Truths behind Lies

[Addison]

These are the lies unpublished writers tell themselves and the truths behind them.

5 Lies Unpublished Writers Tell Themselves (and the Truths That Can Get Them Published) | WritersDigest.com

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Yis!!! I ran across this one today, too, and almost linked it. He's not wrong.

 

[tlbodine]

Ehhh, I take issue with some of these. There's some obvious bias toward certain modes of thinking. But then, it's Writer's Digest, so what do we expect.

Particularly the "I write better than these published people" point. The idea that "These other people are published, and you're not, so they must be better than you" is...oversimplified, at best. McDonalds sells way more burgers than the gourmet place up the street, but nobody's arguing that it's *better*. A much more reasonable piece of advice would be, "Analyze those bad published writers and figure out what they're doing that you're not."

 

[Devor]

McDonalds sells way more burgers than the gourmet place up the street, but nobody's arguing that it's *better*.

I would argue there's a number of ways in which McDonald's burgers are better - just maybe not the one you're thinking about. I think that's a big part of it with writing, too. For most published books, there's something there that's solid enough to make the book a success. For most would-be writers, there's something they think they can do better and probably can. But it might not be the right thing that lets the book succeed. A book is a bundle of qualities, and it's easy to focus on the wrong one.

In terms of self-publishing, there are plenty of reasons to self-publish and plenty of ways to do so successfully. But, "All of these publishers and agents say my book is bad and won't publish it, so I'll publish it myself" isn't one of them. Sure, plenty of published authors face dozens of rejections before their book is picked up. But we don't hear that they also fix and change their book between each one to make it better. A book that's accepted on the seventeenth submission may very well be the seventeenth draft.

Of course, sometimes publishers don't want your manuscript because it's not right for them, or it doesn't fit into a genre they know how to market. Sometimes your work is too risky or too niche for their market. Possibly it's too close or too disparate from other things they're selling. What I mean is, sometimes there are reasons you might not be able to get traditionally published but still have something that works.

But the assumption, "This stuff that's being published is trash, I'm better than this stuff" - well, honestly, you as an unpublished author aren't really a good judge of that. Your prose might be better, but what's your character arc? Your dialogue might be awesome, but does every witty pun play into the story's throughline? You might have some real strengths, but they might also be a red herring towards making your book work. Agents and publishers have the experience to see that. We still have to learn it.

 

[tlbodine]

And that's why I say the better advice is, "Figure out what the published person is doing that you're not."

That at least is helpful, active, constructive advice that tells you what to do to get better. Learning to read critically is a vital step toward learning to write well.

 

[Devor]

And that's why I say the better advice is, "Figure out what the published person is doing that you're not."

You're right, somehow I missed that about your post. I'm sorry if that was a bit rant-ish. The "you" was mostly generic. There's just a lot of people who try to judge books or else improve their own writing by focusing on "the wrong thing" and ignoring the important ones that are more difficult.

 

[oloris]

Ah, #2! It's true. I relate with that on the other side of the equation; as much as some publishers want to give unpublished authors a chance, there are lots of dud manuscripts out there. Thankfully I don't have to call myself the Dream Crusher.