In a recent interview for a writing blog, I was asked how publishing has changed since I’ve been an editor. The obvious answer is the rise of self-publishing and e-publishing. But these are only symptoms of something deeper.
Most publishing houses used to offer more support for midlist writers – writers who weren’t celebrities but who sold well enough to turn a decent profit. (They were “midlist” because they appeared in the middle of the list of new releases the publishing houses put out twice a year.) Then, starting in the 70s and 80s, publishing houses began to consolidate, and their approach to the business began to change. Major houses started paying large advances for established writers, looking for blockbuster-sized sales and profits. Spend a million dollars to buy the rights, spend another million promoting the book, and make five million in sales.
It’s not a bad business model, but it does limit one of the main avenues for talented new writers to break into print. Most writers will never become bestsellers, and certainly none of them start out that way. So how do the skilled, respectable writers who aren’t blockbusters get into print now that traditional publishers are a little further out of reach?
I’ve written before about small presses and self-publishing, both of which have their advantages and pitfalls. But one of the main dangers of either of these came home to me in this last month – they don’t have gatekeepers.
In order to get onto a publishing house list at all, you have to get past an acquisitions editor – the gatekeeper who both warned writers that their books weren’t ready for print and helped shape those who were close. As a result, even beginning writers had a trained professional watching over them to let them know if and when they had gone off the rails. There were still hacks, of course, but many writers who were only modestly popular in their day were skillful and engaging to read.
Of course, there are still strong, midlist writers like that today. But . . .
A writer who said she was a big fan of Self-Editing for Fiction Writers recently sent me a copy of her latest, self-published book as a token of appreciation. I flipped it open at random, and within two pages found examples of most of the stylistic problems Self-Editing covers. I’ve talked with this writer. She is intelligent and well informed, and she clearly took her writing seriously. I’m sure she did everything in her power to make it as professional as possible. Yet, she had missed glaring weaknesses.
It’s not just the self-published. Ruth, my wife and business partner, is also a voracious reader — something that’s a lot easier now that Kindle means we don’t have to pack our small house with even more books. She recently picked up a well-reviewed book (more than 120 five star Amazon reviews) by a well-established writer (two long-running series, one of which was produced for television). She asked me to read some of it because she was finding it false — the writer was ignoring basic facts, the characters were acting irrationally, the story simply didn’t come together.
I read two pages and spotted one of the most basic self-editing mistakes – the writer was not getting into her characters’ heads, getting more caught up with the details of her world than with how her viewpoint character experienced them. The story felt false because she was approaching it mechanically rather than presenting it as a lived experience – possibly an occupational hazard, since this was the thirteenth in the series. And her publisher, a small, independent house, probably couldn’t spare the staff to police her work closely enough to catch the problem.
Ruth tells me she often encounters this sort of problem in modern books, particularly if they’re self-published. So much so that she’s now concentrating her reading on writers from past decades, such as Angela Thirkell or Rumer Godden.
There is no way for me to say this without it sounding like an advertisement, but that doesn’t make it any less true. There are limits to what you can teach yourself about writing. You can (and should) study books about style, you can (and should) get feedback from other amateurs, you can (and should) visit groups like Writer Unboxed. Even so, there are still going to be things about your own writing that only a well-trained professional will be able to spot and correct. You need a gatekeeper.
This isn’t surprising. It’s tempting to think that even basic stylistic techniques are simply matters of mechanics, the sorts of things that you can pick up from a good how-to or a pair of outside eyes. But they often involve looking at your entire story — and sometimes the art of storytelling — in a new way. This kind of fundamental adjustment to your outlook is never easy. Having a trusted professional showing you the way makes it a lot easier.
I’m currently working with a client who had trouble settling into his main character’s head – the same problem that the series author had. The character was wonderful, and her story arc was the glue that drew together a lot of well-crafted, dramatic events. Because the writer wasn’t seeing the story as the character experienced it, she often disappeared from the narrative for chapters at a time while he wrote about events that were happening around her. The story didn’t feel false – the other characters and the writing were strong – but it didn’t feel like her story, when it should have.
When I first started editing back in 1987, print on demand and epublishing were not even in their infancy. It was the early nineties before a tech-savvy client amazed me by sending his manuscript on two 3 ½” inch floppy disks. Then, the only way around the gatekeepers was to self-publish, which involved a vanity press. This is why vanity-published books had an often-justified reputation for being the refuge for writers who couldn’t make it any other way. Modern e-publishing is not quite that bad – a lot of strong writers are getting out into the world through Amazon Kindle. But anyone who has read a lot of $1.99 specials on BookBub can tell you that the writing is rarely as strong as it could be.
So find a gatekeeper. Hire a professional editor. Search for a good agent – the best of them can spot problems as effectively as an editor. Hold out for traditional publishing, with an acquisitions editor who will not let you through until you’re ready.
Gatekeepers are harder to find. But you need them more than ever.
Thoughts to share? The floor is yours.
About Dave King
Dave King is the co-author of Self-Editing for Fiction Writers, a best-seller among writing books. An independent editor since 1987, he is also a former contributing editor at Writer's Digest. Many of his magazine pieces on the art of writing have been anthologized in The Complete Handbook of Novel Writing and in The Writer's Digest Writing Clinic. You can check out several of his articles and get other writing tips on his website.
I totally agree. I self-published my first book, and had as many people look at it as possible, including some very talented not-paid (or even published yet) writer/editors who helped me spot those weaknesses. Even though I hadn’t paid for the editing, the writers were at a level of expertise that I ended up with a really good story and it showed on the reviews on Amazon.
The second book I didn’t have the same support (things change, paths diverge) and I really missed the safety net of having the input of people I trusted look over the story. I found editors who I could afford (wasn’t able to work with the editor I really wanted to, due to cost) and it was pretty much a waste of money. It was even a person I know is a published writer and whom I’d had critique my writing in the past, but I swear the person didn’t even really read the manuscript. I guess I’m mentioning this as a cautionary point that even getting a paid editor doesn’t always mean you’ll end up with a great book. (Actually, I don’t know if the second book is good or not. I didn’t publish it to Amazon yet, partially because I am concerned it isn’t up to snuff. Right now it’s published to Wattpad and all I know is it is finished!)
I can almost hear all the readers of this comment say “Well, you get what you pay for.” The thing is, money is a limited commodity around my house and I have to pay for braces and music lessons and food and a mortgage. And while I knew this person wasn’t in the same category as the editor I wanted, I also trusted them and believed them to be better than what I got. I’m not whining, just laying the truth out there. I don’t know the answer to finding good editing unless you are willing to pay a lot for it, or get an agent.
And I do plan to try a more traditional route for my third book. It’s more of a mainstream story that hopefully fit into a traditional publishers wish list. However, as I’m developing my plot and creating my story world, I’m finding I really would benefit from some input, even at this early pre-agent stage. I could really use a mentor. Or maybe just some new talented writer-friends? I don’t know. But I do know that you are right, I’m starting to see quite a lot of writing that even I can spot the issues with the story–in both self-publishing and small, independent publishers. There are good reasons to have gatekeepers. :D
The traditional pathway is tedious, glacially slow, and unreliable. Additionally, by most accounts, trads no longer deliver what they did historically. Editorial support is diminished, marketing investment/support is low, and the authors are expected to provide their book’s marketing. It appears to me that for those who take a professional approach to their writing, (including involvement of a skilled editor), the only sure thing trad publishing provides is access to the primary sales and distribution network they control. A functional moat exists for independent authors hoping to get their print books in retail sites regardless of the quality of their work.
You advise “Hold out for traditional publishing, with an acquisitions editor who will not let you through until you’re ready.”
For many committed, self-published authors this is bad advice. It has been proven innumerable times that acquisitions authors often deny publication to authors whose work IS ready (as determined by subsequent sales and readership “success”)
For authors who study rigorously, use editors, and exercise professional dedication suffering through the brutally slow and flawed trad process is not necessarily the best decision.
The argument that because some/many self-published books are not high-quality therefore the self publishing pathway is a bad choice is errant.
Given the current status of the industry isn’t it reasonable to acknowledge that independent publishing is a reasonable and legitimate avenue for many authors?
(Note – personal communication sans editor😊)
You’ve said little that I disagree with, Tom. But I would add . . .
You say that traditional publishing houses no longer support non-blockbuster writers as much as they did, and that is true. That means that, if you publish with a large house, you may have to hire your own publicist. But if you self-publish . . . you will have to hire your own publicist.
I do disagree that discouraging writers from self-publishing is, generally speaking, bad advice. It is absolutely true that mainstream publishers do sometimes reject writers who are ready to publish, and that some writers have had great success self-publishing. But on balance, far more writers are self-publishing before they’re ready. And part of the reason is that most self-publishing venues will take you, whether you’re ready or not.
It is a genuine danger, and warnings are appropriate.
Dave –
I did not suggest trad publishing is not a viable path. It clearly is the preferred “best” route for many.
You, it seems to me, are making the absolute claim. It appears your position is ‘some/many authors who self-publish are not ready, therefore none should self-publish.’
Warning about not publishing before one us ready is materially different than advising that all should ‘hold out’ for traditional publishing.
Not the case imo. Lots of individual factors apply.
Thanks for the thoughts!
Tom, I don’t want to get into the weeds with you, but I will say with respect that you’ve misunderstood my position.
Dave: all the hard work in terms of craft and professional editing means nothing for a non-genre writer who has failed to crack the marketing code. If you accept this idea as a given, then you also accept that mastery of social media is fundamental to success. This in turn “privileges” the young who have grown up with social-media technology, or those writers with deep pockets who can afford to hire professionals to manage social media for them. Unless a writer has great contacts in commercial publishing, s/he knows better than to write a midlist book. S/he writes genre fiction, YA, or books for children. Full stop.
It’s true. I feel like every other writer I encounter on any social network is self-publishing. I always click on the links to their books in the hope I’ll find value in them, but every single time they bring me to something that reads like a first draft, something that the writer really should have spent much more time on. To each their own, but I feel like all this substandard work is really devaluing books as a whole. Also, as someone who’s been doggedly pursuing traditional publishing for years now, I am so tired of people telling me to “just self-publish.” I want my work to be good enough to get through those gates; too many people’s aren’t. And I’m going to keep working towards that no matter how long it takes.
Tom’s right, it is hard to go up against the gatekeepers in the traditional publishing world. I think writers forget, though, that in order to publish successfully, it’s often not enough to simply write a decent book. You have to work at a fairly advanced professional level.
My other day job is as an organist at a local church. I’m pretty good, with a fairly wide repertoire that I can deliver reliably well. But I don’t even imagine I’m ready to play on the concert stage.
That’s the difference between most self-published works and successful authorship. The self-published books you encounter on social media are not awful, and their writers doubtless have some skills. But they aren’t yet at the concert-stage level.
Dave –
Read my most recent book “Wrongful Deaths” . Happy to send you a copy. Edited by Jodie Renner and the third book in my series. I have invested years of study and effort to develop my writing and will always be working to get better. Am I a Beethoven-like prodigy and the producer of flawless masterpieces? I wish it were so. I am, however, the creator of stories that people love to read. Read it and tell me it’s worse than every book you’ve read that was chosen by the “gatekeepers.”
One can argue who “deserves” to have their work in print but that exchange is absurd imo. I published after writing for years following a near-fatal health event. My perspective on the submission process and molasses timeline of the trad process helped me decide to skip it. My health interrupted career and experience inform my awareness of how short life can be. I elected to work hard, gain the assistance of an excellent editor and accept the jury verdict of reader rejection or affirmation. Those who presume to judge whether readers ’should‘ enjoy any particular work suffer a misguided sense of themselves as arbiters of writing worth. Readers decide.
Not all will love my work but I reject the position that it does not deserve to exist or is somehow not legitimate.
Self-publishing executed with commitment, discipline and professional input is a reasoned and legitimate alternative. Trad publishing is great.
Fun exchange – better in an establishment w quality refreshments on hand!
Thanks👍🏼
Tom, as I say, you’ve misunderstood what I’m saying.
I’m advocating that writers find gatekeepers. You did exactly that. You found a professional editor, who acted as your gatekeeper.
I’m not sure where the problem lies.
In the weeds for sure and semantics are an element.
My editor functioned as an editor. I think our primary difference is that you suggest self publishing itself is somehow a factor limiting the quality of writing possible via that pathway.
It’s a circular argument in my opinion and I believe as the industry evolves that position will be proven inaccurate.
All the best to you 👍🏼
I love this post and Tom Combs’ comment as well. Given the paucity of excellence everywhere now, meaning education, restaurant and hospitality service, customer service, healthcare communication, etc., I believe most readers are inured to the poor writing you describe, and they think it is normal. I am a pro blogger and how I write for the web is not traditional at all. It has a lot of one-sentence paragraphs and incomplete sentences. That’s writing for the web, and that’s influencing all readers today. We all need to go back and look at the writing done in one-room schools back in the 1800s. Those kids could write well. Today, most of us do not.
It is true that social media is changing how people use language. I read a lot of books from previous centuries, and the rhythms and cadence of language was completely different back then — long, complex sentences full of subclauses. But I’m not sure that wasn’t a matter of style and taste. Packing a cluster of different thoughts together into one huge complex sentence with a cathedral-like structure was admired as erudition. That’s why writers needed The Elements of Style as a corrective.
I suspect the poor writing I’m encountering in so many self-published books is something slightly different. As I say, I know a couple of the authors, and they are trying to be the best they can be. I suspect that what’s happened is that the writers have underestimated just how much artistry you need to create a gripping, moving novel.
Yesterday I heard a radio commentator make a complete hash of the name of a local Native American tribe. A few days prior, I winced at another commentator stumbling over two non-American names, then pronouncing the American name flawlessly. I got angry. I’m still angry. Did no one ask the simple question, “am I saying this correctly?” I’m sickened by the sloppiness that has become acceptable. Investing in professional help and holding out for a better result lifts up both writers and readers. Thanks for the post, Dave, and for this important discussion.
As I said above, I’m not sure that the problems self-published writers run into are a matter of sloppiness — though, yes, I find that frustrating on a near-daily basis. The self-published writers I’ve known have been earnest and smart. They’re trying. But after you’ve spent a year or more writing a novel that you love, it’s hard to recognize its shortcomings. No one thinks their own children are ugly.
Sometimes you need a professional to open your eyes.
Well done, Dave. Leading authors to editors is crucial to all of our careers, authors and editors alike. Make a book better. Hire a pro.
I really is hard to talk about this without sounding like a commercial. But I do think it’s needed.
Dave –
Not in the weeds here. Totally agree on the need for editors.👍🏼
Dave,
I read your post with great interest. Found myself nodding at every turn, up through and certainly including the need to hire a professional editor. Then you lost me. Holding out for traditional publishing when the industry–by your own admission–has devolved to a search for blockbusters and grudging acceptance of established midlist writers, sounds like bad advice to me.
The industry needs a new model, one that combines the best of traditional publishing (professional editing, making sure a book is ready, helping it find its readership*, a stamp of approval) with the strengths of self-publishing (diverse voices, time to market, less reduction to bland mass-market tastes, a controllable path for the dedicated author to find her/his readers). In short, an end to frustration for talented authors who see no good way forward.
Maybe hold out for an agent who believes in you and your book (someone besides the friends and family who love your book because, well, it’s your book) to get that third-party validation. But then I say, get on with it.
Meanwhile keep looking for gatekeepers to pop up in places other than traditional publishing. It will happen.
With respect,
Shanda
*not sure this is one actually true anymore
Agents often act as effective gatekeepers. I’ve actually seen some line-editing from agents that rivals anything I can provide.
It is possible that a new publishing model is evolving, and one of the things driving it is the flood of books on the market that aren’t quite ready for market. This isn’t to say that self-published books can’t be of good quality. But too many writers are rushing into print through self-publishing.
I’d like to see small presses, which do act as gatekeepers, start to grow in both size and influence. If readers learn that a given press will reliably deliver a well-crafted book, then sales may increase enough that they will start to provide the support services (decent-sized advances and promotion budgets, for instance) that mainstream publishers used to provide.
But until then, holding out for traditional publishing is not bad advice for most writers. I didn’t get into the details, but genre publishers are more open to new voices, and most major publishers include at least a few imprints that are willing to take a chance on someone. The blockbuster mentality hasn’t taken over entirely.
You’ve said little that I disagree with, Tom. But I would add . . .
You say that traditional publishing houses no longer support non-blockbuster writers as much as they did, and that is true. That means that, if you publish with a large house, you may have to hire your own publicist. But if you self-publish . . . you will have to hire your own publicist.
I do disagree that discouraging writers from self-publishing is, generally speaking, bad advice. It is absolutely true that mainstream publishers do sometimes reject writers who are ready to publish, and that some writers have had great success self-publishing. But on balance, far more writers are self-publishing before they’re ready. And part of the reason is that most self-publishing venues will take you, whether you’re ready or not.
It is a genuine danger, and warnings are appropriate.
Dave, I appreciate striving for excellence, but I no longer trust the gatekeepers given that many of books put out by the trade pubs have the same problem with quality as the books that are self-published (SP). I have to sift through many books to get to the good ones, both trade and SP. I question the assumption that gatekeepers know what’s best. My observations negate it.
I continue to work with excellent editors, but have also joined the ranks of SP authors because my story *is* ready (it was ready 6 years ago, actually). It’s a story that can save lives. Why would I let it sit in my file cabinet and wait and wait for someone in the trade world to see it’s goodness? But I did and I regret I didn’t publish it earlier. If you’re interested, take a look–it’s called BOUND.
I will write for the rest of my days, I will strive for excellence, and I will hope and pray that my next books will be picked up because it is hard to SP. Until now, I’ve never had to do any marketing. My books magically end up in the hands of readers and I always appreciate the people who make it happen. Thank God SP is an option for when you write a book that’s countercultural, that’s not going to get the support of mainstream media. I can work with independent editors and artists and make a good book too.
I don’t recommend holding out for a traditional publishing contract. Trust yourself when you’ve done your best.
By the way, I love your book. I use it and recommend it widely.
Your first paragraph is exactly what I would have said. As a career writer and editor forced finally into SP fiction, I am willing to accept that my situation is at least partly my own fault, but when I look at things like Ray Rhamey’s “Flog A Pro,” it becomes apparent that famous imprints don’t guarantee great writing. I keep thinking, “I know my stuff is better than this.”
Understand, none of what I say is intended to be an absolute rule. It is true that there is less editing being done in major publishing houses than there used to be — in the days when Max Perkins might have Thomas Wolfe to his house for a weekend of wholesale manuscript surgery. But there is less being done at smaller publishing houses (mostly, I suspect because of lack of resources) and nearly none being done at all through most self-publishing venues.
Vijaya, you have found excellent (I assume professional) editors. They are your gatekeepers, letting you know when your writing is weaker than it should be.
And N. T., it is true that you can find inferior work in traditionally published books, but again it’s a matter of probabilities. You find a great deal more of it in self-published books.
As I have made more and more friends in the writer community and read their works, I feel I can safely assert the fact that “traditional” publishing is no longer a guarantee of decent editing. If I could, I would agree with your premise.
For those who have self published and created good works – they always hired and paid a great editor. Period. I have also seen good results from writers published by small independent publishers. But also some not so great. I found certain small publishers care more about the editing than others, and it shows in their stable of works,
For the reader, it is disheartening. It makes it much more difficult to find great new authors.
But I think all writers can take away your key fact – that input from a good professional will make their work stronger- and is worth the investment in the long run.
There is truth in this post. I give credit to the author for having the courage to put it out there. I belong to a couple of book groups on Facebook. When I pick up some of the newer titles that get high praise, I am often disappointed in the writing. They are good stories, but not good books. I fear the reading public is becoming content with books that are marginal. It’s like comparing fast-food to fine dining – both will feed you but there’s a substantial difference in quality.
Anyone who writes indie mainstream and/or literary fiction must have the highest possible standards – this is where the competition from the traditional publishers can be the fiercest, and where the readers have, they claim, very little incentive to look beyond that pale.
Of course, that’s where my brain chose to write.
But traditional publishers need to find books that sell very well to support their business model, and that often means ‘the same, only different,’ with a few excursions into something daring to show that they are open to diversity – as long as it doesn’t take up too many of the slots in their catalogues.
If you write in those areas where you are plowing new ground, you are competing for a attention in a very crowded field growing in all directions.
Brain stubbornness again.
Don’t plan to be rescued. Do it yourself. If something comes along, you can hope to survive the vetting and the contract processes, and hope for some marketing.
But if you truly believe in a mainstream and/or literary novel, you have hard decisions to make, and self-publishing gives you some control.
I agree with most of what you wrote. However, I don’t think self-publishing is the same as using a small press. The press I’m with has their editors. If you’re accepted they’ll rate you on how much editing it still needs. My next book comes out in 2020. I worked with an editor before submitting and have hired a publicist for closer to publication. There is very good fiction out there now. No need to go back years and years and re-read.
I’ve had clients publish with small presses, and they can be a mixed bag. It is true that a lot of them are founded and run based on a love of good writing, and you can get personalized attention and some genuine editing — they can act as gatekeepers. But they are often understaffed and overworked, which means they may not be able to devote the time to your book that it needs. They also may not be able to provide much in the way of an advance or marketing support.
I agree with most of what you wrote. However, I don’t think self-publishing is the same as using a small press. The press I’m with has their editors. If you’re accepted they’ll rate you on how much editing it still needs. My next book comes out in 2020. I worked with an editor before submitting and have contracted with a publicist for closer to publication. There is very good fiction out there now. No need to go back years and years and re-read.
I think the heading of this post should be Editors, not Gate Keepers. Whatever route a writer uses to publish, a second pair of skilled eyes is needed to review the work and offer ways to make it stronger.
I think that there are self-published authors who don’t invest the time or money to edit, but it’s not all self-published authors. And there are trad published books that could have used a better edit.
It’s the reader who is the ultimate gatekeeper voting with their $’s and reading time.
Well said!
Doug, I’d agree with most of what you said — as I say, I’m talking in generalizations, not absolutes. Though I still prefer “gatekeepers” to “editors.” After all, an acquisitions editor who sends you a couple of paragraphs highlighting what you need to work on is a very different thing from a professional independent editor who sends you three pages of detailed notes, then goes through your manuscript line-by-line. I’ve also known a few agents who have behaved as effective gatekeepers.
And the trick is to get your problems fixed before readers begin to vote with their pocketbooks. By that point, it’s too late to correct course.
Dave,
I think I read the interview you mentioned in the first sentence of this blog post and found it fascinating!! 😊
I also agree that authors need gatekeepers. As a novice author, I knew I needed help. I hired a freelance editor to help me get my manuscript to publishable quality. When we both decided it was time to send out book proposals, I looked for a small publisher who could help me navigate the publishing labyrinth that was too unfamiliar for me to do on my own. The book was published in February 2019.
My background is in computer science, not creative writing, so the learning curve was steep — and still is. I may not have jumped through all the literary hoops in that first book, but I made it through a lot of them and now I have the experience to do a better job in the next book.
Thanks for the good advice.
Are you assuming that self-published authors only self-edit their work? I’ve self-published 7 books – because mainstream publishing ‘didn’t know how to market them’. I’ve used professional editors, cover designers, interior designers and publicists for them. Even so, with a well-paid team and beta readers, little things can slip through. One of my books included an error that only I could’ve noticed (and didn’t). I pulled the book immediately and re-issued it with the correction.
I’ve read and reviewed books published by small presses, university presses and the Big 5. All of them have had little things slip through. Sometimes big things, too.
Few books are perfect. Even if I believe they’re perfect, they can still contain errors or things that rub us the wrong way.
No, I’m saying that, from what I’ve seen, many self-published books also self-edit — or at best use critique groups. Both self-editing and critique groups can help up your skills, but either approach can only go so far.
And I’m not talking about the details that, as you say, always slip through. I’m talking about systematic problems that undermine the quality of the storytelling. The sorts of things that you really need a professional to address.
I’m enjoying the comments and discussion and believe it reveals how profound Dave’s focus on the purpose of Gatekeepers, and what a difference a good editor, or many, can bring to a work. I know what is in my head when I look at my story, yet it amazes me when an editor or beta reader reveals what isn’t there, and can point out why and what is needed. I’m so.appreciative of my gatekeepers.
Thanks, Dave, for a welcome reminder of how important editors are to our telling stories that move a reader.
The discussion is always my favorite part of these articles. I’ve found that the exchange of ideas is almost always civil and informative. It’s a pleasant change from a lot of what you see in various comments sections.