# Route to Traditional Publishers



## Auskar (Oct 4, 2010)

Evidently, when talking about fiction novels...

1)  Most writers do not find their publisher because they've been a successful short story writer.
2)  Most writers do not find their publisher through "someone they know" or have met.
3)  Most writers do not find an agent for their first novel.
4)  Most writers do not publish their first novel.

What is left?  Publishing a third or fourth novel because it has been in the slush pile?

Comments?


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Oct 4, 2010)

I think you might have mis-interpreted some things you've read.  The first two are generally true.

But the second two are refering to the fact that most published writers have completed several novels before one of the later ones is taken on by an agent (or, occasionally, a publisher).  It's a tough mouthful to swallow, but most first novels just aren't that good.  Neither are many second, third or fourth novels.  I know some folks who've written seven or eleven novels before one of them landed that writer an agent or a publishing contract.


----------



## Sam (Oct 4, 2010)

Very rarely will a person write a first novel that is of good enough quality to be published. It takes time to develop voice, syntax, and other things that have an effect on getting published. Someone (can't remember who) once said that you have to write a million words of c**p before you get to the good stuff. That's actually not a bad gauge. You'll know, after writing your fifth or sixth novel, how different it is from that first one. 

That's not saying number one won't be good enough to be published, but would you go into a job interview for a position you've never had any experience in? Same deal with publishing.


----------



## strangedaze (Oct 4, 2010)

Auskar said:


> Evidently, when talking about fiction novels...
> 
> 1)  Most writers do not find their publisher because they've been a successful short story writer.



not necessarily true. a friend of mine got a piece selected for this year's best new canadian writer anthology and had an editor at a major publisher contact him by email asking if he had a novel in the works and when its ready, if he could send it to them. [note: this is without an agent]

come to think of it, i can think of so many exceptions to this rule that i wonder if its even worth having on your list. if you can get a story or two in one of the US's upper echelon literary journals, you bet someone will take notice.



> 2)  Most writers do not find their publisher through "someone they know" or have met.



i see whats happening here, youre contradicting everything i mentioned in another post  again, not true. knowing people is not the only way to get a book published, but its one of the best.



> 3)  Most writers do not find an agent for their first novel.



this might be true, but it has more to do with the practitioner's lack of skill than 'the industry.' sam and ilasir put it well.



> 4)  Most writers do not publish their first novel.



again, i guess this could be true, but there's nothing in place to screw over first time novelists. in fact, the climate has never been better for first time novelists, in terms of the chances publishers are willing to take. 



> What is left?  Publishing a third or fourth novel because it has been in the slush pile?



not sure what you mean by this. lets assume that im wrong and the above list is accurate. most people who write novels dont get their first novels published. right, lets concede that. but then lets also concede that most people who write novels arent good enough to get ANY novel published, which of course includes the first one. 

what im getting at is, if your novel is good enough to be published (and that includes its ability to sell), the fact that its your first novel wont matter. knowing someone will help. so will getting stories out there. but in the end, the book has to be of high enough quality, or all is for naught.


----------



## mwd (Oct 4, 2010)

It's pretty silly to talk about "most writers", I mean, who cares about most people?  What you should care about is yourself.  You either have short story credits or you don't, connections or you don't, etc., but all you can really do is write the best novel you can, then query the shit out of it.  Meanwhile you should be writing more stuff, so that if you do get an agent, you'll have something else to show them.  And if you don't get an agent, you can start the query process from the beginning.


----------



## Auskar (Oct 4, 2010)

I'm not talking about the "route" _some_ people travel to reach their goal of publishing a novel, _nor_ am I blaming the writer or the publisher.  I was speaking about "most" writers and their route to publishing - the "majority" of writers - how they attained their goal.  One through four are statements, then I have a question:  

I meant to ask, "How do most fiction authors achieve the goal of becoming published novelists?"  

Becoming a successful short story writer IS effective, but only a minority get "discovered" that way.  What is the way that MOST novelists get published, that's all I wanted to know.


----------



## mwd (Oct 4, 2010)

They write a novel that agents/publishers think is publishable, query for that novel with a good query letter, agent signs them, agent shops novel to publishers, a publisher decides to publish the novel.

The key is in that first phrase, "publishable".  If you have that then everything else (short story credits, connections, etc.) is unnecessary.  Not to say things like that don't help, or don't speed up the process, cause of course they do.

But I repeat what I said, that it doesn't matter what most writers do.  Who cares?  They're not me, or you.  Every authour is a little different.  If you read authour  interviews/blogs/etc. you can find a million different stories.  While short story credits can help, I think it's a pretty bad idea to write short stories just because you want credits to pad query letters.  You should write short stories because you appreciate the form.  Cause even if you have good credits, if your novel isn't publishable, it's just not publishable.  And all the blood/sweat/tears you spent getting short story credits could've been spent writing something you wanted to write, maybe another novel, maybe a better one.

Of course if you do like short stories (love em, myself), credits are a nice bonus.


----------



## strangedaze (Oct 4, 2010)

i dont think there's a clear cut answer, really. i know quite a few novelists and every publishing story is pretty unique. if i had to choose one way over another, i'd probably say submitting blind to agents is how the highest percentage of writers do it. i feel really dirty saying that, though, because none of the novelists i know personally went that route. probably a good half did an MFA and got hooked up. another quarter didnt go do an MFA but knew someone who had an agent and signed that way. the rest of them got well known through the literary scene and got solicited. even the ones who went through smaller presses and didnt have an 'in' with the publisher had built a platform of publications that the editor recognized.

maybe its important to talk about genre here. for something like thrillers, mysteries, or popular fiction, youre probably more likely to find success via the slush pile. you could speculate on why that is, and whatever you come up with is probably right in some way. because literary fiction is less 'marketable,' having already proven your potential for marketability via stories / reputation / a base to build on plays a bigger role in getting your manuscript accepted. things like prizes, award nominations, and critical reception drive sales to a large extent. by extension, editors and agents are looking for literary writers who have shown they have the chops to make it in the 'literary world.'

anyway, im blabbing on. i really want to say that most literary writers dont end up going through the slush, since nobody i know has done that, and at the agency i worked for, only a handful of the clients came unsolicited or unreferred. but thats a pretty small sample group, so id probably believe it if someone produced statistics saying otherwise.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Oct 4, 2010)

Strangedaze makes a good point about the differences between literary and genre fiction.  A genre writer is much more likely to get a contract by going through the slush pile and getting an agent, and occasionally by writing some well-recieved short stories.  Literary writers may have a better chance of getting a deal through connections and short stories.


----------



## Auskar (Oct 4, 2010)

I was thinking of genre novelists, so it is good you made that distinction.


----------



## strangedaze (Oct 4, 2010)

in that case, just keep doing what youre doing. work on the novel, write stories and try to publish them if youre into that.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Oct 5, 2010)

strangedaze said:


> in that case, just keep doing what youre doing. work on the novel, write stories and try to publish them if youre into that.



strangedaze has it.


----------



## MJ Preston (Oct 5, 2010)

I am 45 years old, I have completed my first novel and quite possibly may never complete a second.  I have completed three drafts and now I am passing it to a friend of mine (who is a writer) and he will read it cover to cover. While he does this I will give it a fourth read and I am considering passing it to another friend who has not read any of it. A traditional publisher may reject my first nove based on some of the above assumptions, but this is not the end for my book. Options open to writers today are far better than they used to be. 

I believe I have written a interesting story with compelling characters and a new twist on an old genre. Yeah yeah I know, that's an original pitch.

The answer is not here, it's out there. Put up or shut up.


----------



## caelum (Oct 5, 2010)

MJ Preston said:


> The answer is not here, it's out there. Put up or shut up.


 
You'd be surprised how much that gets said. 

It's funny, I go out of my way to read the interviews of published writers, of agents from successful agencies, and you'd swear the professionals know half as much as some of the people on these boards. 

Of course first novels can be a smash hit.  It's happened countless times.  Of course first novels flop.  It's happened countless times.  There are people who don't quite get it as fast, work in faith and slowly learn, and by the fifth or sixth have a better handle on the artform.  Stephen King is a famous example, Carrie was like his fifth.


----------



## Auskar (Oct 5, 2010)

I have plans to revise the novel I wrote.  It is too simple and doesn't develop anyone but the main character.  I don't plan to write a new novel (yet).    I've written almost thirty short stories, four have been published (but none in major markets).   I think I'll work on the novel and just send out the short stories but not write too many more.


----------



## strangedaze (Oct 5, 2010)

MJ Preston said:


> [. . . ] Options open to writers today are far better than they used to be.
> 
> I believe I have written a interesting story with compelling characters and a new twist on an old genre. Yeah yeah I know, that's an original pitch.
> 
> The answer is not here, it's out there. Put up or shut up.


 
i agree. despite what a lot of people hear, i think it's a great time to be a debut novelist. as for the 'put up or shut up' comment, im not sure what it refers to. but if youre saying, 'write your damn book and then try to get it published,' then i agree with that, too.


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Oct 5, 2010)

MJ Preston said:


> I am 45 years old, I have completed my first novel and quite possibly may never complete a second. I have completed three drafts and now I am passing it to a friend of mine (who is a writer) and he will read it cover to cover. While he does this I will give it a fourth read and I am considering passing it to another friend who has not read any of it. A traditional publisher may reject my first nove based on some of the above assumptions, but this is not the end for my book. Options open to writers today are far better than they used to be.
> 
> I believe I have written a interesting story with compelling characters and a new twist on an old genre. Yeah yeah I know, that's an original pitch.
> 
> The answer is not here, it's out there. Put up or shut up.




If your novel is rejected by the majority of the publishing industry, it will be on coniderations of merit or saleability, not the assumption that all first novels suck.


----------



## Sam (Oct 5, 2010)

Publishers don't reject because it's a first novel. If it's a good enough story, has a good sales market, and is written well enough, they'll take you on. It's just a matter of not becoming disheartened, because you _will _be rejected. Not just once but probably dozens of times. You've just got to keep plugging away until someone says "yes".


----------



## Auskar (Oct 5, 2010)

(Laughter).

I've been writing in the short story market for awhile now.  I don't know how many rejections I have, but since I began keeping records with dates, there are an even 200.  Before I started keeping records?  Add about another 25.  Most rejections are form letters.  No one tells you what you are doing wrong.  There is no criticism.

I've kept a pretty good attitude.  

When you're close? I think it gets harder.


----------



## Sam (Oct 5, 2010)

There's a _vast _difference between writing a short story and writing a novel -- never mind in the markets and publishing houses. 

No one is _supposed _to tell you what you're doing wrong. You have to figure that out yourself. There's no big book out there with the formula for how to write a best-selling novel. If there was, everyone would be published. If your novel gets rejected 200 times, you have to start asking yourself if it's as original or good as you think it is. Sometimes you just have to accept that it's not what the publishing houses are looking for, and concentrate on writing something that they are. It's all trial and error, and a publisher just doesn't have time to tell you what you're doing wrong.


----------



## Auskar (Oct 5, 2010)

Sam W said:


> If your novel gets rejected 200 times, you have to start asking yourself if it's as original or good as you think it is. Sometimes you just have to accept that it's not what the publishing houses are looking for, and concentrate on writing something that they are. It's all trial and error, and a publisher just doesn't have time to tell you what you're doing wrong.


My novel wasn't rejected 200 times.  My short stories were.  I thought that was pretty clear from the context of my statement.  Some were accepted in minor markets, and I'm moving my way up.  I haven't worked on my novel that much, after the initial readers  reviewed it.  I thought I needed work first, to improve and gain experience.  That's why I wrote short  stories.


----------



## Sam (Oct 5, 2010)

Short stories don't teach you how to write novels, in my opinion. Writing shorts requires concision and brevity. They're not easy, and it takes a certain skill-set to make someone care about a character in a few thousand words. Novels, on the other hand, are mammoth undertakings that usually finish up somewhere in and around the region of 100,000 words. It takes another skill-set to keep a reader's attention for that amount of time. Short stories won't help with that, in my opinion. You need to just dive right in and write.


----------



## Auskar (Oct 5, 2010)

Good answer.  Good advice.


----------



## MJ Preston (Oct 5, 2010)

strangedaze said:


> i agree. despite what a lot of people hear, i think it's a great time to be a debut novelist. as for the 'put up or shut up' comment, im not sure what it refers to. but if youre saying, 'write your damn book and then try to get it published,' then i agree with that, too.


 
That is what I'm saying. I wasn't trying to be derogatory. I honestly don't think publishers are half as fickle as they used to be.



Ilasir Maroa said:


> If your novel is rejected by the majority of the publishing industry, it will be on coniderations of merit or saleability, not the assumption that all first novels suck.


 
Again, I agree totally. If your novel is rejected by more than one agent and or publisher it is likely because there is something wrong with the piece of work or how it is pitched. 



Sam W said:


> Short stories don't teach you how to write novels, in my opinion. Writing shorts requires concision and brevity. They're not easy, and it takes a certain skill-set to make someone care about a character in a few thousand words. Novels, on the other hand, are mammoth undertakings that usually finish up somewhere in and around the region of 100,000 words. It takes another skill-set to keep a reader's attention for that amount of time. Short stories won't help with that, in my opinion. You need to just dive right in and write.


 
Agreed two completely different animals.



Auskar said:


> Good answer.  Good advice.


 
Auskar, while forums are a great place to exchange ideas there is no formula applied to publishing a book. If you have a great first book, it will find a home.

My comment about put up or shut up wasn't directed at anyone, but is to address the notion that all first novels will be rejected based on a preset rule. This is really directed at any writer who uses this excuse as a reason for why their work might be rejected. If we own our mistakes and learn from them, our work can only get better. I wish you the best of luck with your novel, I will be writing a synopsis and query letter for mine very soon and no doubt facing similar trials and tribs, but then it will be up to me to put up or shut up.


----------



## strangedaze (Oct 5, 2010)

well put, MJP.


----------

