One of the biggest lies that Traditional Publishers peddle to would-be authors is that things 'have always been this way'. That's historically inaccurate. What we call 'publishing' is a recent invention. It didn't exist before the development of what we now call the novel, long fiction pieces that involve either an omniscient author or a psychologically aware narrator. That happened around the middle of the 1700s, and when the form became very popular with readers, some businessmen saw the possibilities of producing large numbers of these books for a wide audience. They commissioned printers, arranged distribution and worked to find new authors. (Bear in mind that 'distribution' wouldn't have been possible in a place like England before the Toll Roads were built either, around the same time.)
Before this, there were printers and ? usually ? patrons. Printers sometimes commissioned work, where they saw a money-making opportunity, such as in the popularity of Broadside Ballads, songs and lyrics printed on enormous single sheets of paper, (usually about topical events, such as local crimes and hangings). More normally, printers limited themselves to a small selection of classic and every-popular books like the Bible, and other work where it had been commissioned by a 'patron'. Shakespeare had one, that's why his plays made it into printed form. If he hadn't, he never would have been able to afford it for himself, and there weren't any middle-men at the time who could take a chance and get some copies run off in the hope they would be sold. No, that's a different game. It's called publishing.
These days that's all there is. In plush and extensive offices in all the major capitals of the world sit men (and a few women) in smart clothes, who pore over newly typed manuscripts, looking for gold. The mission they are about, (they would have you believe), these be-suited and well-educated fellows, is to find gems of rattling stories that they can arrange to print and distribute ? for a profit. At least, that's what they tell you. When they're feeling disingenuous. 'It's a business', they say, as though that explained everything. If you are an author, and have a work to submit, they want to know that it can be printed, put in bookshops and sold. That last one is the most important. Any book can be put on a shop's shelf. The magic is to see it walking off the shelf to the till, where money changes hands. It's necessary, these transactions, in order to make the world of publishing work. No money, no more books. That's what they tell you.
Unfortunately, publishers have another string to their bow. Whenever they're stuck for a decision, they resort to an earlier ethic. 'This book deserves publishing', they declare. No, that can't be right! That's the cry of the patron. Hundreds of years ago, well-to-do and titled gentlemen would pay the printing bill if they considered that a work was worth sharing with the world. So why, I hear you ask, would modern-day publishers recreate the same philosophy? The answer, in my opinion ? too much education! Most people who infest the world of publishing have been massively educated, usually well past Degree level at University. They know too much about literature. They don't look at books like tins of beans, or parcels of hamburgers, (as they claim to do). They still have romantic notions of what makes good reading, probably gained during long years in the classroom. The result? They can't help acting like the patrons of old, committed to putting the best of all current writing in the hands of an un-eager but deserving public.
It confuses matters. If Traditional Publishers really were the business people they claim to be, then we would all know where we stood. We ? the writers ? would know that money is king, and only books that sell are worth looking at or ? to be strictly accurate ? worth writing! The bad news, for us, is that publishers aren't anything like as consistent as that. They also harbour strange, esoteric ambitions. They like the idea of discovering a potential Nobel Prize winner. Would the guy sell books? Dammit, it doesn't matter, they say, as long as he wins prizes. This is confusing, to say the least. Who are we dealing with? Hard nosed businessmen or dewy eyed lovers of top 'quality' fiction?
The answer, of course, is both. In these days, the early years of the 21st century, ambitious authors are being faced with the dilemma of trying to launch their wares with people who can't decide if they live in the present day or would rather be the Lords of Ladies of 250 years ago. It doesn't help. That's why I keep advising struggling authors to turn to the internet, where we can all get our books printed, bound and posted off to customers at no expense to ourselves. Then, when we're more certain that we want the life of the commercially rewarded writer, we can turn back to the confusing world of publishing and try to find the ideal publisher for us, out of the squalling morass. At least then we will have been past the thrill of seeing our precious story printed in book form; way past the lure of 'vanity publishing' and the subsidised market; and much more capable of coping with the flatteries of publishers who can't currently decide if they are commercial or not. In fact, whether they are here and now or living in the past, as patrons, in the old sense.
Many would-be writers and aspiring authors have a very negative view of Traditional Publishers. This is often because they experience their work being rejected regularly ' often on the flimsiest of grounds ' but also it may be because, almost without fail, the 'advice' offered by the publisher to the person submitting the work is pure nonsense.
An example of the former occurred to me just a few years ago. I submitted a plan for a novel and a sample of the work, consisting of several chapters. It was a murder mystery, a crime fiction novel. In the first chapter a record producer is shot. In Chapter Two, Mickey, the investigating hero, is mysteriously thrown across the desk by the deceased man's secretary as she tries to force him to have sex. The publisher was appalled. She said to me that 'most of the readers (of such books) were women' and that they 'wouldn't want to see sex happening so close to a scene of death'. Now, apart from the fact that the secretary's need was a trifle inexplicable to our protagonist too, I happen to believe that such an event was psychologically true. People often dive into sex when reminded of the shortness and uncertainty of life. Anyone remember World War Two? But that isn't the main problem. The fact is that this publisher went on to reject the proposal ' simply because she didn't like Chapter Two. That's the equivalent of a builder saying, 'You've got plaster coming off the wall in the kitchen. We're going to have to demolish the house'. No, the answer to the builder is to tell him to get his plastering kit out and get that kitchen repaired. The answer to the publisher is to cut Chapter Two and rewrite it the way she wanted it. Why wasn't I encouraged to do that?
Unfortunately this example illustrates the second problem ' nonsense. If the publisher had said she didn't like the sex scene, that would have been understandable. That's her prerogative. However, she didn't bother to do that. She resorted to the line that 'the readers' wouldn't like it. How did she know? Had she asked any? How on earth could she conceivably come to the conclusion that they would have shared her unease? What research is being done to confirm such a view? What focus group is meeting and having such discussions right now? None. None and none. As always, people who start work at Traditional Publishers soon find themselves awarded the powers of a god. They instinctively know 'what the public wants'. Disturbingly, it often coincides with their own particular bents, foibles and opinions. What else?
People who write books are faced with these prejudices so often that they soon come to take them for granted. They know that publishers and the people who work for publishers are entitled to their own opinions, and some writers even come to believe that years of experience in such a setting gives the person magical powers for knowing what the readers out there are clamouring for. Strange. If you listen ' I mean really, really listen, pin back your ears and listen ' you will hear the strangest thing. Nothing. Readers don't talk. They don't shout and they don't demand. Occasionally one will write a letter to a publisher, usually to complain. That tells you nothing, also. It tells you what one person thinks, what about the other thousands who bought the book? No, the only real feedback that publishers ever get is called 'sales'. If people buy a book it's because they want it. If they don't want it, they don't buy it. So, if publishers really understood their audience, then they would never fail. Every book that was issued would sell just as many as the Traditional Publisher predicted, no more, no less. It doesn't happen. That can only mean one thing. In truth publishers are usually surprised by sales ' either too few, or more than expected ' for one reason only, because they don't know what readers want. Not today, not last year and certainly not next year. That's just the way it is. It's an unpredictable business.
Luckily the Internet Author doesn't ever have this problem. Ever. They simply make their books available on the internet, maybe through a print-on-demand publisher like Lulu, and if people get to hear about the book and like it, they'll buy it. If they don't, they won't. It doesn't really matter what your views are, you, the author. It's all in the hands of the customers, the readers. They decide. It's just a pity that Traditional Publishing doesn't work like that. It's still based on blind faith and obtuse prejudice. That's why the opinions, and predictions, of Traditional Publishers are usually worse than useless. They're nonsense.
Mike Scantlebury has sinced written about articles on various topics from Internet Marketing, Writing and After Divorce. Mike Scantlebury is an Internet Author, in the new sense. He is his own publisher. His novels can be found on Amazon and and he has work on YouTube and FreeIQ. If you want. Mike Scantlebury's top article generates over 27100 views. to your Favourites.