# It's Not What You Know, It's Who You Know



## neodoering (Mar 2, 2017)

The industry people always give you the same advice:  "Read the magazines, read the novels, read the writing guides, practice your craft, and only submit your finest work.  Cream will rise to the top.  The industry always spots quality."  

Well, folks, I'm here to tell you, this is bullshit.  Think of the tens of thousands of books and stories that sit in slush piles for a few weeks and then get tossed into the recycling bin.  Sure, some editorial assistant will give each one a ten-second glance, just to say they did due diligence, but it's not "quality" that determines who gets published.  "Quality" is a catch phrase for "I liked it," which is to say, your tastes as a writer sync up with the tastes of the editor/agent.  In the arts, there are no objective measurements of "quality."  

So if the cream doesn't somehow rise to the top, what sells your work?  I think it's personal factors.  A year or two ago I read _Creating Short Fiction_, by Damon Knight, which is a book on craft.  Late in the book he tosses out a one-line blockbuster: he has talked for hundreds of pages about getting ideas, developing story arcs, working on your writing skills, etc., then he admits that he made his first professional sale not by these skills but by knowing Frederik Pohl, who asked him for a story and then published it.  _It's not what you know, it's who you know._  Writing skills, storytelling talents, honing your craft...all of this is nice, but knowing an insider moves you onto the inside track.  Past the phalanxes of gatekeepers, all of who are trying to keep you out; past the armies of the semi-skilled who are trying to hold you back; past your peers who are trying to break in before you do.  Taking creative risks is nice, and having a powerful voice can get you noticed, but nothing moves your career like knowing those insiders.  

You think I'm full of crap.  Think of all the mediocre stories and books you read each year.  How did that dreck get published?  _The writer knew an insider._  Personal factors sold the book, not some nebulous idea of "quality."  

Agree?  Disagree?  You've heard stories, that you'd now like to share, about other writers who got on the inside track?  Or do you believe that in fantasy fiction there _is_ such a thing as "quality," and the industry people are geniuses who spot this elusive trait every time?


----------



## Annoyingkid (Mar 2, 2017)

> In the arts, there are no objective measurements of "quality.



There doesn't have to be. All there has to be is a consensus. 

But okay lets follow the strategy you outline. Hypothetically: Your work is truly mediocre. The hero is passive the voice is fairly dull but serviceable  and the work is very stock fantasy.  You are not related to any insiders. You don't know any insiders. People who give this advice tend to give vague tautologies like "Get yourself out there" and "Go to book signings and conventions". Alright so you do that. Then what? "Talk to the industry people". _About?_ What are you going to say that's going to lead them to be an insider advocate for you in particular?


----------



## psychotick (Mar 2, 2017)

Hi Neo,

Yeah, unfortunately there is nothing better for your writing career than knowing someone. And next on the list of things that will lift you as a writer through the slushpiles of manuscripts on agents and publisher's desks is luck. The simple fact is that they are overloaded with submissions and can only take a very tiny few. One agent who published her stats - and this has been reported on some writing sites - said she accepted two out of six thousand one year.

Having said that, neither knowing someone (Unless of course you're his / her live in lover etc etc) or luck is going to get you very far if your work isn't up to par. Sad but true. So those other things you mentioned aren't actually "nice" - they're essential. Do not overlook that.

And if you want to reduce some of the luck factor go indie, where you can have complete creative control and guarantee publishing. (There's still a lot of luck needed to be successful, but less than is needed to get a good offer from an agent). Of course indie has its own perils and you will have to upskill in a vast number of areas, and are still unlikely to make the best seller lists. But at least if you make a good fist of things you can expect some sales, some reviews, and slowly begin to garner a reputation for yourself as a writer. That's one thing all those trying to get trade deals aren't doing while they're submitting.

In the end you simply have to accept that whatever road you chose, writing is a tough game.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Devor (Mar 2, 2017)

neodoering said:


> Late in the book he tosses out a one-line blockbuster: he has talked for hundreds of pages about getting ideas, developing story arcs, working on your writing skills, etc., then he admits that he made his first professional sale not by these skills but by knowing Frederik Pohl, who asked him for a story and then published it.  _It's not what you know, it's who you know._



Out of curiosity, does he say how he met Frederik Pohl?


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 2, 2017)

Damon Knight did not get published because he knew Frederick Pohl. He got published because he wrote well enough for Frederick Pohl to _want_ to publish him.

There is such a thing as ability, whether it be in writing, painting, music, athletics, or engineering. Having the ability guarantees nothing, but not having the ability does. So let's take that off the table.

Next, having the ability may be necessary but it is not sufficient. This is where Knight's book comes in: you have to be willing to work at it. You have to study, practice, improve. That's what all those other hundreds of pages in Knight's book are about. They're not irrelevant. They're not bullshit. They're school.

Yes, luck enters into the equation. It's a variable and it's always unpredictable. I can know fifty key figures in publishing, but so do lots of people and they don't get published. Why? Because I have to have something that makes those fifty key figures want to know _me_. Otherwise, they're just buds.

It's not what I know. Certainly. Just knowing things doesn't put words on paper.
It's not who I know. See above.

It's what I write. And until I've written four or five novels, and until what I have written has been seen by people who understand what a finished, polished work looks like, and until those people (not necessarily publishers) have told me my work is good enough, I don't really have much to say. I'm still working.


----------



## Chessie (Mar 2, 2017)

An old friend of mine published her chick lit book (which I thought was out of fashion) just within the past year. She has industry connections, however, she also worked VERY ****ING HARD to get where she's at today.

So, no. People get published because they improve their craft and never give up. Sorry but the OP post reeks of bitterness towards other writers, which isn't necessarily the healthiest of ways to approach a discussion on a writing forum. J/s.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 2, 2017)

Who you know will get you a chance, but you still have to be able to deliver the goods. 

This is true in writing, and it's true in life in general.

In life, people network and make industry connections. One of the ways writers do it is writer's conferences, so it's not like making contacts is an impossible task. 

There are plenty of published books I think are terrible. But when I take a moment to think about the story and it's appeal, there's always something that it delivers exceptionally well despite its flaws. 

For me, I'd rather learn from that and work on my craft and basically control the things I can control rather than waste my time worrying about the things I can't.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 2, 2017)

I'd argue it is a combination of factors, including who you know. But not just that, but how you act. Most of the time professionals aren't looking for friends. They are looking for other professionals. So you need to present your professional self. But you also have to have a minimum level of competence to get a sniff. The who you know and how you act are plus factors.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Mar 2, 2017)

This thread has been moved, from Writing Questions to the Publishing Forum.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 2, 2017)

Publishing is far more egalitarian than screenwriting, for some pretty obvious reasons... a whole lot more. But, whether it's a screenplay or a novel, it better have something worth paying for or it isn't going anywhere no matter who you know, unless you have some serious dirt on said person, heh heh. Blackmail is handy.

I don't like Rothfuss's writing much, Name of the Wind, but I recognize why folks do like his work. 

Then there is Erikson, Gardens of the Moon, and it is far harder to figure out why people like his stuff, but I kind of get it... Frankly, Erikson makes Rothfuss look like a literary genius. 

Sanderson, Mistborn, I get why people like/love this book/series, but I'm done after book 1, maybe if I'm bored to death someday I'll pick up the rest of the series.

I mention these three in order to point out very successful books/writers that I don't necessarily love in order to make sure of this point: because I only like something, can barely tolerate something, or even can't bloody well stand something, doesn't mean it won't do well. And I recognize that I am a hard sell... but

Over the past several years I've read hundreds of book openings and sample chapters of what writers have figured to be fairly finished works, in addition to the opening chapters of a lot of self-pub'd books... and only one or two have even made me want to read more, let alone, if I were an agent, make me say... Wow! Send the full MS on that! And you consider the stories from agents on how they get query letters that aren't even close to what they're looking for or rep... and yeah, I've no doubt they don't take on more than 1:1000 in unsolicited queries. And probably for good reason. 

It is also true that great books can be overlooked, but considering how rare great books are... if the writer is persistent and truly has something great, it will eventually land on the right desk. If the writer only has something "good enough" then it's a total crap shoot. If the writer something "good, with one or two strengths" like IMO Mistborn, it will probably find a home in the world.


----------



## neodoering (Mar 2, 2017)

Devor said:


> Out of curiosity, does he say how he met Frederik Pohl?



Good afternoon, Devor.  I read Knight's book a couple years ago, but if I remember right, he and Pohl were members of the same writers' group.  They had talked, and both aimed to become professionals.  So when Pohl got a job in the industry, he asked Knight for a story, and published it.  Point being, it was the personal connection that opened the door; otherwise Knight's story would have ended up in some slush pile at some magazine, competing against a thousand other stories for attention.  _It's not what you know, it's who you know._


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 2, 2017)

neodoering said:


> Good afternoon, Devor.  I read Knight's book a couple years ago, but if I remember right, he and Pohl were members of the same writers' group.  They had talked, and both aimed to become professionals.  So when Pohl got a job in the industry, he asked Knight for a story, and published it.  Point being, it was the personal connection that opened the door; otherwise Knight's story would have ended up in some slush pile at some magazine, competing against a thousand other stories for attention.  _It's not what you know, it's who you know._



Your conclusion is flawed, or at least incomlete. Personal connections can help, but ultimately one needs to put out their best work, period. There has to be a minimum showing of competency. So, yes, a personal connection can get a foot in the door, but that writer still needs a minimum degree of competency. It is both what you know and who you know.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Mar 2, 2017)

neodoering said:


> The industry people always give you the same advice:  "Read the magazines, read the novels, read the writing guides, practice your craft, and only submit your finest work.  Cream will rise to the top.  The industry always spots quality."
> 
> Well, folks, I'm here to tell you, this is bullshit.  Think of the tens of thousands of books and stories that sit in slush piles for a few weeks and then get tossed into the recycling bin.  Sure, some editorial assistant will give each one a ten-second glance, just to say they did due diligence, but it's not "quality" that determines who gets published.  "Quality" is a catch phrase for "I liked it," which is to say, your tastes as a writer sync up with the tastes of the editor/agent.  In the arts, there are no objective measurements of "quality."



In the context of traditional publishing, I agree with this. Writers have to submit their works to appropriate agents / editors. Send a manuscript to the wrong agent or editor, and you're asking for rejection. The agent / editor determines the level of quality, and any given work might be received well on one day and not the next, depending on the whims of the agent / editor. So, no, there are no objective measurements of "quality" in that regard. Once a story is published, the level of quality isn't even necessarily measured appropriately by reviewers, especially if some of them have axes to grind.

Some agents will admit that they don't look only at the manuscript in deciding if they will represent you. After all, they are more interested in representing you for multiple works, not just one. So they are looking at the complete package, including your marketing platform. You are a brand. The person who has the better marketing platform will be a leg up on the other person who writes a little better but has a weak or no marketing platform. Even if you self-publish, you need a good marketing platform, and the quality of your platform can depend on who you know.



neodoering said:


> So if the cream doesn't somehow rise to the top, what sells your work?  I think it's personal factors.  A year or two ago I read _Creating Short Fiction_, by Damon Knight, which is a book on craft.  Late in the book he tosses out a one-line blockbuster: he has talked for hundreds of pages about getting ideas, developing story arcs, working on your writing skills, etc., then he admits that he made his first professional sale not by these skills but by knowing Frederik Pohl, who asked him for a story and then published it.  _It's not what you know, it's who you know._  Writing skills, storytelling talents, honing your craft...all of this is nice, but knowing an insider moves you onto the inside track.  Past the phalanxes of gatekeepers, all of who are trying to keep you out; past the armies of the semi-skilled who are trying to hold you back; past your peers who are trying to break in before you do.  Taking creative risks is nice, and having a powerful voice can get you noticed, but nothing moves your career like knowing those insiders.



I don't know what Damon Knight's first professional sale was, or if I would deem it a quality read. However, I would trust Frederik Pohl not to accept just any story from an acquaintance, but that he would either reject it or ask for revisions if the story was not up to par. To suggest that Mr. Pohl would accept a crap story from an acquaintance and publish it as-is, just because he knows the person, is insulting to Mr. Pohl. To make me believe he had done that, I'd have to read the story in question. If the story isn't any good, then the OP has a point. Otherwise, it must be realized that people who know people do have an advantage, but that's how it is in any endeavor. Publishing is not the only industry in which it helps to know people. But the world does not operate solely based on who you know. You can become known within an industry by producing good work.

_If_ you haven't yet made a sale to a professional market (one could assume a professional market in the realm of sf/f is a SFWA-qualifying market), and _if_ you have made some sales to other markets (non-SFWA-qualifying markets), and _if_ an editor at a professional market has read some of your work, then I can see how the editor might be willing to ask you for a story and feel confident about publishing it, thereby assisting you in making an SFWA-qualifying sale, to assist you in achieving SFWA-member status. But even if the editor asked for a story, if you submitted something the editor didn't care for, your story would still be rejected.



neodoering said:


> You think I'm full of crap.  Think of all the mediocre stories and books you read each year.  How did that dreck get published?  _The writer knew an insider._  Personal factors sold the book, not some nebulous idea of "quality."



Though there might be no objective measure of "quality," there is consensus among a book's target audience. If you aren't a member of the target audience, your opinion doesn't matter. So I always figure, if I don't like a story, I'm not in its target audience. I gave it a shot, and confirmed I wasn't in the target audience. By someone else's standards, the book might have been awesome.

I know for a fact that not all accepted manuscripts are accepted because of who the author knows. I also know that knowing an insider does not guarantee acceptance. I edited an anthology once and was in charge of accepting or rejecting stories. There were some people I knew who submitted stories, but most of the people I didn't know. I suggested some edits to one of the people I knew, and it ruined our friendship. That story was not published. I did accept stories from a number of people I didn't know; those people were willing to make the edits I suggested.



neodoering said:


> Agree?  Disagree?  You've heard stories, that you'd now like to share, about other writers who got on the inside track?  Or do you believe that in fantasy fiction there _is_ such a thing as "quality," and the industry people are geniuses who spot this elusive trait every time?



There are stories of people who became best-selling authors only after receiving numerous rejections, but they persisted, and someone finally took a chance on them. So industry people do not _always_ recognize a potential best-seller.

We could also discuss the difference between "quality" fiction and "salable" fiction. The market wants fiction that sells. You can produce what you consider "quality" fiction all day, but if no one else is willing to buy it, it's the job of agents and editors to reject it. And since no one knows beforehand what will sell and what won't, it comes down to the judgment of agents and editors, who are only human, despite what they might want you to believe. If you happen to know an agent or editor, and can cater to their likes, then you might have a leg up on other writers. But it still doesn't _guarantee_ your story will be accepted.


----------



## Russ (Mar 2, 2017)

neodoering said:


> The industry people always give you the same advice:  "Read the magazines, read the novels, read the writing guides, practice your craft, and only submit your finest work.  Cream will rise to the top.  The industry always spots quality."
> 
> Well, folks, I'm here to tell you, this is bullshit.  Think of the tens of thousands of books and stories that sit in slush piles for a few weeks and then get tossed into the recycling bin.  Sure, some editorial assistant will give each one a ten-second glance, just to say they did due diligence, but it's not "quality" that determines who gets published.  "Quality" is a catch phrase for "I liked it," which is to say, your tastes as a writer sync up with the tastes of the editor/agent.  In the arts, there are no objective measurements of "quality."
> 
> ...



Allow me to try to understand your argument properly before I respond.

As I understand it, you suggest that most traditionally published work gets purchased and published because of "personal factors" and your evidence for that is:

1) Some guy sold his fist story to Frederick Pohl; and

2) you think a lot of traditionally published work is mediocre in quality.

Have I missed anything?  Do I summarize you correctly?


----------



## oenanthe (Mar 2, 2017)

Well, I can't say you're 100% wrong. You're not. If you know people in the SFF business, if people know you, or percieve that you know people, it helps.

A very long time ago, I was at a worldcon with my friends, who were all junior sakura blossoms in the SFF world. We were the starry-eyed neo-pros. We had a blast hanging around with each other and that con is definitely the best one I've ever attended because of them. 

(as you know, bob) one of the main hangouts at any SFF convention is the hotel lobby bar. I was separated from my group because I needed my shoulders fixed, so I poked my head in there, and sitting at a table getting ready to have lunch was an editor from a small press magazine with a lot of prestige, sitting around having lunch with book editors of a certain stature. It looked Important, so when the editor I knew saw me, I just smiled and prepared to duck out.

But she waved me over. I was introduced.

I WAS INVITED TO HAVE LUNCH. And I'm dying. I've got a pencil holding up my hairdo and I smell like Tiger Balm and acupuncture. But I sat, because the only thing better than lunch is lunch with fancy new york editors, oh my god. we talked. we had a good time. and when asked what my novel was about, I said, "I haven't written one yet."

years pass. over a decade passes. and people I got free lunch with remembered me when I saw them at other cons, and congratulated me when I sold my book.

They remembered me.

It's not that hard to *meet* publishing professionals, if you've the wherewithal to do a small fan-run SFF convention. I've met literally dozens of writers and editors this way. Give it a shot.


----------



## Russ (Mar 2, 2017)

oenanthe said:


> years pass. over a decade passes. and people I got free lunch with remembered me when I saw them at other cons, and congratulated me when I sold my book.



Let me ask you.  What personal connection resulted in your book sale?  Do you think you sold your book because of who you knew not what you wrote?


----------



## Devor (Mar 2, 2017)

It's funny because in another thread I'm arguing with Russ that networking is really hard and people should be careful about investing in it.  Now I'm jumping into this thread and I'll probably look like I'm switching sides.  Thus is life sometimes.

:spin:




neodoering said:


> Good afternoon, Devor.  I read Knight's book a couple years ago, but if I remember right, he and Pohl were members of the same writers' group.  They had talked, and both aimed to become professionals.  So when Pohl got a job in the industry, he asked Knight for a story, and published it.  Point being, it was the personal connection that opened the door; otherwise Knight's story would have ended up in some slush pile at some magazine, competing against a thousand other stories for attention.  _It's not what you know, it's who you know._



Thank you for answering, Neo.

It's an important question for a discussion like this one because _who you know_ is often used to suggest some kind of unfairness.  But getting to know people on a professional level is an important skill.  Knight and Pohl were in a writing group together, and both of them made it in the industry.  I know it's easy to look at that and think, "That sure was lucky, he had a friend who made it, and he hitched a ride."  But everything in my life tells me it's probably more like, "Two highly talented people found each and other and helped each other make it because that's what talented people do."

In the big ol' blogosphere of networking literature, it's known as putting together a "Mastermind Group."  People don't make it big all on their own.  They do it by collecting a network of people they trust, over the course of their lives, and at some point creating an opportunity that allows them to put that group together.  To me, that sounds like what Pohl did - he tagged up with a talented Mr. Knight, and then when he needed to bring talent to the table for his industry job, he had a fresh new writer on hand that he already worked well with.

To me, it's just fine to say it's all about who you know, but only if you remember the importance of talking about how you get to know them.  Let's say hypothetically you submit to an agent, the agent happens to respond, loves your work, and runs with it.  Alluvasudden you know an agent, right?  Let's say you're at a bar, get a little tipsy, and start chatting up someone who happens to be an agent who wants to see your work.  Sure there's a bit of luck to it, but the agent must see something in you, whether it's in your cover letter or your drunken banter.  And the cover letter is just as much about luck - you're much more likely to be rejected if the agent looks at your letter right before lunch, for instance (I'm extrapolating from research in a different field).  Why should one be somehow more.... ethical, is it, than the other?

One of the most important, make-or-break tasks facing a writer is choosing the people you're learning from.  Who's in your writing group?  Who are your beta readers?  Who are you reading?  Choosing the right people, the right mix of people, learning to be brave enough to approach them and trust them, will determine everything about how far you get.

The only worthwhile difference between, say, Harvard, and the school that I went to, is how much you're learning from your peers.  Are they raising the bar for you or holding you back?


----------



## Annoyingkid (Mar 2, 2017)

> Point being, it was the personal connection that opened the door; otherwise Knight's story would have ended up in some slush pile at some magazine, competing against a thousand other stories for attention. *It's not what you know, it's who you know.*



Then why don't you make a rushed, incoherent pile of shit in two weeks and get to work on improving insider relationships instead of your story?


----------



## neodoering (Mar 2, 2017)

*Is It Worth That?*



Annoyingkid said:


> Then why don't you make a rushed, incoherent pile of shit in two weeks and get to work on improving insider relationships instead of your story?



That's part of the point I'm trying to make, AnnoyingKid; _should_ that be what I'm doing?


----------



## neodoering (Mar 2, 2017)

Russ said:


> Allow me to try to understand your argument properly before I respond.
> 
> As I understand it, you suggest that most traditionally published work gets purchased and published because of "personal factors" and your evidence for that is:
> 
> ...



Ah-hem.  I might suggest you've _reduced_ my argument a bit...

But yes, I think personal factors account for more sales than publishing professionals are willing to let on.  That's both relationships (I went to San Francisco State University, the agent went to San Francisco State University; we talk about the creative writing program there, and she buys my book... this didn't really happen; it's just an example) and tastes.  Industry professionals play favorites.  They prefer one sub-genre over another, one writing style to the next, and so forth.  Look closely, and you'll notice some agents represent women writers exclusively, while other agents represent only male writers.  If you give agents what they like, your chance of being accepted is much higher than if you send a contemporary fantasy agent a spy thriller novel.  Personal factors.  

And _definitely_ the industry publishes a lot of mediocre speculative fiction each year.  Books that have all the right details in all the right places, and a few surprises here and there, but don't rouse the mind or spirit or heart.  Someone on another thread made a similar complaint a few weeks ago and said he thought it wasn't the product, it was him: he is much older now than when he first discovered speculative fiction, and has read a lot of books, and rarely is he surprised anymore.  So I'll leave that possibility open in my case as well, since I'm in my 50's.  

What are your comments?


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 2, 2017)

I am compelled to return to this thread. Take a look at the subject line. The first clause is simply false. It is indeed what you know (in this case, what you write, but that's not as catchy). What you know (write) is absolutely indispensable. So the dichotomy the statement poses--it isn't this but that--is false right out of the gate.

> otherwise Knight's story would have ended up in some slush pile at some magazine, competing against a thousand other stories for attention

This statement contains the implication that Knight's story would not in fact have been published at "some magazine." The evidence to the contrary is that Knight published an enormous number of stories, and went to edit (brilliantly) a great many more.

>I think personal factors account for more sales than publishing professionals are willing to let on
You are welcome to think this. My experience has been that publishing professionals always emphasize that personal factors are important, and they encourage people to attend conventions, etc.

> If you give agents what they like, your chance of being accepted is much higher than if you send a contemporary fantasy agent a spy thriller novel. Personal factors. 

Yes, agents have areas of preference. They are quite up front about this. They make quite a point about it on their agent web site. The aspiring author is well advised to take their specialties seriously. This is not some industry secret, it's just plain fact. Not everyone wants to represent everything.

>should that be what I'm doing? [speaking of networking]
Yes. Any chance you get. Making actual connections, speaking honestly. It's not really a game. Agents and editors are folks. They have to wade through mountains of crap in hopes of finding brilliance, or even simple competence. I have taught college history for thirty years, so I know something of the dedication it takes to keep doing this.

It's not a shell game. There's no dark secret behind the curtain. Yes, some people get lucky. Even more people don't get lucky. There's no sure path to success. There is, however, a sure path to failure: decide it's a game, that it's rigged, and there's some dark secret behind the curtain.

It's not who you know. It's not any one thing.


----------



## Devor (Mar 2, 2017)

neodoering said:


> That's part of the point I'm trying to make, AnnoyingKid; _should_ that be what I'm doing?



If I can answer that . . . . 

No.  Don't do that.

Think about some of the people you work with, and that you like, at some of the jobs you've had over your career.  What are the qualities that make you want to work with them?  I'm betting that doing a crap job isn't one of them.`Now imagine that you're making decisions where big bucks are on the line and you've worked with, or know people who have worked with, some of the best in the field.  Now think, what qualities would you respect in your coworkers?

It's true that a lot of books get published which are mediocre.  Mediocrity is surprisingly common everywhere you go.  Have you seen the recent DC movies?  The best talents, hundreds of millions of dollars, and the critical consensus is that they got fairly mediocre results.*  It happens everywhere, and there's no stopping it.  Do you know how many of William Shakespeare's works are considered lousy?  Most of them, as it happens.  Mediocrity will be the scourge of us all.

It's also true that a book only needs 20,000 sales to be fairly successful, and that many people are _perfectly happy_ with mediocre material if it strokes the right itch.  The job of an editor isn't finding the perfect book, but finding a book that scratches an open itch.

"Mediocrity."  Like it's a bad thing.  The word means _average_, so by definition a bit more than half of everything is mediocre or worse.  That's just way things are.


----------



## Annoyingkid (Mar 2, 2017)

> That's part of the point I'm trying to make, AnnoyingKid; should that be what I'm doing?



Like you even could.

 After all, an insider who advocates for your hypothetically bad manuscript is putting their reputation on the line and has to make a case beyond "this is my buddy".

Yes. Alot of work is mediocre. 

But what if that mediocre writer just happens to be dependable, prolific, easygoing and open to changes? That goes a long way to explaining alot of mediocre work. Publishers can't be expected to wait only for the exceptional. They wouldn't make money then. But then the question is, do you have the other qualities to make up for it?


----------



## Russ (Mar 2, 2017)

People often like to present polarized choices that are not real.  Like the discussion about write what you know or what sells.  They aren't real choices, they are false dichotomies.  That can lead to bad conclusions.  The other thing people like to do is talk about, or more accurately speculate about complex systems without reading knowing anything about them.  Both of these things seemed to have happened in this thread.

Writing is one thing.  The business of writing is another.

What the OP seems to have done is to turn acquiring editors into symbols of evil, and forgotten that they are real people with real aspirations and real responsibilities.

Now you talk about editorial assistants that you say give each manuscript 10 seconds, do you think they  don't want to find the next Tolkien?  Don't you think that is their dream?  What do you think happens in an office when they miss a Rothfuss or a Rowlings or the next big thing?

Editors want to move up.  They want to find the best possible material to please their superiors and be successful.

Editors are underpaid.  Some of them even have to support their families.  They lose their jobs.  Some of them lose their jobs because the stuff they bought didn't sell.  Some of them lose their jobs because they didn't buy enough works because in that slush pile they couldn't find enough stuff to keep management happy.

Editors go to meetings where they have to champion the works they have bought to committees and sales people.  How well do you think it goes when they tell salespeople to tell the distributor this book is worth buying because their uncle Bob wrote it?

There is competition within imprints and houses, and within publishers.  Do you think they want to publish mediocre material so they can risk their future and risk their job?  Really?

Sure there are a few small presses where some guy has a enough power he can take a flyer on whatever he or she wants.  That is because it is their money in the game.  I don't even think they do if for that reason.  At a half decent sized company that doesn't happen.  Even senior editors answer to people and they don't buy books from their debut buds because they don't deal in small advance debut authors.

You are others are happy to say their is a lot of mediocre work published by big publishers. That is just your subjective opinion.  In the business of writing success for most houses is measured in sales.  If the sales warrant keeping the author on, they will, if they don't they usually won't.  Whether you think a work in mediocre or not is irrelevant to that decision.

The fact is that picking big winners is hard.  Very hard.  Picking stuff that is passable is not so bad.  But picking big winners is hard.

If you think that success is based on who you know, not the quality of the writing, perhaps you can tell us who it was that Rothfuss sent his work to that was his inside connection and made him a success?  And more importantly why didn't he send it to his contact in the first place rather than be rejected by at least one big five publisher?  Or Rowling?  Or why did Steve Berry accumulate 85 rejections before his first sale, why didn't her just use his contact and skip those years of rejections?  

Now in any business, people skills are valuable.  Publishing is (as Lee Child has said) a relationship business, once you are in it.  

If your work is in the margins, not clear whether it is going to be sold or not, you want to have everything you can helping you get that sale.  If your work is not in those margins it is not going to matter.  If your work is not close to purchasable then you can be close to whoever you want a real publisher is not going to buy it.  If your work has obvious commercial value than you can get away with a less than loveable personality.

But if you are in the  margins than you should try to maximize and utilize your networking skills and get along with people.  In traditional publishing I have known some mid list writers who careers were ended because they were hard to work with.  However I have never even heard of someone who got published by a traditional publisher because they know someone but could not write well.

So does a good personality help in publishing like just about every other business.  Sure.  Can it overcome writing that someone, and eventually the public, thinks is worth buying?  Nope.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 3, 2017)

Piling on here ... 

About that word mediocre. Russ rightly points out it means average. Median. Middling. Not awful, not great.

But if you really want to get a measure of mediocrity in writing, you need to include all those submissions in the slush pile as well. What gets published is actually _better_ than average. Just because I think much of it borders on unreadable doesn't mean anything much beyond myself. Much (they do overlook gems) of the stuff agents refuse is downright awful. The reason why they spend so little time on a given manuscript is because it doesn't take long to recognize awful. Or, more accurately, unpublishable.

I have about twenty rejections to my name, all short stories. I can tell you that out of those, four times the editor has replied to me directly with specific information about why they rejected it. These are not people who are playing games. They are professionals doing their job. Of those rejections, two offered to take another look if I wanted to rewrite, and one went on to publish.

I do recommend trying to network, if for no other reason than to get to know these agents and editors, and judge for oneself what sort of folk they are.


----------



## oenanthe (Mar 3, 2017)

Russ said:


> Let me ask you.  What personal connection resulted in your book sale?  Do you think you sold your book because of who you knew not what you wrote?



I have friends who work in publishing, in various positions and job descriptions. one of those friends asked to read my MS. it wound up catching the attention of one of their friends, who asked to see it. and then the snowball really started rolling.

I think it happened as _fast_ as it did because I had those social connections. without them, I would probably still be waiting to hear back from an agent, or have moved on to another book.


----------



## oenanthe (Mar 5, 2017)

oh yay I killed the thread

go me

*waves ribbon*


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Mar 5, 2017)

oenanthe said:


> I have friends who work in publishing, in various positions and job descriptions. one of those friends asked to read my MS. it wound up catching the attention of one of their friends, who asked to see it. and then the snowball really started rolling.
> 
> I think it happened as _fast_ as it did because I had those social connections. without them, I would probably still be waiting to hear back from an agent, or have moved on to another book.



Let's suppose your work was utter crap. Would it have been publisjed?


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 5, 2017)

It is a form of hubris quite popular with readers and writers to claim some published work is crap. I have no doubt that true crap does get purchased and makes it into print, but for the most part this isn't the case, in particular with first sales for new writers. Even if it sells horribly, someone who had skin in the game thought enough of the book to publish, which means something.


----------



## oenanthe (Mar 6, 2017)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Let's suppose your work was utter crap. Would it have been publisjed?




well, see, I have all these social connections in publishing, so all signs point to yes. that's the argument, isn't it?

Honestly, I can't evaluate my own work, really. I like it. that's a pretty meaningless thing to say, though.


----------



## Russ (Mar 6, 2017)

oenanthe said:


> well, see, I have all these social connections in publishing, so all signs point to yes. that's the argument, isn't it?
> 
> Honestly, I can't evaluate my own work, really. I like it. that's a pretty meaningless thing to say, though.



Let us know when it hits the market.  Then we can chime in 

I have a boatload of connections in publishing, and I don't know of any instance were someone published something from a friend or relative that fell well below standard.

I know of lots of instances where books failed or turned out to be below standard, but that had nothing to do with social connections.


----------



## Ronald T. (Mar 9, 2017)

I have to agree with psychotick. 

Luck and knowing an insider can open doors that might remain closed otherwise.  But if a writer or an artist has nothing to back up those helpful, but scarce, benefits, they too will be barred from entering those doors.

Luck is the one component we have little control over.  But we have full control of the quality of our product.  If we can't show that we possess the promise of being a proficient writer, no insider is going to risk their reputation by opening that door for us.

And as Greg said, if you want to test the quality of your writing, there is always e-publishing available.  However, that is an unbelievably difficult route to take as well.  All the work of effective publicity falls squarely on your shoulders.  And the only thing that will make you a success is "Word of Mouth".  

That means you must actually know something about good writing and good story-telling, and have the ability to create it.  In the world of e-publishing, it's not about "who you know", but "what you know".  Word of mouth only works if you can write well and tell a good story.  It's all about your skill level as a writer, and then about how good you are at self-promotion. 

However, it's a frustratingly slow process no matter how you go about it.  We can only hope that Lady Luck takes an unlikely shine to us.

So, all I can say to any writer is...Good Luck, and never give up.


----------



## ThinkerX (Mar 11, 2017)

For what little it may be worth...

I subscribed to 'Asimov's' and 'Fantasy and Science Fiction,' two of the longest running magazines in the genre a couple years back.  I'd hoped to find interesting stories from new authors.  

Instead...

1 - Most of the stories were by 'name' authors with multiple novels under their belts; and

2 - in my opinion, a substantial number of those stories simply were not very good.  No exaggeration to say that a few of the 'Iron Pen' or 'Top Scribe' tales were better than those - the work of new or novice writers.

I am tempted to conclude that many of those stories were published not because of the stories merits, but because of the authors name.

That said, I have run into a lot of subpar self published online works, usually by newcomers, but sometimes by professionals as well.


----------



## Insolent Lad (Mar 11, 2017)

I have concluded that one of the best ways to become a famous writer is to become famous for something else first. I have a friend who is a rather well known musician and dabbles at novels on the side. They are good enough books but I doubt they would sell nearly so well without her name recognition. That was her 'foot in the door' and it certainly helped her gain entry to the world of publishing.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 11, 2017)

I had a similar experience, ThinkerX, though I came a different conclusion. My big surprise was how many stories were pretty well written, but which ended badly. Over and over I encountered well-written stories that moved along, caught my interested, and then simply stopped. They did not end, they just stopped. No climax, no point, no insight.

My conclusion was that there is a kind of story that current editors like, but which I do not. I saw this in more than one magazine, so more than one editor. Naturally certain authors appear multiple times. This implies no conspiracy of the privileged but merely shows that people tend to stick with what they know and, in the case of magazines, what they know sells. These operations run very close to the bone.

There was a time when, if John Campbell didn't like your work, you were relegated to the pulps. Some authors, like Asimov, were getting published before they were even out of high school. Other authors worked years before they found the editor who would listen. 

I don't know how many different ways to say this. It's been said on this thread multiple times. Yes, being connected helps. That's why you network. But no, no, a hundred times no, being connected is not the *only* way to get published. If no one buys my stuff, it's because no one wants it. If they do want it, but don't have room for it, they tell me. If they think it's pretty good but still not quite publishable, they tell me that, too.

Rejection is not a synonym for conspiracy.


----------



## Russ (Mar 12, 2017)

ThinkerX said:


> For what little it may be worth...
> 
> I subscribed to 'Asimov's' and 'Fantasy and Science Fiction,' two of the longest running magazines in the genre a couple years back.  I'd hoped to find interesting stories from new authors.
> 
> ...



I can't comment on the quality of the stories but you are dead right that it is harder than ever for new authors to break into those mags because they believe that name authors sell more copies from them.  When they are serializing someone's freaking novel it eats up a lot of space!


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 12, 2017)

Exactly, I doubt the margin on short story magazines is high profit, they need to sell as many copies as they can, and names will help.



Russ said:


> I can't comment on the quality of the stories but you are dead right that it is harder than ever for new authors to break into those mags because they believe that name authors sell more copies from them.  When they are serializing someone's freaking novel it eats up a lot of space!


----------



## bestellen (Mar 15, 2017)

After all, an insider who advocates for your hypothetically bad manuscript is putting their reputation on the line and has to make a case beyond "this is my buddy".


----------

