Because I subscribe to writing magazines, I receive a lot of unsolicited mail about writing and publishing. I received some mail the other day that troubled me.
It is a pamphlet that purports to contain "Everything you need to know to get your work accepted by a commercial publisher." Inside the pamphlet is much advice but one piece of advice in particular angered and saddened me. It says that an author should never claim that "his book is unique."
First of all, how difficult would it have been to structure the sentence in such a way as to avoid the gender bias? We teach our students at the university a very easy way--use the plural form of pronouns and verbs--Authors should never claim that their ...
That nonwithstanding, I was dismayed at the suggestion that uniqueness is not prized by commercial publishers. This is what the brochure says about an author claiming that "his book is unique":
"This statement is the kiss of death because editors don't want a unique book. They want a book that fits into an existing category and meets the needs of an existing audience. At the very best, this statement implies that the author doesn't understand the market for his book. At the very worst, it indicates that the book is, indeed, unique--and therefore either has no audience, or has an audience that is difficult to reach."
I understand the very human need to categorize, I do. Having categories is useful, even necessary. But strict adherence to categories can be the "kiss of death" for art. Do we really want to live in a world in which the publishers have already pre-decided that unique books will not be of interest to readers?
Over the weekend, Allen and I went to Toledo to have a bite to eat. Afterwards, we decided to take in a movie. I'd been wanting to see Capote, so we went to the four movie houses near us, only to find that all of them offered the same movies, all of them of the mass-audience genre. Capote was not playing at any of the theaters. There were many choices at the 18-theater cineplex, yet to my mind, there were no choices. I didn't wish to see any of those movies.
There are more books being published today by the commercial presses than ever before. But if writers and publishers follow the advice in the brochure I recently received, what are the readers' choices?
The "advice" in the brochure I received in the mail dismayed me. But it won't change what I want to write. Writing in order to satisfy a pre-existing category is not something I'm interested in doing. Each poem, story, essay, or novel I write--or want to write--is a voyage of discovery. Otherwise, my thinking is, why do it?
I know there are many writers who are perfectly happy writing within a given category or genre. That is okay for them. That is great for the readers who enjoy that kind of writing.
But writing with a certain "category" in mind feels cramped and "smothery," as Huck Finn would put it. It lacks purpose for me because I'm not that kind of writer. I wonder how many writers, for the hope of getting published, will heed this "advice," which I feel is killing to the soul.
Believe this: for everything you write, there is someone in the world who needs to read it. Barry Lopez said that sometimes a person needs a story more than food.
To thine own self be true. In doing that, you contribute something of value to the world.
11 comments:
Hollywood 'says' the exact opposite. There is a supposed search for unique stories-or stories with a unique 'spin'- that somehow have mass appeal- But- guess what?Much film material now comes from books- To whom should you listen? A publisher's advice? An agent? Manager? Producer? No one can predict what sells- what will be the next big thing. This is the blockbuster vs art film mentality that has invaded our culture today. The admonition, "To thine ownself be true," is right on the mark. Tell your story with all the passion, clarity, depth and power you can give and it will have universal truths we all seek to share. Great movie moguls of the past knew this- And what were their influences? The box office of course- But also- Great literature. Some of us will drive for miles to be on line for Capote with you! (Or anything else people say we won't be interested in but will fight to see or read- What does the internet tell you? The audience is hungry and waiting.)
ggw07@aol.com
I agree wholeheartedly! I am writing for me - unpublished yet - also not submitted. I hope when it is finished there is an audience. But I have an audience of one who loves me. Blessings, Penny http://journals.aol.com/firestormkids04/FromHeretoThere
This was an aptly-timed piece for me to read, Theresa - thank you. Maybe the purpose of the writing is what drives how one writes. Writing for the sole purpose of being published may be more of a craft than an art? Or is that too harsh? Writing for that reason, to a formula, is like creating a commodity for a known market - and, quite honestly, more power to those who can do that. I admire their ability. For others, who write because they have to, who write because it is, in your words, a voyage of discovery, then the advice in the brochure is entirely off the mark, and maybe even an insult.
(As for me, I need to work out why I write, and stick to it.)
And as for "Capote," well, I am lucky enough to live a place where it is easy to access the better, less commercial movies. "Capote" is a masterpiece, and Philip Seymour Hoffman confirms my long-held opinion that he is an acting genius.
I think writers who want publication have to look at writing from multiple angles: the reason for writing, the craft of writing and the business of writing. I can look at what will sell and make that, or I can write what is true and hope it strikes a chord with other people. The true writing is that which nourishes me, but the grants and marketing materials I've sold have put food on the table. At this point, I can't imagine taking the mental outlook I use on business writing and applying it to my creative writing -- one of the reasons I haven't tried to sell any creative writing. The craft of writing I can apply to both.
I suspect the word 'unique' appears in the cover letter accompanying almost every trite, cliched, two dimensional, grammatically disasterous manuscript an editor pulls off the slush pile in the corner of his office. I wonder if instant editor eye rolling at the sight of the word could be classed as a Pavlovian response?
-Paul
I have already done this homework.....
hehehehehehehehehehehhehe
I cheated.
http://journals.aol.com/ckays1967/myjourneywithMS/entries/1128
And then, I followed it up with this extra credit project.
http://journals.aol.com/ckays1967/myjourneywithMS/entries/1130
Success and Art are too often inimical, I'm afraid. Danielle Steele will ALWAYS outsell James Joyce. The primary goal of commercial publishers is to make money ... NOT to spread the enlightenment. Unless it jibes with a lucrative and prevailing orthodoxy, publishers couldn't care less
In Boswell's famous autobiography of Samuel Johnson, I found it thought provoking that Dr. Johnson remarked. "Everybody writes, but nobody reads." And books that have become classics are definately unique -- and usually not appreaciated in the authors lifetime.
I don't normally pay attention to those brochures you speak of. I was burned a few years back when an agent said he'd represent me if I paid all those 'mailing' fees up front. I don't trust anyone anymore, which might be half my publishing problem. I frankly wonder where some of these companies get their writers from. Not all of them are 'outstanding examples' of what we aim to be.
Jude
http://journals.aol.com/jmorancoyle/MyWay
John Grisham supposedly did a study of "what sells" before he began writing his novels. Face it, Theresa...you are doing this backwards. Putting your heart and your art into a manuscript, and THEN expecting the public to respond to it? You've got Some Nerve.
Post a Comment