# Is This The Reason Some Don't Get Published?



## Roy Goode (Jun 25, 2018)

Hello people, 

I have a strong suspicion that this is why many pieces do not get published...however polished and well thought-out the story might be.

Perhaps the piece is missing congruence and authenticity? Could an author really write "fiction" meaning that he/she can write about events that are _not _happening in his/her life? 

To try and fabricate a piece entirely from scratch is surely somebody attempting to be the LORD himself? 

Kind regards,
Roy Goode


----------



## Bayview (Jun 25, 2018)

The Imaginary LORD of an Imaginary WORLD? Yeah, I think that's a big part of the appeal of writing fiction.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jun 26, 2018)

Roy Goode said:


> Hello people,
> 
> I have a strong suspicion that this is why many pieces do not get published...however polished and well thought-out the story might be.
> 
> ...



There are many reasons publishers and agents are not interested in most unsolicited material.

Some guesses, in no particular order : 

The material is too like already popular material, making competition inadvisable.

The story, while creative, is not told well.

The author tries so hard to impress the reader, using jargon or obscure words that are not defined in context, that the reader ends up frustrated, feeling stupid, or in some other way alienated. (It's never a good idea to alienate a prospective agent.)

The material needs serious proofreading.

The characters are flat, stereotyped, or just unbelievable.

The story is told in a confusing manner.

Too much is being told. Not enough shown.

Too much is shown. Not enough told.

The story drags for some reason.

It's just one long whine.

It's just one long joke. 


I'm sure there's more.


----------



## MrMacphisto (Jul 13, 2018)

I think the main, real reason people don't get published is agents just do not want to represent new authors. I've been reading these sorts of things for years on the internet. Agents have a couple of really big names (JK Rowling, Jeffrey Archer, James Patterson) and a host of smaller authors whose books sell steadily, as well as chefs/TV comedians etc. who bring books out for the Christmas market. The agents know they're going to make a bundle of money, with minimal effort. So why are they going to bother with someone who has never been published, who is Joe Nobody Who Has Done Nothing and the agent is going to actually have to actively do some work?

This creates an interesting situation. If you need to be published to get an agent, but agents don't represent new authors, how do you get published?


----------



## Bayview (Jul 13, 2018)

MrMacphisto said:


> I think the main, real reason people don't get published is agents just do not want to represent new authors. I've been reading these sorts of things for years on the internet. Agents have a couple of really big names (JK Rowling, Jeffrey Archer, James Patterson) and a host of smaller authors whose books sell steadily, as well as chefs/TV comedians etc. who bring books out for the Christmas market. The agents know they're going to make a bundle of money, with minimal effort. So why are they going to bother with someone who has never been published, who is Joe Nobody Who Has Done Nothing and the agent is going to actually have to actively do some work?
> 
> This creates an interesting situation. If you need to be published to get an agent, but agents don't represent new authors, how do you get published?



How many Big Name authors are there, compared to how many agents? Not enough for each agent to have a pet Big Name taking care of the bills, that's for sure.

And, just as an example, I looked up Stephen King's agent and found they represent King and _also _ a bunch of authors I've never heard of (http://dvagency.com/clients/). If they were content to coast on Stephen King's sales, why would they bother with all these others?

So... no, I don't think your theory makes sense. I signed with my agent as a new author, and I know several other new authors who have signed with agents. It's not easy; you have to give them something they think they can sell. But it's certainly not impossible. And based by the all-hours responses I get to messages I send my agent, I don't think I'm going to accept a theory based around her reluctance to "actively do some work."

If you want to get an agent, take a hard look at your writing. How could you make it easier to sell?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 14, 2018)

Many people don't get published because they either write like crap, or write a crappy query letter.
But most simply don't stay at it.  They write a book, it doesn't sell, and they give up.
The first 200,000 words are just practice.
Writing is hard work, and most people leave it once they find out just how much.


----------



## NotMe (Aug 14, 2018)

There's a reason self-publishing is such a huge industry - there are more crappy novels written than good ones.

I firmly believe that if your novel is great it will get published. What can I say? I'm a romantic.


----------



## NotMe (Aug 14, 2018)

Also, the people who make excuses as to why their work doesn't get the attention it deserves generally have blinders on as to how good their work actually is.


----------



## TKent (Aug 14, 2018)

This is an interesting article from a literary agent. Gives a nice view of his perspective: https://blog.usejournal.com/hello-go-away-3b628eab019a


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 15, 2018)

Roy Goode said:


> Hello people,
> 
> I have a strong suspicion that this is why many pieces do not get published...however polished and well thought-out the story might be.
> 
> ...



I think you are half right at pinpointing authenticity. Less sure on congruence (interesting word choice) as I'm not sure what you are referring to the work being _congruent _with. The genre? The writer's ability? The market? All of the above and more?

Your question concerned publishing so I will take it from that standpoint. Anyway, yes authenticity is important. It is not that it is something that a literary agent or publisher is looking for so much as something ANYBODY who reads your work will want and expect. Bad writing doesn't usually get published, right? If I had a jug of ale for every story I read that sounded like the writer trying to be Stephen King I would be rather sloshed. And those stories seldom get far.

On the other hand, I do not think having an intimate relationship with one's subject matter is necessarily that big of a deal. The whole "write what you know" is common advice. It does, like all advice, apply to an extent. You need to know your characters. You need to know your story. You need to know enough about the world in which your story operates to avoid credibility issues. But beyond that? No, not really. Some science fiction authors genuinely know a great deal about science and will use that knowledge to foster realism and that is absolutely fine, however it does not necessarily make the story any better. There are just as many science fiction authors who have no academic background in science but, presumably knowing this, those types of authors do not try to write about items of which their knowledge is limited. A good writer knows their abilities and adjusts their stories accordingly. 

A writer with 40 years as a police officer is going to be far better placed at writing a crime novel that depicts police work realistically, but that means nothing if realistic police work is not needed for the kind of story it is. An writer with no professional background could simply do their research, focus on the things they know and can do well, and put in the time getting feedback from those who know better and potentially write a much better crime novel.


----------



## JustRob (Aug 15, 2018)

While "write what you know" is common advice there is an alternative view that writing about what you don't know yet can bring a new perspective to an old subject. In other words one should research a subject that one doesn't know about and then write about it from the viewpoint of an outsider, which is exactly what the reader is after all. Authenticity only matters if one's target readers are themselves already well versed in the subject matter. Fiction only needs to be realistic enough to pass muster with the typical readers. 

There is an interesting syndrome associated with fiction writing, that writers notice that events in their later lives seem to mimic those in their stories more often than one might expect. I have experienced this so much myself that I am contemplating writing a book about my own experiences. So, how would you regard that, the possibility that a writer may be basing his fiction not just on events that are happening or happened in his own life but also ones that are likely to happen to him, or even unlikely but in fact do, in the future? Is one's own future fiction? Personally at my age I sincerely hope not.

To resolve your problem or at least experiment with this syndrome it might be an idea to try writing stories about writers who become incredibly successful. You never know; it might just work. Alternatively just focus on improving your writing and be optimistic about the future. As they say, make a better ...

I once read a novel about a fictional author who wrote a trashy novel about sexy bimbos from outer space and had it published under a pseudonym because he didn't want it to be associated with his more serious works. To his embarrassment this book was far more successful than his other work. I do wonder whether the book that I read did in fact turn out to be the most successful one that its real author ever wrote, life imitating art.

Footnote: _Always_ read back what you write. While reading back the above before posting it I discovered that if one accidentally types "wan tit" instead of "want it" the spelling checker won't mention the fact. Only my diligence enabled me to eliminate this apparent sickly bird from my text.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 5, 2018)

Roy Goode said:


> Could an author really write "fiction" meaning that he/she can write about events that are _not _happening in his/her life?
> 
> To try and fabricate a piece entirely from scratch is surely somebody attempting to be the LORD himself?


When I'm writing something (or reading someone else's writing), and I'm really into the flow of things, the events of the story are _absolutely_ happening in my life (or at least, they _feel_ like they are).

It's the power of empathy—that intrinsic human ability to recognize, relate, and share the experiences of others, be them real or imaginary.

A fun side fact: when someone is engrossed in a story, their brain scan will show neurological activity in the same regions as someone who's experiencing the actual event.

Our brains consider the fictional experience to be real. :encouragement:


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 5, 2018)




----------



## Bayview (Sep 5, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


>



But... those books all WERE published eventually, right? So...? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a list of books that got rejected a bunch of times AND WERE THEN SELF-PUBLISHED TO GREAT ACCLAIM? Admittedly, it'd be a much shorter list...


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 5, 2018)

Ignore the title on that jpg.
They were talking about how some books get overlooked because of the slush pile, etc.
So I posted that. Those books were all published by big publishing houses.
I just didn't feel like making a new jpg at 0500hrs.

The image is to let authors know that rejection is simply a part of the process. 
A lion does not catch every animal it chases.


----------

