tomwest@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Tom West) (04/21/89)
In article <3859@geaclib.UUCP> rae@alias.uucp (Reid Ellis) writes: > Two friends of mine are involved in 'making' books -- one is an > artist, and the other a fantasy writer [but one day she might get > into science fiction, I don't know]. The artist has managed to be > published three times by Anik Press. Meanwhile, the writer has > submitted her story billions of times and has yet to be published, > even thought the second book is almost finished [it's a long wait > while editors read your first work, I guess :)]. > > It *seems* that the artist was published much more quickly than > the writer, so I would ask -- is this generally true? I haven't > read any of the writer's work yet [she won't let me until it's > published :)] so I can't comment on the relative quality of the > two of them -- besides, I value my life! And how would you > compare visual art with written art? > > Still rambling.. > Reid Actually, the speed of publishing time relates to how large the companies involved are. In the case of the artist, it is a much smaller company and they give a contract before commissioning the artist the first time. In the case of the author, it has been over 1.5 years, however, most of this time was spent waiting for a reply from the publisher involved. (Because of the time lag, it might seems that it has been resubmitted many times, but it has only been resubmitted once (to the same company). The timing can often look like this: Author writes masterpiece :-) 6 months Author submits outline and first 3 chapter (unsolicited) Submission sits on "slush pile" 2-3 years(!) Reader likes it, asks for rest of manuscript. Author jumps for joy submits manuscript. Submission sits on editors "must do" pile. 4-8 months Editor likes it with reservations, ask for rewrites Author smiles for joy, does rewrites 1-3 months Author resubmits it. Submission sits on editor's "must do" pile 4-8 months Editor read it and likes it. Passes to editor-in-chief Submission sits on editor-in-chiefs "must do" pile 3-6 months Editor-in-chief has reservations, asks for rewrites Author groans for joy, does rewrites 1-3 months Author resubmits it. Submission sits on editor's "pass it on immediately" pile 1-2 months Submission sits on editor-in-chief's "msut do" pile 3-6 months Editor-in-chief likes it offers contract. Author dies of heart-attack. Approximately one year later, the book will actually be on the shelves. (By the way, those who have been published seem to dislike the term "author" being used for someone who has not yet been published. In fact the term "writer" is reserved for those who have been published, while the term "author" is reserved for those who have published 5 books or more! THe term "author" is used above in the uneducated way that some poor slob like me would use it to mean someone who has written something.) In general, most writers who have been published will say that a five year period from inception to contract it about the norm. However, much of this can be avoided by avoiding the "slush pile". Interestingly enough, this only means that you need a connection. Any connection. A writer who is already published will do (with the same publisher!). Although, no writer who wants to keep his or her publisher will recommend something s/he doesn't think his/her editor will like. After all, keeping in an editor's good books in *really* important. In the case of the above mentioned would-be-writer (the proper term for the unpublished masses, apparently :-)) managed to avoid it by meeting an editor for the company at the CBA! This is perhaps the most blatantly unfair part of the business, but that, unfortunately, is how the business runs. -- Tom West BITNET: tomwest@utorgpu.bitnet, tomwest@gpu.utcs.utoronto Internet: tomwest@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu UUCP: tomwest@utgpu utzoo, yetti, harpo, mnetor \ cbosgd, deepthot, utoronto - !utgpu!tomwest ihnp4, lsuc, sfmin, vnr-vpa /
pfratar@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Paul Frattaroli - DCS) (04/24/89)
I was just wondering, with all this talk about publishing times for `would-be-writer's', how would someone like Piers Anthony fare. His Xanth series is what, up around 12, he has published 100's of books, I wonder what his time lag is. Probably pretty short, but do you think he is working on #13 now or is it about #16. -- Paul Frattaroli - Department of Computing Services | You know, I really don't University of Waterloo. | think you should do that! pfratar@watdcsu.UWaterloo.ca | [Demonic laughter in the pfratar@watdcsu.waterloo.edu | Backgound]: HA HA HA!
gerard@theory.utoronto.ca ("Gerard A.J. O'Hara") (04/24/89)
In article <5852@watdcsu.waterloo.edu> pfratar@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Paul Frattaroli - DCS) writes: >I was just wondering, with all this talk about publishing times for >`would-be-writer's', how would someone like Piers Anthony fare. His >Xanth series is what, up around 12, he has published 100's of books, >I wonder what his time lag is. Probably pretty short, but do you think >he is working on #13 now or is it about #16. > > I read in the back of a Xanth novel, that Piers Anthony has up to 5 books in the works at any one time. He also has rather firm dates (to the month) of when they will hit the market. This probably results from his expierence in writing, and the fact that he says he never gets writer's block. If only we all were so lucky! -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Gerard O'Hara | Sorry, no funny lines today. gerard@theory.utoronto.ca | I've got real work to do. |
jagardner@watmath.waterloo.edu (Jim Gardner) (04/25/89)
Paul Frattaroli writes: >I was just wondering, with all this talk about publishing times for >`would-be-writer's', how would someone like Piers Anthony fare. I can't tell you about Piers Anthony, but I can give you an idea for Orson Scott Card. At last year's Ad Astra (second week in June, if memory serves me correctly), Card announced that he had delivered the manuscript for 'Prentice Alvin to his editor the day before he left for the Con. 'Prentice Alvin hit the bookstores in early March, I believe (hard cover, of course). That's something like nine months from delivery of manuscript to the stores. Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/25/89)
In Canada, almost all hardcover sales take place in the few months before Christmas. A bestseller in December is worth many times a bestseller in June. So publishers in Canada will often hold a book they expect to do well to appear in the gift season. In the US, this is not so much the case. People buy books all year round there. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
lynda@hcr.UUCP (Lynda Williams) (04/25/89)
Thanks Tom. That's real encouraging. I always make notes of that sort of "how someone got published" information, however, so it's valuable. I've hoarded up enough now to be thoroughly discouraged about ever getting published but it doesn't seem to help. I'm going to concentrate on writing my 7 novel saga instead, since I can't seem to cure myself. It's been evolving for so long it's a way of life. The disease I'm suffering from the most right now is "rewrite-itis". This is where a drafted chapter gets rewritten, and rewritten, and the plot shifts slightly, so it gets rewritten again ... ad nauseum. Rewrites driven by plot shifts actually don't cause me too much grief. It's descriptive sections I bog down in. People keep telling me there has to be lots of description. Personally I like minimal descrition. Just enough to set a scene and help define the characters or action. A little sensory input. That sort of thing. I'm not good at description. I'm good at dialogue, plot, motivation and background history. Anyway, I'd like some opinions from readers and other would-be writers. It seems to me that there are successful books out there that don't lavish pages on description. But I know I'm prejudice because I'd like to spare myself the part I find least interesting and hardest to accomplish gracefully. I'm even willing to post a page to give you something to go by, if necessary, but that might just confuse the issue.
jagardner@watmath.waterloo.edu (Jim Gardner) (04/26/89)
In article <407@hcr.UUCP> lynda@hcrvax.UUCP (Lynda Williams) writes: >People keep telling >me there has to be lots of description. Personally I like minimal >description. Just enough to set a scene and help define the characters >or action. A little sensory input. Gack! If there is one thing that separates amateurish writing from the real thing (apart from bad grammar and spelling of course), it's putting in pointless description. Description MUST serve a purpose; it must advance the plot, or heighten characterization, or establish a mood, or help the reader interpret events or setting. Description for the sake of description is bush league stuff. This doesn't mean you should avoid description; it means that you should make your description count. Description should ALWAYS move the story forward. For example, in most stories, we see the events from the point of view of the characters. Even in stories written in the third person, we tend to follow one person for a while, then move to another person's point of view, and so on. When we are seeing a scene from a character's point of view, it is helpful to describe the scene as the character sees it. You don't describe things that the character would normally ignore, because it almost always comes across as over-writing. Instead, you show the things that the character pays attention to; not only does this tell the reader what being seen, but it shows what the character thinks is important. That way you're conveying information about the character as well as about the setting and the events that happen there. It's helpful to take a short story that you admire, write out a page or so by hand, and see just how *little* pure description there is. I think you'll see that the description is not just talking about objects; it shows personality by talking about how people relate to the objects. It also gives clues about the interpretation of the objects. An example that comes to mind is the first sentence of Neuromancer...it says something like "the sky was the colour of a TV screen tuned to a dead channel". Right there, in a description of the weather, Gibson has introduced electronics as the measure of the world, and has brought in a suggestion of decay, things falling apart. It starts to establish the frame of mind in which you should be reading the story. I could wax poetic on this at length, and may do so in a day or two. Does this little bit help? Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo