Over the last few weeks, 5 manuscripts - chosen by you - have found their way onto the desks of HarperCollins editors. We've gone about this carefully, not by slapping them in front of the first people we see on our way to the photocopier, but by trying to match up each of our 5 with an editor who manages an appropriate list. All of this month's submissions have now been read and digested, and I'm pleased to announce we'll be posting critiques onto the authors' profiles this afternoon. You can find the selected books listed together by clicking this link.
We asked our editors to treat your work as they would any other submission, and to provide an honest evaluation of each work's quality, offer advice for improvements and to answer that all important question: is it publishable?
As a reminder, all reviews will be only visible to the authors in question - but they will have the option, if they choose, to make them public. We hope they'll all be made visible, as there'll be advice and criticism which may be applicable - or at least interesting - to all.
And don't forget, on Wednesday we'll be pulling off the next round of submissions....
23 comments:
This is all very exciting. One day it'll be my turn.
I'm now happily slinking off to obsess about it till then...
Thanks for the critique, HC - please pass my appreciation to the owner of the desk it landed on!
The HC reviews have convinced me that the editors know what they're talking about. I couldn't agree more with the weaknesses highlighted in the current top five. It's a relief that HC is not swayed by the fawning praise of the writers on the site. My only regret is that as the months progress the quality of the top five will get worse and worse. Eventually, Authonomy will become a byword at HC for bad writing.
It would be good to learn how many, if any of the top five are to be published even if we cannot be told which ones. My guess is that we all have an interest in knowing whether Authonomy achieves this one of its stated objectives.
Bob
I'm a latecomer to this website. Which are the 5 titles/authors concerned, please? I'd be interested to read HC's comments. Thank you.
The concept of a social networking site for writers seems incompatible with the serious and tough business of producing good writing. There is indeed far too much fawning praise - but it wouldn't be a very 'nice' site if contributors were giving their true opinion of a lot of the dross that features on the site. Social networking and tough critiques simply don't mix. The HC reviews were fawning too. The bottom line is that the HC editors thought that the top five were a) obviously in need of huge amounts of remedial work or b) adequately written but with little commercial appeal. Of course, that's just their opinion and I've come across any number of badly written, badly edited novels published by HC.
Very interesting reviews.
I'm scared to get a professional critique myself (but I really want one, because I don't want to waste my time writing dribble), but I think I don't have to worry about making it to the top five, alas...
Nevertheless, every critique I've gotten so far from readers at AUTHONOMY has made THE MIMESIS PARADIGM better.
In the meantime, I think I'll go to the crossroads near my house--at the midnight hour--and make a deal with the book agent there...
Anonymous, come on...
HC gave the first 10,000 words of the Stone Fables a very useful review. Their critical points were largely correct and I have, hopefully, addressed them. For this I am very grateful.
However, why do you jump to following conclusion:
The HC reviews were fawning too. The bottom line is that the HC editors thought that the top five were a) obviously in need of huge amounts of remedial work or b) adequately written but with little commercial appeal.
Why is a compliment fawning? Could it not be justified?
As for commercial appeal - I have had significant interest from agents. That does not happen if there is no prospect of commercial appeal.
In short, I see no point, or justification, in making your disparaging comments so public.
Now, I'll get off my defensive and extremely high horse.
Justin (toscka)
Justin,
HC have no control over the material that reaches the top 5. They do have control over what to publish. Politically, it would be absurd for them to give a really tough critique to a top 5 book even if it deserved it. If they did, they would, in essence, be rubbishing the entire Authonomy model. So, it's a given that every HC critique will be full of compliments, and short on the bluntest truths. If I were you, I wouldn't be in a rush to take such compulsory compliments too seriously. (Actually, I probably wouldn't take their criticisms too seriously either.) The bottom line is that HC did not wish to work with any of the authors on any of their books. Is that not the correct and unavoidable conclusion to be drawn, no matter how blunt?
I'm sorry if I implied that the top 5 books were lacking in merit. I actually thought they were pretty good and I'm slightly surprised HC didn't make more of an effort with at least one of them.
But there are many harsh lessons in this business, and HC have, arguably, just handed out one. I think it would be better if Authonomy contributors put on business heads rather than fawning social network heads in future. Think like an agent when you're making comments, not like someone's imaginary best friend.
Anyway good luck with your book, Justin. I'm sure you'll have good chances elsewhere.
Regarding public comments, though, you have been very keen to promote your work (and blow your trumpet, dare I say) very publicly at every turn, have you not? You have to take the rough with the smooth, surely. I'm sure you wrote your comment in the heat of the moment. High horses definitely aren't healthy places for writers.
On a different tack - the fact that HC will undertake to read only 10K words does suggest that they doubt the value of the top five selection.
Point taken. I was never under any illusions that HC were going to buy my book through this, hence ensuring it will be sent out by agents. The site has value as a means of soliciting criticism. As you know, I don't flatter, there is no point to it. Critical commentary is the only thing of value.
Justin
I too would be interested in reading the HC reviews - could someone point out which books they reviewed? Thanks.
Jonathan - look at the Books page under Previous Selections. All the HC-reviewed books will appear here. They'ce also all got a yellow star next to them.
that is so fuckin swweeeeeeeet. i cant wait to put my book on the site.
"Social networking and tough critiques simply don't mix" ? That's pretty cynical, and I don't think it holds up to scrutiny.
There's certainly no doubt that you will tend to see a lot of friendly enthusiasm (or 'fawning praise') for one another's work in this kind of situation. But there is also nothing to stop relationships based on helpful critique emerging too.
The Flickr community seems to manage this quite well. There's some really great comments going on in DeviantArt too.
Even on YouTube, where you're far more likely to find incoherent flaming than fawning praise, I've had some really useful comments myself and like to think I've given some in return. On a couple of occasions when I actually engaged flamers in more reasoned discourse, useful feedback did arise in the end.
It's not impossible.
Do as you would be done by, and see what happens.
"Nemesis, I've finished reworking the beginning so those who still can't solve a Rubik cube should now get it. Authonomy has livened up a bit lately, but it still reminds me of my days in the City. Everyone's carrying the Times to the office while secretly hoping to read someone else's Sun, then fawning over Times' writers. The 'cat shat on the mat' was defeated by 'the lavendar-grey smooth-coated moggie defecated on the silken gold and silver inlaid thread of the Persian rug, which paradoxically resonated the feline's original ancestry'. Yawn. Authonomy won't function the way it was intended until spectators outnumber the players by at least a hundred to one, and without advertising its existence to the masses, it's just a smile in the dark. It was a while ago when I met Rupert's deputy and one of his Editors, but with the resources to buy the world's best players, imagining they would publish anything but the extraordinary from an amateur, is pure fantasy. I'm going surfing."
"Alien, I think I'll join you."
Slightly off-topic. Could the authonomy staff do something about the triviality and increasing vulgarity of most of the forum threads? Perhaps add a "Vote this thread to oblivion" feature to help get rid of it? The lack of professionalism is making that site feature, and thus the site itself, less and less appealing. Prostitutional appeals for bookshelf votes, for example, are wearing my patience thin.
WHERE’S THE BEEF??????
“We got a problem here,” my old boss would say. The gods at HC have come down from the mountain after having poured over the top four or five top choices. They have spoken and it’s not encouraging. What they found confirms what I have felt about this venture from first looking into it. (Yeah, that didn’t stop me from posting my own book, White Seed, on the site. Given the disaster that is Big Publishing, a writer cannot afford to leave any stone unturned.) The way this whole effort has turned out is sad, but not unexpected. HC says it is not a popularity contest. Really? Well, let’s look at what has happened. The best of the submissions (if you believe in this process) have been pushed to the top. And now, finally, HC reviewers have weighed in. Here is (with some editing) what they have found:
The review of Hamelin’s Child is somewhat laudatory, but questions whether or not the book would appeal to a wide enough (to make a profit) audience. Having received hundreds of rejections in the process of selling four novels, I’ll interpret, “thanks, but no thanks.”
Spammer, according to the review (sorry, but it’s late so I’ll give you my shortened version), “nice try, but needs work,).
Regarding The Stone Fables, HC stated, “I think you have a … a great idea for a thrilling literary novel.” This is not very encouraging. Only a great idea? It means, you have to go back to square one. But at least HC gave the writer some very specific criticisms. This is the most encouraging ‘rejection’ of the three I’ve looked at so far.
On TORBREK and the Dragon Variation, HC states, “It is a very appealing premise… an appealing young woman who has been forced by political circumstance to pose as a man in order to join the army and use the master sword craft passed on by her grandfather.” And, I would say, a very PC premise too, being that women buy three out of four fiction novels (yeah, nail me to the wall for uttering this heresy; I d-o-n-‘-t c-a-r-e !!!), but not good enough to clinch a deal. HC closes with, “more work is certainly required to strike the right balance between a quickly paced story and a richly built world.” Yeah, yeah, yeah, I’ve gotten a few of those too. Summation, “close, but no cigar…”
After reading through this sad report (my condolences to the writers involved; I know how much this hurts) I would say that maybe your “most influential talent-spotters” are a bit off in their judgement. Or, more likely, this whole set up is based on faulty logic. HC states in their Authonomy bylaws that this is not a popularity contest. Really? Well, with 1,000 novels/books on the site, why hasn’t one of the top four/five been accepted for publication?
Perhaps the ‘tastes’ of the talent-spotters don’t reflect the tastes of the general public? Could it be that the tastes of writers are not representative of the general public? Or could there be too much gaming of the system (you put my book on your shelf and I’ll put yours on mine)? Or is it all slush? No gems in the trash? Not even a hundred pound note?
HC, if you really want to find and promote new talent, you have to rethink this whole concept. I don’t think you should allow submitters to vote. They have too much skin in the game. Instead, recruit ‘real’ readers from your publishing web site and have them vote on the best submission. Rewards of signed books by your mid-list writers would be sufficient reward to entice readers to participate.
Agree with this last comment. I haven't invested much time in the site, aside from uploading my book, but the overriding impression I have is that it's one big, ugly brawl to rise above everyone else - and this is decided by writers operating on, 'you voted for me, I'll vote for you' and other similar principles.
I don't think writers should be able to vote, because otherwise you the rather political system you have at the moment. If it could be restricted to readers only, as the previous poster suggested, I think things would be improved.
I was there in the early days when Authonomy was young. Thankfully, I have now removed all my work and no longer contribute to the forums. This blog is my only contact with the site (principally because the vast majority of people who use the site never bother with the blog - they're too busy caring about themselves rather than the future of Authonomy). I pity the editors at HC who will have to trawl through the rubbish which makes it into the top five. Perhaps, to save anyone any further embarrassment, the site should be closed down.
I like a good fight. Nature is all about surviving--why not writing?
From the primal and septic soup of nature comes primitive life--after all AUTHONOMY gave us all fair warning--they are going to FLUSH OUT the new talent.
S--t happens!
It's everywhere.
Now, you might think of it in hunting terms--flushing out the game to shoot it, but I prefer the toilet analogy--Because why just get flushed out to be shot down? With the toilet analogy you may get flushed out, but after you may serve as useful fertilizer and breed success...
I think we should create a new top five ranking system: the worst of Authonomy. My first nominee is the book I've just read about a whale which records a murder on a webcam and is then pursued by an FBI agent who is afraid of water. I bet HC are champing at the bit for this one!
Hopefully my wartime witchcraft book based on facts will make the top five and HC will took this published book over as it deserves a wider audience say readers. Unputdownable. chickdaniel
Post a Comment