Blogger: Wendy Lawton
A couple of months ago I was talking to one of the editors we look to for cutting edge opinions on the industry. We eagerly schedule time with her because we know we will always get a reasoned analysis of the industry from her vantage point. We covered many issues in our hour together but I loved how she simplified the way she looks at submissions.
To boil it down she said there are three elements— the writing, the topic or story, and the platform. She said that while the committee would like to see a home run in all three categories, if two are exceptionally strong she can often get to a yes.
So what does that look like? If we present a project that has a fabulous, high concept hook by someone with a national platform– let’s say a celebrity– they can put a writer on the project to bring the writing up to the level it needs to be.
Let’s say there is a minuscule platform but the idea is fresh and compelling and the writing exquisite– it definitely stands a chance.
What about superb writing from a writer who has a drop dead platform? The editorial team will often see the possibilities and help come up with a perfect idea.
Makes sense, right? When we boil it down it explains some of those acceptances we scratch our heads over.
So what do you think?
“It explains some of those acceptances we scratch our heads over” – we want logic, and here it is. But with God, sometimes mystery tops logic. Yesterday, Janet mentioned luck. I prefer to think of it as God’s mysterious ways. There are things we will never understand this side of heaven.
Makes sense, but there are lately some truly appalling books out there, and the process puts me in mind of the camel being a horse designed by committee.
* And for some reason, the thought that the editorial team will come up with a perfect idea makes me cringe. It’s an echo, in the negative, of C.S. Lewis’ comment that Christian novels would be written by writers who ARE Christians, and not by a team of bishops.
The recipe makes perfect sense from a business perspective, and that is the perspective the publishing houses have to embrace to stay out of bankruptcy. The requirement for beautiful writing and a compelling story or nonfiction topic should be a given. We all understand that the platform will be considered by a publisher to hedge their bets that the book will attract enough attention to sell enough copies to at least break even.
*But how many great books would never have passed the platform test? Jane Austen’s, for certain. She was the spinster daughter of an Anglican minister. Harper Lee? Unknown before Mockingbird and virtually invisible afterwards. Oswald Chambers? He was not well known in his lifetime, serving as a traveling speaker for the Pentecostal League of Prayer and dying of appendicitis while he was YMCA chaplain to British Commonwealth soldiers in Egypt in 1917.
*Wanting solid professional credentials and public awareness of the author’s existence for a nonfiction work seems reasonable for predicting marketing success. The very activities that give professional credibility are helping the writer increase their expertise in their topic. Still, Sarah Young (Jesus Calling) is a contemporary exception to the requirement of platform before publishing for nonfiction market success.
*But for fiction? How many writers are pouring their limited time and energy into trying to accumulate social media followers rather than spending their time nurturing and maturing their gifts as writers of fiction? It’s like spending what spare time you can find running laps on a track when your real goal is to become a concert pianist.
*Being known as a gifted writer through a blog might have some relevance (although blogging is more nonfiction than fiction and may not translate to writing novels with plots that keep someone reading at 2 a.m.), but I would love to see the hard data on whether thousands of followers on Twitter or Facebook or Pinterest translates into book purchases for novels.
As a matter of fact, British publishers, even Christian publishers, did not see value in Chambers’ writing when Biddy returned from WWI Egypt with everything available. She would put the books together, the publishers could take it from there.
Turned down, so Biddy became her own little publishing house and did what she liked with the books–which often was to give them away for the advancement of God’s kingdom.
That wouldn’t have been possible, of course, had she gone with a publisher looking for a profit.
All monies the books generated went back into preparing more books and giving away the rest.
The stories are amazing and the hand of God clearly at work.
Fascinating! So if a person wants to use their writing mostly for the advancement of the Kingdom, self-publishing has always been the way? Makes one think.
I didn’t know this about her history. What a blessedness in that.
That would be very interesting data, Carol. Every writer struggles with the time consuming process of putting creative thoughts on paper. Most of the time it’s life in general that hinders our way.
*As a dedicated writer who has yet to find her sea legs upon the vast blogging ocean, I sometimes find it intimidating to think an editor might consider my lack of platform as a sign I won’t be willing to work hard to sell my book. Not true.
*For me, writing is a bit like parenting: you create, nurture, discipline with love and then send your story into the world covered in prayer. What parent doesn’t want to see their “child” grow to it’s full potential?
I like your parenting analogy, Lara My novels really are my babies. I edit and re-edit numerous times while I’m writing, which is rather like lovingly disciplining our children until they behave just right.
Agreed completely. And I too would like to see this data.
Wendy,
These three elements are true when writing nonfiction but only writing and topic/story are true when writing fiction. I not sure how platform would fit for fiction. I guess platform would fit in fiction if it were a series of books about a particular character or world.
I suppose all this could be depressing because, honestly, of the three elements only two are in a fiction writer’s control. I can (and do) work hard at developing my craft, I can (and do) read great literature and listen to people’s stories for inspiration, but I cannot force more followers on Facebook and Twitter. And even if I could, I see people on those media all the time who seem to have huge followings that don’t necessarily mean anything. It’s a tired argument, I know, but it dogs us writers in this digital age.
Great topic, Wendy. Thanks for sharing your knowledge, although I’m still scratching my head.
*I suppose from a fiction vs. platform viewpoint it’s kind of like that irritating question, which came first, the chicken or the egg. I know it was the chicken, but the egg plays an important role too.
An agent discussed this particular topic on a blog post last week. Does this apply to non-fiction alone or fiction also falls along?
Appreciate this overview. It helps me gain perspective. Thanks for sharing how it works in real life. Every little bit helps. For starters we hear that it takes 1) offering something of value 2) being remarkable…setting yourself apart to be noticed (Seth Godin) 3) a viable platform and 4) good writing. Then we have the other elements that are also necessary, as stated above, and quite possibly, a little luck or divine intervention. I suppose the thrill comes when we break through the ice and overcome whatever obstacles we come to and find someone(s) who believe in our offering by joining or promoting our voice to the world. And lastly, it also takes heart belief.
Can’t wait to see everyone here published! I see a lot of talent and a lot of heart.
It discombobulates me when I read things like this Wendy. It seems odd that publishers, with all their experience, can’t figure out what will be a good seller, and depend on a writer’s presumed platform to make a decision. Am I missing something?
If a writer can garnish a sizeable following of six digits (I think Janet posted this figure in a blog after speaking to her insider editor), why would they not sell 100,000 copies to their followers and call it a day?
This whole platform idea finds me perplexed. If I need to devote a pile of time posting, pondering, and pounding the internet for a platform, why then turn to traditional publishing, with all it’s drama, deadlines and decorum, if I can make the same buck or more? It seems counterintuitive of traditional publishers to travel down this road, and ignore the insurgence of successful self-published authors.
Writing well and marketing well are opposing mindsets for me, and I don’t believe the two marry well. Perhaps this is why there are so many appalling bestsellers out there.
Enthralled, entranced, and enchanted as I was by your alliterative response, Leon, your observation about opposing mindsets is true of many writers. To that, I agree with applause and Amen!
Good post, Leon. I agree with you.
On paper, it just seems so cold. Like a spin-the-wheel kind of decision making process. But I KNOW there’s sooooo much more to it. And for that, I’m thankful.