[garygibsonsf]

I've read Donald Maas's terrible book.

Okay, I think you and I are just bound to see things very differently if you've read Mr Maass's book and regard it as 'terrible'. You're welcome to your opinion, but I feel compelled for the sake of others reading these entries to remind you that it's a book that has a huge amount of respect, written by the head of a major literary agency based in New York. This is a man who knows what he's talking about, and he quotes from a very,very wide variety of work to make his points, not just blockbusters and bestsellers. It's been described as essential by a good few authors with a lot of respect in their respective fields.

And you talk of Harry Potter as though it was some grass-roots movement that made it popular. No, it was bought on the premise that it would make money, that it would shift units in the very first instance.

Ehrr ... no. You're kidding, right? I mean seriously? The first one was sold for two and a half thousand pounds, and nobody had a clue it would do as well as it did until it took off like a rocket. And it was published in the hope it would make money. Because most of the books out there don't. The day publishers can accurately predict where the next Harry Potter is going to come from is the day editors and agents fall to their knees on the streets weeping with joy.

You seriously think any of this is there because the publishing companies give a crap about fiction? Come on, who's the one with the uninformed opinion now?

The multinationals who own the publishing companies may not give a crap, I grant you that, except insofar as they regard the publishers they bought in the Eighties as providers of income. The publishers on the other hand very much do care, because publishing is not a business most people get into with the idea of making a lot of money in mind.

How about another James Patterson factory-thriller, churned out by a committee of dedicated prose murderers?

None of us are arbiters of the reading tastes of the majority, and I might remind you those mass-market King and Rowling novels bring in the money that allows publishers to seek out the more rare talents who may sell considerably less, but nonetheless make editors and agents feel like their lives are worthwhile when they do find them.

What the publishing companies think will 'sell'. It's a business, and as a business the publishers are interested in profits and nothing much more.

That's a pretty subjective statement. And publishers don't know what'll sell, but they do know what they hope will sell. Publishers by and large are not solely interested in profits, like I said, or they really, really wouldn't be in this game. Nonetheless, every business needs to make money.

Whereas the writer 2.0 can publish whatever the hell he/she likes, they can offer that work to an audience unbidden by ridiculous contracts and build a 'readership' from the ground up.

Absolutely! Though I may disagree with you over 'ridiculous' contracts. And more power to them if they can pull it off.

However, the sheer intimidating size of most slush piles indicate that for the very, very vast majority, this will almost certainly prove to be an exercise in futility. If someone manages it, great. But in my experience to date, most novels that don't get published (note I say 'most') aren't published for a very good reason.

My first novel has never been published and, let me tell you, from my perspective of ten years on, I'm very glad it never was. I had a lot to learn. Anyone who feels they may disagree with me is invited to sign up at www.authonomy.com and read some of the slushpile manuscripts to be found there. Or, alternatively, got to www.theswivet.blogspot.com for some realistic insight from the point of view of a working agent.