Thursday, July 19, 2007
Jane Austen In The Slush Pile
So, what are we to make of this story? Of course, publishers and literary agents are mostly crap, know little about books and less about literature. But isn't it also true that, if a Jane Austen novel were to be published as a new novel today, it would not be the same work? See the Borges story, Pierre Menard, Author Of Don Quixote. (And try and keep you eyes off the 'bum pincher' pic next to the 'aspiring author').
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A blog about, among other things, imaginary ideas - What ifs? and Imagine thats. What if photographs looked nothing like what we see with our eyes? Imagine that the Berlin Wall had never come down. What if we were the punchline of an interminable joke? All contributions welcome.
Interesting point. Austen was a genius, but her style is of its time and to enjoy her novels you get into the Austen-y 18th Century 'mindset'. The novel form has evolved and so has language.
ReplyDeleteDon Quixote is a good example: you can appreciate it on various levels as a great, often hilarious novel, but it is also fantastically dull and repetitive for most of its vast length.
Even Shakespeare writing today wouldn't write like Shakespeare. If you did a similar phoney submission with his work it would be rejected as either too pretentious or a piss-take.
None of which diminishes the greatness or talent of those writers.
I once knew a publisher whose favourite maxim was "Fat books sell". You may well have started a trend here, Bryan: new editions of Jane Austen, George Eliot, Mrs Gaskell, etc., plumped up with extra thick paper and featuring lurid pics of bum pinchers and rude girls on the cover.
ReplyDeleteAn easily promotable author is arguably more important than a mere book these days. "She" should have included a brief biog alluding to premiership football, orgies and close friendships with celebs like "Tom" and "Vicky".
As to the rest, it's a truism that once a book (or any other work of art) is published it belongs to the world. The world will do with it as it wishes, so that each new generation reads a different book, or sees a different painting.
i suspect the 'new Jane Austen' wasn't rejected because the agents/publishers didn't like it, but because they didn't read it. The poor sods are inundated with waves of stuff, ranging from the garbage through to the fairly well-written but not all that great, with some gems here & there - needless to say they probably send most of it back after glancing at the covering letter to make sure it's not from Martin Amis.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't mean publishers/agents are stupid & illiterate, though a few of my contemporaries studying English went on to work in publishing, and without being too unkind, they reminded me rather of Bridget Jones. i think of them every time i wince at a badly proofed book.
Also an agent/publisher may well think a ms is good, but have no confidence in placing it in 'the market': my own novel of woe got two such complimentary rejections. Publishing nowadays is so much about marketing that if you don't fit into a pre-existing niche, well, good luck. i've read many very good out-of-print books that were probably unmarketable, or at least not by the marketeers (who don't seem very imaginative, on the evidence of the blurbs & book ads i've encountered).
It all seems a bit bonkers, since no one seems to make any money publishing books, anyway; or almost no one.
isn't it obvious they didn't read it? if they're in the game they would have recognised the story at least, if not the style. publishers don't read the new author's MS, they read the accompanying sales pitch submitted by the author (it's not called that, I can't remember the jargon). or so I'm told.
ReplyDeleteHi Nige,
ReplyDeletePardon my cross-posting from here:
Oh dear ... Applause to Nige ...
This is a tough one to determine if the results of Lassman's experiment really show the results he intends. I'm adding the responses on my fingers, and it doesn't seem all 18 publishers got back to him. Other than Alex Bowler of Jonathan Cape, who called him on the plagiarism, only six publishers are listed as responding. If it were me reading the chapters, and I recognized the plagiarism, would I take the time to respond like Bowler did?
But okay, so maybe Austen would not find a good publisher today, being dated, and maybe today's publishers ought to be up on Austen but aren't. Grant these points. What might be more interesting is if a big name novelist, coming out from under a contract with one publisher, were to submit using a new pseudonym to other publishers.
On the cross post, I read this thread before responding to Elizabeth at Books Inq.
Yours,
Rus
if a big-name novelist submitted a new work under a new pseudonym it would be rejected many times. If it was sufficiently like his or her other stuff, it might eventually get accepted as being "the new Stephen King" etc., but chances are it'd rack up a lot of rejections first. The quality of writing wouldn't matter, what matters is who you know, if you're famous, if your drinking buddy is an editor, etc.
ReplyDeleteHi Rus - I've got a feeling Doris Lessing submitted the first of the novels she wrote as 'Jane Somers' without letting on who she was, and it got accepted straight away. Mind you, that was back in the early 80s...
ReplyDeleteUltimately, whatever the new novels by whatever the new writers get into the bookstores, it is the readers who will curl up with the books, no matter the distractions. If you sit across them at lunchtime, the only thing to ask is, "Hows the book?" or something. And you will usually get a friendly and short review. These readers have their favorites. They will vary off into the genre their authors are in, looking for other possible good reads. But when they know an author is not up to snuff, they will not be reading her anymore.
ReplyDeleteStevaroo Kingski would sell by being as good as Stephen King. A sharp editor would pick up on this Kingski fellow, knowing the discussions his work would generate at the water coolers.
If the quality of writing, or some quality of the writing, is not there, if what gets a book published is merely being buds with the editor, the curled-up readers will knock this writer out of circulation fairly quickly. So, it's not about getting published, but about getting read. There must be some quality to the writing, even if a writer is the editor's drinking buddy.
One thing musicians know, that writers seems to be oblivious to, is that getting suddenly discovered takes a lot of work, gigs, self-promo, self-circulation, and drinks with record producers. But they need to be good. This is why there is a group of very good writers who have not been published, however big or small this group may be.
Hi Nige,
ReplyDeleteI see your Doris Lessing comment now. Makes sense to me, and now I love her for doing that.
Yours,
Rus