A lot of questions in one post! I couldn't get to all of them, but here are a few thoughts on literary fiction that I hope are helpful.

This weekend marks the one year anniversary of taking out my first manuscript. I've written a near-future political satire called The Future of American History. It's a genre I'm told doesn't sell. I'd describe it as a cross between Vonnegut and Vidal's historical fiction. My book was submitted to Knopf, Little, Brown and Vanguard, and a handful of great agents by a champion of the book (a writer I met because he read the book and loved it, so this wasn't like I called in a favor.) Little, Brown read the manuscript quickly (a couple of months) and read it a second time after a rewrite (a week), then passed. Knopf took a while to read it (several months). Vanguard read it pretty quickly (a couple of months). I received thoughtful, encouraging, even effusive pass letters from almost everyone who read it. In showing the letters to writer friends, I was told that these kinds of responses are basically the silver medal of publishing. I've decided to take their word for it, no matter how disappointing, because an absence of positives in this process would be prohibitive to continuing (read: too depressing.)

In terms of the viability of self-publishing, I think it depends on the genre of the book. For literary fiction, the service big publishing houses provide (for me) is the vetting process. Everyone's time is valuable and limited; I'd love it if I had a clone who could do nothing but read and transmit the experience back to me. Who knows, maybe that's where we'll be in a hundred years. For now, I'm only going to pick up a novel that's got a major publishing house or respected publishing entity behind it because I want to be engaged both by the writing and the prospect of a broad discussion. Reading a novel that few others have read doesn't hold the same promise of deeper exchange without my having to do a ton of work evangelizing the book and waiting on people to read it, if they ever do. That's why Red Lemonade is interesting, because it mixes these elements in one place, promises a discussion of a novel even if it's unpublished, and holds the potential of publishing if the work has merit. Win-win-win.

I'd definitely (absolutely! unquestionably!) pay for a professional editor if I was going to self-publish. I think it's crazy and arrogant not to. Any writer who thinks their manuscript is worthy of their readers based purely on their own merit should try their hand at politics. :)

I've never taken a writing class, feel somewhat disadvantaged for not being a part of the MFA-grad community. That said, I also feel less and less engaged with a lot of fiction that's currently published by graduates of said community. By that I mean I enjoy the read, observe the high quality of writing, but don't often recommend the book to others because I'm not changed or fundamentally inspired by it. I haven't found my Nabokovs and Vonneguts in Gen X or Y, and I don't trust that publishing houses currently have the time and resources to take a flier on non-establishment writers. (I'm non-establishment, but my manuscript found its way onto peoples' desks through an established writer, not the slush pile.) The big houses are in a tight spot and they have to go with the surest thing, which has never interested me much. I return to older writers, many deceased, to get my fix. That's a taste issue, of course, but I mention it because I can't be alone in feeling like there's a publishing community bias when it comes to literature. My eye is on the traditional publishing diaspora because I wonder if they feel as I do, and maybe they're going to provide an alternative route for literature that doesn't fall exactly in line with the criteria of the big houses. (Of course, even in the past, when purse strings were looser, the big houses took their time getting it right by my standards; Vanity Fair's piece on Catch-22's journey to the shelf is a great read.)

Everything I've said here is completely subjective and not intended in any way to argue against self-publishing. Part of what's exciting and unnerving about the state of publishing is the uncertainty of its future. The system that worked in our recent past is undeniably failing now, for good or bad, and even the definition of success is blurry. That's very cool to me. I keep reading. I keep writing. I love hearing success stories as much as I want to learn from the not-so-hot ideas, because this is a steep learning curve we're on and it's going to take some patience and vigilance to get up the mountain. I've never embraced Sisyphus as a model for living happily, but the image keeps coming back to me through this process of trying to publish and connect. The Greeks identified a truth or two about human nature, and Camus was no dummy, so maybe we should all be reading about publishing B.C., and looking to our ancestors for clues. Undoubtedly there's something there that we've missed.

Hmm. This post looks intimidating without paragraph breaks, even to me, and I wrote it! Anyone know how I can get the original hard returns in there? :)

We all need hard returns.

The HTML is not picking up the returns as P break tags.

You can work around this though by adding < BR > (but without the spaces).

Cheers!

My thought is that big houses are kinda like the Big House. The fiction I see coming out of them falls under a narrow swath of themes and storytelling types. I want to like (and even love) what I write, and that kind of writing doesn't jibe with the Harper Collins aesthetic. While I don't think of publishers while writing, I do focus on readers and their experience, which is why Red Lemonade is pretty cool, because it's more about writers taking it to the people and people taking it to the writers. As for self-publishing, I might try it sometime, but like E.C. said, there is a kind of credibility that STILL comes from a publisher getting excited by and taking financial interest in your work. As for hiring a professional editor, I'm not sure I would do that. I get the sense most book doctors would focus on things in my books that I already know about, that are aesthetic and integral pieces of the book's design. For feedback, again, I like the Red Lemonade model, which allows a number of voices to chime in on what's working and what's not. While many readers here don't leave comments deep inside a long manuscript, the comments up front are quite telling and can guide thorough rewrites. As a book reviewer myself, I don't think I would ever pay someone to review my book. For me, that's a messy issue, but that's a whole 'nuther topic.

EC McCarthy; I agree, I too have found that there aren't any modern authors that have moved me like the deceased ones. I think that self-publishing will stay as it is unless there is some vetting process that can bring more good writing to the top. Red Lemonade is a step in the right direction (read the interview of Nash by Shivani, pretty good vision I'd say) in this digital age. Richard; I agree that the big publishers have too narrow (because of their bottom line, or perhaps how they achieve that) a swath.

Sorry about how my questions showed up. It looked like they'd each have separate lines, so it would be easy to answer some and quickly deleted others.

Let's see if this works... Lisa

It does! Yay! Lisa

I have to second Richard's comments... I don't think about the big publishers while I’m writing…at least, not anymore (except I still think highly of Knopf and Gary Fisketjon, on a whim I did send myself into their slush pile once. Let me tell you, it’s cozy in there...that was quite a few years ago, I wasn’t ready yet, so the rejection letter didn’t surprise me. They were prompt.) When I write, I focus on telling the story to a reader and giving them something to think about. I love writing my novels and I love being involved in all aspects of creating them... I have my own vision about editing and design and embrace it as part of the creative process. I don't see this involvement as being arrogant or crazy... I just know what I want and have become wise enough over the years to remain true to my craft and the vision that I have developed over time. I wouldn’t trust my work to just any editor...a paid book doctor makes my skin crawl. I take a long time writing a novel and set aside drafts for several months, even a couple of years before I look at it again. Every writer has their way of doing things and every writer comes into the life of being a writer with their own set of tools...experiences and talents. For the record, I’m self-published…the easy part was clicking the SUBMIT button, everything else is hard work…but worth it when a reader writes to me and says my book made a difference in their life…that’s priceless. Goodness knows I didn't become a writer to make money.

Hi Laura, I really appreciate your comments and I hope I haven't offended you. I'm generalizing in this discussion for the sake of time and information exchange. There are plenty of exceptions, so my clarification below in no way comments on your writing or experience.

Re: professional editing when self-publishing

My "crazy and arrogant" comment was intended to be humorous, but the underlying sentiment comes directly out of my frustration at reading self-published material. When I pay for a published work (journalism, nonfiction, fiction), I expect it to have undergone rigorous critique by a professional editor. In fact, I think the reason self-publishing is such a queasy subject is the absence of professional editing. Red Lemonade addresses this issue in unique ways, which is why I'm clambering over fences to see way down the road on this venture. (Does editing by mass committee work? Does the feedback help or hurt the process?)

When a publishing house takes on a novel, it's because an editor wants to devote their time to the book. That's significant. No reader has agreed to pay for the book. It's the editor who says, "I read a gazillion manuscripts, and this is a horse I’ll hitch my professional reputation to.” As a reader, I thusly raise my expectations of the published novel. With every self-published piece of material I’ve read so far, I’ve finished thinking, “Interesting ideas, solid writing. They need a editor.”

The role of an editor is to stay true to the author’s voice and vision while suggesting ways to elevate the writing to its best possible incarnation. I'm not sure yet if reader/writer feedback will have the same impact; it's tricky to take in feedback from multiple people with different sensibilities, especially in piecemeal fashion. On the flip side, it's great to get diverging perspectives on what you've written, and the access to information through connecting is very inviting. As an aside, a book doctor isn't the same thing as an editor. I doubt anyone posting work on this site believes in buying better writing, otherwise they'd skip the pain and do it already.

Again, my initial comment was tongue in cheek, but the serious message is that I don't feel writers can be objective about their writing, and an objective edit is a substantial part of what ultimately makes something publishable, and great.

No offense taken, tongue in cheek is always acceptable and most appreciated, your comments are very thoughtful and on target...we're on the same page. I'm by no means an expert, I have been humbled on more than one occasion for my lack of knowledge and I have rec'd some negative attitudes regarding my independent status. I've learned a bit these last few years, and will continue to learn more to become a better writer. Thank goodness, what I've published on my own are not written in stone, there's always room for improvement.

I've read my share of self-published work to acquire the knee-jerk eye-roll and shaking of head...I have advised a handful of first time authors who have gone ahead to click the SUBMIT button that it is only to their benefit to take pride in their work, to learn the basic rules of grammar, and for goodness sake when in doubt use a dictionary, and finally, don't make excuses for "your baby". If the writer can't afford a professional editor, then it's up to the writer to make it happen, and in this publishing environment, it's all on the writer to be at their best. It takes practice, patience and persistence to bring a good book into being, no matter the genre, fiction or non-fiction, poetry or short story. Agents and editors for the big publishers have become pickier based on what they believe will sell, and will toss aside even a well-developed, nigh perfect manuscript if they think that it won't be a blockbuster. I've been told by a agents who've read my work that literary fiction is a tough sell. (No, shit, really? Put a tune to it, and I'll dance a long, slow waltz off a short pier.)

I'm really intrigued by what is happening here at Red Lemonade...the talent and the variety of work being posted here is just astounding! We're all on the same boat...you know the boat, the one tied up at that short pier.

Editing/curating is a pretty specialized skill that isn't denied to the hoi polloi but can't yet be usurped by them/us. I see RL as more of a way to set up communities that "just" allow people to connect - in ways that, ridiculously, haven't been promoted before. So much possibility just from allowing that kind of contact, and watching it evolve with creative, risky ideas (or stagnate with boring ones). Still needs marketing, variety, volume, time, money. Publishers are going to buy this platform and do their own things with it, or, model theirs in varying degrees to what is done here. It's still a baby, so maybe 'the mob,' with a couple of leaders, will step up and accomplish the editorial functions, too.