From: bjgaed@bb1t.monsanto.com
Subject: Re: Writers who get paid too little (used to be Co-authored books)
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 14:18:05 GMT

In article <1go5onINN21t@agate.berkeley.edu>, cozzlab@garnet.berkeley.edu () writes:
> In article <9212162008.AA06846@enet-gw.pa.dec.com> marotta@hannah.enet.DEC.COM ("Hurt not the Earth, neither the sea, nor the trees.   16-Dec-1992 1508", Revelations 7:3) writes:
> 
>>[lots of stuff deleted]
> 
[lots more stuff deleted]

Since I was at least in part responsible for starting this thread, lo 
these many posts ago (and have been following it with interest; 
thanks, folks...) I thought I would spend another $.02:

>>[he buys the stuff he likes, which he defines as "quality", and refuses
>>to buy the stuff he doesn't like, which he defines as "dreck."]
> 
>>What else can the lowly consumer do, other than to refuse to pay
>>hard-earned dollars for poor quality goods?
> 
> But that's what everyone does--but they have their own definitions
> of "high" and "low" quality.  

You have pointed out the core of the problem.  *How do you find an 
author or book that appeals to you?*  We have seen discussions of 
buying books by their covers, both pro and con.  About buying books by 
their titles or artwork, both pro and con.  About buying books based 
on previous good experience with the author, both pro and con. 
(Variable quality, the sequel and trilogy racket, selling an author's 
name or story ideas.)  About *not* buying 
books after a bad first experience with an author, both pro and con..
(My favorite author, who I will buy based simply on her name, was 
acquired based on the cover art of purchase number one.  I really 
disliked purchase number two on first reading.)

Reviews have been of limited usefulness.  Opinions on the 'net have 
been of limited usefulness.  The best finds seem to come from plowing 
through book after book of dreck acquired by many and varied means.  
But when that gem shows up...  It's enough to keep me on the quest for 
another year at least.

> Everybody buys according to his own taste--and we have the disadvantage
> that our tastes are shared by a relative few, it's those Other Guys
> buying all the books we call dreck and urging the publishers to print
> more of it.  It doesn't matter the slightest bit whether "our" tastes are
> "better".  You do get, from time to time, publishers who want to publish
> "quality" (however they define it) instead of catering to majority opinion.
> They generally don't stay in business very long, and I don't think there's
> anything we can do about it.

Sad, but true.  I have no problem with Other Guys buying and liking 
lots of what I consider dreck.  At least *some* authors and publishers 
are making money off it.  At least *some* readers are being served 
some of the time.


> 
> I wish _I_ could write bushels of dreck and make money.  It'd never work,
> though; I have a weak stomach.....
> 
> 
> Dorothy J. Heydt

And probably the *only* thing holding you back is your weak stomach.  
*I* could probably write better stuff than the majority of what I 
read.  *Anyone* could write better stuff.  I shudder to think about 
what *doesn't* get published.  Is it really worse than what does?  Or 
are there really gems that can't even get a read from the publishers?

I've been nibbling around the edges of the "small press" for short 
stories.  Some really different and creative stuff, but the quality is 
not there.  This is where people go to learn to write, so I don't 
expect much.


--Electric Monk            (Bruce Gaede); 
                            e-mail: bjgaed@ccmail.monsanto.com

"...and then time started seriously to pass."
--Douglas Adams, _Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency_
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
From: dave@yoyodyne.demon.co.uk (David Bisping)