Why Authors Go Wrong, and Other ExplanationsOverton, Grant M. (Grant Martin)
Philosophy
Why Authors Go Wrong, and Other Explanations
Overton, Grant M. (Grant Martin)
Authorship
There are places where one man decides whether a manuscript will do and
there are places where it takes practically the whole clerical force
and several plebiscites to accept or reject the author’s offering.
One house which stands in the front rank in this country accepts and
rejects mainly on the verdicts of outsiders--specialists, however, in
various fields. Another foremost publishing house has a special test
for “popular” novels in manuscript. An extra ration of chewing gum is
served out to all the stenographers and they are turned loose on the
type-written pages. If they react well the firm signs a contract and
prints a first edition of from 5,000 to 25,000 copies, depending on
whether it is a first novel or not and the precise comments of the
girls at page 378.
Always the sales manager reads the manuscript, if it is at all
seriously considered. What he says has much weight. He’s the boy who
will have to sell the book to the trade and unless he can see things in
it, or can be got to, there is practically no hope despite Dr. Munyon’s
index finger.
Recently a publishing house of national reputation has done a useful
thing--we are not prepared to say it is wholly new--by establishing
a liaison officer. This person does not pass on manuscripts, unless
incidentally by way of offering his verdict to be considered with
the verdicts of other department heads. But once a manuscript has
been accepted by the house it goes straight to this man who reads it
intensively and sets down, on separate sheets, everything about it that
might be useful to (a) the advertising manager, (b) the sales manager
and his force, and (c) the editorial people handling the firm’s book
publicity effort.
14
A little knowledge of book publishing teaches immense humility. The
number of known instances in which experienced publishers have erred in
judgment is large. Authors always like to hear of these. But too much
must not be deduced from them. Every one has heard of the rejection
of Henry Sydnor Harrison’s novel _Queed_. Many have heard of the
publisher who decided not to “do” Vicente Blasco Ibañez’s _The Four
Horsemen of the Apocalypse_. There was more than one of him, by the
way, and in each case he had an exceedingly bad translation to take
or reject (we are told), the only worthy translation, apparently,
being that which was brought out with such sensational success in the
early fall of 1918. A publisher lost _Spoon River Anthology_ because
of a delay in acceptance--he wanted the opinion of a confrere not
easily reached. For every publisher’s mistake of this sort there could
probably be cited an instance of perspicacity much more striking. Such
was the acceptance of Edward Lucas White’s _El Supremo_ after many
rejections. And how about the publisher who accepted _Queed_?
15
Let us conclude these haphazard and very likely unhelpful musings on an
endless subject by telling a true story.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account