Quick Answers (My Favorite Kind)

I am embarrassed to be asking this, but I recently heard someone use a publishing term and realized I may have been pronouncing it incorrectly for a long time. Those early copies of books that publishers send out for reviewers to read, are the A.R.C.s? Or are they arks?

They are written ARC or A.R.C., and they're pronounced both "ark" and "ay-ar-see". They're also called galleys.

My family spends an inordinate amount of time at the library (2-3 times per week) and since our library has a great acquisitions budget and tons of new books, we get a pretty good sampling of New Stuff Out There. And we notice a subclass of really annoying book cover design and want to know why? Why does the industry think that novels with absolutely NO FLAP COPY are a good idea? I can see leaving off the dust jacket for a library book--maybe it cuts down on cost, or maybe it just gets too thrashed. I can't see what is wrong with putting a short summary on at least the back of the book, saying what it is about. Sometimes there is nothing, sometimes there are endorsements for other books on the back (which kids actually don't care about), and sometimes (rarely) there is a 3-sentence paragraph from the middle of the book that tells absolutely nothing about it. Like, you can't even tell what genre it is. Nearly all of these are midgrade novels, and the majority of them are from Random House (although there are others as well).

Nine times out of ten my kids can't figure out what the book is about, and so they slide it right back on the shelf where it came from. I look at the Library of Congress info sometimes, but it still doesn't take the place of flap copy. Is there some kind of secret marketing reason for this?

Yes. Idiocy.

I had a YA manuscript shopped by a former agent. The editors who saw it generally liked the writing and the plot, and asked her to send more work by me their way. They turned it down pretty universally because they did not connect with the MC.

In retrospect, I wonder if I made a mistake when I wrote the story in 3rd person POV, seeing as this manuscript was YA and that's the preferred viewpoint in the genre.

If I rewrite this in first person -without- major plot changes, can I submit it to these editors again? I did not receive any revision requests.

No. Send it to new editors. Send new work to the old editors.

If you have the time I'd love to get your opinion on the Russian Federation ruling against a book reviewer. The original article is here.

I can't decide if it's hilariously stupid or weepingly stupid.

I am new at the children's writing process, and I have a question. I am looking to hire a children's book editor, agent, and illustrator. I am not sure where to go and how to hire someone. Do you have any advise?

Yes. Stop that.
If you want an agent, then you want to sell your book to publishers. Which means hiring an illustrator is a bad, bad idea. And only hire an editor if you really think you need one, because the publishers you'd like to work with have editors on staff who will be disinclined to work with you if the freelance editor has taken the book in a direction they do not want. (Of course if you just need an editor because you have no grasp of English grammar or punctuation, feel free. It doesn't seem like that's the case, but do note that it's "advice." "Advise" is a verb.)

My folktale novelization is clocking in at an intimidating 140,000 (it is a long, involved folktale to begin with). I know this is "too long" for YA, especially for a first book.
I expect I'll get a form rejection for mentioning that word count, so my question is, do I submit anyway and see if the writing sells it, or should I pitch it as a two-book set? Without revision for that purpose the first book would not (IMHO) be satisfying on it's own.
Should I just finish some other (shorter) novel first and try for the longer one as a second book? (I'm only being slightly sarcastic. I do have other ideas that are less involved than this one and should be shorter.)

Starting with something shorter might work better, truthfully. But you can try submitting it without a word count if you really want to. I know that unless the writing knocked me on my ass from page one, I would seriously doubt that all those words are necessary. And maybe not even then.

I'm a recent convert to your blog and love reading both your thoughts and the responses of the anonymati. You may not want to spend time on this topic, but I just had to share the following quote from a recent Newsweek article singing the praises of Kindle (March 30, 2009, "Curling up with a Good Screen," by Jacob Weisberg).
"In the future, it [Kindle] could become the only publisher a bestselling author needs. In a world without the high fixed costs of printing and distribution, as the distance between writers and their audiences shrinks, what essential service will Random House and Simon & Schuster provide? If the answer is primarily cultural arbitration and editing, the publishing behemoths might dwindle while a much lighter-weight model of publishing emerges."
Ugh, after following your blog, I can only imagine how much crappy writing is going to get "published" if we "shrink the distance" between writers and audiences! Please, please, please, give us editors who will wade through all that for us!!! Hooray for what you do, and here's hoping you can keep on doing if for a good, long time.

Regardless of the fact that statements like the one quoted above sometimes make me want to ululate in despair, the fact is that when we "shrink the distance" between writers and audiences, it means those most inclined to self-publish will be able to be ignored just as completely and at shorter range. There will still be a place for talented writers and the editors who help stop the rest of them from drawing attention to themselves. Possibly it will be an even brighter future, where the authors who are sure they don't need the interference of an editor can find out for themselves just how much the public appreciates the unedited them.