I'm currently starting a publishing company in a niche Canadian market.
What people in these comments (and really, most places on the internet) fail to grasp is the role of the publisher as a curator and editor.
Unlike your friends, the editor is not your friend. They don't have a stake in your ego, they won't sugarcoat it beyond the veneer of professionalism. You need an editor who is not your friend, too say no to you. No, you shouldn't start your book with this cliché. No, you shouldn't have your character meandering aimlessly. No, you shouldn't use whedonisms. Exceptions apply, of course, but when the editor is your publisher and not your friend, "shouldn't" becomes "can't". Usually that involves saying no to 99% of manuscripts coming through the door. And this is how an okay story becomes a great book. Your editor, having read more books than you in their segment, knows the difference... usually.
All manuscripts are at least a little bit bad, some books aren't. As you can tell, I'm no fan of self-publishing, I just don't believe anyone can be objective enough with their own baby.
Now... I've read my fair share of bad books, especially recently. The publisher/editor is to blame 95% of the time. My theory is that being rigorous takes time, which is always in short supply, and skill. I believe people tend not to stay in the same role for too long anymore, lest they lose out financially. Which is totally fair, but skill (and the chutzpah to say "no") takes a while to develop, years really. And no one has "years" for anything.
Except, of course, all the people in the industry who don't mind being poor. And people making bank, I suppose, but these are so few as to be statistically insignificant.
> Unlike your friends, the editor is not your friend.
It is true. I would like to qualify it by saying "At the beginning, the editor is not your friend." A friendship, even very strong one, can be developed along the time, based on mutual respect and appreciation, temperament match, etc. Even then, a good editor will still be professional and be honest when they edit the writer's draft.
A good book may not be a "successful" book, especially in literary fiction, since the post talks about novels. The reverse can be true as well. It happens often that the editor tells the author it is a good book, and the publisher allocates resources to marketing it, schedules book tours, etc. while at the same time both the writer's agent and the editor/publisher expect the book may sell only ~2,000 copies. The target audience are expected to be other writers, a subset of avid literature readers, etc. They don't expect it will earn back the advance paid to the author. The publishers have portfolios and long term visions. Of course, this doesn't apply to small publishers, most of which cannot afford it.
It's funny because I expect most of us do it for the art, but artistic merit doesn't pay the rent. This is why many smaller publishers have "locomotives" that are guaranteed to sell so they can publish "good" literature books that won't sell. Don't know about the big American ones, seeing as they're flooding the market I assume they're just playing a numbers game, let God sort them out...
True, I guess most artistic industries must work this way, since we all know that about 95% of all art is terrible (and that was before AI).
I feel like there's a difference between a company and an industry, though in the end I suppose it's all a sort of natural selection. Good (or rather, "fit") authors publish second books and third books, while good companies get to exist into second, third years etc.
If I were writing a book I’d definitely consider a real publisher but before that I’d be tempted to pay someone independent to be an editor and be bad cop. A student or remote worker with literary chops would do that as a first pass. Pay them to tell me what about my book sucks before wasting an editors time with a submission.
I'm not sure to what degree I'd trust a student or random online gig worker to give a really useful editorial option. Copy-editing or maybe technical edit? Possibly. I used an intern who worked for a magazine editor I knew to copyedit a book once and that worked fine. But I wasn't looking for substantive structural work. In fairness, I didn't really get that when I went through a publisher either. The second edition was IMO a lot better but that was because I personally came to see where the first edition was stronger and weaker.
The idea would be to get feedback from someone who isn’t partial to you and who hopefully has an eye for decent writing. You wouldn’t take what they say as gospel but it’d be enlightening.
It’s like letting someone tech savvy but not partial try the UI/UX of an app. They’ll see things you don’t and get confused in places you don’t.
What people in these comments (and really, most places on the internet) fail to grasp is the role of the publisher as a curator and editor.
Unlike your friends, the editor is not your friend. They don't have a stake in your ego, they won't sugarcoat it beyond the veneer of professionalism. You need an editor who is not your friend, too say no to you. No, you shouldn't start your book with this cliché. No, you shouldn't have your character meandering aimlessly. No, you shouldn't use whedonisms. Exceptions apply, of course, but when the editor is your publisher and not your friend, "shouldn't" becomes "can't". Usually that involves saying no to 99% of manuscripts coming through the door. And this is how an okay story becomes a great book. Your editor, having read more books than you in their segment, knows the difference... usually.
All manuscripts are at least a little bit bad, some books aren't. As you can tell, I'm no fan of self-publishing, I just don't believe anyone can be objective enough with their own baby.
Now... I've read my fair share of bad books, especially recently. The publisher/editor is to blame 95% of the time. My theory is that being rigorous takes time, which is always in short supply, and skill. I believe people tend not to stay in the same role for too long anymore, lest they lose out financially. Which is totally fair, but skill (and the chutzpah to say "no") takes a while to develop, years really. And no one has "years" for anything.
Except, of course, all the people in the industry who don't mind being poor. And people making bank, I suppose, but these are so few as to be statistically insignificant.