The Crapshoot Theory of Writing Success
jaylake has just posted an interesting theory of writing success which has its good points.
I've got to say, though, that having worked in publishing, I don't buy the notion of "being good enough to publish" anymore. So much craaaaap gets published and gets popular. Look at Dan Brown--I would have thrown him out with as vicious of a form rejection as I could. Yet he not only got published, he brainwashed the masses!
Therefore I present the Crapshoot Theory of Writing Success.
This is you:
:)
This is your submission process as you send your submissions to every possible place. The X is each rejection.
:) -> X -> X-> X-> X-> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> :) This is when you finally hit the right editor.
Basically, there are editors out there for everyone. You have to fire in as many different directions as possible to hit the right one.
Therefore, SUBMIT YOUR STUFF.
I've got to say, though, that having worked in publishing, I don't buy the notion of "being good enough to publish" anymore. So much craaaaap gets published and gets popular. Look at Dan Brown--I would have thrown him out with as vicious of a form rejection as I could. Yet he not only got published, he brainwashed the masses!
Therefore I present the Crapshoot Theory of Writing Success.
This is you:
:)
This is your submission process as you send your submissions to every possible place. The X is each rejection.
:) -> X -> X-> X-> X-> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X
-> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> X -> :) This is when you finally hit the right editor.
Basically, there are editors out there for everyone. You have to fire in as many different directions as possible to hit the right one.
Therefore, SUBMIT YOUR STUFF.
posted by Spencer at 7:32 AM
4 Comments:
I COMPLETELY agree. To me, being "good enough to publish" basically means you are physically able to type, and that you can (mostly) put a coherent sentence together. I disagree about Dan Brown, though. So you don't like his books - fine. Maybe they aren't historically accurate (and on that point, since when does FICTION have to be accurate?). Maybe they're dime-store pulp-y. But I'm sick of people hating on his stuff just because the masses LIKE IT. The man knows how to tell a story. Get over it. His books are like the Transformers movie - something entertaining for when you don't want to have to think too hard. And who doesn't want that from time to time (ahem, 13 Going on 30, ahem)? Quit being such a crochety misanthrope.
Hey, I tried Dan Brown. I really did. We listened to part of it on a trip from Utah to Seattle. It didn't make it to Idaho. We just couldn't do it.
It might be my fancy-ass writing degree and the fact that he broke so many of the no-no rules that writers aren't supposed to do, but... anyway, I hated the book. I couldn't even get to the historical stuff.
You don't have a fancy-ass writing degree - you are WORKING on a master's in English (and creative writing?). And I may not be the most brilliant person who ever lived, but I've read a crapload of books (crapload is the technical term. I hope this isn't over your head) - a whole lot more than most people will ever read (although I concede that you have read more) - and I still maintain that people who criticize The Da Vinci code as bad writing are just being snobs. It's fine to not like it, but to say that the dude is telling his story badly? I really think that if millions of people love it, then he's not actually doing a bad job of telling the story. It's definitely not high literature or anything, but the guy knows how to write a page-turner. What's so wrong with that?
The fact that you tried to LISTEN to the book might have been a big part of the problem (besides the fact that you aren't really that enamored with pulp thrillers in the first place). I doubt the page-turniness would translate well to CD.
Anyway, my point is that it's fine to dislike something, but it irks me when people get all smug and dislike popular things mainly just because they can think they're better than everyone else. They are popular for a reason, and that reason is not, "Everyone else is stupid."
Whoa there, vocabulous Vicki. Some of us have to expand our lexicon for "crapload."
I did try to read the print version, too... apparently I'm Dan-Brown-tarded.
And yeah, lots of people liked it. Hence the reason for the "crapshoot." Can't predict this stuff.
Post a Comment
<< Home