How does a publisher determine what is going to be good literature?

Denerick

Lord of the Flies had an initial print run of 3000 copies and even at that the original publisher thought it was a huge gamble that would lose them money. J.K. Rowling was rejected many times before a publisher agreed to take her on. Tolkiens publisher similarly had doubts about whether they could make any money at all with Lord of the Rings. What unites these writers is the fact that publishers took a huge gamble which ultimately paid off, big time. They all became classics and they all made their authors and publishers huge amounts of money.

Seeing as it is impossible (particularly for a debut author) to predict how well received their books become, is there much hope for those daring devils who dare to dream that someday they could become the next Golding, Rowling, or Tolkien?

EileenG

Having a book that excites the publisher. I remember one of the editors in O'Brien said that when Celine Kiernan submitted "The Poison Throne" everyone in the office were all fighting to get reading it next. Everyone in the office, including the tea lady, had all read her submission and were anxious to get reading the rest of the MS.

Publishers are genuinely looking for the next big thing, and they take chances on a lot of books that never really keep their promise. It's a matter of trying ot balance the books that will earn their keep with the ones that are a risk.

mallachyrivers

Do people not have to pay for advertisements on this site?

PurpleBee

I don't agree with Rowling being included in the same breath as Tolkein and Golding at all...

but having said that, doesn't the fact that we are reading Tolkein and Golding now stand testament to the fact that the cream will always rise to the top, no matter what difficulties were encountered in the first place.

It seems that you think there are many great writers who have written great things that have never found an audience but I don't think that's the case. I'm sure there have been many potentially great writers ruined by other circumstances but once something great is written I think it is inevitable that it will find its deserved audience.

De Dannan

PurpleBee wrote: »

I don't agree with Rowling being included in the same breath as Tolkein and Golding at all...

From no publishers being interested in her books to the phenomenon it became she will be mentioned in the same breath as them for sure
Imagine the publishers who turned her down, how they felt

PurpleBee

De Dannan wrote: »

From no publishers being interested in her books to the phenomenon it became she will be mentioned in the same breath as them for sure
Imagine the publishers who turned her down, how they felt

Well Tolkien had written the Hobbit before Lord of the Rings and it seemed he was the one who had no interest or intention at least of being published. I don't know about Golding.

But I see Rowling as much different to Tolkien but equally inspirational for the budding writer. She has proven, though she is quite an exception, that a mediocre writer can be a great success with the right attitude and a good idea.

EileenG

PurpleBee wrote: »

But I see Rowling as much different to Tolkien but equally inspirational for the budding writer. She has proven, though she is quite an exception, that a mediocre writer can be a great success with the right attitude and a good idea.

And a lot of work. I'm not a fan of her writing style (anyone for stretching their legs?), but I have to give her credit for meticulous planning. She worked out the plot for the entire seven-book series before she began writing the first one, and worked it out in the sort of detail that allows a trivial event in book three to be crucial in book seven.

De Dannan

PurpleBee wrote: »

But I see Rowling as much different to Tolkien but equally inspirational for the budding writer. She has proven, though she is quite an exception, that a mediocre writer can be a great success with the right attitude and a good idea.

Yes I agree she is not in the same league as Tolkien.
Having said that there are much worse writers than Rowling who get published also
I supposed if she has achieved something was getting millions of children and adults to start reading books is not a bad thing at all !

Denerick

PurpleBee wrote: »

I don't agree with Rowling being included in the same breath as Tolkein and Golding at all...

I wouldn't either - I could only stomach the first half of the first Harry Potter book before giving up. But her impact on popular culture is undeniable. I wouldn't call her a 'trashy' writer in the vein of Binchy or Ahern, but I wouldn't compare her to Golding or Tolkien. I was invoking her for the purposes of the thread.

PurpleBee

But you ask if there's much hope to be gained from the publication history of those three... I would take much more solace from the success of Rowling than that of Tolkien. The average writer is much closer to her level of ability, reading Tolkien is inspiring but I could never aspire to be like him.

Antilles

PurpleBee wrote: »

But you ask if there's much hope to be gained from the publication history of those three... I would take much more solace from the success of Rowling than that of Tolkien. The average writer is much closer to her level of ability, reading Tolkien is inspiring but I could never aspire to be like him.

Aim for the stars, hit the moon, PB!