Big Fish, Small Pond? Or Big Fish, Wrong Pond?

So, the last time I emailed you, I had the hype but not the trophies. Now I’ve got both. Why is it that American editors ignore writers from New Zealand who aren’t Margaret Mahy or Joy Cowley. Down under, our buyers (readers) are piranhas. But, unfortunately for NZ authors, they are tiny piranhas.

I also review the YA books which that come out of the US and the UK and most of it, which, yeah, I know, sells, is actually formulaic which my students (I’m a high school teacher) turn their noses at – preferring to read ADULT literature.

Is this a ‘mam, this is a gentlemen’s club…’ kind of thing? Cos it sure does feel like it.

If you mean actual 'gentlemen', then no. The majority of publisher staff is female. 

If you mean 'we just don't like New Zealanders', then no. We're seeing a lot of very talented and very profitable novels coming from the southern hemisphere, and there's no prejudice that I'm aware of, unless it's a prejudice for Australia/New Zealand, not against.  (And while I realize that Australians and New Zealanders do not see themselves as in the same category, to US publishers, you are.)

If you mean 'Americans are just stupid and you can't sell anything smart to them', well, I can't say for sure, can I? We certainly can't match you for sheep jokes.

With an award under your belt and great reviews, I would start to wonder if your agent is sending the book to the right people.  Authors over here sometimes have to leave their agents because things just aren't working out.  You may be in that position, too.

At the same time, sometimes a book that can make a big splash in a smaller publishing market would be in danger of disappearing in a larger one.  Without having read your book, I can't hypothesize, but good luck.

'Nonfiction' Is Like Reality TV Shows, Right? And 'Creative Nonfiction' Is Like Fox News

(1) How is publishing different for nonfiction children's books? (For example, a science topic for middle grades)

It's SO different! It's furrier, for one thing, and sometimes it's purple!
Ok, so I didn't really understand the question.  There aren't a lot of differences, aside from submission (see below) and the need for fact-checking.  Were you thinking of something else?

(2) I know for adult nonfiction, authors are not expected to write the whole book before submitting. Is that true of children's books as well or do editors expect the complete manuscript?

If it's chapter-length nonfiction, then yes, usually those are sold based on sample chapters and an outline.

(3) Are nonfiction titles a harder sell to publishers/bookstores?

They certainly can be.  Some nonfiction sells great---The Dangerous Book for Boys, for example.  But a lot of nonfiction (especially chapter-length nonfiction) only does well if it's very well supported by teachers and librarians, and as you may have heard in the news, they have NO MONEY TO SPEND ON BOOKS right now.  But that's ok, because we didn't want those kids educated anyway.  Who cares if they'll be old enough to vote soon?  Most adult Americans NOW don't know what "nonfiction" means, and everything's just fine, right?

Amazon Gives Bookscan to Authors

Well, that's interesting. But before you go thinking this will answer all your questions and make your life perfect, let's remember what we know about Bookscan, ok?

How to Complain About Your Publisher in Public

In terms of freedom of speech, which I support in every form: complain any way you want.

In terms of smart career advice and behaving like a professional: DON'T.



In the many comments about the Magic Under Glass cover, a few people have wondered about the author's relative quiet. It seems there are two very different questions, though:

Some people seem to be asking "Why wasn't the author the very first to object publicly to the cover?"

When you, as an author, form a professional business relationship with a publisher (ie, contracts, signatures, money changing hands), the publisher expects you to act professionally. What that means is that in most cases, you should take a 'no comment' approach to the publisher's mistakes, in the same way that the publisher will take a 'no comment' approach to your mistakes, if you make any.

If a newspaper article runs about the time you accidentally showed up at your job clothed only in tequila, your publisher will not be happy. But to the public, its response will be 'no comment'. You are its business partner, and short of canceling your contract, that's not going to change. So your publisher realizes that if it became one of the people publicly objecting to your behavior, that would not help the situation. At all.

And the same goes in reverse. I would say that the only time it would be smart to publicly distance yourself from your publisher is when/if it has done something that will cause continuing public outrage and bad feeling even after it makes an attempt to mitigate its mistake. You may have noticed that much of the outrage and consternation about the cover is dying down now that Bloomsbury has capitulated. This was not one of those times.

So while I, like you, am curious what the author's personal feelings about all this are, I don't feel she should have felt any pressure to share them with the world.

If your publisher does something so outrageously offensive or stupid that other publishers (the other publishers you would be going to if your current publisher relationship soured) want to distance themselves from it publicly, then THAT is your invitation to excoriate your publisher on your blog and twitter and to burn them in effigy on your front lawn. Not before.

And you should take comfort in knowing that unless you decide to start habitually showing up for school visits clothed only in tequila, your publisher will let you deal with your mistakes your way.

But some seem to be asking, "If the author has no problem with her cover (if in fact that's so, and she's not just being discrete), what gives other people the right to find it objectionable / racist?"

Excuse me? The author is not the arbiter of what cover matches her text when there is an obvious contradiction. No one, absolutely no one, would describe the model on the cover as "dark-skinned", which is how the author described her main character.

One of the problems we have with racism today is that a fair number of people think that racism can only be deliberate. As in, it doesn't matter if something you say or do is racist. If you didn't mean it to be racist, then it's not.
For the record, and I hope we're all really listening: THAT IS INCORRECT.

And also for the record: those of us who objected to the cover were not objecting on the author's behalf. We were objecting on the readers' behalf. And especially on the minority readers' behalf, because some of us understand how excruciating and demoralizing it is to children to be made to feel that they are the wrong color. This is a question completely outside of the author's participation or non-participation. No matter who approved or disapproved that cover, no matter what was meant or not meant, that cover on this book was wrong.

Last Minute Miscellany

Question: Is it better to be published by a small independent (real) publisher with little to no physical distribution (POD/ebook) or remain unpublished, at least for the short term?

To most publishers, this is essentially the same thing. Whereas self publishing often counts against a writer (as indicative of a tenuous grasp on reality), this kind of publishing just doesn't count at all.

What makes a difference to trade publishers is activity in the marketplace. How many books are you going to sell POD or as an ebook? Anything under 500 is essentially equivalent to zero.

When it comes to an author/illustrator's dummies, should they be full-sized? I've searched for an answer online and have found several conflicting answers. Some people claim they absolutely have to be full size while others insist they just need to be big enough to be readable. As someone preparing their first complete package to send into the dreaded slush, I'd like to be as accurate as possible. I don't want something as simple as the size of my dummy derailing my chances.

There's no rule. Just don't go bigger than 8.5 x 11, or if you're doing spreads 11 x 17. Whatever size the finished book is going to be, making the dummy a size small enough to handle and large enough to read is beneficial at the submission stage.

Suppose a book has not been picked up nationally by Barnes & Noble. But then people start saying that they've seen it on the shelf at their local Barnes & Noble. What does this mean? Has the manager special ordered it, and if so, why? (Reviews? Strong indie sales? or what?)

Could be any of the above, or something else-- for instance local interest (local author or topic). Every B&N buyer has a little latitude to stock their store in a location-specific way.

What does one do after making a terminally stupid mistake with a well-known editor, which has most likely resulted in blackballing by the entire industry? Is there any way for the repentant author (and also very talented, I offer, as one of said author's readers) to redeem his- or herself? Does he or she have a chance to be read and loved by an editor, or would it be better to find some other trade...say, fishmongering?

Without knowing what sort of transgression you're talking about, I can't say. But let me refer you to How To Get Black Balled.

How to Tell If Your Sales Rock... or Don't

Is there an average number of copies a picture book needs to sell before it's considered a success? How about a MG or YA novel? Or can a book's success be more accurately judged by whether it has earned back its advance? Or simply sold out its first printing? Please do not infer from this question that I've spent a lot of time lately staring at my royalties statements, as book sales mean not half as much to me as the smiles of my readers blah blah blah etc.

You can think of a book's success as based on sales numbers. Certainly a book earning out its advance is something to be desired, but the advance and the print run are linked, and the print run is an idea of how many books the publisher hopes to sell in approximately a year. So the advance comes back to sales numbers, too.

Past that, though: No, there isn't an industry average for any type of book. Sales goals vary widely publisher-to-publisher and within publishers book-to-book. The thing to compare your sales to is the first print run.

1st year:
sales are 1/2 or less of the first print run: This is a disappointment to your publisher. If the book was a small investment, the attitude in the office may be "ah, c'est la vie"; if the book was a very large investment, the attitude in the office may be "whose mistake was this, dammit, and whose neck is corporate going to wring?"
sales are around 3/4 of the first print run: Publisher response may range from "that's not so good" to "hey, that's not so bad".
sales are approximately the first print run: Publisher response ranges from "nice work" to "go us!".
sales are above the first print run: Publisher response ranges from "that's great" to "OMFG! Wearegeniuses!!".

2nd year:
sales bottom out: with the exception of a few very topical books, this is not expected and not appreciated.
sales dip, but are above 1/3 of the first year's sales: that's pretty normal.
sales are close to the same as the 1st year: awesome.
sales are above the 1st year sales: holy shit! quick, how did we do that? do it again!

5th year:
book is still in print: congrats. have a bottle of champagne, because this is getting less common.

10th year:
book is still in print: congrats! have a case of champagne, and invite all your friends over.

20th year:
book is still in print: shh. stop celebrating, you'll just make the other authors bitter and envious.

(Also note that if your book's sales were not quite as high as your publisher hoped, but the book got some very positive review attention, that may still be chalked up as a "win".)

Let us remember, however, that one of your rights and privileges as someone not working in a publisher's padded cells is to distance yourself from the capricious mood swings, self-congratulation, and finger-pointing of the industry. Unless you fought your publisher through every step of the book-making process or in a fit of hubris took an advance that no book without an endorsement from God himself would ever earn back, then you can at most take a small fraction of the blame for a book's failure.

And unless the publisher is run by total jerkwads to whom panic and recrimination are as the air they breathe, your book's sales history will eventually be viewed with equanimity and perspective.

So as long as your books don't tank over and over again, things are probably just fine.

Quick Answers

Hello, I have been writing a novella for a few months now. I did not intend for it to be a novella (I was actually not sure what I wanted it to be when I started) but for the story I have in my head that is about the length it will end up as. Is there any publisher that takes them, or is it an unmarketable sort of book? If I decide to submit to agents, should I call it a novella or a short novel?

That is a pretty tough sell, but I don't think it matters what you call it. Tell them the word count, and they'll know what the challenge is.

I'm writing a picture book in which much of the humor will be in the illustrations. They will contain clues, visual jokes, and information key to the story but not mentioned in the text. How do I indicate that? I know it isn't my job as the writer to tell the illustrator what to draw, but the text alone is only half the story and less than half the humor.

Notes about the illustration should be confined strictly to those things that are essential in order for a reader to understand the manuscript.

I am basically wondering about the differences between photo shoots and stock photography in YA covers. Is there a way to determine which method will be used?

The book's budget.

Is one more effective than the other?

Not necessarily. Photo shoots usually get better results, but some stock photography designs are very successful.

Also, there was another author who had told me that a lot of the covers where partial features are shown (a chin or a forehead) are publishing company employees. Do you know if this is true?

It's certainly true that photo shoots are a heck of a lot less expensive if you don't also have to pay a model.

In Which I Am Proud of My Bruises

Do you know why some really, really prominent children's books - like the last volume of a certain boy wizard series - are edited so badly? I'm certainly I'm not the only person who read through the last few installments of Harry Potter thinking OH MY GOD CUT CUT CUT!!!!
The obvious explanation is that a bigshot author can demand their immortal prose be left untampered with, on threat of decamping to a different publisher.

Yes, in large part.

Another still more depressing possibility is that the publishers just don't care and skip the editing process in order to get the big-name book out there bringing in all that lovely money as soon as possible.

Yes again.

But if the latter, that seems short-sighted, as a well-edited book is surely more likely to stand the test of time and keep making money for the publisher in future (if, of course, that publisher retains the rights - if not, maybe they don't care.).
It's certainly difficult to imagine that Bloomsbury couldn't find someone competent and willing to work on HP. Was there some poor editor weeping in her office over being prevented, by authorial ego or sales department supremacy, from doing her job properly?

Yes, that's possible. There are also a few editors who, unfortunately, just don't really give a crap.

I agree with you that there are further books in certain series that could have done with a sh**load of editing beyond the editing I know they received. (Never assume they weren't edited at all--they were.)

But I'd like to say a couple things about the short-sightedness of publishing, to provide some context, without actually defending it.

For one thing, for 99.99% of books, publishing is about the now. Being able to sell 500,000 copies now is the very best most books can ever hope for. Trying to create a book 'for the ages'--a book that will last past the author's own lifetime, nevermind just making it to two years from now-- is playing with such long odds it's ridiculous. That's a fact of the industry, and something to bear in mind.

It's also worth remembering that as long as the first book in a series is in good enough shape to keep hooking readers, it doesn't matter so much how badly plotted, excessively adverbialized, and padded with filler the last books are. Readers will still want them. That's a fact of the reading public.

So yes, sometimes authors prevent editors from doing their jobs. Sometimes publishers prevent editors from doing their jobs. Sometimes editors just don't do their jobs. And sometimes it's a combination of all three.

It takes a lot of fight to be a good editor. And it also takes knowing what fights are worth fighting.

A Second Chance, or a Chance to Make the Same Mistake Twice?

Speaking of republishing books from a couple of posts ago, how often does that happen in your business? For example, I searched for a long time for a "no longer published" children's book, The Green Machine by Polly Cameron, and I always found super expensive copies for sale. It seemed that people were always searching it out and willing to pay big bucks. My 3 kids love it (obviously that's hardly enough for a reprint), but at what point does someone figure out to put it back into the rotation? Would the author, if they were still alive, have to put it through the query system again? Or does the publisher own it? This applies to any reprint of a currently out of print book. I'm tempted to check a copy out from our library and "lose it." Only tempted, don't report me.

This does not happen a great deal. There have been some recent reissues, notably from New York Review of Books, but they are almost entirely books that were originally published more than 50 years ago. I see a number of submissions from authors whose books went out of print in the 1980s or 90s, and that's too soon.

Listen, I know that there are some honest-to-goodness great books that are out of print--even books that went out of print within a couple years of publication!--and here's what you have to know: that happens all the time.

It's a fact of publishing. No matter how great the text, the art, the cover, the title, etc, sometimes a book just doesn't speak strongly enough to enough people to survive in the marketplace. If you and I and a couple hundred other people recognize its sterling qualities, that's simply not enough people. (Of course, once books go digital, everything will be able to be in print forever. I'm looking forward to that element of digital books.)

Publishers, reviewers, and booksellers know that however wonderful a book may be, almost all books that go out of print do it for a good reason: they can't sell enough copies.

For this reason, publishers are highly unlikely to republish something that's gone out of print within booksellers' and reviewers' (long) memories. The reissue won't get review attention and won't get bookseller support.

In terms of the rights, the author may have the rights back, if their contract has the standard out-of-print language and they have remembered to request the rights be reverted to them. If the author has not, then the publisher may still have the rights.

Reissuing a Classic... or Not

I had cause yesterday to recall a favorite book of mine as a child, and wondered if you were familiar with it. I was delighted to find the entire book was available (free) online, and was actually a creation of the same person responsible for "Little Black Sambo". I wonder what chance this classic tale might have in today's marketplace? http://www.sterlingtimes.org/kettlehead2.htm

I'm just one person with one opinion, so please take this as such: Not a chance in hell.

A story meant to scare children away from open fires? In which the little girl's head is burnt off. And then her head is replaced with a kettle. And then the kettle is replaced with a doll's head, through the timely intervention of Santa Claus. And then she lives happily ever after (though thereafter terrified by open fires, and probably in need of a lot of expensive therapy)?

I think that to most of today's consumers this story will seem one or more of the following:

• pointless
• terrifying
• inexplicable
• unnerving
• draconian
• batshit crazy

However, this is an opportunity to remember that children are not nearly as easy to horrify as many parents are.

And to remember that the stories adults are likely to think of as pointlessly wacky because the stories are so far out of our cultural norm are fascinating to children for the very same reason. Children know it when they're looking at a story that's different from others, and children are hard at work every day trying to figure out what rules and ideas the world is made of. They naturally know that the exceptions define the edges of the rules, so everything that's markedly different is a possible key to the shape of the world.

And, to return to your question, as with Little Black Sambo (which I am likewise not a fan of), if there are enough people who remember this story fondly from their childhoods, then it could perhaps be republished. Who knows?

ENOUGH, for the love of mike!

As much as I love this blog, and look forward to its posts, I REALLY NEED A FRICKING BREAK FROM THE "FUTURE OF PUBLISHING" TALK. Seriously, that and "How Much Publishing Sucks Right Now" are all people talk about.

I don't need to read any more of these articles, and neither do you.
A quick overview:

1. Publishing is a somewhat crappy business. Which makes it PRETTY MUCH LIKE EVERY OTHER BUSINESS.
2. Publishing has a future. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IT WILL BE.

So everyone can stop
a. COMPLAINING
and
b. COMPLAINING.

Thank you.

Lyrics and Poetry: Not Exactly the Same Thing

I have just found your blog via Dani Jones's clever article which stopped me looking for an illustrator, but now I have another question which you may or may not be able to answer.
I am a music teacher and work a lot with early years, mums and babies, and pre-schoolers, in Scotland. I have a few ideas that I usually put into song rather than write them down but I think they could maybe work as rhyming picture books.
The question is, if I have a good tune that makes a book fun to sing as well as say, is there are place for notation (or even a suggestion that this should be sung rather than said) in a children's picture book? I know that Julia Donaldson has done this with The Snail and the Whale, but I don't know how recommended it is, if you are not Julia Donaldson, and haven't already written The Gruffalo.

Once upon a time, music was part of every educated child's upbringing, because with no TV or video games or children's books, evenings were really, really dull. And music continued to be a part of most children's upbringings for several decades past that time.

But no more. Most young parents today do not know how to read music. That's your answer.

Do you know of any publishers who are particularly into fusing song and poetry?

No.

Sometimes the tune is what makes the rhyme work. Does that mean I haven't written the rhyme well enough?!

Yes.

Ahem, I mean: Perhaps that's subjective. Lots of lovely songs which I personally enjoy have lyrics which only work with the music and particular expression of the singer. That doesn't make those lyrics bad.
But if you mean, does that make those lyrics a bad text for a picture book, the answer is yes. They may be good lyrics, but they're bad poetry.

I suppose it should be able to stand on it's own, like a very good leonard cohen song, as a spoken poem/story, and if/when you happen to hear it sung it's a separately effective experience.
Ultimately, is it better, as with illustrators, to leave such ideas out of initial manuscripts when you send them?

I'm afraid so. Sorry.
Of course, we're all looking toward the digital book revolution, and once that happens, it will be much easier to combine recorded music with illustrations. And then your lyrics can remain lyrics. So perhaps you only need to let it wait a few years.

Aaaaargh, Indeed

Whenever I stroll through my local shopping mall, it always amazes me how many poor quality children’s books have made it out there in the market place. I see rhyming books without correct meter; and picture story books with poorly written, disjointed story development and little incentive to keep turning the page. How do these people get published, when most of your dear readers spend their time revising and rewriting ad nauseum, and still don’t get a look in? Aaaaargh!

Because:

1. Some publishers have no shame. Some of us feel we owe children our best, and that products of all kinds for children should be good for children, but others of us are happy to let children play with the literary equivalent of a Choke-On-Me Elmo (now with Sharp Edges!). They publish blunt traumas to the imagination in the form of books, because they know:

2. Many members of the public have no sensitivity to the difference between good writing and bad, and will spend their money on anything colorful and cheap. Which provides certain publishers with no motivation to do anything but:

3. Pay nothing, or next to nothing, for text. A bunch of those terrible texts you see never touched the slush pile. They were banged out in-house by an overworked editor who knew NO ONE cared how bad or good the writing was, or was farmed out to a freelancer who was paid so little they seriously weren't going to spend more than an hour on it.

In a free-market economy, the good and the bad of it is: people vote with their wallets. And publishers, which are businesses, listen to those votes.

Why Is It So Hard to Get an Agent? Because It's Supposed to Be.

Why is it that cover art (meaning not photographs) is getting less popular? Personally, I find that I'm less likely to get a book if it has a photograph cover. Photo covers seem to be getting way more popular.

I think this is one of those publishing pendulum things. Right now, photographic covers (especially on YA books) are more popular with readers. But I think that may change. I'm a fan of both approaches.

Are you personally more likely to get a book sent to you from an agent or one sent to you without an agent? Or do you really care about that?

I can't speak to how likely I am to be sent one or the other without revealing something about my publishing house-- it's different at different houses, you know. I can say that I acquire more from the agented submissions than from unagented, because that's true of everyone. But it's not because I care whether someone is agented or unagented-- it's because agents are (largely) doing their jobs and sending me a higher percentage of manuscripts I might acquire.

Aussie Power

I am an unpublished YA writer from Australia and I want to eventually break into the American publishing market (by which I mean an American Agent/Publisher) due to the fact that the Australian industry is currently in dire straits and the YA industry isn't as big here anyway.
So, my question is: do you think that Editors (or even Agents) would be turned off by a ms that was set in Australia? I'm write mainly urban fantasy/paranormal but I can't just set it in an U.S. city since I've never been over there... What do you think? Is there no hope? Should I try and get an Aus agent and forgot all about my American dreams?

No, there's no inherent problem in setting your story in Australia, any more than there's a problem setting your story in Germany (The Book Thief), Japan (The Great Fire) or Somewhere Else (Dreamhunter, The Arrival). If the only thing that your Australian readers identify with is the Australianism of your work, then that's a problem, but if you've got involving characters and plot, no worries.

Keep Melina Marchetta, Jaclyn Moriarty, Sonya Hartnett, and the many other successful Australian imports to the U.S. in mind, and write.

Current Events in Steampunk

I'm currently at the intern level, but have big dreams to enter the publishing industry after I graduate next spring. I subscribe to a fair amount of industry blogs, and do my best to stay current with news and trends within publishing. One of the most common pieces of advice that I read online is to always keep an eye on the NYT bestseller list or the stacks of new books at the big bookstores in order to figure out what's hot in publishing. However, I also have learned that it takes months, at the very least, for a book to go from submission to shelf.

Is it just a Catch-22 that in order to stay current, I have to be at least a year behind what's actually being accepted and published, or do you have any advice for other ways to keep up with current trends?

re: Catch-22
No. Still very much worth it.

re: Current trends in acquisitions
Steampunk, steampunk, steampunk.

The Publishometer: How to tell whether a manuscript will be acquired

I am an unpublished author trying desperately to be a published one. I feel I am a good writer and follow all the guidelines. I know publishing is a business first and foremost, but when I see yet another celebrity with a children's book in the works, it's disheartening. Plus I'm really, really jealous! My question is: Would a publisher choose a mediocre book written by a celebrity over a well written book by a no-name just because it may sell better?

There are essentially three variables at work:

• Quality of Writing
• Consumer Interest in Topic
• Degree of Celebrity

Editors want to weight things in terms of Quality of Writing. But editors also know that the Public -- the book-buying consumer -- cares a hell of a lot more about Topic and Celebrity than Writing. And yes, publishing is a business. So use this guide:

Quality of Writing:

• Transcendent -- 50 points
  
• Excellent -- 45 points
  
• Delightful -- 40 points
  
• Good -- 35 points
  
• Decent -- 30 points
  
• Drivel -- 20 points
  
• Culpable -- 10 points
  
• An abomination to anyone above the IQ of an orangutan -- 0 points
  

Consumer Interest in Topic:

• I WANT that! -- 110 points
  
• My kid won't shut up about that -- 90 points
• My kid likes that, and so do I -- 70 points
• My kid likes that, but I'm pretty tired of and/or annoyed by it -- 50 points
• Hmm. Maybe? -- 30 points
• No, thanks -- 20 points
• Ew, really? -- 10 points
• You couldn't PAY me to expose a child to this, and I'm writing to my congressman -- 0 points

Degree of Celebrity:

• Hollywood royalty -- 120 points
• Hollywood and widely recognized -- 100 points
• [Other field] and widely recognized -- 80 points
• Not widely recognized, but still a certain amount of celebrity -- 60 points
• Not recognized by anyone outside of books, but with a good track record -- 40 points
• Not recognized by anyone outside of books, but previously published -- 20 points
• Unknown -- 0 points
• Famous for something people actively want to keep their children away from -- 0 points

Anything over 120 points total is going to be published.
Anything under 90 points total is going straight to the recycling bin.
The stuff in between has a chance, but may be a long shot.

So, for instance:

Celebrity: Unknown
Topic: No, thanks
Writing: Transcendent
Result: NOT PUBLISHED

Celebrity: Hollywood royalty
Topic: Ew, really?
Writing: Orangutan
Result: PUBLISHED

Feel free to play with this publishometer to your heart's content.

Reading: Not Such Hard Work

I used to work in children's publishing and in the last few years have been in and out of the loop. I love children's books and although I am currently part of a children's reading group, I always feel like I'm not reading enough of the new stuff--which is how I felt when I was an editor! I saw that in a recent post you gave advice that a good editor has to read a lot of children's books and "speak intelligently about the books that are our current competition" and is "good at predicting reader and market response." At work, I'm trying to plan a program around children's books--can you suggest one or two good web-sites that would bring me up to date with the market/awards and help me keep current? And being outside of publishing right now, is there a way to still predict that reader/market response? I guess I'd like to keep myself "fit", if you will, regardless of whether or not I return to the industry.

Spending a lot of time in bookstores is a good first step-- not only reading, but thinking about what sections and displays they have, what books are on those displays, what books are not.

Enroll in a mock Newbery and a mock Caldecott (and possibly other mocks) in December/January. Then read the actual winners and honor books in the various ALA awards. Spend some time with the Notables Lists (there's gold in there).

Check out other awards, like the National Book Awards, the Edgars, the ODell, the Horn Book...

Watch the NYT bestseller lists and read those books, and think about what appeals to people about them (whether it appeals to you or not). Read the trends. (I am not so into zombie books, but I've read three or four of the new ones.)

Keep up. Read mostly new books. That way when you browse Booklist, PW, the Horn Book, SLJ, Kirkus, etc, you'll already know something about the books being reviewed, and you'll learn more from the reviews.

Find ways to talk to other people about books. Other perspectives and opinions about books are fascinating, and remind you to think about things in new ways. That's an important skill for editors, and it's a good skill for everyone else.

... And if all of this is sounding like a lot to do, IT IS. (Which is why only the people who really enjoy this work make it far in the industry.) It's also a load of fun. I get to the counter of bookstores with a pile of cool books, and I think with secret glee, "This is my job!"

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.

I Won! I Won! What Do You Mean, Who Else Was in the Running?

Okay, so we all know that publishers pay around $10,000 each to have books featured on Amazon's recommendations...do they also pay for shelf space in bookstores, the way food manufacturers pay for prime space in grocery stores?

Hell yes. (It's called co-op.)

And if so, should an author ever bother with a small, award-winning publisher who has very little marketing budget, or is that almost as bad as self publishing, because even with great reviews, the public may not be readily able to find the book?

Depends how small and how award-winning. Some smaller publishers are still well worth your time. Some less so. I would think very hard before publishing with a house that offers less than 10 children's books per season. But if that's likely to be the only house that will take your manuscript (because of very niche topic, etc), then it's still a publication credit, and can help you a bit on your way somewhere else.

It's not the same thing as self-publishing. Anytime you get paid for your work rather than you paying for the privilege of publication means someone besides yourself thought your work had a chance in the marketplace. The difference between real publishing and self-publishing always boils down to competition.

I hear self publishers say (not infrequently), "I'm glad I self-published, because I got to do the book just the way I wanted."
A trophy won for being best in your league (whichever league that is) means at least something. But buying yourself a trophy? Even if it means the trophy looks just the way you wanted it to, that doesn't count.