There seems to be a new trend on blogs, with bloggers wanting to warn us not to get our hopes up - over at Nathan Bransford's we have this post on the Fate Factor. Publishing is a strange beast that is constantly at pains to remind us it is a business which then acts like no other business we know. The success of a book is not necessarily linked to the hard work pre and post publication, promotional effort or creative talent behind it. Fate/luck/call-it-what-you-will has its part to play. Commenters on the post thanked Mr Bransford for calling their attention to this and reminding them that it was better to acknowledge what they couldn't control and focus on what they could. I want the happy drug they are on. I couldn't get past the idea that working my arse off, being nice in the face of difficulties and hypocritical rudeness and writing some very cool sentences might get me nowhere. I acknowledge the truth of what he says but I'm not sure how to respond. Sure I probably should give more attention to the thing I can control: the quality of my writing. But I am also toying with the idea of being more lazy and less accommodating and seeing how I get on :) (Don't worry folks I am not really intending to change my work ethic or my personality - I'm just a bit bewildered about how to find the positive spin on this ).
Maureen Crisp as always has smart stuff on her blog and her latest post is no exception. The world of publishing is in a phase of rapid evolution and Ms Crisp has some fantastic advice on how writers might best prepare themselves for what's ahead. If you aren't reading her blog regularly than you may be killed off in the next meteor shower/ice age - get wise folks. One particular link caught my eye - a blog post on what a writer can do in the face of persistant positive rejection: when your work is good but doesn't tick the money making box in their opinion. My eyes lit up - this has happened to me. The link is a good one. But I am hesitating over the mathematical logic of this. Writers are notoriously impatient (okay maybe thats just me). In the past they had no choice but to keep resubmitting their work. If rejections were positive then you made less or no changes to the ms before it went out again. It might take 40, it might take 100 goes but you kept trying until all traditional publishing avenues were exhausted or you were accepted. Now we assume a handful of positive rejections are a sign that no publisher wants our work? Do we give up too early because there is now an alternative route? Is it true that publishers are less likely to publish things they would have accepted twenty years ago? I studied statistics at University. I know how malleable and fickle they are. The idea of e-books and self-publishing are so seductive because we love the idea of controlling our own destiny. Fate? Pah! Take that!! I have a book I want to publish as an e-book for a number of good reasons, but I am not going to rush into this option for my other work just yet.
Educational Resource: A Winter's Day in 1939
- Educational Resource: The Were-Nana
- Educational Resource: The Half Life of Ryan Davis
- Educational Resource: Made With Love
- Educational Resource: The House That Went to Sea
- Educational Resource: A Winter's Day in 1939
- Educational Resource: While You Are Sleeping
- Educational Resource: The Song of Kauri
- Educational Resource: Fuzzy Doodle
- Book List - Complete List of my Publications