[Scott Nicholson]

I would be more willing to accept "publishers as gatekeepers" except for one absolute truism--publishers will only publish books that are likely to make money. Commercialism and profit trump every other virtue and value of a publishing house.

Turn in a beautiful, sweeping, amazing piece of literature that will taught in college lit classes in a century, or turn in a cold dog turd that will hit the bestseller list, they will choose the cold dog turd every single time. And at any given time, half the Top Ten bestsellers are cold dog turds. If you think that's a system promoting and preserving literary values, then I understand a willingness to pay 20 times the value for the privilege of being protected from all that crappy material out there.

Yes, most of all writing is crappy, but don't forget that most agents and editors wanted to be writers but weren't good enough. There is no university degree to be an agent or editor. You go to NY when you are 22 and get a job, then hang around. That's not to say there aren't wonderful, passionate editors, but every single one of them answers to a sales staff, stockholders, and corporate board of directors. It's just not necessarily a system designed to publish the highest-quality books.

Scott

(Incidentally, this is from an author who has been both rejected and accepted by publishers--and my best books were never accepted).