In the past, I would have argued alongside Rob, saying that readers depend on editors to select only what's worth reading, but there are enough examples of authors going straight to the audience and the audience responding well that I think it's fair to say that there may be another model rising.
We all know that editors are subjective, and they're much more likely to buy a story from an author with a good track record than buy the exact same story from an author with none. The editor is depending on the audience to do some selecting for them. There are clearly examples of authors who have podcasted their novels, gotten a considerable following, and attracted the attention of editors who would have otherwise ignored them. The way it works right now is that we submit to an editor on the hopes that the editor believes there is a market potential for our work. But it makes perfect sense to provide an editor with actual proof that your work is marketable. More and more these days, that's possible to do. On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Sal Armoniac <[email protected]> wrote: > Ooooh... Then go join the list of over a hundred responses to Rob's > remark. He'll fight you tooth and nail on that one. Can you give > statistics about the publishers that are picking up books after > self-publication? Not that I want to "validate" Rob's attitude, but I'm > somewhere in the middle here. I had thought of posting a comment that not > everyone needs to be in a conventional, marketing midlist, but thought > naaah, I'm wasting my breath. He listens only to those who agree with him > and sharply refutes anyone who doesn't. > > You weren't rolling on the floor laughing at the literally phallic duel?? > The junk I see at Borders is proof in a pail that markets will sell TOTAL > dreck. I wish I had written down the name of the book that was one long > account of a woman getting her rocks off by a man biting her nipples. Full > of terms like "pebbles." So to speak. > > Sarah > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Alicia Henn <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I remember after reading Riverworld, racing to get my hands on any Farmer >> I could find. I ended up with a book, was it Lord Tyger? in which men dueled >> with crossed erections. There is a lot of expectation that goes into the >> impression of a book. It certainly wasn't what I was expecting and I was >> disappointed. >> >> As far as the self-publishing bit circumventing validation, that was true >> in the past, but a lot of publishers are picking up books after they've been >> self-published and have started to sell. It's the selling it yourself part >> that can be the validation now. >> >> Alicia >> >> >> On Feb 11, 2010, at 12:10 AM, Sal Armoniac wrote: >> >> You should see the long looooooooong protracted debate on Rob Sawyer's >> Face Book page about why it is better to get publishing companies to print >> your book than to self-publish. There are people out there who really >> believe that going through the "filtering process" of acceptance and >> validation by any press guarantees quality over those who are more >> "impatient." To be sure, Rob's first remark was to vilify those who >> suggested to any author that they self-publish when the enterprise could >> come to naught (especially economically). >> >> I think the worst novel I read, next to _Woman Between the Worlds_, was >> Jonathan Carroll's _Sleeping in Flame_. Touted all over as the next best >> thing to sliced bread in the realm of intellectual fantasy. >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Dana Paxson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 35 years or so ago I was driving my family through the Adirondacks, and >>> to keep the kids entertained, started making up a song about the Adirondack >>> Shark. I guess I was just participating in some silly cosmic freshwater >>> resonance. >>> >>> >>> Eric Scoles wrote: >>> >>> Are you sure he was serious? (Then again, if I have to ask...) >>> >>> When I was younger I thought it would be fun to write a novel about a >>> giant muskelunge eating swimmers in Lake Michigan. Thought it would be fun >>> to see if people took it seriously. Somebody else suggested, 'why not just >>> make it a gigantic bass and set it in Long Lake?'* Then someone went and >>> made _Champlain_, which I'm told was about a gigantic alligator terrorizing >>> swimmers in Lake Champlain, and I realized that the world had moved on >>> without me. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *My brothers & I spent hours one weekend catching and re-catching (and >>> re-re-catching) undersized smallmouth bass on Long Lake. One of our running >>> jokes had to do with crossing them with piranha. So, there's another idea. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Jonathan Sherwood < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Sorry to digress slightly, but the absolute worst case of collaboration >>>> was a book my dear wife bought me for a beach read. It was by Piers Anthony >>>> and some other guy. It's called "Spider Legs," and holds my personal record >>>> for worst book ever read. It was so bad I had to finish it just because it >>>> was hard to believe it was ever put into print instead of sent back to the >>>> depths of Hell by the publisher. >>>> >>>> It's basically "Jaws" but with a giant spider crab. Why do good authors >>>> do that? >>>> >>>> http://www.amazon.com/Spider-Legs-Fantasy-Piers-Anthony/dp/0812564898 >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Sal Armoniac <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Asimov also declined. I can't stand his later novels. Clarke's quality >>>>> dropped because he started collaborating with less skillful writers. It >>>>> bothers me, even, that he wrote his two novels 2001 and 2010 in >>>>> collaboration with filmmakers. Kubrick's film is far better, and has >>>>> reached >>>>> more people than Clarke's novel, which is a let down after seeing the >>>>> film. I'm having a hard time teaching him. >>>>> Sally >>>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 1:48 PM, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Blather. Most of the writers at the high age range of that chart >>>>>> started publishing many years before such a thing as a Hugo Award for >>>>>> novels existed. Make 1955 your base line (when the Hugos started being >>>>>> awarded annually) instead of first published work and the whole chart >>>>>> shifts downward. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>> Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>>> [email protected]<r-spec%[email protected]> >>>>>> . >>>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>> Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>>> [email protected]<r-spec%[email protected]> >>>>> . >>>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> [email protected]<r-spec%[email protected]> >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<r-spec%[email protected]> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en. >>> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]<r-spec%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<r-spec%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "R-SPEC: The Rochester Speculative Literature Association" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/r-spec?hl=en.
