Quote:
Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks
This is all entirely true. Every word of it. I was never arguing the truth of the matter.
Since you brought up interesting points, I'd like to add to your "You can only make one first impression."
You often have to make your own chances. That's going to mean mistakes and some bad efforts. That's just the breaks. The publishing world cannot train and/or edit every writer out there. Sending in a manuscript doesn't guarantee it will be read. Once slots are full everything is sent back as "no thanks" usually without any hint of whether it was read or just rejected. Even if there are a few comments, they can be mere hints.
Getting an agent doesn't mean getting published either. Writing, by its nature, means rewriting. Art of any kind is a learning experience. Some writers keep trying and get better. Some do this via editors. Some keep right on doing the same thing over and over without improving anything.
Thank God I live in a time where I've had a chance to try. The masses of published stuff (indie and otherwise) may not please readers. That's just the nature of the business. It's very similar to art and music in that respect.
I only made my earlier statement because the truth of all this is known and not every thread has to beat a dead horse. Also, I love Elizabeth Peters, but she has some bizarre works out there. And she definitely improved over time with her writing, especially when she found her niche. She was trad all the way (except possibly for one of her non-fiction Egyptology books. I'm not sure about that one.) Her growth and her collection of works is an inspiration to anyone who takes the time to study how her writing changed over the years.
|
Quite a few writers have "reading groups", i.e. a group of authors who will give them feedback. The most famous being the Inklings of Tolkien and Lewis fame, but I've read a number of more modern authors who talk about the same thing. My point isn't that Smashword is bad (I've never really explored it so I have no real opinion) or that indies are bad, but rather than iterative publishing has it's draw backs.
A true editor doesn't just check spelling and grammar, he points out the flaws and makes suggestions on how to improve. From some of the accounts that I've read, it can take just as long going back and forth with an editor as it took to write the original manuscript, at least for new authors. I imagine that once an author gains experience with the craft, that back and forth can drop quite a bit.
I suspect that the Baen practice of pairing name writers with unknowns had three advantages. First, it increased the output of the name writers and second, it helped spread the craft of writing to some new writers who needed some polish. Last, it introduced the lesser known authors to potential readers and made it more likely that people would take a chance on their solo work.