Write / Don't Write

Thanks for that, Rokkitnite. A little bit of inredulity to begin my day. Now here's a book I'll never read: "Tim Clare . . . promoted his first novel, Joshu Replied" Hypocrisy anyone? Now he's published, there's no need to saturate the market with any of your drivel so give up, one and all, Timmy has arrived.

Rokkit Tim: as I said on UKA, you've ironed the argument out considerably since the last time you ran through it. It's been about 10 minutes since I was over there though, and I've decided I still disagree. If the industry were to move towards a more elite system, I don't see how the quality would improve. There'd be less books, but roughly the same proportion of rubbish ones. Rubbish ones, generally, perform better. In fact, there's likely more danger of a so-called elitism squeezing out better books, unless you think every editor is a stalwart devotee of literarature who would sacrifice a potential big seller for something he or she thinks is culturally important. 'Da Vinci Code' versus 'Foucault's Pendulum' - which is more likely to be published? Which is better? But I don't think it's going to happen - I think the fact that established writers struggle to sell by the third book in is more to do with them having nothing more to say than new writers crowding them out. I think agents and publishers are constantly on the look out for 'the next big thing' because it really is the only thing they'll be able to make money out of. It's not a case of them abandoning the safe and steady because of greed - they *have* to find fresh new authors to keep going. On the other hand, I'm not sure you're making a serious recommendation. The root of your opinions on the matter, after all, and as you freely admit, is that you're fed up with whiny, naff writers complaining that the system is against them. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but the general idea of this article, as suggested by your mock attack on it in the first post on both sites, is to stir such people up? Are their complaints worth the attention? Aren't they already wound up enough? Also, to cap it all, I'm really, seriously worried that D.J. Taylor and Paul Magrs would clap you on the back and invite you to dinner.

Nice article Tim, and glad to see you've changed the email address too. I was talking about this last night and I pretty much agree with what you're saying. I've always believed that if I was good enough then I'd make it. Taylor's comments are so obviously stupid. Good luck with Joshu Replied. You mentioned you are doing some more rewrites? I've just finished the second set of rewrites the agent asked me to do - it was only one 5 page section they wanted me to cut down. So fingers crossed. This will be it. Finally. At last. And all that.

I know, 5 pages, and she was really apologetic. She said it's very well written but it stands out because the rest flows so well. And I'm thinking, 5 pages?. Just 5 pages? She was so enthusiastic, I can't quite get my head around it. (It makes a change - my fan base is usually young men who are into watersports. LOL. (I know this from seeing profiles of people who have put me as their favourite writer on various gay dating websites.)) Anyway, it's done. And I dream that it all works out. It's the first agency I've sent it to. I've never approached agents before but I came to the conclusion that I didn't really have any choice.

By rubbish I mean 'stuff I think is rubbish'. The thrust of your argument is that publishing would be a more dignified industry if it were more elitist - that the quality of the crop would be better. But then you make that argument circular by suggesting that I might have to accept whatever crop emerges must be good, even if I know it's rubbish. It's good because it succeeds because it's good ad infinitum. The thing is, Tim - I don't think you actually believe what you're arguing in this article. I think you *want* to believe it, because it's essentially an interpretation of the publishing industry shaped by your behavioural philosophy. You want to feel that every success is deserved, and to take failure or rejection as a sign that you need to practice harder and do better. You've said as much numerous times, and it is, for those that can keep to it, a healthy approach to achievement and life and all that. It's no coincidence that the people who've responded positively to your article are the more confident writers, and the ones who got uppity about it are the ones who maybe lack that self-belief to take on the system as it stands. Now, I don't see anything wrong with believing you are master of your own fate, but you cannot shape the reality of the publishing world around it. Brilliant writing is not automatically destined for publication, while much crap writing is, and this will continue to be the case no matter how regulations are tightened. The only people who give a fig about any of this, meanwhile, will be people involved in the industry and people who *want* to be involved in the industry. I seriously doubt readers and general consumers are having panic attacks in bookshops because of the number of new books out. From a reader perspective, everything is just super. --- 1.20am update. I've just reread the article to doublecheck that I know what I'm talking about, and yes, I appear to have honed in on the one particular suggestion he makes near the end (the 'quality control' idea), rather than address the whole article, which is largely sound in its dismissal of Taylor and the 'cartel' nonsense. Now I'm going to bed because I have no idea what I'm doing up this late.

Loud round of applause for Jack Cade.

"not being privy to this article you and others argue here...." Link's at the top. Up Tim's hitrate. "...I simply wonder if it really makes a fig of difference to anyone if publishing becomes more elitist or not." It does to the publishers (they will lose out, a mon avis, if they stop their constant search for the next big thing,) and it does to the writers, half of whom feel that not enough new writing (ie. their own,) is being published, and half of whom feel that there is too much new writing (ie. not their own,) being published.

I mean the 'next big thing' on the literary scene specifically. The publishing industry survives, or so I've read, on a few hits a year. These successes are, to my mind, almost completely random, but that doesn't stop everyone scrabbling around for them frantically. It isn't going to do anyone involved in writing any good to try to get in on this Hollywood Internet Purchase conspiracy of yours.

Everyone is fighting for their little piece of the pie. I think the most accurate desription of the article in question is the statement from Rok "..but I'm hoping to sneak into that club through implying that I'm already a member..." Publishers are in business to make money, plain and simple...if something makes money, they'll keep doing it until it quits making money...It's possible that not all publishers have the same exact motivations...the same can be said of writers. It is in their best interest to protect their position, once established. The article explains nothing. It reinforces the world of business and publishing is a business just like selling softdrinks is a business. Writers are employees, trying to make a living. they can get away with using a lot of smoke and mirrors and wit and psuedo-intellect or even from time to time...true intellect...these are the tools of the trade. The problem is, if a carpenter shows up for a job and he has all his tools and is very good at what he does, that doesn't mean he gets work. All the orders may be filled. There is always another opening though...things always change...some things... It's not a bug...it's a feature.

But are such people ever going to abandon that belief, even if we all denounce G.P. Taylor? Of course not. And he's not so much encouraging it, as utilising it for the promotion of his competition. Tthe fact of the matter is that while the publishing world may not be a cartel, there is almost certainly a lot of 'publishing your mates' type behaviour around, if for no other reason than editors and agents are more likely to get excited about their acquaintances' talents than the faceless mob who send them manuscripts. I think it's highly plausible that Taylor has seen this sort of thing going on, and has got a stick in his craw about it. I have to say - although it's repeating myself - I really don't see the point in repeatedly battering the 'jaded scribblers' who aspiring writers want so badly to distance themselves from. It just seems to be a given in writing and publishing that everyone is always attacking everyone else for missing the boat. Writers, particularly poets, are forever denouncing 'fashionable' things as if they're somehow immune to trends - and everyone seems to go by the bitter belief that they are part of a small, true-to-tradition faction battling against the terrifying hoardes of half-wits. It's great that we all feel like such exiles, but does it have to result in so much wroth?

gosh i cant wait to win that WOW comp ...

Am v. excited for you that your book will be out after a 5 page re-write and equally so that you are listed as a favourite author on dating agency sites. How cool are you and how shallow am I. I can't even figure out how to add on to existing topics yet...when in doubt start anew. write to write. Is that boho or just fear? No need to reply, I already know.

hey, I can reply, God I'm good

Well, I write because if I write something that I like it makes me feel good. If someone else likes it too, it makes me feel even better. If it gets published then I start running around the kitchen squealing like an unstuck pig because I enjoy being a kitchen table writing muppet and want the excuse to continue.

muppets unite ... and reclaim the ... umm ... what shall we reclaim lou?

hey FIsh, you got home safely then, no loss of direction :-)

The pc from the kids? Ooh and the remote. Please say if I write something good I can reclaim the remote.

I hope you win the WOW comp fish - or that I do. I was happy to enter it because it was FUN and I'd quite like £1,000 and 7.6% of profits, and my book in every Waterstone's window in the country... I don't see that is a bad thing. The idea that there is such thing as a proper 'writer' is silly - and the idea that they are above the average person is also silly. I think everyone does have a story inside them - the story of their life - whether they can articulate it is another matter. The amount of very young, middle class, highly educated people who think this qualifies them to comment on humanity over others astounds me. I guess Rokkit was being tongue in cheek to a certain extent - and I also think GP Taylor's various comments to be disingenous and kind of annoying in general - but I would like to say that for someone like Rokkit - who has confidence in spades and will pester the publishing world like a dog on heat until he gets what he wants - is at and advantage due to his personality. Some people are just shy, or would never imagine to self-promote in the way he does. Being a good writer doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with being good on the phone, or good in front of a crowd, although many good writers are those things.

i think we should both win it ... 5k each and a share of every waterstone's window ... sounds good to me ... missing you kiddo ...

missing you too. It's rubbish not having a computer. How can you be a writer without a computer, eh? eh?

someone should give you one!

Hear hear! Back to Tim's article - I have very mixed feelings about this. I've seen some very very talented authors on here without contracts - drew, beswetherick (where he?) karl, sooz and many more - and I've read some appalling stuff that is published (India Knight must top any list) but then that's capitalism and if we have it then we must accept its idiocies. Publishers are free to publish whatever they choose. If they think something will sell then they will put it out - it has nothing whatsoever to do with being 'good' or not. Some of it will be 'good' and some of it will not be - and that's because the reading public is, by and large, well educated and looking for something is both 'good' and entertaining. The number of books published per annum is another matter. There's no way a member of the public can even begin to keep up. But it does give us choice and it does give some authors opportunity. I think overall it's a few too many but if we are leaving capitalism to its own devices then let's leave it and see what happens. Owning a publishing house is a bit like owning a football club - you do it because you love it - and that, in a mean and cut-throat world - is no bad thing. I'm all for a bit of indulgence.

*looks admiringly at leftboy*

Unfortunately, there isn't an independent adjudicator to appeal to when things don't seem to be fair. I think that there is probably an illusory divide in many people's mind between 'art' on one hand and 'business' on the other. 'The artist' wants to live without getting their hands dirty with all of the mundane and compromising activities that 'business' undertakes. They feel that art should be enough and that someone else has to do the business stuff. This is the romantic ideal. Ultimately, I feel that there are probably more opportunities for people to get into print than ever before, but none of them keep up the romantic pretense. Art is business, and always has been. If it isn't, it just comes down to some very rich individuals giving money to people they really like, which I for one think is an even more elitist way of doing things. Then you are in the position of needing to know whatever nobility or royal court is chucking the money around... At least if things are on a professional basis, you can actually learn how they work and then plan your moves accordingly. And, for writers, a career is just like any other career. You have to build your CV and your experience, working toward the things that you want. If the stumbling block is that you don't know people, you have to find way to know people. I don't accept that there aren't ways into the loop, they may just be less obvious. Creating is one thing. There is another set of things that you need to do to get somewhere that you want to be, and that will involve doing odious tasks like research, organising and planning. It's fair enough if you feel that the publishing industry should be more open, but the question is 'what are you going to do about it?'. I think there is often a form of thought that masquerades as 'things are really hard for writers' which is actually more accurately 'things are really hard for me'. If you think that people should have more chances, you have to be willing to support things that give writers more chances. For example, there would be more exposure for new writers if people were prepared to buy small press books, magazines and attend events. As it is, not that many people do, which in turn underlines for publishers just how risky 'new' writing is. Fame and fortune doesn't just fall into anyone's lap. Unless someone can come up with a magic way of generating money to throw at books that probably won't sell, the way things are now will probably continue for the foreseeable future. I suppose what you have to do is find out about the opportunities available, work on making your writing the best it can be, and get yourself organised enough that you can take advantage of what's out there to help. It ain't easy, but there are lots of people who have a jobs funded by the state and others who are there to try and make it easier. Publication of your novel is what some writers see as the first step of a career. In reality, there's a lot of first steps before that to bring you to that stage. I really do think it's worth remembering what a recent invention the paperback 'popular' edition is. Cheers, Mark Brown, Editor, www.ABCtales.com

I think at the end of the day, Tim's predicition that talented writers will be discovered is what writers have to believe. Whether it is true or not is impossible to tell, but, it is something to cling on to.

Very sound advice Mark. I think a lot of people are looking for that big book deal but there's a lot to be said, in my opinion, of building up a CV as you say. I don't know if agents / publishers are impressed by this but in my head they are. I think if you send something off to them and you have been published in numerous small magazines, small presses then they are more likely to give serious consideration to your work. And besides having stories published here and there abouts is a good thing anyway. I also agree about supporting small presses, magazines. And also here on abc of course. As Tony said, there are a lot of really good writers around.

Yeeees.... but what most, or many, writers want is to be full-time writers, able to live off their income from writing. That, as well as laziness, is why many ignore the independent scene totally - very few writers who're published through small presses make much mone, no matter how many gigs they attend. That scene is for people who love it, not as a means to an end.

To which the reply, put forth by someone less realistic than yourself, would be, "Why the hell not, when barely literate hacks like Dan Brown and J. K. Rowling can?"