New writers

Yes, Mr. poet_hatwin for example really has some of the stuff alright. Another object lesson on internet distribution channel morph out.

We have plans in the pipeline to start ABCtales writing classes. Watch this space!

"We have plans in the pipeline to start ABCtales writing classes. Watch this space!" How are you going to overcome the problem that deciding what is and is not good writing is a subjective business? Who is to say that the "teachers" have any idea what they're talking about? My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

"We have plans in the pipeline to start ABCtales writing classes. Watch this space!" Do I smell the smell of someone smelling money?

"'We have plans in the pipeline to start ABCtales writing classes. Watch this space!" Do I smell the smell of someone smelling money?'" Well, in a general sense there's more money in writing classes than there is in selling writing. For example, there are literally 100 times as many poets in the UK making cash primarily from teaching people to write poetry as there are making cash primarily from selling books and doing readings. But no one makes a mint from this kind of thing. All the organisations I know of who run writing classes on a long-term sustainable basis are heavily subsidised by the Arts Council or through educational funding. If ABC is planning to do it commercially they need to have a very strong USP or they're heading for an unpleasant surprise.

Firstly who is DavidK? And what qualifies him or anybody else to offer writing classes? What does anybody get out of such a class? Competitions sometimes ask for entrants who have studied at a recognisable institution. I presume that this wouldn't be one. One might then ask what's the point of it? If people want to learn how to write they can join any number of websites that cater for new writers and read books on creative writing. And above all, they can practice writing. Personally I think that's by far the best way of learning. Finding a publisher, beyond buying artists' and writers' handbooks and sending off sample chapters to garner rejection slips is something no writing course , (in my experience,) helps you with. And that is probably the most difficult aspect of the whole thing. And even if you get work accepted by publishers that doesn't mean they'll publish it. Publishers and agents can and do change their minds. I think that if people want to improve their writing there is no shortage of opportunities already. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

So, is someone forcing you to take a writing class, patmac? As with everything else on ABC all offers will be of the highest quality and the offer will be completely transparent. It does amaze me when people who have quite happily used a completely free service for years and years suddenly go off the deep end when that service begins to charge for certain things. We will always be free to join and free to post upon - the social networking and author support stuff has to be free to work well. If we then offer you other paid for services that you might be interested in I think that that might be regarded as reasonable.

I still don't see the point of it. What does a graduate of the ABCtales school of writing get? A publishing contract, an agent, included in an anthology what? Lots of people here can write extremely well already. What do they get? What's the point of it? And if there's no point to it then why are you doing it? My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Well, people can turn up and do some writing, meet some other people who like writing and get some tips on how to write better. If you don't want those things, don't turn up. There are plenty of literature development agencies that do offer courses that help you move towards publication. Spread the Word, in London, are one. Apples and Snakes, who do stuff in a range of areas, I think also offer some training along these lines. "I think that if people want to improve their writing there is no shortage of opportunities already." This is a good point. It is an extremely crowded market. Tony and co. need to consider that, along with the fact (the accounts of relevant organisations are freely available) that most 'sustainable' writing course providers are (at least) 50% - 60% funded through grants and/or other forms of cross-subsidisation. If you're a private individual supplementing your income by doing a session or two a couple of hours a week independently in a local community venue you might do it at a profit but it's massive challenge to try doing it commercially as an unsubsidized business.

"I still don't see the point of it. What does a graduate of the ABCtales school of writing get? A publishing contract, an agent, included in an anthology...what?" Patmac, you may as well ask the same question about any qualification. A degree in Advertising doesn't give you a job as a copywriter and a degree in History doesn't give you a job on "Time Team". What a writing course might give you is a pointer or two about what you need to do to get what you want from your writing - whether that be fame and fortune or just some personal satisfaction.

Spread the Word only offers basic tuition for prose writers. (But it does have an advanced poetry class.) Centerprise Trust who are Arts Council funded offer basic classes too. They charge over a hundred pounds for one of their courses but only twenty pounds for the basic course. And they don't say anything about publication. Moving towards publication is a phrase which doesn't really mean anything. Publication guaranteed means something. The Writers' Bureau guarantees publication for its students. (But what it doesn't say in its marketing literature is that it also runs a magazine.) In reality nobody can help students get published because publishers and agents choose which material to accept. In practical terms: Teaching people how to become a celebrity might be more useful. And then you could get someone to ghostwrite your novel and have it published automatically. We need to be careful that we're not 'just taking money from people who don't know any better.' Or maybe we just want a world full of unemployed good writers. The question what's the point of it? is still as pressing now as it ever was. *** If the answer to the question: What is the point of charging for writing tuition? is: To bring people up to the level of writing where they can share writing with people on websites (and not seek publication.) Then it can be posited that people can already do that now and they don't need to pay for it. So the question then becomes why charge money for it? My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

You're missing the point Pacmac, your aggro at the industry (I'm guessing they turned down your thriller- Even the Nude die Naked)is turned on the host organism- ABC tales. What you might get out of a writing course is detailed feedback (here feedback is intermittent but often good)- a concentrated course depending on your fellow writer/critics can be enlightening. Your argument is essentially: who will teach the teachers? Who will gross the grocers? Who will nurse the nurses? Maybe David K is Wilbur Smith

Hi Davey, We're not discussing the 'industry,' whatever that means. I'm asking why charge money for writing courses and you said in order to get detailed feedback. OK, thank you. That's a perfectly acceptable answer, (the first that I've had.) People can get detailed feedback in the lulu forum for free. Are there any other reasons to charge money? My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

;o)

I am afraid to say, and it is not an observation I take any pleasure from, that sometimes people value things they pay for more than they value things that come free. More than this, if they pay more they think that they are getting something better. So, if one offers a service gratis it seems to many folks to be either a waste of time or some kind of elaborate confidence trick. If you put a price on it and even hike the price just to the point where it seems a little too steep you'll get more customers who believe that what they are getting is worth every penny. So what's the difference between raysawriter telling me what he thinks of my latest story and some writing course tutor telling me that my prose is well paced but I need to lose the flowery descriptions? Perhaps I'm more likely to listen to someone I've paid..... hmm, perhaps.

Right Kropkin, in economic terms Giffen Goods. In economic terms a purchaser of a Giffen Good is a confused person. Honesty and dilligence would suggest that the purchaser be given purchasing guidance rather than be sold such goods. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

"If the answer to the question: What is the point of charging for writing tuition? is: To bring people up to the level of writing where they can share writing with people on websites (and not seek publication.) Then it can be posited that people can already do that now and they don't need to pay for it. So the question then becomes why charge money for it?" You charge for providing a service because you can offer it and someone else is willing to pay for it. The person who does or doesn't buy the service decides for themselves whether it has any value to them. If it doesn't then they won't buy it. Unless otherwise stated, the point is to help people improve their writing but I happily attend poetry courses on the basis that my general standard of writing may remain fairly similar but spending a few hours a week studying poetry under the direction of someone who knows about poetry is good fun. I can't see why you think writing tutors have any less right than anyone else to be paid to provide a service that people want?

What qualifies these particular writing tutors? And yes, if the course is sold on the basis that it probably will not or certainly may not improve your writing, given that determining good writing is a subjective undertaking, then that's fine. But the course should take extra care to openly state that. And then it should also state that even if your writing was excellent before and is excellent now, that is likely to be of less practical use in gaining a publishing contract than celebrity is, (if a student was hoping to get published after learning.) So, students should be clearly and repeatedly warned that it's likely to be a waste of both time and money. And then, if they still want to go ahead with it, then they should have their money taken from them and be given a receipt. :-) My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

"What qualifies these particular writing tutors?" Most writing tutors are writers who are passing on their skills and experience. Some also have experience as editors and a lot also have training as teachers or lecturers. I don't know who's doing the tutoring for ABCtales. "And yes, if the course is sold on the basis that it probably will not or certainly may not improve your writing, given that determining good writing is a subjective undertaking, then that's fine. But the course should take extra care to openly state that." I think the general understanding in terms of creative writing is that this is not stated because it's fairly obvious. But I don't think a writing course is significantly less likely to help you become a better writer than a history course is likely to help you become a better historian or a politics course is to help you become a better political analyst. "And then it should also state that even if your writing was excellent before and is excellent now, that is likely to be of less practical use in gaining a publishing contract than celebrity is, (if a student was hoping to get published after learning.)" I'm not sure why anyone would assume that a writing course would directly help them to get published unless the course was called 'How to get published'. The celebrity thing is red herring. It's simply not true that aspiring writers have less chance of getting a book deal because, for examples, Jordan and Frank Lampard are having their autobiographies published. When celebrity books sell well they create profits which publishers often use to support the publishing of less commercial titles. "So, students should be clearly and repeatedly warned that it's likely to be a waste of both time and money." Well, it is a waste of time and money going to writing courses if you believe that writing tutors can't tell you anything worth knowing about your writing and the only point of a useful writing course would be to explain the magical route to publication. But I don't think most people who do go have that as their starting point.

A lot of courses are called: Do You Want To Get Published? or Do You Want To Be a Writer? So yes. I agree with you, the course has to make certain that it doesn't do that. And not only does it have to make certain that it doesn't do that but it also has to make certain that it doesn't imply that doing the course will get you published, (unless the course creators are actually going to publish your work, in which case it's fine.) The celebrity thing is just practical. In Britain we've got a football girlfriend with ghostwritten books, a woman with big titties with ghostwritten romance books, endless celebs with childrens' books and so on. Nobody bothers to pretend that any one of them knows one end of a pen from the other end. But their books are appearing. So there's nothing red-herringy about it. In practical terms you're infinitely more likely to get a book published by being a celebrity with big titties than you are by writing well. So, I agree with you. As long as the student knows that it's likely to be a waste of time and money then it's fine. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

I'm not sure exactly how many celebrity books are published but it is obviously a tiny fraction of the books there are published. As a writer I'm not concerned about that and nor should other writers be. It is a strange phenomena that so many complain about an industry that they so obviously want to be part of. There always has been, in times when an sellable culture has existed, a popular culture. The Victorians had the same concerns. Those books you are concerned about will disappear and be forgotten in time. What is undoubtably true is that a lot of very fine writing gets published, more than any of us will ever have chance to read. Agents and publishers want to find good writers and care about good books. If you are good enough, whatever that means, then you will make it. And if you don't, so what? What exactly is it that you want, money, fame? If you care about writing then that is the thing that should make you happiest. Being published brings all other worries... I like going to book events, watching programs about writing, writers. I have never paid for a writing lesson but I have learnt most from reading other writers. However, that is not to say that paying for a course is wrong. It might work for you. It might make you work harder than you would otherwise. And if you are paying for feedback then you would hope that the feedback would be better than what you can get for free. In my experience however impressed friends may be by the fact that you might be published, they don't want to trawl through your work offering hints and tips. As Tony points out, this site is run on a free basis. If he wants to offer paid courses then surely that it is up to him. If people want to take them up than that is up to them. I don't see what there is to be anxious about. I really don't.

"So there's nothing red-herringy about it. In practical terms you're infinitely more likely to get a book published by being a celebrity with big titties than you are by writing well." I wasn't saying that celebrities don't get books published. They clearly do. It's a red herring because we as aspiring writers are not in competition with them. No publisher is making a decision between publishing my poetry collection or your novel and publishing Jordan's ghost-written novel - which is just as much an extension of her merchandising work as branded t-shirts or jewellery. My point is that Jordan's novel being published doesn't make any writer's book significantly less likely to be published.

Jordan, Madonna, Ashley Dupre, Kylie, the football girlfriend etc. The phenomenon of celebs who plainly can't write having books published hasn't gone unnoticed by many literary journalists. (It's a marketing thing.) These days writing isn't what it used to be. (You don't need to be able to write, just be a celeb.) My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

To say that writing now isn't what it used to be is, with all great respect, utter tosh. Ever since there were books that were produced for mass consumption there's been a mixture of different types of books published. Some books will sell few but will make enough of an impact with their readers to ensure that they are reprinted, rediscovered or return to publication. Other books will make a splash then disappear without a trace. There are always good books, bad books and books that either change your life or make you want to snap their spines. Always. To suggest that it has ever been different is only looking down the wrong end of a telescope at history, mistaking the well known landmarks for the whole landscape. No one has ever been a good writer without wanting to be a better writer. A course can make you a better writer only if you want to be one. Developing your craft is the aim and a lot of the time, that's something that you can't just do on your own, no matter how much you tell yourself that you can. Getting better as a writer isn't the same as being published. I know Drew has always wanted to be a writer and has always tried to write better and now he's a published writer. His journey has been about writing, not publishing. Even if Drew hadn't landed the contract that he has, having read his work here I know that he'd still be an excellent writer, even if his work was never published in book form. Tony isn't being a big fraud by suggesting that ABC might run courses. He's thinking of offering, in return for cash, an experience that some people might find helpful in developing their writing. Writing is a discipline after all. As Buk said above, it isn't unreasonable to say that a bit of teaching might make someone more able in their particular discipline. You wouldn't tell someone who wanted to be a professional singer not to go for lessons, or a wannabe ballet dancer not to take classes. It's hard to see why you'd think writing would be of such a different order. Writers aren't tiny states under siege, assaulted on all sides by giant forces wishing to destroy them. They're people who do writing, want to get better at writing and hope that, in one way or another, someone, somewhere, will get something out of the fruits of their labours. Cheers, Mark

I agree with almost everything Mark and Buk say. I can't see where this idea about competition comes from. Someone who walks into Borders looking for Jordan's autobiography only to discover it's been pulled by the Literature Police probably won't go and buy Kafka instead.

"These days writing isn't what it used to be. (You don't need to be able to write, just be a celeb.)" Clearly wrong in so many ways: Literacy is higher than it's ever been. There are more opportunities to write than there've ever been - internet, self-publishing and so on. There's more freedom to write. I'm gay. The kind of thing I write would have been illegal a generation ago. That's something that I'm very aware of and significant to me. Sales of quality fiction are actually doing ok. And even on a most basic level - do you actually know anything about the people who are writing the Kerry Katona, Jordan books? They might be fine writers. And I say again - there are so many brilliant books around by fine writers. I can't believe that anyone can't see that.

I think everybody is in agreement that there are few restrictions to writing on the Internet. And if we are talking about Internet writing then there is no absolute requirement for lessons in writing before beginning, (beyond those taught in schools.) However, some writers on the Internet are unable to express themselves clearly or as they'd wish to. If they'd like help to do that, and are willing to pay for it, then that sounds like a worthwhile, (targeted and limited) service. Dumbing down of literature? Richard Curtis, agent, formally of Scott Meredith Agency, in his article Publishing in the Twenty First Century argues that fiction is in crisis. (Feel free to agree with him or not.) The Guardian carries a related article called Once Upon a Time, which lists a long string of celeb childrens' books many of which it describes as awful but profitable. To deny that the 'celebritisation' of literature is taking place is to speak against the facts. To say that writing was never better in the past than it is today is an interesting argument. I'd start by saying that Shaw, Wells, Russell, Darrow and Chesterton, (who debated literature together,) made a better writing group than Madonna, Kylie, Jordan and Ashley Dupre. But I can admit that literary appreciation is subjective! My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

"I'd start by saying that Shaw, Wells, Russell, Darrow and Chesterton, (who debated literature together,) made a better writing group than Madonna, Kylie, Jordan and Ashley Dupre." You really are in trouble if you think Madonna, Kylie and Jordan are representative of the best writers around!!!!!!! The professor of literature from Cambridge was on Start the Week the other week. He was saying that every age has always complained about a dumbing down. I can't remember his name now - I must have dumbed down myself. And Richard Curtis's agent - Curtis is a brilliant bloke and a funny writer - but his films aren't exactly intellectual heavyweights, are they? No doubt celebrity books are published but so are many many more really brilliant ones, more than at any time. What a good state we're in!!!

Richard Curtis, (agent, Scott Meredith agency, not the film director,) argues in his article Publishing in the Twenty First Century argues that fiction is in crisis. The Guardian online article, Once Upon a Time, has a long string of celeb childrens' books many of which it describes as awful but profitable. The argument from Richard Curtis points to what he calls the 'blockbusterisation' of literature. Many publishers chasing big-hit-books at the expense of new writers. According to Curtis old editors who disagreed with this practice have been replaced by new ones who actively support it. Employing Madonna, Paul Mccartney, and Kylie as writers would suggest that he has a point! If there is a cogent argument that literary dumbing down has been practised more thoroughly in former times than it is now then please elaborate on it. Borders bookstore has recently announced plans to feature more books with their covers facing outwards, (a practice which costs publishers a promotional fee.) This will reduce the overall number of books in each store. It may be true that more books are being produced than ever before in history and that general rates of literacy are increasing. But whether or not mass producing junk books by celebrities and covering the media with them is what one usually associates with being an author I doubt. If people of like minds can associate on the Internet and write on the Internet, then they can at least share their own views of the purpose of being literate. And they do not need to be bound by an increasingly crass commercial application of the bookmaking and selling business. I think what a good state the Internet could put us in in future is perhaps a more apt assessment. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

"But whether or not mass producing junk books by celebrities and covering the media with them is what one usually associates with being an author I doubt." You keep referring on and on about books by celebrities and it is just plain wrong. These books are a tiny fraction of books published. Don't worry about them. There are thousands of other books which are brilliant and they will continue to get published. And the media is awash with good books - The Booker Prize, Costa Book Prize, Richard and Judy Book Club are all very high profile and show quality fiction - are there any celebrity titles in there? The papers I read - Independent, Guardian, never review these celebrity books. I suppose celebrity books are an easy target if you have a particular axe to grind. And as it happens the novel in its very inception was seen as a dumbing down from the serious, or poetic form. Virginia Woolf and the Bloomsbury Group were very much in fear of mass literacy and didn't think writing was for everyone. They were scared of dumbing down. As were the Victorians. T. S Eliot and so on. What we have now is a time when loads of really fabulous books are readily available to everyone - this year I have read Don Quixote (published in a new edition - a symptom of our dumb culture? Perhaps not), Dickens ( still available everywhere), A L Kennedy, Joe Dunthorne, Ben Borek, Joshua Ferris, Gerard Woodward, George Saunders, Douglas Coupland, David Benioff and so on. There are so many other books I want to read. Publishing is in a good state. And for writers that can only be a good thing. It is hard no doubt to get published but if you keep trying, are good enough then you will succeed. There is little to be gained from thinking the world is against you when it is not. If I lived in Iran and was in fear of being beheaded for being gay then perhaps I would have something to say about it.

I'm referring to Curtis and Curtis refers to 'blockbusterisation.' It's the Guardian article that I referred to which talks about celebrities. If you want to break books down by categories according to figures published from Neilsen then please do. As far as availability is concerned it depends upon whether we're referring to new books or older ones. Although you miss an interesting point that more titles can be kept in print today owing to POD. Cambridge Univerity Press have expanded their catalogue because of it. I'm not sure why I'd want to pay any attention to the list of books that you want to read. My own list looks far more like CLR James, Jacques Stephen Alexis and Jacques Roumain and Alejo Carpentier. I've been able to get hold of the books that I wanted on Amazon. And I'm grateful for it. I'm aware of the fact that whether or not you think access to required literature is sufficient, or not, depends on what you want to read! If Curtis believes that the 'blockbusterisation' of literature is occurring at the expense of new authors that's an argument that he can set forth, (and he does so.) In his argument he states that excellent authors are not being published. You may not be aware of the fact that Marc Blaney recently won a Somerset Maugham prize for his book Two Kinds of silence, which went unpublished. Jill Paton Walsh couldn't get her book, Knowledge of Angels published in the UK, (it had already been published in the States.) It was short listed for the Mann Booker Prize. So, in factual terms, the argument that all good books get published is false. Those two didn't get published in the UK until after they had been proven to be good. Those are only two shortlisted or prizewinning books. (I know of a whole range of good books which are not formally published.) In factual terms these books existed. They were not traditionally published in the UK and they were good books. That is a fact. If you wish to argue against the facts please do so without me. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

For someone so keen on the *facts*, this comes across much more as an embittered rant than an evidence-based argument. I just don't see what the big deal is. Does this just come down to no-one wanting to publish *your* books?

Enzo, Get a proper argument and read the thread. Ad hominem arguments show nothing but the inability to understand the issues. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Oh, do calm down. If anything, it's people like you and I doing the POD thing that's diluting the average quality of published literature, not celebrities. I'd much rather read Russel Brand's Booky Wook than the average POD. What I don't get is what do you want to happen? You said yourself in your first post that it's a subjective process - so that's that, right? Some books make it, some don't. The bottom line is more gets read now than ever so the opportunity to get read is better now than ever. Happy days.

Speak for yourself! My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

"Those two didn't get published in the UK until after they had been proven to be good. Those are only two shortlisted or prizewinning books. (I know of a whole range of good books which are not formally published.) In factual terms these books existed. They were not traditionally published in the UK and they were good books. That is a fact. If you wish to argue against the facts please do so without me." I don't see how the 'facts' you're presenting relate to the points you're making. As far as I can see no one is arguing that all good books always get published. The question is whether that's a new thing and whether there any specific practices that mean its more or less likely now than it used to be. It is true that publishing and bookselling are very different now to what they were 10 or 15 years ago. There are more books available in general, while the selection of books you'll find in your local high street bookshop - assuming your area still has either a high street or a bookshop - is generally smaller. This may not be what you'd like but you don't seem to offering any suggestions about how the situation could be altered beyond demanding that major commercial publishers publish what you'd like them to publish rather than what customers want to buy. "If there is a cogent argument that literary dumbing down has been practised more thoroughly in former times than it is now then please elaborate on it." I'm still waiting for a cogent argument that literary dumbing down is being practised thoroughly now other than that some people say it is - which was the main argument previously, too. The fact that celebrities' books are being published is not an argument in favour of that position unless you're offering some evidence of how this actually causes other literature not to be published. I also think it's up to you (and Richard Curtis's agent) to pin point when the golden age of literature was. As a guide, most golden ages take place twenty five years ago or before the war. The start date that you're counting back from is generally irrelevant to the timing of the golden age.

My local highstreet bookshop has closed. It might be useful to have studies on the closure of highstreet stores with since the loss of the Net-Book-Agreement and discounting practices by chain stores and supermarkets. Curtis' argument maintains that publishing margins are slim, former financial losses are pressing, and that editors are pressurised to raise sales. This he says invites editors to select titles which they believe will sell extremely well. And there he posits that a previous generation of editors looked first at the literary merit of a book and then its sales potential. Curtis maintains that under pressure to increase their sales many of these editors have left publishing and have been replaced by editors who are far more amenable to the practice of choosing books for their sales potential rather than for their literary merit. Celebrity books fit easily into this category of literature. The Guardian article asks the same questions but from a customer angle. And while it makes no attempt to analyse publishing behaviour per-se, it asks why badly written books by celebrities sell so well. As to a Golden age in literature. My thoughts hadn't run to quite that length. But I am intrigued by pictures of Charles Dickens along with G. Macdonald, A. J. Froude, Wilkie Collins, Anthony Trollope. W. M. Thackeray, Lord Macaulay, Lord Bulwer-Lytton and Thomas Carlyle, or my previous mention of GK Chesterton debating with friends George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and Clarence Darrow. And the writers who inspire me I know wrote together and were formally African slaves. They were Olaudah Equiano, Ottobah Cugoano and Ignatius Sancho. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

In the top 100 selling books of 2007 according to Nielsen there is one (ONE!) work of fiction written by a celebrity. The book is Crystal and it is by Katie Price and it is at no 92. I haven't read it, it may be very good. In the top 100 books two thirds are works of fiction. I would argue that fiction is in a pretty healthy state.

Good work, Drew. Post a link to where you got the data from. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2007/12/28/lrv_... "Charles Dickens along with G. Macdonald, A. J. Froude, Wilkie Collins, Anthony Trollope. W. M. Thackeray, Lord Macaulay, Lord Bulwer-Lytton and Thomas Carlyle, or my previous mention of GK Chesterton debating with friends George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, and Clarence Darrow." And would it be fair to say that all these people you like are still in print. How does that forward your argument? Are editors deciding - Katie Price or Dickens...? I think not.

OK, Drew. That's bestselling books not total book sales. I can't find 2007 Nielsens Report. I can only find 2002 so far. Publishers' Association. Figures total for UK 2002, 250,390 titles of which 11,800 were fiction. Unless there was a radical overhaul of fiction sales between 2002 and 2007 in which fiction sales rose by fifteen to twenty times in volume, I don't think fiction titles would account for three quarters of total booksales. Statistically we're talking total national booksales by volume (not individual authors Price vs Dickens.) But, in terms of what Curtis is saying it's not Price or Dickens, it's Price/Rowling/Grisham(s) or new novelists in general? To add to that, and Curtis doesn't make this point, it's the money spent on marketing the 'next big thing novelist' which fails to produce a bestseller. That promotional money could have been spent on a number of smaller novelists. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

I have to say, Drew, that a lot depends on how you define “Celebrity” as I counted very many TV celebs books including several by Jeremy Clarkson. Ah, I see, they don't count as fiction :O)

"I can only find 2002 so far. Publishers' Association. Figures total for UK 2002, 250,390 titles of which 11,800 were fiction. Unless there was a radical overhaul of fiction sales between 2002 and 2007 in which fiction sales rose by fifteen to twenty times in volume, I don't think fiction titles would account for three quarters of total booksales." That wouldn't be a radical overhaul because you're not providing a figure for fiction sales in 2002. Number of title sold classed as fiction has a fairly limited connection to the % of books sold that are fiction. Not least because, for example, in Drew's Guardian list, two editions of JK Rowling's book sold 4 million copies, which vastly exceeds the number of copies sold of all books by all living poets put together. Five out of the top twenty books are written by celebrities rather than writers but three of them are cookbooks, which are definitely not in competition with new novels. "But, in terms of what Curtis is saying it's not Price or Dickens, it's Price/Rowling/Grisham(s) or new novelists in general?" Hmmm. So why did Curtis cast Hugh Grant in Notting Hill when he could've taken a chance on an unknown up and coming actor (who may well have been much better at acting). Answers on a postcard (or a very big cheque).

This Richard Curtis doesn't direct films. He was formally a literary agent with New York's Scott Meredith Agency. He's arguing that new authors are being squeezed out in favour of blockbuster-writers. Enormous figures of sales for individual fiction titles help to explain what Curtis is saying, ie more sales are being crammed into fewer titles. But he goes further than that and maintains that even though much money is made selling these titles, publishers still can make overall losses, (or have losses outstanding from previous years.) And can therefore make operating losses overall. Essentially he's saying that the 'big-fiction-title' strategy is flawed. Figures of overall booksales are useful in illustrating general booksales. Trends for later years would be helpful too. He mentions that designing a strategy exclusively to score mega sales of new fiction titles has become a holy grail in fiction publishing, (one that he doesn't agree with. He also mentions that editors who didn't agree with it either left their jobs and were replaced by ones who do.) My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Literature is constantly getting better each and every year. As well as all the old classics from Homer, Dante, etc up to Kafka, Dickens, etc you have new books being published. Read the good ones, don't read the bad ones. Our generation has the best of it, bookwise, because we're the present. In 100 years all these books will still be around AND many more great ones.

Without defining good, in terms of aesthetics, what with it being subjective and all, how do you know, without first having read them, where the new good ones are? Or in the case of specialist books, even where the old good ones are? My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

Although it makes me somewhat uncomfortable, I'm not sure 'good' is the word but maybe 'important' and there are layers of this, from acknowledgement and general agreement by the academic and critical establishment to underground and transgressive type fiction, which can occasionally emerge over time as a new form or standard, although this seems to happen less and less. Certainly, books required in curriculum are the ones that last and are 'seminal works' by virtue of this integration. Best chances of success come by understanding the formal cannon enough to follow and hopefully extend it.

As good is prone to subjectivity so importance is to relativity. And though canons, if they are those, range infinitely in setting, type and content from ancient scriptures, hieroglyphs and parchments, through books to Internet writings. And acknowledgement is no necessary good. Its malevolent kind comes in forms as various as Index Librorum Prohibitorum, Divisione per la censura dei libri and acts, in 1933, at Wilhelm Humboldt University, some targets there were little known indeed. Authorities, dignitaries and figureheads of many types are often found wanting in their literary judgements; hindsight being marvellous. Wollstonecraft, (the elder,) remarked erroneously that Olaudah Equiano's book was merely a curiosity. She wasn't the only literary person who misjudged him and his kind. Some people with more sense than politics would say that the best friends of literature are inquiring minds and examination. Much fault is found in many other systems. My latest killing is: http://www.bookscape.co.uk/short_stories/human_sacrifice.php

I can see where my last sentence above might have been very much the wrong thing to say as it includes the words ‘success’ and ‘cannon’ and ‘follow’ which are not good words for artists. I agree the question of 'value' or what is 'good' in art/literature is open to endless debate and opinion, but work that is 'important' usually has proven itself to be just that prior to any blessing or judgment by the hated authorities. Identifying standards, forms, trends, influences, and movements that gain broad adoption by other practitioners is only taking the historical perspective. These arcs often happen simultaneously by various people in separate locations who are not communicating, and experts only connect the dots and plant the flags. If you are asserting that serious scholarship and critique does not identify the ‘good’ stuff, then I have to disagree. Manet essentially emulated Courbet but had the nerve to add black, not previously considered an eligible color. I think this better explains my view. I have no idea what some of these references are above, so you have me at a disadvantage there.

Folks, I'm going to put my prodigious and considerable rep 'on the line' here and predict that Patmac will never have a novel commercially published. Even given a quantum physics 'infinite dimensions' style multiverse model of reality, I predict that in every single dimension where he exists, Patmac will not be published. Whether this is because unfairness and incompetence are hardwired into the book industry, or because Patmac cannot produce work of a sufficient quality to get people to part with money for it, is hardly my place to say. But I'll say it anyway. The answer is the latter.