The Authority of Publishers/Editors

Hello. I've recently been thinking, what exactly gives certain publishers or editors authority? This isn't borne out of hate or negativity since I can't even pretend to fully understand the business, nor have I sent out many stories myself. This isn't a tirade. However, seeing the amount of unfortunate posts on the rejections thread, I am minded to think whether or not certain editors, for example, have the right to reject work. I've said elsewhere on this forum that one's enjoyment and appreciation of a story is entirely based on their input and effort. It seems a shame to me that our "success" in writing fiction or non-fiction is dependant on people. In some ways I think self-publishing should be the norm. Honestly, I've always thought things like this. What gives certain people the right to judge? I have the same opinion for snobby critics of film. I'm firmly of the belief that one should be experienced in a given field before knocking something. Do most editors have degrees in some aspect of writing? Even then, is that enough? I've known plenty of people who misinterpret or just "don't get" stories despite having high levels of education. Once again, this thread has come about more from my own ignorance and it's not a focused attack.

 

I don't think you fully understand to role of publishers and editors.
If you send your story to a Science Fiction magazine , the publisher is looking to buy stories he believes the readers will enjoy .
The most common reasons stories get rejected are , the submitter has not followed the submission guidelines. The story is not the type the magazine publish. There are too many errors and would involve too much work to make it publishable. Most publications receive more submissions than needed , so if your not one of the best you will not be chosen . It is not a question of authority . If you owned a magazine and paid for it with your money, would you not make the same choices ?
Editors and proofreader are employed to improve and remove mistakes in writers work . Most good editors make suggestions rather then simply run a red pencil over a manuscripts .

 

No offence, Teladan, but that certainly sounds like a tirade to me.

And you don't need to have experience in this field to understand any of it, you just need a basic grasp of how business works in general.

What right do hey have? Every right. They are paid to do a job. someone has hired them to do so. Or, if they own the business, it's their business on the line. Just the same as if you get a job in that position or you own a business that does so, then you get 'the right.'

It's like saying what right does a supermarket have in picking some foods to stock over others? They put the stuff on the shelves that they think their shoppers want, and go to great lengths to try and make sure they do. If they don't, they lose cash, don't turn a profit, or in the worst-case scenario - go out of business.

What gives certain people the right to judge? The fact they have the job to do so. Someone has hired them based upon either past experience proving they are good at judging or the employer has been convinced they might be good enough to do so in a job interview.

The same way the most sought after scouts in football (or most sport) are coveted because in the past they have uncovered players who proved to be undiscovered gems.

Does this mean all scouts are awesome at their job? No. Just the same as not all editors and publishers are good at their job.
But asking what right they have? That comes across as entitled.
"Who are YOU to judge MY work?" Everyone is allowed an opinion. If people weren't allowed their opinions, then that's a world most people wouldn't want to live in.
Just the same way im sure there is someone who might read your comments and say "and who are YOU to judge them as 'snobby?'" You lay a claim at the film critics for being snobby in their judgment, but you're doing the same to them by judging them. Who are you to call them snobby and denigrate their judgement?... See where the circular firing squad starts kicking in? EVERYone has "the right" when it comes to a subjective art form.


As for why they pick things that they do, I will leave that in the capable hands of the great Quentin Tarantino.

 

But it is. Our readers and the people who are paid to judge what they want, the editors and agents. Their positions and paycheques are based on getting that right more than getting it wrong.

 

So, in short, the writer has to conform to the criteria of the writing professional. That is the way I see it. Do you agree Steve?

 

I think it's probably easier for an established writer to try something experimental.

Read the commentaries to Isaac Asimov's short stories in his collections. He explains the rejections he got and how he had to deal with them, and he already had a track record with the editor he was working with, John W. Campbell of Astounding Science Fiction) - and how he was grateful to Campbell for helping to develop his career.

 

Some other aspect of this you may not be considering, Teledan, is the limited volume of stuff these publishers can actually publish in a given year. Say, 12 magazines per year? Or x number of novels, etc. Publishers don't have the financial resources to publish an increased number of times a year.

Traditional publishers take a chance on novels, poetry and story collections. (Magazine publishers need subscribers.) They have to be willing to give an advance to an author, pay for the design, layout, printing, promotion, etc. There is no guarantee that even a good book is actually going to sell enough to recoup their costs. So they are limited as to what they can offer without going bankrupt.

Consider as well ...all the people out there (us included) who have wordprocessing facilities, and now want to write a book, or a series of books, or short stories, poetry, whatever and get it traditionally published. Even if these MS's are all submitted to a very high standard ...which they are certainly not ...publishers couldn't hope to sell them all.

The volume of wannabe writers is now huge. You're not only needing to grab the attention of agents and publishers because your work is exactly what they're looking for, but you also need to beat out an incredibly inflated amount of competition. Just look at the number of literary agencies that are 'not accepting submissions as this time.' If they could sell everything they like, that wouldn't be the case, would it? They'd be begging for submissions, not discouraging them.

I'm hoping this situation will find a level in the not-too-distant future. Sooner or later, people who really don't have the talent or the staying power to become successful writers may simply drop off the branch—and the good writers will have a better chance of getting noticed. And if readership increases, so books sell at a price that makes it worth everybody's while, that won't hurt either.

 

Speaking specifically to the trad-pub dynamic, and the initial gatekeeping part of that dynamic, what gives them authority is money, which they have and we do not. And money comes in many, many forms, most of which are not bills and coins.

Probably the most common expression of money is time. Time, in this sense, is a major part of the overhead of any organization. It's why, in retail, there's a saying that "every time you touch an item, it loses value". That's got nothing to do with damage, staining, or wear and tear. It's referring to the payroll that is the monetary expression of the hands that move the shirt, that take it from this display to that display, that wearhouse it, that mark it down to clearance, that move it to another table, that fold the shirt for the gazillionth time because shoppers are the worst... All of that is money. So every time you touch the shirt, it costs you money in labor. That's what cuts into your GMRROI. You don't just want to sell the shirt. You want to sell it fast.

Trad publishers have overhead as well. The entire endeavor starts with someone's money, and unless you yourself are the publisher, it's not your money, its someone else's.

And if it's someone else's money, then... it's not a service and cannot be engaged as one. The prospective author has no rights that they can lean on, no expectation of customer service. This is not a customer service paradigm. You did not say this, but your question and other sentiments allude to this idea, hence my mention.

The paradigm in play is that of an investment up for offer, and investors have only one thing in mind - money. That's why they are called investors. Forget any idealized notions of someone in that building with a passion for bringing new voices to the masses. That's just what one says on camera to thinly cover the crass capitalistic machine underneath.

The person between you and publication in a trad-pub sitch is someone who has been tasked with determining if your investment is worth it to the investor. No one in these rooms cares that you're an artist. No one here cares how important or intimate the story is to you. Maybe back in the early romanticized days, but most certainly not now.

The authority they possess is one invoked by the fact that you and I are supplicants. We are asking for a favor. One to which we do not have a right because no one has a right.

"Right" is not in play.

Only money.

 

That's one way to look at it, and partly true I guess. I mean, that's specifically why there are different publishers for different genres in the first place. Different editors/agents/publishers deal in different subgenres even. Why? Because they specialize to find what sells and what wont in that particular area. Maybe conform isn't the right word, though. Some writers specifically target a genre to conform. Others dont.
Most create a piece of art and then you have to find who is most likely to recognize it as a good product. I'm writing Scifi because I love it, not because I want to conform. I just then send it to the people who, i hope, are more likely to recognize it as a good product.

Because what our books are, at the end of the day, is a product to them. Getting pretentious over it being seen as anything other than that to business people is what I was really trying to get at. And is what @Wreybies explained best of all. It's also down to if your product is good enough for someone to recognize it as good. And my definition of "good" in this case, is "will it sell."

That's why I posted Tarantino's explanation - If you throw your product at the wall enough times, and it IS good enough to sell to the public, eventually you will come across someone who will recognize it's good enough. Does that mean the ones who rejected it before are awful editors/publishers/agents/critics? No. Does that mean they should be denied the RIGHT to do so? No. That's what Teladan was hinting at.

Hell, look at some famous art masters like Vincent Van Gogh. He wasn't "recognized" in his time, now he's one of the greats. He had to DIE before people started noticing his stuff was good enough. Does that mean everyone who was an art critic and saw his art in those days were idiots, and shouldn't of had the "right" to critique others work? No.

Looking down your nose at, and denigrating the people who spend their days (lives in some cases) rummaging around in never-ending stuff, just because they don't automatically and instantly notice your work is "great" is entirely self-serving. Because your work might not BE good enough, and it's you that's wasting their time. That's why there are thousands of agents/editors/publishers, everyone's opinion is different, and some might have a better grasp on it than others. All of them have their right to that opinion because "good" is subjective on an artistic level.

The best example I can give to Teladan is me. I've just spent the last couple weeks looking at, contacting, and asking quotes from graphic artists because I want some images of my characters.
I sifted through dozens of artstation/deviousart/reddit/pinterest/flickr profiles, and eventually chose an artist who i thought was the "best" for the amount of money I wanted to spend.
Does that make me a terrible judge because I didn't choose another artist who is also really good?
Newp. I picked the one i think, subjectively, will do the best job.

What right did I have to decide that?

Every right. I'm paying for a product.

 

Question @Teladan —you said you think people should be self-publishing. If you believe that, then why are you even concerned about traditional publishing? Why not just self publish?

 

The answer to trade publishing is always going to be get good enough to get past the gatekeepers.

 

It's their money, power and name on the line. If they don't like what you're writing, they have no obligation to publish it. It's that simple.

 

Since you mentioned the rejection thread, as the founder of the thread, I don't see it the same way as you. No one is making me send out stories and try hundreds of times. I know rejection is coming, but I also know it only takes one editor to like your story and buy it. Another thing is to look at how long it takes to get a response. I've waited over two years before for a form rejection. Reading submissions is not the priority of these publications nor should it be. And a lot of the work published is solicited. It just means you have to have a better story than everyone else. That's really hard, but it happens. It takes a lot of tries and it takes a willingness to improve by reading what your desired publications are publishing and writing more and more until you can give them something they can't turn down.

As for qualifications, it should be clear by reading a publication if they know what they're doing or not. Yes, a lot of people in the literary scene have MFAs or something like that. Volunteer positions for first readers and internships aren't always easy to get. A lot of publications affiliated with universities have grad students staffing editorial positions. I've been on the inside, reading slush and sending out rejections. You don't know how bad I wanted to find a good story that I thought we should publish. Most submissions aren't as polished as they should be. And I did find things from the slush pile. But I could count those times on one hand, whereas the number of rejections I sent was far too high to keep track of.

Anyone can self publish, but that's not something I want to do. I don't think it should be the norm. I want both the financial backing and editorial guidance that comes with a traditional publisher. Why should any of us want to wipe that out? Just because our work gets rejected doesn't mean the system should change.

 

Resurrecting this old thread. Now, it seems to me that a lot of you talked about the business side of things. I think what I was asking for here was--and this is still a pertinent question for me--what are the credentials of most of these gatekeepers? I don't care about money and economics. I already assumed these people have the resources available to print physical copies, buy rights, distribute, etc. But what I'm asking is, are these people successful writers themselves? Deadrats said, "The answer to trade publishing is always going to be get good enough to get past the gatekeepers." Right. But what makes these publishers qualified to be able to outright reject a work? I understand that it's all about a story's appeal and how well it fits with the magazine or journal's ethos and aesthetic, but I'm talking about the readers themselves. If I was an artist, I wouldn't want a non-artist to judge my work and have the sole control and say over my success. I could be Rembrandt and yet someone without any artistic impulse, who has never painted and knows nothing about the fundamentals, has the "right" to reject my work. How would they know what's good enough? Now, I know it's probably not that severe. Editors and publishers probably do have some writing experience and know what good writing is. But the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. What does it even mean to be published? If someone gloats that they're published, that is in no way an endorsement of their skill and quality as an author. That could just mean that some lesser publisher not entirely concerned with quality has picked them up. They can still say they're a published writer and people will give them kudos and respect for it. I've written threads on this sort of thing before. It seems to me there is very little objective control in this medium. With art, people know what good art is and there are so many ways to put one's work out there. You can be the master of your own creation. If you post a single image on Artstation and it's incredibly well made and professional--because you taught yourself from a young age and you know a lot about art--that could blow up. The art speaks for itself. But with writing? Apparently we have to submit our work to faceless publishers who may or may not have the knowledge or insight to know what a good story is.

I have to stress that I'm not bitter because I'm constantly being rejected by magazines. I'm not saying that my stories are good and everyone is an idiot for rejecting them. I'm not that person; I've only recently started sending out work and learning about this. I'm just trying to think about it critically because, to me, something doesn't add up.

 

There are definitely gatekeepers in the art world. And a lot of what's important there is politics. To get a foot into the fine arts world you need to fit into the postmodernist trends that dominate the whole scene these days. If you're going for illustration that's different, but you still have to tailor your work to specific publishers and the kind of art they tend to publish. Once you've got a foot in the door and you've become a 'name' artist you get a little more leeway. But to get full freedom to create your own trend, you need to be a big name artist.

And trust me, editors and publishers with a proven track record know what they're doing. They know the business far better than most writers do.

 

Oh, certainly. I'm actually half writer half artist myself although I consider writing to be my main hobby. Don't get me started on the postmodern dominance of art! However, I'm really talking about the different platforms and ways whereby lower level creators can become successful and get that foot in the door in the first place. I would say that there is a distinction to be made between these two things:

Writer posts a short story to a magazine > rejected outright with a form rejection and only a few people on a critique forum has seen it
Artist posts a single piece of art to a popular platform like Artstation > it blows up and the artist becomes known and respected for his or her craft

Just as an example, an artist could post this image and purely on its merit, which is immediately visible, become known and even be offered jobs.


A writer? We have to send our work to people to read and accept before it makes its way "out there." There are no portals like Artstation, DeviantArt or anything else for writing. An artist or a musician can create and their work can be accepted purely on its own terms. In fact, any visual medium has a genuine advantage over writing. I can imagine a dedicated one-man team creating a little stop-motion film over several years and it garners thousands if not millions of views. There are many more examples. Needless to say, I write for myself and I know it's not all about notoriety. I've never placed much stock in fame. But isn't trad publishing the only type of publishing that's really taken seriously?

Edit: Back to publisher's credentials. If these people are successful writers themselves, then I concede many of my claims. I'm not sure I've seen much about the people who have the "right" to gatekeep what can become successful. Actually, it's not even about success. It's just about being out there in the first place. Should it be so difficult even to put the work out there? All an artist has to do is upload a PNG...

 

I do see your point, but there's self-publishing. Some writers have gotten well-known through self-publishing and then got picked up by traditional publishers. Of course you're right, not nearly as many as artists. There's that whole thing where if you want a story published you can't allow it to be seen publicly anywhere first.

Part of the problem there is that making artwork can go relatively fast compared to writing a book or a group of shorts. Get seen on Artstation or somewhere, get contacted by publishers, and crank out new artwork in a matter of a few weeks or months.

But to develop the skill to do artwork at that level takes decades.

 

I do think you're missing the point, which is that they're employees of a business, not contest judges. Their decisions are business decisions. Their authority is assigned by the business owners, through the management.

Here's what I think is happening: I think you're conflating rejection of a submission with its artistic value. This is not what a rejection represents. It represents a bad fit for the business at that particular time, is all.

A publisher will get, say, 10,000 submissions in a year, but they only have the resources to publish 10. The other 9,990 will be 'rejected' - it's not a pass/fail evaluation of whether they're "good" or not. It's just that there were more attractive submissions in this round.

There is absolutely 'objective control' - the objective metric is selecting profitable books. Agents, Publishers, Editors, &c, who underperform in this metric are let go. Those who perform are retained.

You don't have to do that. You can post your work online for free; nobody's stopping you.

But if you want to engage their company's resources, then yes, the submission is like a job application for your book, to go work in their company. They will weigh it against other 'applicants' and pick a few, or sometimes even none.

Again, the analogy is that there's nothing stopping you from posting your story online and gathering likes. ie: why are you submitting to a publisher if your goal is just to see if it's 'good'?

Meanwhile, the current state of the various art categories' business models (sculpture, painting, photography, music...) is very similar to writing. There's a billion creators out there hawking our wares. Go to a painting, sculpture, photography, music forum, and the questions are very similar: "My [output] doesn't sell even though people say it's very good. I expect it's because I don't have exposure. How do I get into a gallery/label, or high profile website? I've been trying for years and keep getting rejected! Should I advertise on Facebook or Instagram to get better visibility?"

It's not adding up because you're wilfully dismissing the fact that they're making business decisions about sellability in context of ten thousand manuscripts in their slush pile; they're not judging the artistic quality of the story.

 

"Here's what I think is happening: I think you're conflating rejection of a submission with its artistic value."

Hm, yes. I think that's the case. I've learnt from this thread and my posting in the rejection thread that I shouldn't conflate these. This has made me see things in a different light. Thanks for this information and opportunity to see it from a different point of view.

 

Publishers have money and eyeballs.