The Industry Interview Series, part III

This is one of many special interview series brought to you by Splash of Red where we interview some of the country's leading publishers and editors to get a behind-the-scenes look into the literary industry for all of our budding writers out there who follow our site. We hope that the discussions here give writers some insight into the other end of the field they work so tirelessly in with the intentions of assisting in the publishing process. Enjoy.

Contributing Interviewees:

John Duff - Publisher at Perigee, HP Books, Avery

Martin Asher - Editor-in-Chief at Vintage Books

Chip Fleischer - Publisher at Steerforth Press

Cynthia Sherry - Publisher at Chicago Review Press

SoR: What are some common mistakes writers make that can put their manuscript in jeopardy of not getting published?

Duff: I could go on for days (hyperbole) on the topic of the most common, egregious, and silly (excessive use of adjectives) mistakes that writers might allow to creep into their manuscripts or proposals. However, the following appear in proposals and manuscripts often enough to raise red flags. While anyone of these might not send the proposal to the recycle bin or cause us to cancel a contracted work, they are worth noting:

Lacking a coherent structure: It is particularly important in prescriptive non-fiction that there is a logical flow of information throughout the book. Many proposals that I have seen appear to have been cobbled together from random thoughts that the author has had about the subject matter.
Failing to understand the potential readership for which the book is written: When I advise writers that I publish “popular” reference, that doesn’t mean that I am expecting to see copious footnotes and lots of $5 words. (Or, in the present economy, $25 words.)  While many authors may be experts in their particular fields, the largest potential readership is not their peer group. Nor am I in the business of publishing a thesis.  Most of the books that I publish need to have some practical application.  (Assuming that they aren’t intended as pure entertainment.)

The reliance on jargon: Because many of my authors are experts in a subject first and writers second there is a tendency for them to rely on the jargon of their trade, which is incomprehensible to the average reader. Worse, readers might assume that this jargon means one thing when, in fact, it actually means something completely different.

And finally, my pet peeve: Using the incorrect version of “foreword.” I find it hard to get past “forward” when I see it in a table of contents even at the proposal stage. And, also, see your question #2 concerning grammar and spelling.

Asher: Trying to write what you think the market wants as opposed to something dangerously new. What sold last year was last year. We work a year ahead. The public always wants something new. Outrageousness is generally not a bad trait to have.

Fleischer: Being overly casual in their submission letter. (And yes, letters are greatly preferred. Everyone’s e-mail in-box is overly full with submissions from people who are pushing “send.” A well targeted, well written letter is the way to go. The editor can then choose if he wishes to respond via e-mail, receive the Word file for the ms as an e-mail attachment, etc. But writers should not be surprised if e-mail queries are ignored.) Another mistake is calling and wanting to talk at length about the book. It’s fine to make a brief introduction, but the writing needs to speak for itself since that is what any book that might get published would  have to do.

Sherry: Not being succinct in their presentation and coming off as a crazy person is probably the fastest way to a rejection. It's one thing to be passionate about your project, but don't call a publisher multiple times checking on your manuscript's status and don't launch into too many details if you get a publisher or an editor on the phone. Just give them the elevator pitch in your query letter, e-mail, or phone call. A few well-rehearsed lines about what the book is about will go a long way. Publishers love a hook. But before you send a query letter or proposal, or contact a publisher, be sure to check out their website and/or their current catalog to see specifically what types of books they publish. Next, know the competition for your book inside and out and how your book is better. Avoid saying that there is no competition for your book because every book has to kick another book off a shelf. It's the law of the jungle.

SoR: How important is having impeccable grammar and spelling compared to having a really great story for a manuscript?

Duff: I am one of the worst offenders when it comes to correct spelling and grammar, although most of my errors arise from my poor typing skills and failure to proofread. However, the lack of attention to good grammar and proper spelling is an impediment for readers. If authors do not have at least a decent command of both grammar and spelling (and don’t bother to proof read their work) it sends a very strong, negative signal to me. To be fair, many of the authors with whom I work are experts in their fields and do not consider themselves to be “writers.” In most of these cases, the expert will engage a collaborator who will have the skills to convey the experts ideas clearly – and with impeccable grammar and spelling.
Editors do have their pet peeves. Mine is using a noun, such as impact, as a verb. I will always change it in the manuscript. I have relaxed my position on many other transgressions – life is too short to worry about split infinitives or ending a sentence with a preposition.

  
That said, I will always give authors leeway for self-expression in order to maintain their particular “voice” if the work will allow it. 

Even in prescriptive non-fiction the “story” is important, but the telling of it can’t be obscured by a lack of clear prose that adheres, at least for the most part, to the rules of grammar and spelling.

Asher: It's not either/or. A great story trumps bad grammar and spelling. But bad grammar and spelling at the beginning might make an editor think, "this guy is just a novice" and not continue reading to get to the great story. We are all overwhelmed with the number of submissions we get and while we are looking for good books we are also looking to reject things just to get them off our desks. Bad spelling and grammar could have that effect.

Fleischer: It depends on the publisher and the story being told. In a literary novel or work of narrative nonfiction, the author needs to have command of the language. Poetic license and improper grammar can be employed so long as their use is intentional and serves a purpose. A person who is an authority and uniquely positioned to tell an important story, such as a politician or a prosecutor, does not necessarily have to be a strong writer. An editor can work with such a person so long as their material is compelling and unique and there is a market for the story.

Sherry: They are both important as far as presentation and professionalism goes, but a great story and writing style is more important than a few typos. Editors will always be able to fix the spelling and grammar.

SoR: How much do you look at education or publishing credits when considering a manuscript for publication?

Duff: In the area of prescriptive non-fiction, the author’s credentials an a expert in his/her field are very important. While many excellent  works of non-fiction have been written by journalists or others who do not have PhD’s or MD’s or the equivalent, this is generally the exception. Readers (and the media) want to know that the author has the authority to speak on the subject.

Publishing credentials are quite another matter. An author’s track record is can be critical. If the author’s  previous book has been successful, it makes it that much easier for the publisher to market the new book. And, of course, the opposite is true. Overcoming a bad track record is one of the most challenging things in my field of publishing.

If the author has not previously published, it is not necessarily a handicap. We will look to other factors to launch a book by a first timer. ( I will point out the obvious here: many “authors” who publish in a specific category of non-fiction often only have one book in them. Subsequent books in the same subject area tend to be variations on the theme or become overly specialized.  We will often publish several books by the same author in his/her area of expertise but generally expect lower sales from book to book.)

Asher: I often check in with our educational marketing director. We have titles that sell hundreds of thousands of copies a year to the school market. It's always a consideration.

Fleischer: Education is not so important. Publishing credits however are a real attention getter because they show the author has been working at his or her craft and has the necessary drive and determination to do what it takes to get a story into print, to take editorial direction, etc. This does not mean the writer has to have published a book, but for a novel, say, it’s helpful to see some short stories have been published. Or for a work of nonfiction, it’s helpful to see the author has contributed pieces to newspapers, magazines, journals, etc.

Sherry: Publishing credits are very important and if an author has never published a book before, that's OK as long as they have some good journalistic connections. Education is less important than publishing track record and media connections. Bookstore buyers and sales reps love an author with a positive track record.

SoR: While self-publishing has certainly helped the average writer get their work out there, what are the pros and cons versus seeking a publishing house?

Duff: While I am not convinced that self-published has necessarily helped the average writer to “get their work out there” (it has, perhaps allowed them to print copies of their work or upload it as an eBook to various hosts) it is worth noting that the key things that a publishing house can provide:

* a critical eye and editorial expertise that will help the author not only improve their work editorially (with the input of the editor, copyeditor, etc) but will help the author place his/her book in the context of what is already published in the field

* thousands of person hours of expertise in every aspect of the publishing process: editorial, design, packaging, selling, distribution, etc.

* an advance, however modest, provides the author with a level of validation (and sometimes freedom) to do their work and underscores the notion that the author does not have to pay for the services that the publisher provides as a matter of course (see above “every aspect of the publishing process.”)

* a measure of credibility in the marketplace 

Asher: Anyone can write something, stick it up on the web and try to make people notice. Here are a few of the things that publishers so that it is difficult to do alone: 1) editing. I am currently shaving a book from 130,000 words to 65,000 words. I have been through it six times. It's a lot better now. 2) Cover, you can judge a book by its. You would be amazed at how many people buy books because they have a great cover. We have an art department composed only of geniuses. Just look at any  of our recent or backlist titles. Most recently look at THE LAST WEREWOLF by Glen Duncan, which we published a few months ago and has been a great success. Peter Mendelsund of the Knopf art department, designed a cover so great we all just wanted to scream. 3) Promotion. We assume that whatever your book is we have published something like it in the past (We have been around a long time). We have connections with key people at newspapers, magazines regular and digital media. They know the quality of the books we publish and I know we get a kind of attention and credibility that a writer on their own would have a hard time obtaining.

Fleischer: There have always been “vanity presses,” but the costs of pre-production and production used to be such that only writers with money to burn chose this route. Now the costs and other barriers to self publication have become so low that there are a thousand times as many self published books as in the past. There’s nothing wrong with going this route and occasionally a self published book will find traction. An established imprint, however, can serve as a gatekeeper in the sense that if a publisher risks its own money, staff time, reputation and other resources on a project, its involvement serves as validation of a writer’s talent or credentials. An established publisher will also ensure a book is well edited, copy edited, designed, promoted, and perhaps most importantly, widely distributed. Also, with such a crush of books being self published, and so much noise in our Internet culture, a book published by an established house has the great advantage of being elevated above the crowd to a certain extent.

Sherry: The only good reason to self-publish is if your market is very limited and you know better than anyone else how to reach that market and you can't find a decent publisher to work with. Self-publishing is a good option for people who need to be in complete control of the process and product and are not looking for any expert knowledge or experience. The other big part the publisher brings to the table is the money. Publishers pay the bills for editing, designing, typesetting, proofing, printing, marketing, publicity, advertising, and sales. So what you give up in creative control, you gain in not having to take the big financial risk of publishing. And publishers like Chicago Review Press work collaboratively with their authors on titles, cover and interior designs, and marketing plans, so with the right publisher you can have the best of both worlds. I'm speaking pretty exclusively about nonfiction publishing, because that's what I know. I don't have experience publishing fiction or poetry. I can imagine that is another area where it might make sense to self-publish your work, if you can't find a publisher or an agent who will take a chance on new fiction or poetry. 

SoR: If everyone has a platform, what can authors do to set themselves apart?

Duff: Not everyone has a platform, which can be a problem especially when trying to launch non-fiction. Many people are capable of writing excellent manuscripts but publishers expect to get a publishable work as a matter of course. What we are often paying for is the “platform” that will allow us to reach the widest possible market for the book in the most expedient way. That platform can be as simple as the author being recognized as a top expert in his/her field. Authors may already have a built-in market from their lectures, workshops, training programs, etc. and can reach thousands of potential buyers with a few key strokes. Almost every author in the non-fiction field should have a website, blog, Twitter, or other social media set up that are maintained and promoted. If an author doesn’t know how to set these things up, they should find out now. (Even the savviest author who may be called upon by the media regularly still needs on going social media to support their profile.)

Asher: Just as no two people are alike, no two platforms should be a like. Write from the heart. You are you. There is not another you in the entire universe, nor anyone who is interested in precisely the same things as you. Do NOT write what you think the market wants. You will be too late and the market doesn't know what it wants.

Fleischer: It really comes down to delivering the goods. Even if a book gets a lot of attention upon its publication, it won’t have legs unless early adopters love the book, recommend it to their friends, and it takes on a life of its own. There is no magic bullet or secret formula. In the end, it’s still about the quality of the reading experience.

Sherry: Make your platform better and be more active in the community your book is written for. You would be surprised at how many established authors don't have a website or blog or twitter page. Write articles for magazines, op ed pieces for newspapers, and offer to guest blog on key sites and be sure to add your book or the book you are working on to your byline.

SoR: If you could give one essential piece of advice to writers out there, what would it be?

Duff: Don’t quit your day job.

Asher: Write, rewrite (repeat six times). When you are finished, put your ms, in a drawer for a month. Take it out, then write, re-write another dix times. When you are starting to hate the book it means you may be approaching completion.

Fleischer: Focus on the work before you, and not potential outcomes. There will be time enough for promotional efforts after the book has been completed. Writing is lonely, hard work that requires lots of time and, even for most well known writers, generates very modest net income, if any at all. You have to be in it for the love of the process and the subject matter. If not, you’re almost certain to fail. If you write for all the right reasons and still don’t manage to connect with a large audience, you have nonetheless spent your time doing something you love and producing an end product about which you are passionate and of which you are proud.

Sherry: Don't give up and ask for feedback. 

SoR: Is there a gender bias that goes with genres such as women writing about relationships and parenting and men writing about history and politics, i.e. do readers expect certain genders to be more knowledgeable about certain topics and if so, how does consumer perception like that affect the literary industry?

Duff: For every instance where one could cite “gender bias” there will be another example of how that is negated. Men write prolifically about parenting, relationships, etc (what one might call the “feminine” subjects, if one wanted to be subject to outrage from certain quarters) and women contribute outstanding works in history and politics (areas of traditional male domination). Even in the category of business (a rather broad term that comprises everything from self-improvement to management to financial subject) I rather doubt that most editors would factor in the author’s sex when making a decision to publish or not. While I have taken into account an author’s sex when it comes to certain topics it is because I anticipate that readers may wish to hear the points of view of one sex or another on a particular topic.

Asher: I think publishing is pretty much in the same place that the country itself is regarding gender. Mysteries were considered "male," then along came Agatha Christie and now Patricia Cornwall and Sue Grafton. THE LAST LECTURE by Randy Pausch (check sp.) is about a man dying of cancer giving his children lessons about all he has learned from life. One could have considered that feminine. But with so many women working and men staying home raising families, I think I can honestly say, we  have no gender bias.

Fleischer: No. A writer can write about any topic, regardless of gender. That said, publishers are cognizant of the fact that many more women than men read fiction.

Sherry: I may be naive but I don't see the bias so much as the numbers deferential. More men write about politics and history perhaps and more women write about parenting, but I'm just as likely to publish a parenting book written by a man as a history book written by a woman. I don't think consumers care as long as the credentials are there.

SoR: What future do you see for “literary fiction” as opposed to self help, genre, vampires, etc.?

Asher: I just published a book I mentioned called THE LAST WEREWOLF, which was a literary novel about a werewolf. It's not either/or. Just as there are different kinds of writers, there are different kinds of readers. The two exist comfortably together and sometimes the distinction beween really well done genre and literature is in the eye of the beholder. Elmore Leonard, for example, was a suspense writer who is now considered quite literary. And then there is Philip K. Dick who published  strange science fiction novels all his life, often paperback originals and has now been honored with a volume of his work in the prestigious Library of America series. Herman Hesse once said "Seriousness is an accident of time." I think it takes a while before we really know and sometimes we are surprised by which books last and which don't.

Fleischer: I don’t have a strong sense of what the future holds for literary fiction. Genre fiction, or “popular” fiction, has existed for centuries. We tend to nurture a belief that past generations were more discerning readers. It’s true that the only works we know today from the 19th century are great works, but the reason for this is that these works have withstood the test of time. The overwhelming majority of what got published back then simply disappeared, as will today’s books of the moment. That said, I do have the sinking sense that our literary culture, including book criticism, is being dumbed down, and this makes me nervous. My hope is that this phenomenon will prove to be cyclical rather than terminal.

Sherry: I don't think literary fiction is going anywhere but vampires and zombies will likely fade from the mainstream and go back to the smaller niche where they came from and will always be popular. 
 

SoR: Contracts are commonly made more often than books are published so how often are contracts broken, for what reasons and what can an author do about that?
 

Duff: To cancel a contract  is rare for me. In fact, to state that “contracts are commonly made more often than books are published” may not be accurate. (There are probably no readily available statistics to support this statement, however.)  The main reason for a contact to be terminated is for non-delivery, that is, the author fails to deliver or to deliver by the deadline.  Most publishers are fairly lenient with authors and will extend the delivery date if the author has shown good faith – and the book is not too time sensitive. If the publisher reorganizes, which is not uncommon these days, and takes a respective publishing program in a new direction, then cancellation may ensue. But this is one of many circumstances beyond the author’s control.

My advice: Deliver a “publishable” manuscript on time.

Asher: Contracts are legal documents. They are rarely broken by the publisher unless the author does not deliver as scheduled, or there may be a clause that the author cannot publish a book with another publisher until he finishes the one contracted for-- in cases like that a publisher may well choose to end the contract, I would venture to guess that the number of contracts that are broken is relatively small. When a publisher signs a contract, it means he wants a book, not a lawsuit. Similarly if an author is lucky enough to find a publisher, the last thing she would want was to get in a legal hassle. It not only effects this book, but the publishing community is a small one and if word gets out that an author is "difficult" and does not deliver, they may find it harder to publish next time.

Fleischer: I have no idea what the industry wide statistics are on this. In twenty years, Steerforth has canceled only one contract and reverted the rights to the project back to the author. If the author truly believes in the project he will see it through and publish it with another publisher. That, however, is his only recourse.

Sherry: We have relatively few broken contracts. Mostly it comes down to authors who don't deliver manuscripts because of writer's block or illness and we take too long to figure out that it's never coming in. Occasionally, we have to cancel a contract because an author plagiarized material or didn't fact check carefully enough and we couldn't trust their research.

SoR: When considering a manuscript for publication, how much of your opinion is subjective versus objective and do you consider what will sell over what is underrepresented?

Duff: All opinion is subjective. The decision to publish is based on (or subject to)  a number of factors: the quality of the work; the credibility (and profile) of the author; the perceived popularity (or otherwise) of the subject matter; the effect of current (and forthcoming) competition (to your point about what is underrepresented); timing; suitability for the respective publisher’s list; etc.  While I hesitate to use the word unique, it does apply to each proposal that I see. And so each has to be judged based on the criteria I’ve mentioned above – and many others.

Our goal is to publish books that will sell. Our expectations for sales in the short and long term may vary from book to book, which is often reflected in the advance. But if the books don’t sell, we’ll be out of business – and we will be incapable of contributing to the social capital, which may be considered our higher purpose if one wants to speak in the loftiest terms. I have been disappointed more often that I care to think about concerning the sales of  a book that I was, nevertheless, proud to publish. But when we are looking at the end-of-the-year financials, we expect to be very much on the positive side of the profitability line.
Asher: I think this is your most difficult question and I can only give you my answer. I think if you asked 10 editors you would get 10 answers and they would be all over the place. By virtue of being a human, as opposed to a computer, I cannot be objective. I am aware of the market but I try not to pay too much attention to it unless a particular subject has been done to death. Personally, I like to think of myself as playing left field with one foot over the foul ,line. I think what is underrepresented has perhaps a better chance than what is overrepresented. All of this gets overridden by a book which simply becomes an obsession. My boss is a very busy man, but when I go into his office and say "We have to publ;ish this, he generally looks up and pays attention. If he doesn't, I come back and do the same thing every half hour making as big a nuisance of myself as I can to get him to read it so he can see what I am so excited about.

Fleischer: The ultimate question when deciding whether to take on a project – do we have the necessary confidence that Steerforth, given its own strengths, weaknesses and track record, would have a reasonable shot at outsized success – is largely subjective. Authors need to understand that a book might not be a good fit for a publisher for a variety of reasons, ranging from timing to a change in a publisher’s priorities. No means no, but it does not mean that the book is unpublishable or without merit.

Sherry: It's all subjective and I am looking more at sales potential than if a subject is underrepresented.