I've been having such an interesting coversation with Robert Walker (in the comments of my post earlier today) that I wanted to share my response with all.

Robert says:

See, I just feel there's a problem when a small number of people's tastes and opinions (let's never forget that) and financial concerns serve to actively, and it often feels, maliciously, keep my work from the reading public. … While such a vetting system *may* produce some financial rewards, how many flops are there? …

The business model currently in place is not about good books, good writers, the sharing of ideas, and so forth, it's about money and profit, no different than the toothpaste industry. Can you honestly tell me that the opinions of this handful of people is really *that* worthy of such power and responsibility? And if you think I'm alone in this, check out Jessica's recent post about "venting" over at Bookends. Read the comments. That's the impression that most writers have of the industry. And, given how the system is set up, how can you blame them?

There's so much to say about Robert's comment (and I've only snipped his last two paragraphs), but I'll just touch on one aspect, and that's the relationship between publishers and writers, and how we all view each other.

Of course I'm no stranger to how the publishing industry is perceived by aspiring writers, as well as published authors. (If you're bitter as an aspiring writer, just wait until you're a published author! Sorry, it can get worse.) One time, I referred to Writer's Digest editors as "the nice people in publishing." However, I couldn't keep doing so in good faith, because it implied perhaps we were the only nice people, and I don't believe that.

In any case, a few points for further consideration.

1. Yes, there are some bad eggs in the publishing industry (some with and without power). Yes, some writers (both published and unpublished) are mistreated. Yes, some bad books are released. All industries have their share of so-called bad people (and please don't tell me that all the bad people have migrated to book publishing!). I'm reminded of an article I read once that philosophized about how we tend to assume writers are generous, wonderful people. (Or ought to be!) Well, actually, no. Writers can be SOBs just like people in other professions. But for some reason, we expect them to be better human beings. And I wonder if writers expect the same of people inside book publishing. Maybe the problem is, in my comments to Robert, I portrayed book publishing people as too close to God. And of course they're not, though I still contend that people who enter the business do have a passion for the written word, even the gatekeepers, including many agents. There is absolutely NO reason to stay in the business unless you're committed to the written word, because no one's really making any money at it. So we're looking either at passion or lunacy. Or both.
2. Now that I've pointed out how bad we all are, let's not forget the role that aspiring writers and authors play in making the industry what it is. The way I look at it, we all share in the blame. Publishers make a lot of bad decisions, but authors do too. Many, many times have editors in my office dragged an author kicking and screaming across the finish line. Why dragged? Many authors go missing in action, or they refuse to revise, they won't accept edits or direction, they give up, they don't have time, they abandon the project (for legitimate and not legitimate reasons), and so the editor is left to clean up the mess best they can, or send it to the printer anyway.
   
3. Yes, publishing is primarily a profit-making venture. If publishers didn't choose projects that they believed would turn a profit, there would be no money to risk on next year's books. And there would be no money for my paycheck (and I would like to continue making a living at this). How do publishers choose money makers? Well, that's all determined by what YOU, dear reader, are willing to buy. So we could say that the publishers are driven to release what they believe the general public will purchase, so perhaps we can point the finger at them! (That is, ourselves!)
   

Finally, but most importantly, let's stop pointing the finger. Does demonizing the industry (or the author) really help anyone? Does it help you get published? Maybe. If feeling dissed-pissed about the industry motivates you like crazy, then by all means pursue that attitude! But speaking for myself, if I want to continue to work in book publishing (and yes, I've felt demoralized on many days due to the profit focus), I have to look at what about it brings me joy. So I choose to look at what's beautiful about it, not what I would burn to the ground. And maybe if we pay attention to the positive things, and believe the best of each other, things will change. I guess you could say I'm a hopeless optimist. Or naive. I've been accused of both.

On a more serious note, though, if such things about the industry are incredibly distressing to you—if you simply couldn't look yourself in the mirror if you were published by HarperCollins—then there are in fact many nonprofit and/or independent presses that strive for excellence above all, and profits (if any) are of secondary importance. Into this category, I'd put publishers like Melville House, Macadam/Cage, McSweeney's, Unbridled Books, and of course there are many, many others. (I encourage comments on this front!)

To wrap up, I'd like to share a snippet I've saved for many months. It's from a profile of the founder of Macadam/Cage, David Poindexter:

Poindexter's business philosophy is similarly unconventional. "It's best not to pay too much attention to the finances," he says. "Good business is not about the numbers; it's about doing the right thing. If you're doing the right thing, then you'll be producing something of value, and people will want to acquire what you're producing. Then the numbers will take care of themselves." According to Poindexter, the numbers are taking care of themselves for now. "I can't buy a beach house," he says, "but I can pay the mortgage."

Fortunately for readers as well as for writers, David Poindexter's definition of success has nothing to do with buying a beach house. "I'm doing this because it adds value to my life and to our society," he says. "If we live our lives doing something of value, then that is success." And by that standard, David Poindexter is successful indeed.

When I'm surrounded by large numbers of writers (usually at conferences), I've found it helpful to separate them into three distinct categories:

Careerists
Cathartics
Students

I can usually tell within a few minutes who I'm dealing with, and while quickly labeling people is not my favored or desired pastime, it greatly affects the kind of advice or feedback I give to a writer. Here are the qualities of each and how it affects my response.

CAREERISTS

• Want to author a book (more than "write" a book) to help take their career to the next level
• Usually are writing in a nonfiction category
• The information or the message is usually more important than aesthetics

These types of writers need to understand, first and foremost, that a publisher will not be interested in their project until they have a marketing platform and visibility with a targeted audience. As one of my authors (Christina Katz) says, publishers are not looking to make waves for you; they want to ride your wave. The No. 1 mistake careerists make is thinking that a publisher will somehow kick-start their career or help them spread their message. Instead, careerists need to ensure they can convince a publisher that their book will sell because they already have the right promotion machine in place.

A few of the best careerist authors are the ones who have decided that publishers profit too much from the authors' efforts, and eventually publish their own stuff (because they know how to sell, distribute, and market it on their own—that's how incredibly visible they are).

CATHARTICS

• Usually have one manuscript complete, often a memoir or story about a traumatic event (e.g., death of a loved one, tragic illness, longterm abuse)
• Have an insatiable desire to tell the world about this tragic story (e.g., to keep a loved one's memory alive, to help others who may be going through the same situation)
• Often have no interest in large-scale revision or otherwise making the work suitable for a publisher

These types of writers can be the most challenging to advise because their stories are so personal. Their focus is so much on getting their specific story out into the world that there's no room for compromise. I've found it's also not helpful to say, "Start a new project, set this aside for a while," because such writers are only interested in writing about this one event. Furthermore, these writers desperately want validation from editors/agents that their story has value and ought to be published.

I've found the best I can do for these people is to advise self-publishing, unless I see a sample of the writing and it knocks me out of my chair. (FYI, that has never happened.)

STUDENTS
So the last category?

• Have a continuous desire to improve their craft
• Revise, revise, revise, revise
• Read (no one emphasizes this enough)
• Know how to use editorial and market-based feedback to speed them to success

I think I'm showing my biases here (that is, I find students to be dedicated to the same things I'm dedicated to), but of course student qualities can be found in both careerists and cathartics.

The important point here is that people in publishing can tell when you're only seeking to use the industry for a specific type of gain. Ask yourself: where is your passion directed, and is it best directed at book publication? For some would-be authors, book publication is the most foolish and time-wasting means of spreading a message. (Not to mention unprofitable.)

The latest and greatest information from WD editors:

Three acts of bad blogging (Writer's Perspective)
The editor of Writer's Digest magazine offers excellent and simple tips that will improve your blog overnight. Be sure to check out helpful comments from readers, too.

How I met one of the 20 worst agents (Guide to Literary Agents blog)
An entertaining story about a bad agent.

Help them help you (Living With the M-Word)
Our senior marketing manager talks about the harsh reality of how a publisher will (or won't) be supporting your book.

How do people read and buy books? (Alice's CWIM blog)
A Market Books editor points to a recent article with interesting statistics about people's book-buying habits.

What should you charge to ghostwrite a book? (Questions & Quandaries)
If you're thinking about writing a book for someone else, what's a fair rate?

It's been a balmy 95 degrees here in Cincinnati. I'm loving every moment, but most everyone else is bitterly complaining. Those people need a cartoon to cheer up.

This cartoon comes from Kawaii Not by Meghan Murphy. When one of our editors discovered Meghan's wonderful Web site and artwork, we asked her if she'd be interested in turning the material into a book, which we released in March (from HOW Books). But it's not really a book in the traditional sense. It's like a spiralbound notebook with perforated pages; you can tear out any cartoon, like little greetings. (Plus there are stickers in the back!) I've posted various cartoons from Kawaii Not in my apartment (there are some great naughty ones for the bathroom and the kitchen in particular).

Visit the Amazon page.