What she didn't mention. Editing is the biggest expense to publish. To get an agent, you'll need to pay an editor, unless you're really good at editing yourself. An agent won't touch you is your manuscript isn't edited. Which means, you're paying that whether you send publish or query. She also fails to mention the kickbacks between agents and publishers. Agents almost always come from the publishing industry. They're one and the same. Agents will get money to get their writers to take a smaller advance, editors at publishers will take kickbacks to accept authors from one agent instead of another. It's an incestual relationship where the only one not in the negotiation, is the writer.
Same, and although some people can take advantage of that, I can't bring myself to. And what does it mean? It assumes that only X person can write X story. The more you think about it, the stranger it becomes.
discrimination is real and it's coming from the people who said they are the most discriminated against, using discriminations in their favor. It's a geopolitical situation and requires an understanding of globalism to fully comprehend.
@@DrakeEastwood Wow dude, that was some bullshit. Some agents only accepting from X type of author atm to boost underrepresented voices doesn't change the fact that like 80% of the trad pub market is designed for straight white dudes. You're fine.
I would fit in as one of the LGBTQ authors but I do not want to work with an agent that requires my arbitrary group identity as a prerequisite for consideration. I think the idea is inherently un-meritocratic and scummy. If this is the case then I'd rather self-publish than work with these people. I understand your point of view, Alyssa, but when I'm doing my research to query an agent, I see that only about ten percent of the possible agents I could work with would want to work with someone regardless of their inalienable characteristics. The majority of my writing group, as well, have given up on trad publishing for this exact reason. Getting an agent is already a difficult numbers game, and now, unless I want to sell my soul, it is an impossible game. It breaks my heart.
@@stefanielozinski Thank you, but I feel so bad for all those others who don't get elevated for being trans. There are great writers who are now being marginalized for things that have nothing to do with their writing.
@@WriteCold so true! It’s ironic, isn’t it? White people, straight people, and men are getting marginalized while “marginalized” writers are getting elevated for nothing but the color of their skin or their sexual identity. It seems that being a good story teller is pretty far down on the list when it comes to publishing standards.
@@ladyursala I think it's more complicated than that. I'm not trying to paint a black and white picture but your point on the irony is correct. I'm going off the basis that "marginalized writers" -- ignoring the fact that 99.9% of all writing is marginalized and needs a strong fight to ever be read by a large audience -- are receiving slightly more attention given that they are competent writers, but as a numbers game, yes it is good that good writers will be noticed, but that shouldn't be at the expense of the tactic to ignore other quite competent writers. Editing on: I'll think even more on this because other than names in a query (and a pen name, while generally not appropriate for a query could still be used and clarified later) there is no way an agent would know a person's characteristics unless they looked them up and then that would be a problem with the agent selecting on inalienable characteristics (something illegal in many professions in the states; dunno about this one, but yeah, that's well-known). So the problem of representation in an equation of publication prediction GIVEN the race/sex/whathaveyou of the author has already been controlled for and factored in, so bringing it to the front will actually increase disparaging outcomes. The rabbit hole is a deep one.
Honestly, same. I would also fit into those categories. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what 'community' you identify by or the labels you have - what SHOULD matter above all else is whether or not the book is actually good and worthwhile reading. Besides, Idk how I would introduce my 'labels' in my query letter to get 'upped' more: "Dear so-and-so, I'm a Christian, Bisexual, POC woman who would LOVE to have my book published" 😅Just feels strange to use my identity as a selling point tbh
Thanks for this video! All of the discourse this year around publishing has been so incredibly bleak. It's nice to get a single ray of hope occasionally.
I’m not sure I would agree with calling these “bad takes” as most of the people I’ve seen putting them out there are agents, editors, and those who work (or have worked) in Trad Pub. I’ve even seen some mid range authors talking about how little control they have over certain editorial and design aspects. I think these are totally valid viewpoints to have if they’re actually happening in any capacity. Even if they are less common, that doesn’t make them bad or misinformed takes.
I don’t believe that they are not JUST looking for diverse voices. Check publishers marketplace for the truth. Most of the books published over the last 6 months are by diverse voices. I don’t blame people for feeling depressed and discouraged because of this. It’s a publishing trend right now. There’s always trends. And right now this is what’s happening. Not saying it’s bad or anything. I’m just saying it’s the truth and authors who feel defeated by this trend shouldn’t have their feelings dismissed.
Also, diverse voices in publishing is not a "trend." It is something that always should have happened and is not going anywhere because publishers have finally realized that people crave diverse stories.
The problem with diverse writing is that it has become political. It includes people of color and homosexuals, not with the necessity of great writing, but strictly for inclusion. This is bleeding over in books and movies, with the final product being so poor, that people don't want to read or watch them. I have no problem with diversity, I think its great. People read books and watch movies to escape politics, yet everything is being tainted with it.
@@CloneufcBarbie was super political and it just scored a billion in box office. White people made diversity "political" when they started creating laws to ban diverse books in several states. Not only do people like you hate when POC write about real expe (which clearly make you uncomfortable), why are you more mad at authors instead of lawmakers who are getting books banned by law?
That is called a snap judgment. I am not white, and I don't hate anyone. Stop putting words in my mouth; you look stupid. Not agreeing is not hate. The books are not banned; they were removed from schools for being sexually explicit. Porn is illegal for minors, they are minors. Barbie had terrible writing. Mcdonald's also sells many burgers, which are not good.@@hardnewstakenharder
@@CloneufcThere are certain books and movies people read and watch to escape politics. But there are others people “consume”, for lack of better word, because they make a strong political statement.
Re canonical authors. Lots of bad books get published and lots of canonical authors break the "unbreakable rules". A key problem is that B/C quality books with A market timing might get picked up, but an A book with B timing will not (and by market timing I mean competition/what else is going on etc- Harry Potter was objectively easy to reject for lots of reasons, but came along at the right time, or it might be just be the agent "just got" a publisher saying they wanted something specific and it landed in the slush pile, or their university classmate got a job at an agency or...). Authors can control quality, and agents and publishers can test for quality, but are really reading at least as much for market timing which is *random* from an author's pov. But once published, authors have a chance to become stars, and write their own rules. Life isn't fair, but telling authors that it's just about improving their work is not right either.
I’m sorry, but traditional publishing, getting an agent, an editor, ect. Is like winning the power ball lottery. You talk about getting an agent, same thing. You speak like it’s a given you’ll get an agent, and you’ll enter the traditional queue. I enjoy your posts, but I can’t relate. I bet most people follow you hoping to get an agent if they do everything right. It’s more like getting a golden ticket. Be prepared to eat a lot of chocolate.
My children’s fiction is traditionally published by a big publisher, and I do have an agent-now. However, I started by writing 3 unagented nonfiction books for adults, and nonfiction book proposals (a couple of good how-to books are available) will still be considered, even by major publishers. Nonfiction for children is a good market too, if you are an expert in some area. It is a good way to get your foot in the door, so to speak. Also, I have noticed on the “editors wish list” site that some big house editors (of children’s fiction at least) will consider unagented submissions IF you follow their exact guidelines. I agree that it can seem impossible to get an agent. I gave up on it at first, thinking it might actually be easier to get an editor than an agent. I succeeded in doing this with a major publisher, though it was something of a fluke. And it was in the 90s. Now, I think an agent is the way to go, but of course it was easier for me to get one once I was already published.
I just don't know how to find agents or editors that don't cost a fortune. I mean I have a finished book, albeit a final rewrite to do but to get someone to have a look seems to be a brick wall.
Querying agents should be free--the only payment a legitimate agent will ask for is a 15% commission fee after they have made a book deal for your project!
All you say is true but, with dozens of short fiction sales to paying, professional markets, (not just no-pay or pays in copies nonsense), I remain unable to get any kind of decent response from agents or publishers, and have yet to have a book out. So, yeah, frustration rules.
Alyssa, we're having a great conversation here in the chat. I think you should make a video discussing the focus many agents have on only publishing people from specific identity groups. It's definitely a topic that many of us are not okay with regardless of our own inalienable characteristics.
I understand the business just fine. Not liking it does not equate misunderstanding it. It just sucks. Everything takes too long to be a viable business venture. I don't have time to wait 1 year, 2 years, 5 years. I need this product shipped yesterday, frankly. Don't get me wrong here. I work on quality writing but I can't sit on my hands, or rather product, and do nothing while the "system" inches at a snail's pace. They expect us to think of the business side of writing because it needs to make money. At the same time they expect the double-think of doing the waiting game because "muh backlog". I don't know what needs changing, but things do need to change. Trad publishing, including agenting, needs to cut their turn around time by 10...at least, or self-pubbing will drown them out in the long run.
Valuable and insightful as always. Kudos for your explanation of the diversity topic (and I say that as someone who knows he is over-represented in society and publishing).
My responsibility as an author is to perfect my novel before presenting it to any agents, who will then be impressed enough to joyfully and excitedly represent my work before publishers. If I can't win the Query "First Impressions" contest, I lose.
@@edsimnett You just never know who the first person to read the manuscript will be. One reader may love it, another reject it. I just think it's better to get noticed than to not get noticed. The exceptions to the rule are precisely that--exceptions.
@@cjpreach I feel like you are making a completely different point now. If you are saying that the "Query First impression" contest is actually completely random and not really a contest at all, I might agree, but I don't think that's it?
@@edsimnett I don't mean to create a controversy. Let me restate the whole thing. As I approach the submission process, I want to give myself the best possible opportunity to have my material seriously considered, and the best opportunity is for me to take full responsibility for presenting the best, most interesting material I can produce. There. Does that make sense?
@@cjpreach That's the right thing to do, of course. Sadly my sense is that that is neither necessary or sufficient. B quality product, with B presentation, will get published if it hits A market timing, or is otherwise advantaged.
Advances have shrunk or disappeared in some cases... Also there is no comparison when you think about 15% royalties vs. 70%, esp when the publisher will only give a boost to the launch and then "drop" the marketing. I have seen this happen. Very enlightening but I'm so so happy to be self-published. Thanks for the thought-provoking video, though :)
The money comes out more evenly when you consider that 15% comes with not having to pay thousands of dollars for editors, artists, and marketing to put out a competitive product, while the 70% does. And 15% of the sales from what even a weak trad marketing campaign can get you is still likely more (or comparable at a minimum) than 70% of what the average person's amount of marketing can do. But trad pub is still one or two bad moves or indie innovations away from turning obsolete, and it's a much more even playing field with indie than it used to be.
thank you for this video! I would love to hear your opinion on getting developmental editing services from a company (such as First Editing and Scribendi) vs. hiring freelancers who have profiles on websites like Reedsy? thanks!
6:00 you're completley wrong on this. The entire modern trad publishing world is tailored towards LGBTQ/BIPOC/femenist/disabeled stories and authors. So much so MANY agentsand publishers call exclusively for these types of authors/stories. And your claim to counter this is that on the best seller list you see, I guess you are implying cis white men, is a very weak argument. The reason being because most of those men are almost all grandfathered in to the modern literary world from past succsess when the publishing world wasn't as it is now (like steven king). You are also wrong at 8:00 because the reality is very much the opposite - publishers have limited time and funds to publish and when they admitedly admit their bias towards one type of story/author over another, it's naturally going to make others miss out on opprotunities. Sorry, but this is your bad take.
Sorry Alyssa, but your comments about classical or canonical authors actually support the fact that they would not be published today. Todays best-selling mediocrities are not proof that a current author is just as good as the greats who are time tested and have touched the souls of all races, genders, and creeds. Perhaps there is a great author today who will be read 100 years from now, but if so, you can be assured they will have achieved that distinction in spite of the publishing industry's standards, not because of them. Great writers usually deal in first principles, applicable to all diverse populations around the world (that is why they are canonical), rather than the narrow requirements of "today's publishing industry", with its tunnel focus on best-selling techniques to maximize sales. You are right, there is room for all writers, and no one is arguing today's writers should write exactly like the greats of the past, but how about actually taking a risk on those few extraordinary writers who do deal in first principles without regard to how they will make it to the New York Times best-seller list? Regardless, the question is moot, since today's publishing industry is not going to change. Although self-publishing, I am sure, is loaded with pretty bad writing, I bet it is the only place to find some of those gems that will actually become canonical in the future.
100% agree. There is a related question of what you should do even if you want to "obey the rules". I have been told to "learn my craft" but if attentively reading classics in the genre and good recent books leads you to seeing things which are apparently wrong, it is super unclear what else you can do / react to (one example is prologues in thrillers, which are basically no-nos even though huge numbers of current thrillers have them)
The whole argument that classic authors wouldn't be able to be published today is so flawed that it's ridiculous. What percentage of words that were commonly used then, are now archaic? I'll save you looking that one up in the dictionary: that means obsolete, or no longer on use - except by maybe lexicography nerds. What percentage of words have, had their definitions changed? Or worse, through generous use of sarcasm, had their meaning completely inverted and is the antonym of its former self? How many new words have been invented since since then? Of course they wouldn't be published! 90% of the population wouldn't be able to understand what's written. A modern publisher isn't going to invest in something that only has niche appeal... Unlike back in the day when it was only the rich elites who were writing for other rich elites; a good chunck to the population is now literate. Which brings me to what really confuses me about your comment: how exactly was the industry more "principled" at that time as compared to now? Nicole Rudolph has a wonderful shoe video on our misconception about ladies historically having tiny feet. Most of it comes down to: what survives to make it into the museum. It's not that the system or standard were better; rather, that everyone used fireplaces for heat. The badly written dross was recycled... as kindling. The nuggets of literary treasure were taken from their original serialised format (yes, most of them were first published in magazines) and LATER condensed and sold in volumes. After they had proven their marketability.
@@dueling_spectra7270 You have clearly not read classic or canonical literature or you would not be so misinformed about "archaic" language and the readership level of competency.
Authors like Charles Dickens got paid by the word, which was part of the reason why is why his books are so long. Meaning: the length of his books were based on the publisher. Which is similar to the case today.
Hi Alyssa! Do you count the cover letter (with only name and contact info at top left, word count at top right, and title centered in the middle of the page) as one page out of the first 10 sample pages (or however many the agent requests)? Or, do you leave this cover letter out when submitting and start with the first ten pages of your story? Thanks! Love your content! :D
Of course your going to say that, your on thier side and you will protect them, considering even you said yourself it is a toxic enviroment. You don'tt need to say anything, we know what happens there, and some of the stuff isn't true. I did a lot of research here, and so far what I found isn't what your saying.
Thanks for another great video, Alyssa! As a writer of colour, I am sitting here shaking my head at some of these comments. Just because underrepresented minorities are finally getting some attention, doesn't mean that white, cis, straight, etc. writers are no longer getting traditionally published. Maybe you should improve your writing/story instead of blaming minorities for your lack of success.
Thanks for your insights, Alyssa. Always helpful. What is your view on the appetite for memoir now? I've had a couple of "warm declines'" from publishers who love the writing, but who say memoir from an "unknown" is a "hard sell".
Methinks there be a big elephant in the publishing room right now. But it is of the "that which shalt not be named" mythos -- that is, if one does not want to have their dream career murdered in the kangaroo court of narcissistic twitterized public opinion. But I didn't say any of this. My alter ego did it! 😲
Merit, story and hardwork is all that matters. "Seat at the table." Those 3 things I mentioned are the best way to have that seat. Looking at someone's race, gender and sexuality won't do that. Diverse also means everyone.
No one wants to read the same story about how your wife left you, Andrew. Publishers are expanding to new markets, which is underrepresented readers; this is how capitalism works.
Minute 6: 59 "If you need proof just look at any bestseller list and you will find a number of authors who do not match one of those specific underrepresented categories ." But those are authors who have been writing bestsellers for decades. They have a proven track record of high sales so they will be published regardless of their race and sexuality. Authors who are white who wonder if they will not be published because they are not a part of any underrepresented category are _new_ unpublished authors with no track record of success in sales. Will these unpublished authors be penalized if they are white and not LGBTQ+? Do publishers have the same standards for all races and sexual orientation as far as what is considered a "best seller?" When a book is reviewed professionally in a newspaper's review column, if an author falls into a underrepresented category, it will be mentioned as a positive reason to buy the book. These reviewers only mention if an author is white and straight if that somehow negatively impacts the book's content- for instance a white and straight author writing about LGBTQ+ people.
This. I think she’s kind of conflating two separate things here. Of course among all authors there are still tons of white/straight bestsellers. But when I look at bestseller lists, virtually all of the people who I am hearing about for the first time fall into one of these smaller groups. I think a white guy writing a book without a focus on LGBT stuff or something is in for a very tough road even finding an agent.
@@stefanielozinski Yes! And let me just state the obvious to demonstrate how bonkers this is: What do your inalienable characteristics have to do with your merit? And creative merit at that. Every author worth their salt must do the necessary research for their story's subject matter. We're in a neo-McCarthy era of wear your beliefs on your sleeve and put them into your creative works, and if they do not coincide with the machine's then you're out. I'm fine with an agent picking talent in accordance with their beliefs, but don't make me write politics into my work just to have a seat at the table.
@@WriteCold "What do your inalienable characteristics have to do with your merit? And creative merit at that." Some author's who are from underrepresented categories have statements about what category they represent on their "about the author" page of their book. When they mention their category (minority, sexual orientation) it is assumed they have gone through some kind of struggle in order to write the book. Just by a reader buying their book, they are participating in that writer overcoming adversity. Publishers love to have that book blurb advertising an author's diverse background; it sells books apparently. White straight authors' do not mention their backgrounds in regards to race and sexuality in the "about the author" page. White straight authors' have boring information about themselves on these pages. Two examples of white straight author's with boring "about the author" pages are Dean Koontz and Terry Goodkind. Koontz tells his readers that he lives with his wife and dog in Southern California and Goodkind states that he lives in Nevada. How much other information do author's from underrepresented categories list about themselves? It must be a lot because with published authors from these categories readers already know about the struggles these authors had to publish their books. In order to publish a quality book, authors (white, black, gay, straight, etc) should not have to advertise what group they belong to in order to publish. But they do.
7:42 - "Room is now being made for people who have never had a seat at the table." What is this saying? That the big publishers have previously been axing manuscripts BECAUSE the authors were POC or gay? If so, which publishers? I'll go stand next to an obese white girl with purple hair and hold a non-spell checked sign in front of their offices. If not, then isn't it logical and rational that if I don't have a "seat at the table" in the medical field, it's because I haven't put in the work or that I'm not qualified?
Exactly it’s total bs and this is coming from a “poc”, to me the book is good enough to sell or not once you start deluding the standards the industry will fall soon after
Saying the advance isn't tied to sales is completely deceptive. The advance is just that an advance on royalties derived from sales. The publisher will never pay you a single penny if you dont' sell enough copies to "earn the advance" they paid you. Further, the advance they pay is NOT a payment for the right to publish your book. It is and ADVANCE on royalties derived from sales. Sales, sales, sales are the ONLY way you get paid. Stop gaslighting people about this topic.
Yes! I want to shout this from the rooftops! I hate hearing this misinformation spread around about traditional publishing. I want to be traditionally published, and sometimes I want to scream over the lies over what is supposedly a terrible situation for my favorite authors.
At one point in time something like 92% of the main characters in ya books featured white characters. Think Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, Twilight, etc. In 2015, that number was 85%. America is 76% white, but if you look at teenagers that number goes way down - to 52%. So of course there should be stories about non-white people, especially books aimed at ya or younger readers.
The industry has been taken over by feminist/woke/victimologists to the detriment of writers and readers in the mainstream. LOVE your videos and wish you'd talk about this.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
What she didn't mention. Editing is the biggest expense to publish. To get an agent, you'll need to pay an editor, unless you're really good at editing yourself.
An agent won't touch you is your manuscript isn't edited.
Which means, you're paying that whether you send publish or query.
She also fails to mention the kickbacks between agents and publishers. Agents almost always come from the publishing industry. They're one and the same.
Agents will get money to get their writers to take a smaller advance, editors at publishers will take kickbacks to accept authors from one agent instead of another.
It's an incestual relationship where the only one not in the negotiation, is the writer.
Loved hearing your perspective on this topic! Thanks for sharing. :)
Glad you enjoyed it!
You sound encouraging. Giving me some hope that I may get an agent with my YA fantasy I just finished. First draft only but its done.
Congratulations
I’ve seen literary agents write on their pages that they are ONLY taking submissions from “underrepresented” authors.
Same, and although some people can take advantage of that, I can't bring myself to. And what does it mean? It assumes that only X person can write X story. The more you think about it, the stranger it becomes.
Correct. She’s downplaying blatant racism.
@@stefanielozinski Are your comments not showing up? I got the notification that you replied but don't see it in the video's comments.
discrimination is real and it's coming from the people who said they are the most discriminated against, using discriminations in their favor. It's a geopolitical situation and requires an understanding of globalism to fully comprehend.
@@DrakeEastwood Wow dude, that was some bullshit.
Some agents only accepting from X type of author atm to boost underrepresented voices doesn't change the fact that like 80% of the trad pub market is designed for straight white dudes. You're fine.
I would fit in as one of the LGBTQ authors but I do not want to work with an agent that requires my arbitrary group identity as a prerequisite for consideration. I think the idea is inherently un-meritocratic and scummy. If this is the case then I'd rather self-publish than work with these people. I understand your point of view, Alyssa, but when I'm doing my research to query an agent, I see that only about ten percent of the possible agents I could work with would want to work with someone regardless of their inalienable characteristics. The majority of my writing group, as well, have given up on trad publishing for this exact reason. Getting an agent is already a difficult numbers game, and now, unless I want to sell my soul, it is an impossible game. It breaks my heart.
Good for you for having integrity !
@@stefanielozinski Thank you, but I feel so bad for all those others who don't get elevated for being trans. There are great writers who are now being marginalized for things that have nothing to do with their writing.
@@WriteCold so true! It’s ironic, isn’t it? White people, straight people, and men are getting marginalized while “marginalized” writers are getting elevated for nothing but the color of their skin or their sexual identity. It seems that being a good story teller is pretty far down on the list when it comes to publishing standards.
@@ladyursala I think it's more complicated than that. I'm not trying to paint a black and white picture but your point on the irony is correct. I'm going off the basis that "marginalized writers" -- ignoring the fact that 99.9% of all writing is marginalized and needs a strong fight to ever be read by a large audience -- are receiving slightly more attention given that they are competent writers, but as a numbers game, yes it is good that good writers will be noticed, but that shouldn't be at the expense of the tactic to ignore other quite competent writers.
Editing on: I'll think even more on this because other than names in a query (and a pen name, while generally not appropriate for a query could still be used and clarified later) there is no way an agent would know a person's characteristics unless they looked them up and then that would be a problem with the agent selecting on inalienable characteristics (something illegal in many professions in the states; dunno about this one, but yeah, that's well-known). So the problem of representation in an equation of publication prediction GIVEN the race/sex/whathaveyou of the author has already been controlled for and factored in, so bringing it to the front will actually increase disparaging outcomes.
The rabbit hole is a deep one.
Honestly, same. I would also fit into those categories. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what 'community' you identify by or the labels you have - what SHOULD matter above all else is whether or not the book is actually good and worthwhile reading. Besides, Idk how I would introduce my 'labels' in my query letter to get 'upped' more: "Dear so-and-so, I'm a Christian, Bisexual, POC woman who would LOVE to have my book published" 😅Just feels strange to use my identity as a selling point tbh
Thanks for this video! All of the discourse this year around publishing has been so incredibly bleak. It's nice to get a single ray of hope occasionally.
Your insight is super helpful for newer authors and those just starting to dive into the publishing world. So well spoken and thoughtful 🙂
I'm always trying to look out for new authors! Publishing can be tough, but new authors are literally its future :)
I’m not sure I would agree with calling these “bad takes” as most of the people I’ve seen putting them out there are agents, editors, and those who work (or have worked) in Trad Pub. I’ve even seen some mid range authors talking about how little control they have over certain editorial and design aspects. I think these are totally valid viewpoints to have if they’re actually happening in any capacity. Even if they are less common, that doesn’t make them bad or misinformed takes.
I don’t believe that they are not JUST looking for diverse voices. Check publishers marketplace for the truth. Most of the books published over the last 6 months are by diverse voices. I don’t blame people for feeling depressed and discouraged because of this. It’s a publishing trend right now. There’s always trends. And right now this is what’s happening. Not saying it’s bad or anything. I’m just saying it’s the truth and authors who feel defeated by this trend shouldn’t have their feelings dismissed.
Also, diverse voices in publishing is not a "trend." It is something that always should have happened and is not going anywhere because publishers have finally realized that people crave diverse stories.
The problem with diverse writing is that it has become political. It includes people of color and homosexuals, not with the necessity of great writing, but strictly for inclusion. This is bleeding over in books and movies, with the final product being so poor, that people don't want to read or watch them. I have no problem with diversity, I think its great. People read books and watch movies to escape politics, yet everything is being tainted with it.
@@CloneufcBarbie was super political and it just scored a billion in box office.
White people made diversity "political" when they started creating laws to ban diverse books in several states. Not only do people like you hate when POC write about real expe (which clearly make you uncomfortable), why are you more mad at authors instead of lawmakers who are getting books banned by law?
That is called a snap judgment. I am not white, and I don't hate anyone. Stop putting words in my mouth; you look stupid. Not agreeing is not hate. The books are not banned; they were removed from schools for being sexually explicit. Porn is illegal for minors, they are minors. Barbie had terrible writing. Mcdonald's also sells many burgers, which are not good.@@hardnewstakenharder
@@CloneufcThere are certain books and movies people read and watch to escape politics. But there are others people “consume”, for lack of better word, because they make a strong political statement.
Re canonical authors. Lots of bad books get published and lots of canonical authors break the "unbreakable rules". A key problem is that B/C quality books with A market timing might get picked up, but an A book with B timing will not (and by market timing I mean competition/what else is going on etc- Harry Potter was objectively easy to reject for lots of reasons, but came along at the right time, or it might be just be the agent "just got" a publisher saying they wanted something specific and it landed in the slush pile, or their university classmate got a job at an agency or...). Authors can control quality, and agents and publishers can test for quality, but are really reading at least as much for market timing which is *random* from an author's pov. But once published, authors have a chance to become stars, and write their own rules. Life isn't fair, but telling authors that it's just about improving their work is not right either.
Forewarned is forearmed; but still working through the query process (I'm very grateful for your other fine videos on this topic!)
You got this!
I'm a straight guy writing romantic comedy, as I used to do when I was screenwriting. I have less than zero chance of getting an agent.
Wokeness is a virus. Minorities being published go back centuries. These people are full of crap.
Maybe you could make one of your leads an alien. In disguise, of course. Lol. Otherwise, my friend, good luck!
Or you can do what I see in many books right now, to meet the required attention, write in a token gay person. (Kidding of course)
If it's really an issue they'll just suggest using a feminine pseudonym for publication. Lots of male romance writers use one.
Not necessarily, isn't Nicholas Sparks a guy?
Can you talk about the publishing court case? Would love you take on the pros and cons
I’m sorry, but traditional publishing, getting an agent, an editor, ect. Is like winning the power ball lottery. You talk about getting an agent, same thing. You speak like it’s a given you’ll get an agent, and you’ll enter the traditional queue. I enjoy your posts, but I can’t relate. I bet most people follow you hoping to get an agent if they do everything right. It’s more like getting a golden ticket. Be prepared to eat a lot of chocolate.
My children’s fiction is traditionally published by a big publisher, and I do have an agent-now. However, I started by writing 3 unagented nonfiction books for adults, and nonfiction book proposals (a couple of good how-to books are available) will still be considered, even by major publishers. Nonfiction for children is a good market too, if you are an expert in some area. It is a good way to get your foot in the door, so to speak. Also, I have noticed on the “editors wish list” site that some big house editors (of children’s fiction at least) will consider unagented submissions IF you follow their exact guidelines. I agree that it can seem impossible to get an agent. I gave up on it at first, thinking it might actually be easier to get an editor than an agent. I succeeded in doing this with a major publisher, though it was something of a fluke. And it was in the 90s. Now, I think an agent is the way to go, but of course it was easier for me to get one once I was already published.
I just don't know how to find agents or editors that don't cost a fortune. I mean I have a finished book, albeit a final rewrite to do but to get someone to have a look seems to be a brick wall.
Querying agents should be free--the only payment a legitimate agent will ask for is a 15% commission fee after they have made a book deal for your project!
Confront them in a parking garage.
All you say is true but, with dozens of short fiction sales to paying, professional markets, (not just no-pay or pays in copies nonsense), I remain unable to get any kind of decent response from agents or publishers, and have yet to have a book out. So, yeah, frustration rules.
Alyssa, we're having a great conversation here in the chat. I think you should make a video discussing the focus many agents have on only publishing people from specific identity groups. It's definitely a topic that many of us are not okay with regardless of our own inalienable characteristics.
I understand the business just fine. Not liking it does not equate misunderstanding it. It just sucks. Everything takes too long to be a viable business venture. I don't have time to wait 1 year, 2 years, 5 years.
I need this product shipped yesterday, frankly. Don't get me wrong here. I work on quality writing but I can't sit on my hands, or rather product, and do nothing while the "system" inches at a snail's pace.
They expect us to think of the business side of writing because it needs to make money. At the same time they expect the double-think of doing the waiting game because "muh backlog". I don't know what needs changing, but things do need to change. Trad publishing, including agenting, needs to cut their turn around time by 10...at least, or self-pubbing will drown them out in the long run.
That s why I m just deciding to get my mystery novel printed
Do you think querying will be easier next year? If you had to guess…
Valuable and insightful as always. Kudos for your explanation of the diversity topic (and I say that as someone who knows he is over-represented in society and publishing).
My responsibility as an author is to perfect my novel before presenting it to any agents, who will then be impressed enough to joyfully and excitedly represent my work before publishers. If I can't win the Query "First Impressions" contest, I lose.
How did Harry Potter get published? It would not even have placed in a first impression contest...
@@edsimnett You just never know who the first person to read the manuscript will be. One reader may love it, another reject it. I just think it's better to get noticed than to not get noticed. The exceptions to the rule are precisely that--exceptions.
@@cjpreach I feel like you are making a completely different point now. If you are saying that the "Query First impression" contest is actually completely random and not really a contest at all, I might agree, but I don't think that's it?
@@edsimnett I don't mean to create a controversy. Let me restate the whole thing. As I approach the submission process, I want to give myself the best possible opportunity to have my material seriously considered, and the best opportunity is for me to take full responsibility for presenting the best, most interesting material I can produce. There. Does that make sense?
@@cjpreach That's the right thing to do, of course. Sadly my sense is that that is neither necessary or sufficient. B quality product, with B presentation, will get published if it hits A market timing, or is otherwise advantaged.
Publishers have gone woke and are going broke and so hopefully they go based before they get replaced.
Advances have shrunk or disappeared in some cases... Also there is no comparison when you think about 15% royalties vs. 70%, esp when the publisher will only give a boost to the launch and then "drop" the marketing. I have seen this happen. Very enlightening but I'm so so happy to be self-published. Thanks for the thought-provoking video, though :)
The money comes out more evenly when you consider that 15% comes with not having to pay thousands of dollars for editors, artists, and marketing to put out a competitive product, while the 70% does. And 15% of the sales from what even a weak trad marketing campaign can get you is still likely more (or comparable at a minimum) than 70% of what the average person's amount of marketing can do. But trad pub is still one or two bad moves or indie innovations away from turning obsolete, and it's a much more even playing field with indie than it used to be.
You get an advance if your book is promising, and that advance is likely to be much bigger than what you can get from the sales from self-publishing.
4:17 - No, that's happens when it gets turned into a screenplay. They massacre it.
thank you for this video!
I would love to hear your opinion on getting developmental editing services from a company (such as First Editing and Scribendi) vs. hiring freelancers who have profiles on websites like Reedsy? thanks!
6:00 you're completley wrong on this. The entire modern trad publishing world is tailored towards LGBTQ/BIPOC/femenist/disabeled stories and authors. So much so MANY agentsand publishers call exclusively for these types of authors/stories. And your claim to counter this is that on the best seller list you see, I guess you are implying cis white men, is a very weak argument. The reason being because most of those men are almost all grandfathered in to the modern literary world from past succsess when the publishing world wasn't as it is now (like steven king). You are also wrong at 8:00 because the reality is very much the opposite - publishers have limited time and funds to publish and when they admitedly admit their bias towards one type of story/author over another, it's naturally going to make others miss out on opprotunities.
Sorry, but this is your bad take.
Sorry Alyssa, but your comments about classical or canonical authors actually support the fact that they would not be published today. Todays best-selling mediocrities are not proof that a current author is just as good as the greats who are time tested and have touched the souls of all races, genders, and creeds. Perhaps there is a great author today who will be read 100 years from now, but if so, you can be assured they will have achieved that distinction in spite of the publishing industry's standards, not because of them. Great writers usually deal in first principles, applicable to all diverse populations around the world (that is why they are canonical), rather than the narrow requirements of "today's publishing industry", with its tunnel focus on best-selling techniques to maximize sales. You are right, there is room for all writers, and no one is arguing today's writers should write exactly like the greats of the past, but how about actually taking a risk on those few extraordinary writers who do deal in first principles without regard to how they will make it to the New York Times best-seller list? Regardless, the question is moot, since today's publishing industry is not going to change. Although self-publishing, I am sure, is loaded with pretty bad writing, I bet it is the only place to find some of those gems that will actually become canonical in the future.
Omg shut up
100% Richard!
btw: Why does it say there are two replies but I only see one?
100% agree. There is a related question of what you should do even if you want to "obey the rules". I have been told to "learn my craft" but if attentively reading classics in the genre and good recent books leads you to seeing things which are apparently wrong, it is super unclear what else you can do / react to (one example is prologues in thrillers, which are basically no-nos even though huge numbers of current thrillers have them)
The whole argument that classic authors wouldn't be able to be published today is so flawed that it's ridiculous.
What percentage of words that were commonly used then, are now archaic? I'll save you looking that one up in the dictionary: that means obsolete, or no longer on use - except by maybe lexicography nerds. What percentage of words have, had their definitions changed? Or worse, through generous use of sarcasm, had their meaning completely inverted and is the antonym of its former self? How many new words have been invented since since then?
Of course they wouldn't be published! 90% of the population wouldn't be able to understand what's written. A modern publisher isn't going to invest in something that only has niche appeal...
Unlike back in the day when it was only the rich elites who were writing for other rich elites; a good chunck to the population is now literate. Which brings me to what really confuses me about your comment: how exactly was the industry more "principled" at that time as compared to now?
Nicole Rudolph has a wonderful shoe video on our misconception about ladies historically having tiny feet. Most of it comes down to: what survives to make it into the museum.
It's not that the system or standard were better; rather, that everyone used fireplaces for heat. The badly written dross was recycled... as kindling. The nuggets of literary treasure were taken from their original serialised format (yes, most of them were first published in magazines) and LATER condensed and sold in volumes. After they had proven their marketability.
@@dueling_spectra7270 You have clearly not read classic or canonical literature or you would not be so misinformed about "archaic" language and the readership level of competency.
You give off a strong HR lady feel.
Authors like Charles Dickens got paid by the word, which was part of the reason why is why his books are so long. Meaning: the length of his books were based on the publisher. Which is similar to the case today.
Hi Alyssa! Do you count the cover letter (with only name and contact info at top left, word count at top right, and title centered in the middle of the page) as one page out of the first 10 sample pages (or however many the agent requests)? Or, do you leave this cover letter out when submitting and start with the first ten pages of your story? Thanks! Love your content! :D
Of course your going to say that, your on thier side and you will protect them, considering even you said yourself it is a toxic enviroment. You don'tt need to say anything, we know what happens there, and some of the stuff isn't true. I did a lot of research here, and so far what I found isn't what your saying.
You used a lot of words to say so little lol
@@TurtlePower718 that happens unfortunately. Sorry, I get carried away sometimes.
Thanks for another great video, Alyssa!
As a writer of colour, I am sitting here shaking my head at some of these comments. Just because underrepresented minorities are finally getting some attention, doesn't mean that white, cis, straight, etc. writers are no longer getting traditionally published. Maybe you should improve your writing/story instead of blaming minorities for your lack of success.
Thanks for your insights, Alyssa. Always helpful. What is your view on the appetite for memoir now? I've had a couple of "warm declines'" from publishers who love the writing, but who say memoir from an "unknown" is a "hard sell".
Methinks there be a big elephant in the publishing room right now. But it is of the "that which shalt not be named" mythos -- that is, if one does not want to have their dream career murdered in the kangaroo court of narcissistic twitterized public opinion. But I didn't say any of this. My alter ego did it! 😲
Hahahahaha 100%
Merit, story and hardwork is all that matters. "Seat at the table." Those 3 things I mentioned are the best way to have that seat. Looking at someone's race, gender and sexuality won't do that. Diverse also means everyone.
No one wants to read the same story about how your wife left you, Andrew. Publishers are expanding to new markets, which is underrepresented readers; this is how capitalism works.
Minute 6: 59 "If you need proof just look at any bestseller list and you will find a number of authors who do not match one of those specific underrepresented categories ."
But those are authors who have been writing bestsellers for decades. They have a proven track record of high sales so they will be published regardless of their race and sexuality. Authors who are white who wonder if they will not be published because they are not a part of any underrepresented category are _new_ unpublished authors with no track record of success in sales. Will these unpublished authors be penalized if they are white and not LGBTQ+? Do publishers have the same standards for all races and sexual orientation as far as what is considered a "best seller?" When a book is reviewed professionally in a newspaper's review column, if an author falls into a underrepresented category, it will be mentioned as a positive reason to buy the book. These reviewers only mention if an author is white and straight if that somehow negatively impacts the book's content- for instance a white and straight author writing about LGBTQ+ people.
This. I think she’s kind of conflating two separate things here. Of course among all authors there are still tons of white/straight bestsellers. But when I look at bestseller lists, virtually all of the people who I am hearing about for the first time fall into one of these smaller groups. I think a white guy writing a book without a focus on LGBT stuff or something is in for a very tough road even finding an agent.
@@stefanielozinski Yes! And let me just state the obvious to demonstrate how bonkers this is: What do your inalienable characteristics have to do with your merit? And creative merit at that. Every author worth their salt must do the necessary research for their story's subject matter. We're in a neo-McCarthy era of wear your beliefs on your sleeve and put them into your creative works, and if they do not coincide with the machine's then you're out. I'm fine with an agent picking talent in accordance with their beliefs, but don't make me write politics into my work just to have a seat at the table.
@@WriteCold I agree entirely! Huge part of the reason why I am a self published author :)
@@stefanielozinski Good on you!
@@WriteCold "What do your inalienable characteristics have to do with your merit? And creative merit at that."
Some author's who are from underrepresented categories have statements about what category they represent on their "about the author" page of their book. When they mention their category (minority, sexual orientation) it is assumed they have gone through some kind of struggle in order to write the book. Just by a reader buying their book, they are participating in that writer overcoming adversity. Publishers love to have that book blurb advertising an author's diverse background; it sells books apparently. White straight authors' do not mention their backgrounds in regards to race and sexuality in the "about the author" page. White straight authors' have boring information about themselves on these pages. Two examples of white straight author's with boring "about the author" pages are Dean Koontz and Terry Goodkind. Koontz tells his readers that he lives with his wife and dog in Southern California and Goodkind states that he lives in Nevada. How much other information do author's from underrepresented categories list about themselves? It must be a lot because with published authors from these categories readers already know about the struggles these authors had to publish their books. In order to publish a quality book, authors (white, black, gay, straight, etc) should not have to advertise what group they belong to in order to publish. But they do.
7:42 - "Room is now being made for people who have never had a seat at the table." What is this saying? That the big publishers have previously been axing manuscripts BECAUSE the authors were POC or gay? If so, which publishers? I'll go stand next to an obese white girl with purple hair and hold a non-spell checked sign in front of their offices. If not, then isn't it logical and rational that if I don't have a "seat at the table" in the medical field, it's because I haven't put in the work or that I'm not qualified?
Exactly it’s total bs and this is coming from a “poc”, to me the book is good enough to sell or not once you start deluding the standards the industry will fall soon after
Saying the advance isn't tied to sales is completely deceptive. The advance is just that an advance on royalties derived from sales. The publisher will never pay you a single penny if you dont' sell enough copies to "earn the advance" they paid you. Further, the advance they pay is NOT a payment for the right to publish your book. It is and ADVANCE on royalties derived from sales. Sales, sales, sales are the ONLY way you get paid. Stop gaslighting people about this topic.
Yes! I want to shout this from the rooftops! I hate hearing this misinformation spread around about traditional publishing. I want to be traditionally published, and sometimes I want to scream over the lies over what is supposedly a terrible situation for my favorite authors.
Fantastic insights as usual, thank you Alyssa.
1:01 - LOL, welcome to the internet... where people hate and talk shit about things that they know nothing about.
Alyssa - Excellent content, once again.
At one point in time something like 92% of the main characters in ya books featured white characters. Think Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, Twilight, etc. In 2015, that number was 85%. America is 76% white, but if you look at teenagers that number goes way down - to 52%. So of course there should be stories about non-white people, especially books aimed at ya or younger readers.
Thanks, very useful
assuage, million dollar word, lol..*
The industry has been taken over by feminist/woke/victimologists to the detriment of writers and readers in the mainstream. LOVE your videos and wish you'd talk about this.
You sound like a man who is losing an unearned privilege. Get over it.