HB: An agent who represents a client of ours is hawking something round at the moment - an intriguing memoir, but not easily classifiable. One publisher commented candidly:
"whilst I thought that ____ was a compelling character with a very unique tale, I felt that as a book, it fell somehwat between the gaps, and with the market requiring such specific genrification, it would just be too hard. Wish you all the best with it, but I'm afraid it's not one for me."
[Genrification? Very unique? Publishers today! Honestly! Splutter. Cough. Scents of tweed and pipe tobacco, sounds as of choking on whisky.]
But the point made hammers home one of the themes of this blog: namely, original is not good. If only ____ had not been a compelling character or (better still) had not had a uniquely unique story, all would have been well. So the rules again please:
All commercial fiction needs to be like Dan Brown
All children's fiction needs to be like JK Rowling
All women's fiction needs to be like Katie Price
All literary fiction can be no more experimental than ... ooh, I don't know, Antony Trollope
And thrillers, please (see posts below), must always always feature SAS guys.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That is shocking. There is almost an argument here for a publishing house to be set up by a collective of writers... unfortunately, few writers would have the skills necessary sell books to the big chains.
Hi Harry. I see nothing's changed in the publishing world since you did the critique on my manuscript, then? (BTW, mine was the dark fairytale). And although I'm doing the rewrite in line with your advice, I'd be betraying both myself and my characters if I changed the actual concept. If it never gets published, fair enough, but who'd remember Watership Down if Richard Adams wrote about a group of people instead of rabbits.
Post a Comment