[ SECRET POST #3332 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3332 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
(David Bowie)


__________________________________________________



03.
(Great British Bake Off for Sports Relief, Ed Balls)


__________________________________________________



04.
[Pokemon]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Star Wars: TFA]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Damian Lewis, Dick Winters, Band Of Brothers]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Daughter of the Lilies]


__________________________________________________



08.
[David Eddings]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Sengoku Basara]


__________________________________________________



10.
[JJBA]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Men In Black I, II, III]
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 022 secrets from Secret Submission Post #476.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[a_potato]

What are we talking about when we're talking about critique or editing? If we're talking about the sort of critique or editing that's likely to come out of a major publisher, then we're absolutely talking about popularity.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

No, first of all badly done crap doesn't get out of the slush pile unless you already have representation. Second, yes, editing is going to be grounded on mechanics and fundamentals, because nothing hurts your brand like releasing crap.

[a_potato]

Mechanics and fundamentals factor in, but you said that writing and storytelling have fuckall to do with popularity. I'm saying that they do. A major publisher will not accept something that does not either tie into something that's popular or have the potential to be popular.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

That's not how publishing works. Publishers take manuscripts they think they can break even selling, and even a major publisher is going to just break even for a majority of their catalog.

And yes, writing and storytelling have fuckall to do with popularity. The biggest market favors derivative work from established franchises while the best stories of the year often come out in secondary markets. Honestly, novellas, novelettes, and shorts seem to be stronger overall than novels right now.

[a_potato]

And what might a publisher think will break even selling?

I am friends with a published author. She's been venting to me for nearly a decade. Popularity, and potential popularity, matters, because what's popular is what sells. I'm not sure why you're arguing against that.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Something that plays to a specific market.

Popularity, and potential popularity, matters, because what's popular is what sells. I'm not sure why you're arguing against that.

Goalpost moving. We're talking about writing and storytelling, which have standards and techniques of craft. We're not talking about sales or popularity, which are primarily about marketing. We don't say that 50 Shades of Grey was a great story because it was well-marketed, and some of the best novels I've read lately had an initial print run of a few hundred.

And I work at a school of professional artists. Almost all of them can clearly define the standards of work for their fields, including the writers who are much more aggressive with the red pen than I am.

[a_potato]

It's not goalpost moving, because my position from the outset has been that major publishers are concerned with popularity.

I am not arguing that well-marketed stories are great stories. I am arguing only that what happens in a professional critique or editing session does not necessarily have to do with craft. '50 Shades' was published for a reason, and the reason was that its editors saw the potential for it to sell.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

It's not goalpost moving, because my position from the outset has been that major publishers are concerned with popularity.

Which again, has fuckall to do with storytelling and writing. So not moving the goalposts, a conversation that is both ignorant and irrelevant.

I am arguing only that what happens in a professional critique or editing session does not necessarily have to do with craft. '50 Shades' was published for a reason, and the reason was that its editors saw the potential for it to sell.

That's not a decision that's made in the context of a production critique. Professionals like to be paid after all. But by all means, tell us more about how we actually do our jobs, what goes on when we push things through production, and how it's all "opinion" and we should hire you to do it.

[a_potato]

Um. I don't think you should hire me to do anything. I just disagree with you about something.