviews, they'll avoid the really bad slush. They go by best-selling lists, and they'll not be affected by the terrible slush (usually).

It's also ignoring that really, really bad writers will still need to write descriptions (with bad writing being visible within that as well). They'll need to make covers, which may also prove as solid warnings. Then figure that everyone needs visibility somehow. If a writer is terrible, how will he do that? By intelligent posts on a blog? Well-written posts on a forum?

We're also completely ignoring the concept of a 'sample', something so many Kindle owners have loved and embraced.

Oh, and one last thing. To assume that readers will only enjoy 1 in 10,000 self-published works is nonsense. To claim that publishers have a monopoly on what readers want to read is so misleading it borders on dishonesty. I understand the worry, but I think the author has no faith in readers themselves, seeing them only as cattle driven to the next favorite book by the Big 5 and unable to search, experiment, and read on their own.

David Dalglish


----------



## Vyrl (Jun 7, 2010)

People don't care for slush. They care for stories. And if they can't comprehend what's on the page -- as this editor implies -- people simply won't buy it. The 'preview' function is there for a reason.


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

Invariably it will create problems. You will have increasing number of people who will be unhappy with their purchases because the books they bought - even at 99 cents - will be disappointments. To think that a good book will automatically be successful is not very realistic, I'm afraid, and countless other industries have proven that before. The problem exists already - I, for example don't even look at 99 cent books any more - and the growth of the slush pile will extrapolate that. The fact that good books - like Victorine's - never got a chance with publishers doesn't mean they are merely negligent. However, their process also makes sure that countless of the truly "unworthy" books have never seen the light of day and out of those books, I would guess, 50% deservedly so. To unleash those 50% onto the unsuspecting public can never be a good idea no matter how much on love we all are with our own work.


----------



## Vyrl (Jun 7, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> Oh, and one last thing. To assume that readers will only enjoy 1 in 10,000 self-published works is nonsense. To claim that publishers have a monopoly on what readers want to read is so misleading it borders on dishonesty. I understand the worry, but I think the author has no faith in readers themselves, seeing them only as cattle driven to the next favorite book by the Big 5 and unable to search, experiment, and read on their own.
> 
> David Dalglish


I think the publishing industry is feeling a little intimidated by some of the indies out there. It used to be that it was unheard of for an independent author to sell 5,000 copies. Now you've got indies selling tens of thousands over the course of a few months and, many of these, at 2.99, 1.99, or (gasp) .99 cents. Yet these authors win awards, get starred reviews, and receive huge volumes of fan mail.

In truth, it's becoming a little more difficult to distinguish between a quality published author and a quality indie author -- and that's gotta sting a little for the big houses.

As for the campaign to disparage .99 cent Kindle books -- well, the large publishers can't price books at .99 cents and make a profit. So they simply can't compete with quality indies in this price range.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Guido Henkel said:


> The fact that good books - like Victorine's - never got a chance with publishers doesn't mean they are merely negligent.


 Thanks for calling my book a 'good book'. 

Vicki


----------



## MachineTrooper (Jun 22, 2010)

I agree with quote #2, for certain. But I agree with Vicky, too. It's nearly impossible to get an agent/editor to even consider a query--much less a manuscript.

There are who-knows-how-many great books out there that never make it past the gatekeepers into print. That wouldn't be such an offense if everything that did get published was superior to the rejected work...but we all know that's not the case.

I see good and bad in the ebook revolution. Yes, the horrid efforts outnumber the good stuff by enormous proportions, and will be daunting to sift through. But it also opens the gate for wonderful, well-written books that would otherwise never see print due to the flawed fortune-telling of the bean-counters or the prejudices of the editors.

There is less and less fiction available at bookstores that interests me (partly because, as I see it, it's all been coalescing into an inventory of set formulas/genres/themes which bypass my tastes). But once in a while, in the midst of a pile of literary sludge, I mine a delightful e-book which makes for a great read.


----------



## L.J. Sellers novelist (Feb 28, 2010)

There are thousands of traditionally published books I've never read, even though an agent and editor selected and nurtured those books because they thought they were the cream of the crop. I don't read certain books because they're not right for me. Readers know what they like and who they can trust for recommendations. 
L.J.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

It's kind of similar to saying that independent films aren't any good since they are not back by the big studios. Or YouTube since it is all user contributions. Beyond being good quality, there are people who _like_ watching a cat bang on a piano for six minutes.

... and Vicki is right, the cream _will_ rise to the top. Word of mouth will get the good books into the hands of readers, and now that ereaders are actually becoming affordable, more frequent readers will be buying them (and giving them as gifts, and recommending books).


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

Half-Orc said:


> This article acts like people choose what books they read by randomly picking one off a shelf. If people go by recommendations of friends, they'll not be affected by the slush. If they read reviews, they'll avoid the really bad slush. They go by best-selling lists, and they'll not be affected by the terrible slush (usually).
> 
> It's also ignoring that really, really bad writers will still need to write descriptions (with bad writing being visible within that as well). They'll need to make covers, which may also prove as solid warnings. Then figure that everyone needs visibility somehow. If a writer is terrible, how will he do that? By intelligent posts on a blog? Well-written posts on a forum?
> 
> ...


I don't think this article implies that books are chosen at random; just the opposite, I think Miller is saying that readers often need and want guidance, and agents/editors provide one layer of that. A layer that is often vilified.

And she even says that reviews and recommendations will still be key, but her point is that the people giving those reviews and recommendations may shift. But even so, SOMEONE has to read all those books, or samples, in order to review them. So volume is still a factor.

To your point, though, it probably still won't be a factor for the majority of readers. I brought the article to the attention of KindleBoards folk because I think we're more likely to be the ones (or the types, anyway) doing the initial vetting and recommendations.

Ultimately I agree with MachineTrooper, in that there will be both good and bad. I also agree with LJ that the system probably will not change SO much that readers won't be able to find the right books for them.

Kristan


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

pidgeon92 said:


> It's kind of similar to saying that independent films aren't any good since they are not back by the big studios. Or YouTube since it is all user contributions. Beyond being good quality, there are people who _like_ watching a cat bang on a piano for six minutes.
> 
> ... and Vicki is right, the cream _will_ rise to the top. Word of mouth will get the good books into the hands of readers, and now that ereaders are actually becoming affordable, more frequent readers will be buying them (and giving them as gifts, and recommending books).


I think it's closer to YouTube than indie films. The barrier to entry for indie filmmaking vs. writing a book is much, much higher. But YouTubing can be done by virtually anyone.

To your point, lol, there ARE people who like watching a cat bang on a piano. Or riding a roomba. Or getting licked by a fox... 

Kristan


----------



## bvlarson (May 16, 2010)

This is just one of the many changes that are about to rock this industry. Readers are going to have to dig to find what they want. If they want a good cheap book, they are going to have to do what the agents do, as the traditional agents and publishers diminish over the coming years. Writers, we are going to have to become successful marketeers.


----------



## Vyrl (Jun 7, 2010)

Victorine said:


> Thanks for calling my book a 'good book'.
> 
> Vicki


Well, it's true Vicki


----------



## nomesque (Apr 12, 2010)

Oh noz! Poor readers! Forced to think for their little selves! How will the daft little fuzzy-brained dears manage? They'll die in their millions, and it will be ALL OUR FAULT for taking them away from the publishers who were only ever trying to look after them!

Pfffffft. 

Many will simply go on as they always have, reading only authors they know and trust. Others will branch out now and then. Some will *revel* in the chance to try all sorts of writing which your typical publisher would have considered too 'niche' and avoided like the plague. Is there dreck? Yes. Are readers stupid? Well, some of them, probably. But even they'll be fine. No one has to jump into the Swamp of Indie Authors unless they want to. Wading is NOT mandatory to get to the latest Stephanie Meyers book.

(Implication that Stephanie Meyers readers are dumb NOT actually intentional)


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

pidgeon92 said:


> ...there are people who _like_ watching a cat bang on a piano for six minutes.


That might very well be true, but stop for a moment to think about the thousands of people who did not enjoy it and who - in the book world - would have been paying 99 cents to see it, only to find it was an utter waste of time. I don't think they would be too happy. The YouTube comparison doesn't work either because YouTube is free for everyone.

The only real comparison I can think of right now are mobile games and anyone who's been going through the slush pile of games on the iPhone knows that "more games" has not been very helpful for the development of quality games on any platform, nor has it created a whole lot of lasting break-out hits and virtually no sustainable income for anyone.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Guido Henkel said:


> That might very well be true, but stop for a moment to think about the thousands of people who did not enjoy it and who - in the book world - would have been paying 99 cents to see it, only to find it was an utter waste of time. I don't think they would be too happy. The YouTube comparison doesn't work either because YouTube is free for everyone.


Speaking about ebooks specifically, one of the greatest advantages of the ebook is the ability to sample. I always sample now before buying anything, no matter whether it is 99¢ or $9.99. It obviously isn't going to tell me if the whole book is good, but it will give me a flavor, and does not cost me anything.

Veering back to movies, I have gone to see plenty of movies at the theatre that were a complete and utter waste of time. One man's trash is another man's treasure.


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

Part of the problem is that publishers are used to being a gatekeeper in a world where information was in smaller supply than the demand for it.

Check out this article (http://www.digitaldeliverance.com/2010/06/08/the-greatest-change-in-the-history-of-media/) and it's follow-ups. (it's a long read and sometimes information dense.)

Information is now post-scarcity. The role of gatekeeper is irrelevant when there is no longer a fence.

An interesting quote: "For examples, a Xhosa tribesman in South Africa with a Vodacom HTC Magic mobile handset has instant access to more information than the President of the United States did at the time of the tribesman's birth."


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Basilius said:


> ...The role of gatekeeper is irrelevant when there is no longer a fence....


An excellent point, succinctly put. I expect that with that lack of a fence, new shepherds will appear (to extend the metaphor) to help guide our choices, other than the traditional publisher/agent coalition. Much will be via the web, such as forums like this and the host of bloggers out there, plus there will likely emerge other means and techniques most of us haven't imagined yet.

And if you do find yourself overwhelmed by the "slush", enter your search terms at Amazon and then on the results page select "Price: high to low" for your sort order.


----------



## davidhburton (Mar 11, 2010)

Personally, I see any book I purchase as being in the slush pile. You need to grab my attention with a decent cover and description. Then if I like the sample, I'll buy. Simple. I can make my own decisions as to what's worth reading.


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

davidhburton said:


> Personally, I see any book I purchase as being in the slush pile. You need to grab my attention with a decent cover and description. Then if I like the sample, I'll buy. Simple. I can make my own decisions as to what's worth reading.


Hmm. So, I agree. But. Cover? That's not really a writer's job, is it? Now they have to have design skills too?

I'm not disagreeing with you at all! Just saying that that's one area where major publishers have a leg up over self-publishing authors: design departments. So will our standards for a "decent" cover change as self-publishing becomes more prevalent? Or will writers simply be expected to do more? (The way many vocalists are now more prized if they can also dance, or also write their own songs, or whatever.)

Kristan


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

kristanhoffman said:


> Hmm. So, I agree. But. Cover? That's not really a writer's job, is it? Now they have to have design skills too?
> 
> I'm not disagreeing with you at all! Just saying that that's one area where major publishers have a leg up over self-publishing authors: design departments. So will our standards for a "decent" cover change as self-publishing becomes more prevalent? Or will writers simply be expected to do more? (The way many vocalists are now more prized if they can also dance, or also write their own songs, or whatever.)
> 
> Kristan


I've seen some amazing indie covers. I don't think traditionally published books have that much of a leg up. I've seen some horrible covers come from the big NY publishing houses.

The fact is, if you're going indie, you need a good cover. So if you don't have the skills to do one yourself, get one done for you. Just like indie bands have to do all the stuff that bands under a big contract don't have to think about.

Vicki


----------



## davidhburton (Mar 11, 2010)

LOL! Kristan, I'm not so sure I agree on the design department. I've seen some books from major publishers swathed in ugly.   

And, yes, I think authors will be expected to do more. Years ago, authors weren't expected to market and publicize their books. Major publishers now expect that. 

I'm starting to see acquisitions of books where the editing is outsourced. There may come a time when authors may need to pay for their own editor or cover designer. It's all changing very quickly.

Speaking for myself (and I'm going to assume most of the indies are doing this), I did it all: author, editor, cover, book trailer, web site - simply because I can't afford to outsource those components at this time. I'm not saying it's right, but if I wanted to get published, I needed to do this. It's a lot for authors to do on their own, but I think it's where we're heading. But at the end of the day, whether a traditional publisher puts out my books or I go it alone, I will always see myself in the slush pile since my true audience is the reader.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

davidhburton said:


> LOL! Kristan, I'm not so sure I agree on the design department. I've seen some books from major publishers swathed in ugly.
> ...


Well, "ugly" does not necessarily matter, just as in TV commercials it's not always the artistic or clever or beautifully filmed ones that are effective. Sometimes the right sort of "ugly" can be effective. That's where the really, really good graphic artists* (and marketeers) in the field excel: they know when to be pretty, they know when to be mysterious, they know when to be effectively ugly, and they know when all you need to do is get the name "Stephen King" at the top in big, bold, embossed letters.  A mere mortal such as I, however, is lucky to come up with a screen-saver on his Kindle that is not too terribly nauseating. 

____________
* Mind you, that does not mean all of them used by the big publishers are good, nor do even the best necessarily get it right every time.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

This whole "readers having to deal with the slush pile" line is appearing right now in quite a few places, and I suspect it's just the latest talking point the defenders of traditional publishing and all its hangers on have come up with as a reason the indie revolution is terrible and must be slowed or stopped. Personally I believe Amazon got too big a jump on them while they were all still looking down their noses at ebooks, but we'll see.

The whole argument strikes me as silly. Very few of us ever walked in a book store and methodically started looking through every book on some shelf, even in the genres we favor. We look for favorite authors; we look for books we've heard about; we look at the new books sections; if we're cheap (and I am) we look through the remaindered books. Readers are going to continue doing exactly the same thing with online databases, which is why the problem for indies will always be getting noticed in the first place so that whatever quality is there can shine through or disappoint so many that the book fails.


----------



## David McAfee (Apr 15, 2010)

Victorine said:


> I honestly wouldn't worry about it. The good books will rise. The bad will fail.
> 
> And to every agent that says they've seen thousands of bad books... I say Pish Posh. They rejected my query letter. A QUERY LETTER. They didn't read one sentence of my book. And how many agents take unsolicited manuscripts and actually read them
> 
> ...


Some really good points being made in this thread, but I wanted to point at this one. Vicki is right on the money, here. Most books get rejected at the query stage before an agent or editor even sees an example of the writing. In and out of the slush pile without even getting a look. Hundreds of thousands of novels never even make it off the pile. Is there dreck in there? YUP! I've seen the slush myself. It sucks. But there are also gems in there that no one sees because they simply don't want to do the mining.

Readers aren't stupid. If they don't like something, they won't read it. The free sample of ebooks is a wonderful thing.

Bring on the e-slush, I say.


----------



## Debra L Martin (Apr 8, 2010)

pidgeon92 said:


> Speaking about ebooks specifically, one of the greatest advantages of the ebook is the ability to sample. I always sample now before buying anything, no matter whether it is 99¢ or $9.99. It obviously isn't going to tell me if the whole book is good, but it will give me a flavor, and does not cost me anything.
> 
> Veering back to movies, I have gone to see plenty of movies at the theatre that were a complete and utter waste of time. One man's trash is another man's treasure.


I totally agree with this. The sample is the best part. I've bought many traditionally published books that I didn't really care for even though they had good recommendations and the back cover blurb was intriguing.

I had an agent who told me my book had commercial potential, but she didn't love it enough to take it on. One person's opinion so I put it out there for other people to read it. It will either sink or swim depending on the readers. If readers want to try something new in a genre they've never read before, they can check out the sample. You never know what gems are waiting for you. There are some fabulous indie authors out there.


----------



## sbaum4853 (May 3, 2010)

David McAfee said:


> Readers aren't stupid. If they don't like something, they won't read it.


Yep. It really is that simple.

Or, to put it another way: Those providers of books who give readers what they want are the ones who will win in the marketplace.

As with just about any social system, there is no single person at Salon or anywhere else who is going to concoct something better than what free-thinking people create through voluntary self-organization. If we ever near a point where the costs of freely available "slush" outweigh the benefits to the end user, Amazon, Apple and all the other providers will make changes.

The reason the publishing industry is changing isn't because some White eKnight came in to break up the amoral cabal of agents and editors. It's because new technologies have made change possible, and profit-seeking companies are making changes according to customer preferences, preferences that are expressed in the millions of choices individuals make each day about where to spend their money.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

I read an interesting comment from an author over on Goodreads--same sort of discussion about the same article--and she made the point that this author assumes that indie authors go that route because they don't have other options, ie, they can't get their book with an agent or "traditional" publisher. That assumption is often false. 

Agents, also, as the gatekeepers. They are not infalliable and can screw up big time. I know one author who had an agent and a contract offer from a publisher. They agent said the contract wasn't good and wanted changes, the publisher wouldn't budge and the author ended up turning down the deal. The book in question still hasn't been published. The author has been kicking herself for three years now.

L


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

sbaum4853 said:


> Yep. It really is that simple. Or, to put it another way: Those providers of books who give readers what they want are the ones who will win in the marketplace.


That's probably why we're all million dollar earning #1 New York Times bestselling authors around here, right? ;-) (Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, this was meant in good humor)

While I agree that readers will not read the bad stuff, unfortunately the reverse is not entirely true, which has me concerned. Simply because a book is good doesn't automatically turn it into a success.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

The problem with articles like that one is that it is written by people who know traditional publishing, but they haven't paid any attention to what's going on in the world outside of New York publishing. But that's not unusual, or even her fault. 

The Slush Pile has been here in the laps of the consumer for at least a decade.  Change tends to happen right under our noses, and we only recognize it's coming when it's already been accomplished.

People already know how to deal with slush.  We deal with it every day.  

The second issue goes to Vicki's point about query letters.  The gate keepers of publishing, I am sorry to say, are not looking for quality.  They are looking for potential profitability, and unfortunately, thanks to a certain numbers of changes in tax laws and other things back in the seventies, profitability in publishing is ruled by the giant distributors.

Publishers are like hostages with Stockholm Syndrome.  Their customer is not the reader, but the distributor, and they have been utterly dependent on those distributors for decades.  Publishers don't even do market research.  They have no idea what their readers want. They let the distributors handle all that - but the successful business model of the distributors is what we call "push" marketing.  It is to force the choice on the consumer so that it's easy to manage.

That's why publishers are terrified and in denial about the change that has long ago happened in every other industry.

And Amazon changed that model a long time ago.  Amazon's goal in the very first place, long before Kindle, was to place the slushpile at the reader's feet - and give the reader tools to find everything they want and need. Because Amazon's model is based on the customer having everything they want at their fingertips, and having that full, intimidating flood of choices, and not being overwhealmed by it.

And we're not overwhealmed by Amazon - and yet Amazon has more choices than any slushpile out there.

Camille


----------



## Carld (Dec 2, 2009)

Given all the stories about great books, even masterpieces, that were rejected by traditional publishers over and over again, I'll be more than happy to wade through the slush pile looking for those hidden gems.


----------



## Ali Cooper (May 1, 2010)

I find much of this concept of slush insulting - and untrue.

Many readers and writers are hanging onto this myth that most books get rejected because they're rubbish.

Last year, for particular reasons due to my book being shortlisted by a well-known literary press, a mutual friend put me in touch with a former Booker prize shortlist author. Here are a few of the things she told me and that happened to her.

She'd come very close to being published several times/with several books before the one that was Booker shortlisted.
- now, I can't believe those books were rubbish.

The book that made the Booker shortlist was published by a literary press but neither she nor other authors published with them could get agents. Then, coincidentally the same time the shortlist was announced, an agent suddenly realised how fantastic her book was, took her on and got her a mainstream contract.

This author told me that once you achieve a certain level, getting a publishing contract is very much down to luck. She said that in her opinion, many of the best books don't get published.

I know quite a few authors who, like me, have come very very close to being traditionally published. When it gets to that stage the decision will almost certainly not be about the talent of the author.

I wish we could have a few blind tests with indie/traditionally published titles because unfortunately, when you know something's indie you're looking for mistakes. when you know something's mainstream you assume variations of style, grammar etc are intentional.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

I actually agree YouTube and the Internet are apt comparisons--are you bothered by the millions and millions of videos or sites that don't interest you? Do you even know they are there? We are finding it easier and easier to join our own communities as technology evolves--no one needs to be "lost" in it because you can limit or expand your choices as you wish. Amazon actually does a pretty amazing job of funneling you to things that might interest you--and they do it better than agents, editors, and poor Laura Miller, who (like much of the mainstream media and industry) sounds a little bitter that she will no longer be the arbiter of hip.

Once you've been in NY (and I published six novels there and maybe more on the way), you see that it actually limits and suppresses, not expands. I am not sure anyone in NY knows what a reader wants or every book would be a bestseller. Once an editor makes an offer, the ceiling is set for that book--print run, distribution, status, reviews. Before the book is printed, often before it is even written. Hardly a system that rewards originality. And no one cares if a book is "good" as long as it makes some money--and THAT is the sole criteria for publishing in NY.

It is not a system designed to help readers, though many agents and editors are skilled at selecting books for each other--that's their job, selling to each other. Not to you. That's why they don't really know what you want.

Certainly not better than you do.

In the new era, you not only have unlimited content, you have evolving content. The "book" is alive. You might even be helping create it in far more than the standard ESP/meeting of the minds way when you read an author's thoughts on paper or screen. I know it seems ebooks are "new," but I think it's going to evolve a lot faster than anyone, especially NY realizes--that's why they are trying to leap forward with transmedia and interactive apps.

I can hardly wait to see what happens. And I won't be bothered a bit by all those bad books out there. Every vision is valid. It might only have an audience of two or three, but maybe that was its reason to exist.

Scott


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

Deb Martin said:


> I had an agent who told me my book had commercial potential, but she didn't love it enough to take it on.


#1 most despised reason for rejection, ye olde "didn't LOVE IT enough" ....

#2 came from an agent who overall liked a complete manuscript submission I sent, but finally rejected it on the basis that "it didn't appeal enough to women."  Now I know women don't ALL read Romance only, or feel-good family tales, do they? Aren't there some men still reading in this world who might enjoy a mystery with paranormal leanings?

I'm not sad to see the publishing wall starting to crumble. Even after previewing, often enough are the times when I've bought a traditional book and interest flagged half way in and it was jettisoned. Life is too short to put up with a book you don't enjoy, no matter where it comes from. If it's only $3.99, then it hurts less to abandon it.

And as has been said several times in this thread, all too often an agent or editor rejects your query letter, not your actual work. So put it out there for the masses to judge, with the all-important preview. I don't see the downside.


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

Ali Cooper said:


> Many readers and writers are hanging onto this myth that most books get rejected because they're rubbish.


Actually, yes. I may become extremely unpopular for saying this, but I do think that tends to be true: _most_ books are rejected because they are rubbish.

Most, but _certainly_ not all.

And people on this board, or people that we meet on other forums, are less likely to be the ones who are rejected because their books are rubbish. Because they're the ones doing their research, learning about the industry, etc.

But we are the few, not the many. I've met SO many people who think writing a book is typing up their thoughts on a computer and finding someone to pay them lots of money and then print tons of copies that will sit on a prominent display in Barnes & Noble. They are not willing to revise, or get critiques, or learn about querying. Those people outnumber the kinds of writers that we meet here by a lot.



Ali Cooper said:


> This author told me that once you achieve a certain level, getting a publishing contract is very much down to luck. She said that in her opinion, many of the best books don't get published.


I also believe that to be true. It's an imperfect system, no question.

[quote author=scottnicholson]
I actually agree YouTube and the Internet are apt comparisons--are you bothered by the millions and millions of videos or sites that don't interest you? Do you even know they are there?
[/quote]

No and no. But that's exactly the point: I don't know they are there. So how can I watch them (or in the case of self-published books, read them)?

To your point, yes, Amazon does a pretty good job of making recommendations based on your ratings, and it would probably be wise for publishers to look at that as a "best practice" to adopt.

Scott, you also make a lot of good points about publishers not knowing exactly what readers want, because they don't do research, but rather attempt to drive or predict what will sell well. Again, perhaps they should be rethinking that.

I guess I don't think that anger or bitterness towards publishers accomplishes much, and at the same time I'm not trying to suggest that things should stay the same. Obviously that's not even possible. But I think readers have better things to do than to check out every manuscript out there...

Then again, maybe that's inevitable too.

Kristan


----------



## guybacci (Feb 18, 2010)

I didn't read the entire article, but the quotes posted were brilliant. 

I think the e-book trend is great because it gives everyone a chance, but as a reader, I have to say, I think it's awful. I don't want to have to preview every first chapter of thousands upon thousands of books because I'm wondering if this is just another piece of rubbish written by a complete hack. Yes, I am one of those who thinks Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyers are poor writers, but at least I know they've been edited, and probably have something of a marketable story to tell. 

Having said all that, I think it's a very exciting time from a would-be author's perspective, and hopefully the market can find some way to have the quality independent work rise.


----------



## IndieProse (Jun 27, 2010)

Kristan,

I agree that the world of publishing and reading are on the brink of monumental change.  I think that is a good thing.

Anyone now can take on the task of discovering new voices. We at IndieProse are searching ourselves. Our mission is to find great self-published books. We must admit that even digging through book listings and gleaning as much information as we can from previous reviews, it is really hard to find those gems.

We read self-publshed books. And yes, the slush has moved from the agent's office onto the kindle and POD presses everywhere. 

We are just getting started, but we hope that in the near future, our pages will be thick with fantastic authors unheard of just a few years earlier.


----------



## lonestar (Feb 9, 2010)

I totally agree that readers know what they like and don't like.  I just want to read.  I have paid full price for many books over the years that came recommended by some list or other.  Some of those I didn't like.  I have really been disappointed by the current publisher/Amazon difference of opinion or whatever it is.  I just bought a hard back book (at Sam's) simply because the publisher had set the Amazon price for it.  It wasn't really the money though I love saving.  It was the principle- well sort of.  I believe that wholesalers of products shouldn't tell the retailer what to do with the product.  Once the retailer buys it, it belongs to them and the wholesaler is out of the picture or should be.
Overall, I felt that Ms. Miller's article is what we call "on the snooty side".  Someone else stated that the good books will rise to the top and I believe that.  I know what I like to read and that's what I want to do- read what I like to read.
Change can be messy but it is going to happen anyway.  Bring on the books!


----------



## Vyrl (Jun 7, 2010)

Carld said:


> Given all the stories about great books, even masterpieces, that were rejected by traditional publishers over and over again, I'll be more than happy to wade through the slush pile looking for those hidden gems.


I find it pretty amazing how many are actually very well written. I read a great Indie book a while back -- "Dawn of Destiny." All indie, but very well done.


----------



## Andra (Nov 19, 2008)

Ali Cooper said:


> I wish we could have a few blind tests with indie/traditionally published titles because unfortunately, when you know something's indie you're looking for mistakes. when you know something's mainstream you assume variations of style, grammar etc are intentional.


It might be interesting to try a blind test like this. However, I can tell you that I don't read a book looking for errors - the errors tend to jump off the page at me. I have returned more Kindle books for poor OCR conversions than anything else. I don't see those types of errors in Indie books.


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

I agree that blind tests would be way cool. Not even just for typos, but to see which books, on the whole, we end up liking "better."

That said, I think traditionally published books will have a LOT less errors in time. Right now they are back-logged and trying to catch up, so they're rushing through and scanning the pages and not really proofing. Fair to the consumers? No. But understandable given volume? Well, sort of... :\

But with new books that come out, it should be easy enough to take the manuscript file (Word or whatever) and prep it for e-distribution. Meaning it should have exactly the same mistakes (if any) as the print version.

Kristan


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

I have heard some stories from people who had to wade through slush piles. A lot of the books can be instantly eliminated without reading a word. If they are written in crayon or handwritten, if they are on colored paper, if they use unusual fonts, if the query letter is so badly written there is no point in opening the book, then the slush pile reader puts it right back into the SASE. If there is no SASE they throw it away. In fact, they can reject anything that doesn't use the standard manuscript format that every writer should know. Only then do they have to start judging the quality. Sometimes authors send cookies to bribe the slush reader, but that's a pretty good tip that the book is no good.

So that element of the slush pile, done by authors who can't follow rules, is probably filtered out by the technical needs of Amazon and the other online book sellers. If you can't follow those rules, your upload won't go through. There's also no way to upload cookies to Amazon.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Vyrl said:


> I find it pretty amazing how many are actually very well written. I read a great Indie book a while back -- "Dawn of Destiny." All indie, but very well done.


I know there are many well written indie books out there. Are they all well written? No. But many of them are. And since I spent quite a long time on CritiqueCircle, I know there are great novels that haven't been published. Most of those authors are going the traditional route. Good luck. It saddens me to think how many of these great books I've read won't ever be read by anyone.

Vicki


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

Victorine said:


> It saddens me to think how many of these great books I've read won't ever be read by anyone.


Not to get too philosophical here, but sometimes I think the same thing about kids who don't get the chance to become great sports stars, or doctors, or whatever. Because their parents can't afford it, or they don't have access to the right schools or facilities, etc. I wonder how many kids out there could be as good as (or better than?) LeBron James or Maria Sharapova, but they'll never get the chance to find out.

There are so many things in life that are unfair or sad to think about, but... well, c'est la vie. I like to think that most people find their purpose and fulfillment in other ways and places. That's the beauty of human nature. 

Kristan


----------



## L.J. Sellers novelist (Feb 28, 2010)

I read the Salon article and have been thinking about slush piles and gatekeepers for while. The timing of it coincided with a new website/screening service I'd become aware of so I blogged about the issue. Stop in and let me know what you think.
http://ljsellers.com/wordpress/the-new-gatekeepers#more-1552
L.J.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

As a reader I don't understand all this fuss about "having to read the slushpile yourself." Out of all the books in the world, only a certain percentage interest me to start with. There are whole genres you couldn't pay me enough to read under any circumstances. Reading descriptions of those that might suit me eliminates another considerable percentage. Then I get down to samples. It's not as if I have to sample every book put out on Monday, June 28th, to find those that I might be interested in reading.


----------



## EllenR (Mar 31, 2009)

Bring on the slush. I like to make choices for myself, thank you very much! I particularly like having an alternative when big publishers decide they can charge more for ebooks than paperbacks.


----------



## lonestar (Feb 9, 2010)

EllenR said:


> Bring on the slush. I like to make choices for myself, thank you very much! I particularly like having an alternative when big publishers decide they can charge more for ebooks than paperbacks.


yeah baby!


----------



## RyanMWilliams (May 28, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> This article acts like people choose what books they read by randomly picking one off a shelf. If people go by recommendations of friends, they'll not be affected by the slush. If they read reviews, they'll avoid the really bad slush. They go by best-selling lists, and they'll not be affected by the terrible slush (usually).
> 
> It's also ignoring that really, really bad writers will still need to write descriptions (with bad writing being visible within that as well). They'll need to make covers, which may also prove as solid warnings. Then figure that everyone needs visibility somehow. If a writer is terrible, how will he do that? By intelligent posts on a blog? Well-written posts on a forum?
> 
> ...


I completely agree with David. We've got all sorts of ways to filter out the already huge mass of titles that are published each year. According to Bowker over 49,000 new fiction titles in 2009 alone. Obviously people don't wade through all of those titles to find the ones they want. Favorite authors, recommendations from friends, family, librarians, reviewers all are used. And yes, the sample preview is excellent. Plus the tools available to see best sellers, etc.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Two more thoughts (well, three):

1.) Somebody upstream was worried about having to sample everything. It sounds bad, but the more I think about it the less of a labor I realize it really is. The thing is, sampling is a labor when you talk about traditional publishing - you're in a bookstore, or even online, and you are in "shopping mode" because you're going to have make a decision. You're analyzing, weighing pros and cons, making a judgment - because it isn't just money, but also your time that you are worried about spending. You're not in "reading mode" where you just relax and give yourself up to a book. And this is true whether you're looking over slush or best-sellers.

But ebooks change that. Sampling is the wonderful thing about ebook readers. You don't have to make a decision every time you come across a book you might like - just send a sample to your Kindle and it will keep it for years if necessary. You can look at it at your leisure. Wait until some day you are in the mood for reading something new (not shopping) and just browse through your samples. Not only do you read it in your relaxed "reading mode" but if it grabs you, you can purchase and continue reading it right then, while you're interested.

2.) I think the people who are worried about the slushpile are underestimating the amount of work it takes to self-publish. Yes, there will be some really delusional bad authors who get through the process and keep going. But just formatting the dang manuscript for conversion, getting a cover done, writing book description will be beyond most of the idle sorts who thought they'd toss their memoirs out there because anybody can write a dang book. Yeah, they might get a nephew to upload it for them, but the book description itself will be so awful you won't even consider looking at a sample.

I've read slush. There's a reason why most agents and editors and producers use the query system. It really does cut down on wasted time.

3.) And having read slush before, I can say that it isn't that hard if you don't have to assess every dang script in the pile. If you don't have to account to someone else for the results, it's just like shopping for a book among traditionally published fiction. You can make snap judgments just like you do now. Unlike a slush reader, you don't have to worry about missing that diamond in the rough. You just have to find _a_ good book, not all good books.

Camille


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

I agree, no one will have to read through the slush if they don't want to.  Really, if a book has just been uploaded to the Kindle DTP system, does it even come up when you go looking for a good mystery to read?  Nope.  Look at the books that come up when you're searching for a book.  It's the books that are selling the best, and have the highest ratings.  Slush?  No.

Do you love all the books that come up in your searches on Amazon?  No, of course not.  But we know what we like, and we know how to find the books that we like.  Have we ever bought a book and then been disappointed?  Sure.  That's not going to change.  But I think this idea that we'll all be wading through the slush pile is a load of malarkey.  In order for a book to show up, it has to be selling well.  Bad books won't sell well.  Period.  I don't care how much money someone spends in advertising.

Vicki


----------



## Imogen Rose (Mar 22, 2010)

Victorine said:


> I know there are many well written indie books out there. Are they all well written? No. But many of them are. And since I spent quite a long time on CritiqueCircle, I know there are great novels that haven't been published. Most of those authors are going the traditional route. Good luck. It saddens me to think how many of these great books I've read won't ever be read by anyone.
> 
> Vicki


ITA, I have read some great indie books recently and want everyone to be able to find and enjoy them.


----------



## jonconnington (Mar 20, 2010)

I think a lot of indie writers will have to console themselves with the idea that they’ll won’t be the next Stephen King any time soon. Laura Miller does make a good point that sometimes there can be too much choice – when so much new fiction is being put out there, finding diamonds in the rough can be more of a challenge than in the past. Books that get lucky or get some form of attention will stand out from the pack, something like that is more the exception then the norm.

Will it hurt writers as whole? Well, consider that even back in the ‘good old days’ most writers, like most actors, musicians and other creative types, were never able to make a living from their craft. They did it because they loved it, but paid the bills with their day jobs.  That at least hasn’t changed. What will likely happen is that new ways of filtering out the muck will emerge, hopefully ones that aren’t controlled by the publishing industry or mainstream media. Instead of one or two big reviewers in the NY Times, there might be dozens of independent blogs and websites, catering to various genres, that people turn to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Word of mouth is key, and don’t count out submitting to the bloggers (especially useful if you’re writing genre fiction….) And even then you’re still just one fish in a really crowded sea, so having realistic expectations goes a long way. I went into the indie racket knowing full well what the odds were…and I’m good with that, it’s more than I would have done submitting the old fashioned way…


----------



## JumpingShip (Jun 3, 2010)

I have to say that I'm actively looking for indie books when I'm searching Amazon. I have specific kinds of books I'm looking for and I don't think they are the same kinds of books that agents and publishers are looking for, so that means I'm most likely going to find them in the so called 'slush' pile. 

My tastes aren't weird, they are just out of date. I want books like I found in the 80s and early 90s. Stuff like LaVryle Spencer used to write or the Abyss, Sphere, and Clan of the Cave Bear. Instead, there are zombies and vampires. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just not my cup of tea. So, I willingly hunt through the slush, as one person garbage is another's treasure.


----------



## jonconnington (Mar 20, 2010)

I've said this before and I'll say it again...as an indie author the biggest challenge isn't writing the book, its promoting it. So I think we as a community have an obligation to at least try to raise the standards of the product being put out there. If a large part of it is slush, then it will tar the whol self-published category as a whole, amking it more difficult for good books to gain traction, especially since the choices available seem to he growing exponentially.

And while we're at it...maybe we should take a second look at the 99 cent price that seems to be the default for a lot of Kindle Downloads?


----------



## Vyrl (Jun 7, 2010)

jonconnington said:


> I've said this before and I'll say it again...as an indie author the biggest challenge isn't writing the book, its promoting it.


The first challenge is writing a book readers enjoy -- and that's very difficult. The next challenge is finding and keeping an audience. Which, on your own, is nearly impossible.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Vyrl said:


> The first challenge is writing a book readers enjoy -- and that's very difficult. The next challenge is finding and keeping an audience. Which, on your own, is nearly impossible.


I wouldn't say that... I know some indie authors doing quite well at it. Actually, quite a few.

Vicki


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

R. Reed said:


> I'm working on my time travel story set in the 1930's. I must say, research is so easy these days. I wanted to know how to start and drive a Model T, and I found a video of a man explaining it, without moving from my chair.
> 
> The story is almost 4,000 words and has a ways to go, so this is going to be a longish short story. I think it's a great new idea, so I'm going to try magazines like F&SF and Asimov's. I haven't had any luck with them before, but I can always hope.


Um that's great, and I wish you luck... but how does it relate to slush? Did you accidentally post in the wrong thread?

Kristan


----------



## R. M. Reed (Nov 11, 2009)

Why, yes. Yes I did. Sorry. I erased it from above and I will put it in the correct thread.

Nothing more to see here folks. Move along.


----------



## jonconnington (Mar 20, 2010)

Vyrl said:


> The first challenge is writing a book readers enjoy -- and that's very difficult. The next challenge is finding and keeping an audience. Which, on your own, is nearly impossible.


Probably should have mentioned that as well...of course every one of us believes wholeheartedly that we have the next great American Novel just waiting to emerge from the depths of our mind....


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2010)

Kristan Hoffman said:


> I think it's closer to YouTube than indie films. The barrier to entry for indie filmmaking vs. writing a book is much, much higher. But YouTubing can be done by virtually anyone.
> 
> To your point, lol, there ARE people who like watching a cat bang on a piano. Or riding a roomba. Or getting licked by a fox...
> 
> Kristan


This is a brilliant point. Indie films. and indie musicians as well, are a different animal from self-publishers. Disturbed self-produced their last album (and their upcoming album) but they also employed all of the tools of a normal producer. I don't equate Disturbed "self-producing" as the same as Joe Schmoe recording something on a tape player in his basement and uploading it online.

I think the big problem is not a surge in self-published books in and of itself. The problem is the serious authors not being willing to differentiate themselves from the hacks. The reason why you have an indie film industry is that in many ways they self-regulate. They don't offer fluffy bunny support to every hack under some misguided notion of comraderie or "sticking it to the movie houses." Same thing in the music industry. There is a dividing line between the true "indie scene" and the hacks with an instrument. And in both cases, you don't hear a constant opining about the "industry" being inherently evil. In fact, in most cases you hear that the standard industry simply didn't suit what the creator wanted to accomplish.

If there is going to be a thriving, successful indie author community, it will take more than blind "support" of every person that claims to be an author. Sometimes, it will mean biting criticism of those that want to sell trash to the public. Sometimes, it will mean heated arguments over processes. Sometimes, it will mean a willingness to speak the truth even if it means someone's feelings might be hurt. Because the true difference between thriving art communities and the indie writing community is that we have yet to place the* art * about our *egos. * We won't say negative things about other people's works, because we are still afraid they might say something negative about ours. We respond to negative comments with calls of "grammar nazi," "elitist", etc. Or, we do like someone recently did to me after I sent a rejection letter to him...we get petty and go troll Amazon and leave one-star reviews on the other person's books.

We keep hearing our grandmothers in our ears telling us, "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything." Well, that's a load of crap, and its a load of crap perpetuated by an entitlement society that rewards just showing up and shuns actual effort. As a writer, your loyalty should be first and formost to the craft, which means pushing each other to do better...to get better...for the benefit of the reader.

I think the original argument is correct in that, if we don't somehow differentiate the cream from the rot, readers will become overwhelmed. We all do when confronted with too mant options. Our society is on information overload. On the other hand, if we ourselves demand standards of each other, and push each other to not just publish, but to excel, then we can have a thriving indie writing community that will be of benefit to readers.


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

Julie (Bards & Sages),

I have one thing to say to you: ROCK. ON.

You expressed an important aspect of this discussion extremely eloquently.

Thank you,
Kristan


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

I've been on both sides of this argument with _Risen_. First, I couldn't find a publisher, so I self-published. And people thought, "It must be crap if he's self-publishing."

Then Time-Warner bought _Risen _ as an ebook. Suddenly I had some street cred. Then Time-Warner's epublishing division went away and it was back to self-publishing, and _Risen _ was crap again.

Then I got a literary agent and he sold _Risen _ to Pinnacle Books, an imprint of Kensington Publishing in NYC. Suddenly _Risen _ was good again! It was in stores for six months, and then out of print for six years.

Now I have the rights back, and I've issued it as an ebook, and God-only knows what people think of it.

_Risen _ has been optioned for a feature film five times ("It's great!") but no film has ever been made ("It's crap!").

It all just wears me out.

But now it's out there again, and people can sample it (or not) and buy it (or not) and make their own decisions!


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

JanStrnad said:


> I've been on both sides of this argument with _Risen_. First, I couldn't find a publisher, so I self-published. And people thought, "It must be crap if he's self-publishing."
> 
> Then Time-Warner bought _Risen _ as an ebook. Suddenly I had some street cred. Then Time-Warner's epublishing division went away and it was back to self-publishing, and _Risen _ was crap again.
> 
> ...


If it's had that much success, I would be very surprised if it was crap.  Good luck with selling it on the Kindle.

Vicki


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

Well, at least you must have made good money on five separate film options. That's worth something.


----------



## john_a_karr (Jun 21, 2010)

Quite a ride you're having with Risen, Jan. Interesting how the perspectives change and yet the book remains the same through it all. Self-pub, Publisher-pub, whatever ... sounds like a good book to me. Have you been marketing the film optioned aspect? Sometimes that can grab a reader's attention, though from what I've read so many works are optioned but very few are made into movies. Still, it is a selling point, I'd think. 

Didn't know Disturbed self-produced their latest release. Metallica's best was when a producer really pushed them on the Black Album, but they didn't appreciate being pushed, from the documentary I saw, and when they produced themselves and made St. Anger, it was a flop, imo. 

Guess I'm concluding from this thread what we all probably know. We still need honest editing, intriguing cover art, and some way to connect to readers to make our works known ... do this and we rise to upward in the slush.


----------



## Armadon (Jun 26, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> This article acts like people choose what books they read by randomly picking one off a shelf. If people go by recommendations of friends, they'll not be affected by the slush. If they read reviews, they'll avoid the really bad slush. They go by best-selling lists, and they'll not be affected by the terrible slush (usually).
> 
> It's also ignoring that really, really bad writers will still need to write descriptions (with bad writing being visible within that as well). They'll need to make covers, which may also prove as solid warnings. Then figure that everyone needs visibility somehow. If a writer is terrible, how will he do that? By intelligent posts on a blog? Well-written posts on a forum?
> 
> ...


Wow, David. If I had written a post myself, it would have been word for word what you wrote. Excellent reply. I would only add one small point.

It is sad to say, but most publishers today are looking for the next "marketable title", not the next big hit. Obviously, with each book they take on, there is the hope it will be a big hit, but what ends up happening is the market gets flooded with the same old themes and characters. Do we honestly need another vampire romance? If you read Twilight and loved it, don't bash my head in with a rock quite yet. I liked it too. Well, to be specific, I liked the first book. It was an original take on an age old genre. My beef is not with Twilight. It is with all the other wannabe vampire novels, which flooded the market after twilight. It feels to me as though accountants and lawyers run the modern day publishing companies, not book lovers like me.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

I don't think all indies are going to "raise the bar." Some people are totally oblivious to their shortcomings (I'm probably among them). Writing gets into that weird land of ego and insecurity, because it is such an intimate medium. A lot of people who have multi-rejected books will throw them out there. Probably sell some. Not write any more or bother to build an audience. You probably will never know about them. A few good ones will emerge. You might know about them if they are in genres that interest you., Otherwise, you probably won't.

What is more likely to happen is you find books in your favored genres, both good and bad, just as you did before. Some you will like, and you won't care whether they are "good" or "bad," only that you like them. You'll buy more by the author or more that resemble them, or more that Amazon says "Customers who bought this also bought these titles..."

I have no idea what Lady Gaga sings like, or Brittney Spears, or Miley Cyrus. I would not recognize them if they were beside me in a check-out line. I have successfully avoided them because I am not interested in them. Yet I discover just as much new music as I need in the areas that interest me, and much of it would be considered "bad" by most listeners, because it's not mainstream popular. It wouldn't make the cut of American Idol. But I found it, and it works for me and some other people. Maybe that's all it was meant to do. The rest doesn't bother me. I am not actively "weeding." I am simply moving in the communities that interest me, and that community reinforces the interests. I trust it. A lot. Way more than I do a publishing industry whose sole purpose is to get money from me.

Scott


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

*1.
"Readers themselves rarely complain that there isn't enough of a selection on Amazon or in their local superstore; they're more likely to ask for help in narrowing down their choices. So(...) What happens once the self-publishing revolution really gets going, when all of those previously rejected manuscripts hit the marketplace, en masse, in print and e-book form, swelling the ranks of 99-cent Kindle and iBook offerings by the millions? Is the public prepared to meet the slush pile?"

2."People who have never had the job of reading through the heaps of unsolicited manuscripts sent to anyone even remotely connected with publishing typically have no inkling of two awful facts: 1) just how much slush is out there, and 2) how really, really, really, really terrible the vast majority of it is. Civilians who kvetch about the bad writing of Dan Brown, Stephenie Meyer or any other hugely popular but critically disdained novelist can talk as much trash as they want about the supposedly low standards of traditional publishing. They haven't seen the vast majority of what didn't get published -- and believe me, if you have, it's enough to make your blood run cold, thinking about that stuff being introduced into the general population.*

_I love this quote. It's as if they're warning people not to read the self-published novels, because, because... omg it might be bad. Yes, I need traditional publishing to protect me (tell me what to read) because as one of the ignorant masses I can't figure it out myself. Honestly... This article gave me a chuckle.

Dawn_


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

Dawn McCullough White said:


> _I love this quote. It's as if they're warning people not to read the self-published novels, because, because... omg it might be bad. Yes, I need traditional publishing to protect me (tell me what to read) because as one of the ignorant masses I can't figure it out myself. Honestly... This article gave me a chuckle.
> 
> Dawn_


My understanding of the article: It's not that the masses _can't_ figure out what's bad, it's that the masses could get incredibly frustrated/annoyed/discouraged/overwhelmed in doing so.

Kristan


----------



## Vyrl (Jun 7, 2010)

Victorine said:


> I wouldn't say that... I know some indie authors doing quite well at it. Actually, quite a few.
> 
> Vicki


I said nearly impossible. Not entirely impossible


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

Kristan Hoffman said:


> My understanding of the article: It's not that the masses _can't_ figure out what's bad, it's that the masses could get incredibly frustrated/annoyed/discouraged/overwhelmed in doing so.
> 
> Kristan


_Yes, but so what? Are they suggesting we need traditional publishing as the gatekeeper to stop the slush pile/self published authors from having their novels read? Because it sounds that way.

It sounds like they're trying to "protect" the masses from being "frustrated/annoyed/discouraged/overwhelmed" by the writing of authors not specifically okay'd by big business. It really sounds like they're trying to scare people into believing that we need to cling to the traditional publishing business because otherwise they might end up having to "wade through the slush pile" and that may be "frustrating/annoying/discouraging/overwhelming for folks.

I don't know, perhaps I'm missing the point. To me the point is about freedom of choice which they seem like they'd take away in a heartbeat if they could recoup some of the sales the indie books are obviously making.

Dawn_


----------



## Vyrl (Jun 7, 2010)

Dawn McCullough White said:


> _Yes, but so what? Are they suggesting we need traditional publishing as the gatekeeper to stop the slush pile/self published authors from having their novels read? Because it sounds that way.
> 
> It sounds like they're trying to "protect" the masses from being "frustrated/annoyed/discouraged/overwhelmed" by the writing of authors not specifically okay'd by big business. It really sounds like they're trying to scare people into believing that we need to cling to the traditional publishing business because otherwise they might end up having to "wade through the slush pile" and that may be "frustrating/annoying/discouraging/overwhelming for folks.
> 
> Dawn_


In my opinion, it's all overblown. When I go to a store and am interested in a book, I pick it up, read a few pages. If I like it, I bring it home with me. If I don't, I put it down.

In recent years, I've read as many indie books that were well-written, enjoyable, and polished as I've read published works which I also enjoyed. And, every now and then, a great indie author I knew or read, at some point or another, gets picked up or goes mainstream.

It's important to remember that C.S. Lewis self-published. So did Paolini. Mark Twain?? Couldn't get _Huckleberry Finn_ published to save his life. So he published the darn thing himself. Good thing he went indie, isn't it?

I think readers know what's good and what's not and are quite capable of picking and choosing for themselves. They don't need anyone telling them anything. They're not dumb sheep needing guidance. They're not the 'unwashed masses.'

They are us.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

Vyrl said:


> I think readers know what's good and what's not and are quite capable of picking and choosing for themselves. They don't need anyone telling them anything. They're not dumb sheep needing guidance. They're not the 'unwashed masses.'
> 
> They are us.


Yes, exactly.


----------



## ErichSysak (Jun 23, 2010)

I've worked in big publishing and the truth is more often than not books chosen and touted as "good books" were chosen for reasons you, as a reader, wouldn't care about: how famous the person is or will be, who he/she knew or knows in New York. What kind of platform they think the author has or can create, etc...Not much thought goes into story.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

You put your finger on it, Erich. It is the publishing *business*, after all, and they want to make money. If you can make them money, or they think you can, you're in. Quality is important, but so is name recognition. Which of the two is more important? The latter, of course. It's business!


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

Vyrl said:


> I think readers know what's good and what's not and are quite capable of picking and choosing for themselves. They don't need anyone telling them anything. They're not dumb sheep needing guidance. They're not the 'unwashed masses.'


And that, of course, is why we're all crazy about having our books reviewed.... because people don't need others to tell them anything... is that what you're saying?


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Guido Henkel said:


> And that, of course, is why we're all crazy about having our books reviewed.... because people don't need others to tell them anything... is that what you're saying?


I think you're being a little harsh. We need reviews for people to be able to make informed decisions about our material. It's not like anyone expects a reader to go "Wow, this one has 200 star ratings compared to this other one with 150. I'll buy the 200 star since it is a better book!"

David Dalglish


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

I've read slush, and I think part of the problem with industry professionals is that they have a warped view of slush.  

Because they HAVE to read it.  It's an unending labor.  They have to read (or at least analytically sample) every bit of it. They log it and track it. Furthermore, they have to find very rare stuff in there - not just something that strikes their fancy. They have to find something that they know will get a committee excited to pay your salary, and then not blame you if something goes wrong.

But if you don't have to read and log and track it all - if all you do is rummage around in it - slush is actually fun.  Because it's exactly what nearly all of us have done when we find a shelf of books at grandma's house, or a table of books at a rummage sale.  It's easy to find something that strikes your fancy.  (As every intern has learned to his or her chagrin - the boss won't like ninety-five percent of what you liked.)

Yes, reading slush for professionals is frustrating and mind-numbing.  For the consumer, it's no problem at all. 

Camille


----------



## skp23 (Sep 24, 2009)

I can see both sides.  

On the one hand, I think media consolidation in general is terrible (and I'm using "media" very broadly, referring to everything from music publishing to news to book publishing).  Getting published is certainly as much or more about politics and economics as the quality of the story and writing.  There are certainly excesses in the industry that drive up prices, and I am among those who would argue that the traditional distribution model that most publishing houses are clinging to are seriously outdated and flawed.

In theory, the idea of unlimited choice is appealing, but in practice, I *do* think it could be frustrating.  I look at my experiences buying "apps" for smartphones (blackberry/iphone/android/whatever).  There is so much garbage in those app stores - stuff that is poorly programmed, doesn't work well, doesn't live up to its billing, etc., that frankly I got frustrated and just stopped buying.  It was too time consuming to wade through all the garbage to find the few gems.  It's easy enough to have a few friends go online and post rave reviews about your product, whether that be an indie book or an app or whatever, which can make the product look more appealing than it is.  I think we also have to remember, as we're making these arguments - this is a a board full of dedicated, heavy readers.  We're online talking about books.  This particular audience *will* take the time to read samples, wade through the slush, and do the research necessary to find good books.  I think the vast majority of the population, the people who read a few books a year, will not.  I'm guessing they'll continue to grab the book with the flashy cover or the one on the bestseller list, the one with good amazon reviews or the one that amazon pulls up in the "suggested for you" section.  I think these people will start to see more crap, and that will become frustrating to them, and they may in turn buy even fewer books, turning instead to other, increasingly prevalent forms of media.

Also, for me personally, a major publisher *does* provide some assurance - I know the book at least had an editor.  Maybe it still turned out crappy, but probably at least a little less crappy than it otherwise would have.  The same can't be said for a lot of indie stuff.

I also think a society produces more/better art, literature, and music when talented people can make a living from their art/writing/music and can devote full-time resources to their craft.  I'm glad that traditional publishing affords my favorite writers a living, so they can devote their time to writing more books and don't have to hold down a day job.  If the publishing industry ceased to exist, would people still be able to make a living writing books?  I ask this because I really have no idea - but can an indie writer actually make a living selling 99 cent ebooks on amazon?  

That was long-winded (I need an editor).  To summarize: I think there's good and bad to both traditional publishing and indie publishing.  I'm not sure which set of pros outweighs the cons.


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

Half-Orc said:


> I think you're being a little harsh. We need reviews for people to be able to make informed decisions about our material. It's not like anyone expects a reader to go "Wow, this one has 200 star ratings compared to this other one with 150. I'll buy the 200 star since it is a better book!"
> 
> David Dalglish


Actually it was meant in jest, somewhat.


----------



## ErichSysak (Jun 23, 2010)

I can 'sort-of' tell when the reviews are fake. And Amazon has the Top 100 or 200 reviewers and I think those are genuine.


----------



## Jan Strnad (May 27, 2010)

"I'm glad that traditional publishing affords my favorite writers a living, so they can devote their time to writing more books and don't have to hold down a day job."

In most cases, they can't.

A study some years back came up with $5500/year as average income from writing, for writers. Most writers need a day job, despite being professionally published. This is why so many "literary" writers teach school. Others work at ad agencies or do something else to put food on the table.

When _Risen _ was published as a mass market paperback, I received a $5000 advance. Supposedly it earned no more royalties (Kensington wouldn't send me a sales report and I didn't sue them for an audit, so I don't know how close it came). I've received another $5000 in film options.

So, that's $10,000 for nine months' work writing the book, fifteen months finding an agent, a year spent shopping it around, so that it could be published for six months and disappear for six years while the publisher held onto the rights without reissuing it.

I couldn't afford to write another book!


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Guido Henkel said:


> Actually it was meant in jest, somewhat.


Oh, then my sarcasm detector needs fixed again. Sorry 

David Dalglish


----------



## mparish6 (Apr 14, 2010)

I think that slush is in a sense very much like the Internet. It can be extremely difficult sometimes to find exactly what you're looking for online, if only because there are so many options and so many of them are worthless. On the other hand, you don't hear anyone demanding that online content be censored before it's posted by qualified editors and publishers so that consumers can have the best options available, now, do you?

The fact is that with self-publishing(just as with the internet) there will be a huge variety of content out there. Much of it may not be worth reading; much of it may go unnoticed. But the market is quite capable of deciding what is and is not a good book without a filter to screen what does and doesn't go to print.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Lee Goldberg has some comments about self-publishing on his current blog page:

http://leegoldberg.typepad.com/a_writers_life/2010/07/the-kindle-isnt-a-short-cut-for-authors.html

Full interview at:

http://kindle-author.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-lee-goldberg.html

Mike


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Guido Henkel said:


> Invariably it will create problems. You will have increasing number of people who will be unhappy with their purchases because the books they bought - even at 99 cents - will be disappointments. To think that a good book will automatically be successful is not very realistic, I'm afraid, and countless other industries have proven that before. The problem exists already - I, for example don't even look at 99 cent books any more - and the growth of the slush pile will extrapolate that. The fact that good books - like Victorine's - never got a chance with publishers doesn't mean they are merely negligent. However, their process also makes sure that countless of the truly "unworthy" books have never seen the light of day and out of those books, I would guess, 50% deservedly so. To unleash those 50% onto the unsuspecting public can never be a good idea no matter how much on love we all are with our own work.


I agree. The slush pile is now moving to Amazon. With a click, anybody can put anything up as a book. While that offers tremendous freedom and, one could argue, democratizes and opens up publishing, the flipside is that it's going to be harder and harder to find the good stuff and for anything to emerge and get noticed from underneath all that slush. It could turn off a lot of readers from taking chances on authors they aren't already familiar with...or to equate free-to-$2.99 books with crap.
Lee


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Fortunately we can choose to read books that we wish, or not to read books from someone who feels compelled to save use from our selves.


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

intinst said:


> Fortunately we can choose to read books that we wish, or not to read books from someone who feels compelled to save use from our selves.


You're reading into my comment stuff that simply isn't there. Is there some reason you want to twist my words into something you can use for a personal attack? It's actually possible to discuss an issue with making it personal.

I have not set myself up in any way as some who "feels compelled to save use from ourselves."

As a reader, I have no desire to waste my time wading through unpublishable slush to find good books.

As an author with both self-published and professionally published books on the Kindle, I don't want my work lost in an oil slick of swill...and I don't want potential readers driven away by slush fatigue. I think that's a real worry.

Like it or not, the system as it stands -- getting accepted by an agent, then by an editor, then by a publisher, then by bookstores buyers, then by readers -- does weed out a lot of inferior work and provides a gatekeeper function that is beneficial to readers. Is it perfect? Hell no. Is it the best possible system? Hell no. Does it mean good work doesn't get overlooked, or that the system isn't abused or manipulated... or that it couldn't be better. No, of course not.

But I would argue that, unlike what some people have said here, the majority of stuff that doesn't get published is rejected because it's awful. Still other books are rejected not because they are bad, but because they don't meet the publisher's particular needs... or it fails their profit and loss calculation (ie, it won't make enough money to merit acquisition, publishing and marketing). Publishers do need to make a profit in order to continue paying authors and printing books. And bookstores need to keep selling books in order to stay in business. And that figures into the decisions behind which books they will publish... and which they won't.

Saying that this makes publishing is a popularity contest, that only big names get published, is simplistic, naive and wrong. Every bestselling author, every brand-name talent, was a first-time, unknown author once. To say that publishers never nurture talent is also wrong...Harlan Coben was a mid-list author for years before he finally broke through. Sue Grafton didn't start out big...it took three or four books before she caught on. There are hundreds of such examples.

Yes, the midlist is shrinking. Yes, publishing relies on big names to pay the bills. But there are new books published by unknowns every day. Nobody heard of JK Rowling before Harry Potter. Or Steig Larsson before Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. And it took two or three books before Dan Brown broke through with DaVinci Code.

Publishing is changing. No question about it. So is television. But to say either industry is dead...and that the Kindle and the computer screen will take over for the book and the television is, I think, very premature. E-books are still a small, albeit growing, percentage of publishing...but print is still how most people read books. Filling e-readers with the publisher's slush pile is not going to entice those book-readers to the Kindle, the Nook, and the iPad.

Lee


----------



## RJ Keller (Mar 9, 2009)

> (Intinst) Fortunately we can choose to read books that we wish, or not to read books from someone who feels compelled to save use from our selves.





> (Mr. Goldberg) I have not set myself up in any way as some who "feels compelled to save use from ourselves."
> 
> As a reader, I have no desire to waste my time wading through unpublishable slush to find good books.
> 
> As an author with both self-published and professionally published books on the Kindle, I don't want my work lost in an oil slick of swill...and I don't want potential readers driven away by slush fatigue. I think that's a real worry.


I think you don't give book lovers enough credit. They're generally not stupid, nor are they lazy. And first generation Kindle owners - the people who were willing to pay four hundred bucks for the convenience and freedom of having thousands of books at their fingertips, the demographic that makes up the good majority of this board - have got to be the book-lovingest people on the planet. They're not going to say, "Ack!!! I'm awash in the oil of crappy self-published books! How ever will I find anything good?!?!?" They're discerning enough to get it.


----------



## CJ West (Feb 24, 2010)

daringnovelist said:


> But if you don't have to read and log and track it all - if all you do is rummage around in it - slush is actually fun. Camille


Camille, this is a brilliant point. I have tried reading slush (pre-published) and it is a horrific job. While I truly hated reading slush, rummaging around through a pile of books is fun. I have a TBR pile that is 3' high just for that reason. I want choices.

CJ


----------



## mparish6 (Apr 14, 2010)

For anyone who truly believes the free market can't sort out the gems from the dross and that qualified expert editors make better decisions, permit me to recommend to you a book entitled The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations by James Surowiecki. To be quite honest, I think there's no reason why the general public can't appropriately decide the worth of a book - indeed, it may do a _better_ job than the editors since it knows its own tastes. (A lot of the books editors do choose end up losing money.) Sure, you could argue that there's far more self-published sludge out there than any one of us could ever swill. But there's no need to do so, because anything that's worthwhile eventually rises to the top. Think about YouTube (whether fortunately or unfortunately, I've never actually watched anything on YouTube, but I know how it works). There must be a gazillion videos on YouTube right now - more than any human being could ever watch in a lifetime. But those of us who enjoy watching funny YouTube videos are able to find them without any effort, because the best of the lot get more votes.

The interesting thing here is that what's happening to publishing isn't really different or new. It's merely a replay of what's happened to encyclopedias. And journalism. And the music industry. Wikipedia is my favorite example. An encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit ought in theory to be absolutely worthless. And yet their information is often excellent; their article on RNA interference, for instance, is actually more informative on the subject than my college-level cell biology textbook. So let's face it: the Internet is engendering a revolution in how content is made and distributed. That revolution will have both good and bad consequences. It's going to be much more difficult for authors to get attention and make money, but if you went into writing for the money, something tells me you picked the wrong career. If you don't like the look of the road ahead, well, you may be in for a rough ride, because you can't put the Internet genie back in the bottle now...


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

While there may be things for which the wisdom of the crowds may be useful, recommending books for me is not one of them.   

They didn't do so well with that whole sun revolving around the earth thing.


Mike


----------



## LeeGoldberg (Jun 12, 2009)

Laura Miller made an argument in her Salon article that bears repeating...since it seems to have been overlooked in this discussion:

"Perhaps this system will work better, but I'm not so sure. Contrary to the way they're often depicted by frustrated authors, the agents and editors I've met are in fact committed to finding and nurturing books and authors they believe in as well as books that will sell. Also, bloggers or self-appointed experts on particular genres and types of writing are, in my experience, just as clubby and as likely to plug or promote their friends and associates as anybody else. Above all, this possible future doesn't eliminate gatekeepers: It just sets up new ones, equally human and no doubt equally flawed. How long before the authors neglected by the new breed of tastemaker begin to accuse them of being out-of-touch, biased dinosaurs?"


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

ErichSysak said:


> I've worked in big publishing and the truth is more often than not books chosen and touted as "good books" were chosen for reasons you, as a reader, wouldn't care about: how famous the person is or will be, who he/she knew or knows in New York. What kind of platform they think the author has or can create, etc...Not much thought goes into story.


Wow. I figured as much, but I like hearing you say it because it validates my suspicions. I had one bad experience (they published me under the wrong genre - the very genre that actively dislikes like my book), and I witnessed a much worse one (The author is now out of print, and apparently can't even re-publish on Kindle).

It's like trying to get into a fraternity or a sorority. Ask yourself if you really want to live with those people before you go through some hair-raising hazing process, and then kill yourself when they turn you down.


----------



## Five String (Jun 6, 2010)

I'm glad Kristan started this thread, but as the numerous posts preceding mine, and several years of Kindle owners buying self-published books shows, it's really not a useful point at all.  Somehow all those people found good ebooks without the help of agents and publishers. How did they find Karen McQuestion? Besides, if it were the case that ebook readers are having trouble wading through all the slush, why isn't everyone turned off to the reader devices themselves? Why are Kindles and Nooks and Sonys and iPads and every other reader gobber thingie selling like crazy, more all the time? Sounds like the Salon gal who wrote the article was racing a deadline and needed something to fill a few column inches, or pixels or whatever you call them online.

Anyone jumping on this thread at this point, just read the first few replies from David Dalglish and Victorine Leiske(sp?)(I'm so much of an internet retard that I can't write this post and go back and see how to spell her last name at the same time) They say it all. 

While I'm at it, the cover of Victorine's book, Not What She Seems, is as good or better than anything I've ever seen by any big art department at a publisher. Every time I get on a thread where she's posting my eyes go straight to that cover.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Nell Gavin said:


> but I like hearing you say it because it validates my suspicions.


Tsk, tsk. Not very scientific. You're supposed to look for things that _in_validate your suspicions.  

Mike


----------



## Five String (Jun 6, 2010)

Oaky, forget my last post (I know, I know, you've all been waiting for my posts with bated breath) 

I've got a much better idea. 

Everyone who thinks it's really impossible to find good indie books, like Lee and the author of the article Kristan cited at the beginning of this thread, why not go give it a try? Haunt this and whatever other message boards you feel like, see what other people are recommending, go look at the covers, read the synopses, (kind of the online version of what you'd do at a bookstore) and see if you can find something you like. Personally, I think you won't have a problem 'wading through the slush' and finding good (excellent?) things to read. But why take my or anyone else's word for it? Give it a try. I think that's why we're all here in the first place. Because we've all found those undiscovered (I'm not sure that term has muich meaning in this context) authors that are now our favorites.


----------



## Victorine (Apr 23, 2010)

Five String said:


> I'm glad Kristan started this thread, but as the numerous posts preceding mine, and several years of Kindle owners buying self-published books shows, it's really not a useful point at all. Somehow all those people found good ebooks without the help of agents and publishers. How did they find Karen McQuestion? Besides, if it were the case that ebook readers are having trouble wading through all the slush, why isn't everyone turned off to the reader devices themselves? Why are Kindles and Nooks and Sonys and iPads and every other reader gobber thingie selling like crazy, more all the time? Sounds like the Salon gal who wrote the article was racing a deadline and needed something to fill a few column inches, or pixels or whatever you call them online.
> 
> Anyone jumping on this thread at this point, just read the first few replies from David Dalglish and Victorine Leiske(sp?)(I'm so much of an internet retard that I can't write this post and go back and see how to spell her last name at the same time) They say it all.
> 
> While I'm at it, the cover of Victorine's book, Not What She Seems, is as good or better than anything I've ever seen by any big art department at a publisher. Every time I get on a thread where she's posting my eyes go straight to that cover.


Thanks Christopher! That's such an awesome compliment. 

Vicki


----------



## rcordiner (Jul 4, 2010)

Is there another - more positive way to look at it - yes you may get a few average books - to find a gem - but most of you will have read at least one independently authored book and enjoyed it.  I am overjoyed that my books have had a couple of readers and so far (touch wood) they have enjoyed it.  Is it not amazing that I am on a laptop in Australia and I spent two years writing those books -and now others can enjoy them?

I think people may be forgetting that you can always download the sample - which is generally a fairly good litmus test - and also how many books have you paid much more than $2.99 for and been disappointed?  The same for movies that you thought looked good and weren't.  At least with these books you get to read 30% or so of the book before you pay a (relatively) small amount to read the rest.  (Can you say the same with a movie?)  

Just my 5c.


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

I think this will be a very important role of book bloggers in the next few years--instead of all getting the same ARCs of the same bestsellers at the same time (which is brilliantly effective for publishers), progressive bloggers can take on the gatekeeper role for their audience. It's going to be another element of the diversified future, roles already being filled by Red Adept and Kindle Obsessed and the like. Over time, we will all develop sources we can trust.

I just blogged about this yesterday at http://hauntedcomputer.blogspot.com

Anyone who takes a chance on an indie book, and especially someone blogging about the good and bad, truly has my admiration!

Scott Nicholson


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

I have yet to find an indie/electronic book blogger whose taste I really share or trust, though. Red Adept is pleasant and literate, but she's a lot more generous in her assessments than I am!


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

LeeGoldberg said:


> Laura Miller made an argument in her Salon article that bears repeating...since it seems to have been overlooked in this discussion:
> 
> "Perhaps this system will work better, but I'm not so sure. Contrary to the way they're often depicted by frustrated authors, the agents and editors I've met are in fact committed to finding and nurturing books and authors they believe in as well as books that will sell. Also, bloggers or self-appointed experts on particular genres and types of writing are, in my experience, just as clubby and as likely to plug or promote their friends and associates as anybody else. Above all, this possible future doesn't eliminate gatekeepers: It just sets up new ones, equally human and no doubt equally flawed. How long before the authors neglected by the new breed of tastemaker begin to accuse them of being out-of-touch, biased dinosaurs?"


But those clubby blogs and self-appointed tastemakers are NOT gatekeepers - which is the big difference. The work is still available.

And... there's nothing wrong with clubby tastemakers. We join those clubs because people have similar tastes as ours. And anybody can set up a "club." Including delusional authors.

That's how crowd-sourcing works. You pick your crowd.

Camille


----------



## G. Henkel (Jan 12, 2010)

scottnicholson said:


> I think this will be a very important role of book bloggers in the next few years--instead of all getting the same ARCs of the same bestsellers at the same time (which is brilliantly effective for publishers), progressive bloggers can take on the gatekeeper role for their audience. It's going to be another element of the diversified future, roles already being filled by Red Adept and Kindle Obsessed and the like. Over time, we will all develop sources we can trust.
> 
> I just blogged about this yesterday at http://hauntedcomputer.blogspot.com
> 
> ...


Scott you have some good articles on your blog there, and I agree that the Internet in particular will play a major role in giving exposure to books, hopefully helping good works to bubble to the surface more easily, especially once this affinity of which you speak sets in and people begin to look at certain bloggers the way moviegoers look at Roger Ebert.


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

davidhburton said:


> Personally, I see any book I purchase as being in the slush pile. You need to grab my attention with a decent cover and description. Then if I like the sample, I'll buy. Simple. I can make my own decisions as to what's worth reading.


Jumping in late on this thread, but what David said is true for a lot of readers. They're not hung up on who the publisher is (or perhaps isn't). If a cover captures their attention, if the back cover or inside flap description intrigue them, they'll open up to the first chapter and read a sample. Based on that, they'll make up their own minds whether to buy or not.

I review for the http://historicalnovelreview.blogspot.com/ and since we're open to self-published works, we're getting an increasing number of those submissions. Our reviewers check the descriptions, read a sample and then decide if they like that enough to accept the whole book. We don't accept all submissions offered for review. We have found some gems among them, though. Those that are really well written are sometimes just not the type of book a mainstream publisher could sell a lot of. I actually enjoy sifting through the offerings and tend to be very picky about what I choose to take on, but I'm that way whether it's a traditionally or self-published book.

It will be very interesting to see, five or ten years from now, how things shake out. I'm not really sure. But I do think the added variety in what's available will ultimately be a bonus for readers. The same is true for music. I don't have to only listen to what the super chain stores offer. I can cruise around on YouTube or go to my local bar and find some great music. Yes, there's more sorting to be done, but I can also come across something more specific to my tastes that way.


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jan 20, 2010)

You want to know what that slush pile REALLY looks like? (Very funny blog by an actual slush-pile reader.)

http://slushpilehell.tumblr.com/


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

Oh man, some of those are just _awesome._



> _God told me to write this book and that it would become a bestseller._
> 
> I talked to God. He said he was just messing with you.


I nearly died.

David Dalglish


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Thalia the Muse said:


> You want to know what that slush pile REALLY looks like? (Very funny blog by an actual slush-pile reader.)
> 
> http://slushpilehell.tumblr.com/


At the same time, this illustrates why it will not be hard to sort out the really bad novels - those were QUERY letters, not novels. That is equivalent to what we'll see in the book descriptions - which means you won't even have to look at the sample.

As I said, I've been a slush reader and the thing that makes it painful is not how bad it is, but the fact that you have to address every one of the stories in it. When you don't have to look any further or react to anything you don't want to, slush is fun.

Camille


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

Thalia the Muse said:


> You want to know what that slush pile REALLY looks like? (Very funny blog by an actual slush-pile reader.)
> 
> http://slushpilehell.tumblr.com/


Super! I've added that to my RSS reader. Thanks.

Mike


----------



## scottnicholson (Jan 31, 2010)

I heard an Algonquin editor talk about how they handled slush--you know, this respected company that at that time still accepted open submissions. Once a month, they'd grad six or eight English grad students, buy them pizza, and see how fast they could reject everything.

How a book even gets published at all is almost beyond me. There is a major element of timing in it (and I've sold through the slush). If the best 100 novels of the year all hit NY in the same week, only 10 would sell.

Scott Nicholson


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

Hugely popular literary agent Nathan Bransford responds, in a way:

http://blog.nathanbransford.com/2010/07/in-praise-of-reading-slush.html

Among his remarks:

- "I don't share Miller's fear about releasing the slush into the wild for the reading public to sort out, but I definitely agree with her on one count: the world is divided between those who have read slush and those who haven't."

- "If you're a writer, in my opinion there's no better education than reading slush."

- "Soon, we could very well have a world where the slush pile is sourced out to readers themselves, who will likely turn to tastemakers and trusted publishers and brands to find the books they are interested in reading.

I by no means think the slush pile will go away entirely - anywhere there's a bottleneck and a tastemaker there will be slush - but it could lose its primacy in the author's (and agent's) life. Instead of the agents being the first line of defense, slush will become more diffuse among different and varied people, and will be less of the place where a book's ultimate fate is decided."

Kristan


----------

