Thursday, August 24, 2006

Richard Charkin - "We're Doing Our Best"

Richard Charkin, Chairman of Macmillan is blogging. I was reading a post about Gerard Jones and was astonished to come across the following opinion:

"He seems to think there is a conspiracy among publishers to avoid new talent, to promote rubbish and in general to do a very bad job. All this might be true but I'd like to reassure Gerard and anyone else who thinks similarly that there is no conspiracy - it is merely incompetence. Perhaps the publishing industry should adopt a mission statement - WE'RE DOING OUR BEST."

I instantly thought an admission of incompetence was surprising from the Chairman of a publishing company. Does he then, according to his mission statement suggest that incompetence is an acceptable standard for those who claim to be doing their best? Further reading of his posts raised a few other points. And hackles.

I felt compelled to write him an email, and thanks to Gerard's wonderful database cc'd a few others in too:

From: sebastianshenanigans @ gmail.com
To: r.charkin @ macmillan.co.uk
Subject: Charkin Blog - WE'RE DOING OUR BEST

Dear Mr Charkin,

I have been reading your blog with interest, particularly the posts on Gerard of everyonewhosanyone.com fame. Gerard might be slighty eccentric, and he certainly can be amusing in his flaunting of every grovelling guideline aspiring writers are taught to adhere to in approaching publishers and agents, but I think he is pretty harmless.

Whilst I disagree with his vitriolic Nazi conspiracy theories I admire his dedication. You seem genuinely confused as to why he bothers but I am surprised it is not more obvious to you as his efforts illustrate the main conflict between most authors and publishers. Gerard has one book / manuscript to promote, that he will rise or fall by, whereas a publisher has many hundreds. Gerard can afford to channel all his energy into that one book whereas a publisher inevitably has to spread their resources across their entire list.

You hit the nail on the head when you suggested complaints about the publishing industry are because of incompetence rather than anything more sinister, but I must disagree with your industry mission statement – “WE’RE DOING OUR BEST” -, since because there are so many complaints of incompetence, obviously your best is some way short of being good enough.

I am not talking about complaints from would be writers who seem convinced that their genius is destined to remain undiscovered due to a load of industry meanies, but commissioned and contracted authors. Yes, some are over demanding but there are too many complaints to simply dismiss accusations of incompetence as an occupational hazard of working with primadonna authors.

It often appears that publishing is in the business of gambling rather than selling. You only a need a few big winners to pay the bills. Some odds on favourites with career bestselling writers, and the outsiders which sell well because of various factors, many of which are little to do with a publishing sales or marketing force. They simply do their job once the book is firmly in the winner’s enclosure, with an increased effort on these titles at the expense of lesser known titles. It terms of a P&L account it works alright, but you can understand why the authors of the lesser known titles get frustrated.

The frustration is not that somebody else’s book is getting more effort, it is that theirs is getting none at all, despite the grandiose claims made at the point of signing the contract. To complain about this marks you down as troublesome, “over demanding” as you put it. The result is many authors feel they cannot even mention the witless efforts for fear of being branded “difficult to work with” and thus risking a lesser degree of attention.

If an author writes a book that is considered to be excellent at the acquisition phase, receives good reviews if they have been lucky enough to get any, and a ringing endorsement from the target readership it is understandable to be disappointed that the publisher, either through incompetence or idleness, did not push it harder. This is a very common scenario, with the end result being the book is often classified as a relative failure.

You correctly state that “There are always two explanations of failure. One is that you need to try harder or get better. The other is that the world is conspiring against you. The latter is better for the ego. The former is probably the more likely.”

Perhaps publishers should stop gambling, and try to reduce the number of failures they publish. Perhaps “you need to try harder or get better” despite your suggested mission statement – “WE’RE DOING OUR BEST”

From within the hallowed industry walls it is definitely “better for the ego” to dismiss writers as precious lunatics who find it difficult to handle failure. As well as routinely suggesting authors take a closer look at their work to find out how to improve it, might it be a good idea for publishers to take a look at themselves?

Do correct me if I am wrong. I’d dearly love to be.

Best regards,

Sebastian Shenanigans

No comments: