Em, this is a really interesting piece and a dilemma all fiction publishers face - and all fiction writers have had the 'dear johns' unless they're freakishly lucky or seriously well connected.

The utopia you describe is one we must all aspire to unless we're insane masochists. However, I fear that like most utopias it wouldn't work out that way. Wherever two or three are gathered together in the name of culture, the taste police aren't far behind. I fear we'll still end up with a hierarchy, a set of unwritten rules governing which websites get the most hits etc. It's the kind of thing that starts almost accidentally - a book is popular, its site gets lots of hits so it starts popping up all over the place so it gets more hits and before you know it, everyone's reading it because everyone else is. And then fame or notoriety rather than the quality of the fiction becomes the governing factor, and hey presto, you're back where you started, it's just the medium that's changed.

Democracy? What democracy? Even the Greeks weren't much good at it and they invented it.

The moral of my story? As one of my tutors once said to me, don't write a novel unless there's no alternative. Which for me, there isn't, so I really hope everything I've just written turns out not to be true.

Hear Hear Emma,

Though it does beg the question: What will we be doing then?

Eoin

As Sarah says, there are taste makers on the internet too—not all bloggers are equal.

We need the editorial checkpoint provided by traditional publishers. Without it the internet wouldn't be one great library: it would be one great slush pile. The solution to problems like the one you mention—where a great novel doesn't make it into print because it's not right for a given publisher—isn't to close our eyes tight and wish away authority. It's to have more independent publishers, and with them a wider range of editorial tastes.

Without Snowbooks, for example, the first novel you mentioned wouldn't be getting published. Another independent (if one with the appropriate tastes exists) will pick up the novel that wasn't right for you. It's more publishers that leads to more choice (and opportunities for writers), not fewer publishers.

And this is where the internet does come in handy. It's the perfect place to promote independent publishers and give them the visbility they need to tell people where they're coming from and what they're offering.

But you know that, or you wouldn't be blogging.

Here, here, Rob. 'The Needle in the Blood' was hoiked around a s**t-load of big publishers by a major literary agent on my behalf but none of them wanted it. Emma, bless her, liked what she saw and published it - and marketed it, in my view, considerably better than any of the big boys would have done - and it's had a lovely reception from 'ordinary' readers, which goes to show their concerns are obviously not the concerns of the big publishing houses. So I'm with you - more independents, more variety, more opportunities.

(Sorry, Em, I promise I'll get back to my editing now.)

Sarah, in the role of an ordinary reader, I can't begin to understand why ‘The Needle In The Blood’ wasn’t snapped up by one of the big publishers. More fool them, if you ask me. I read it when it first came out, and it still lingers in my mind. In fact, despite my massive towers of unread fiction, I will definitely read it again soon.

I firmly believe that the majority of readers don’t have the same priorities as the big publishing houses. They want to be entertained, enthralled, challenged, taken to a new place. They don’t really care whether a book has been shortlisted for the Booker or the Orange or whatever – they don’t, for that matter, care who the publisher is (have you ever heard of someone going into a bookshop and asking for the latest Orion or Headline?), they just want a damned good read.

Which is what I've always aimed to provide in my own writing… but… in the role of the unsuccessful author Emma is referring to… obviously I haven’t quite hit the sweet spot yet. Can I come and rub your shoulder, Sarah, for good luck?

Dee

Sarah, I think your first message was right on. An example of this where I think we've already seen the cycle occur is in blogs, especially political blogs. In the beginning all blogs were created equal, and you had to sift through them yourself. Now certain bloggers have "made it", and other bloggers haven't. It seems almost arbitrary which ones were picked up for serious media consumption, and which ones continue to languish in obscurity, and it seems to me to have little to do with the author's talent or relevance. I imagine an internet book service would end up more or less the same way as all the other forms of media that people consume. Some TV shows make it, and some don't; it's not necessarily because the bad shows go off the air quickly (although sometimes they do), it's because other shows have better marketing campaigns, bigger stars, better broadcast times, etc etc. It's all spinnable. Whether that's more or less democratic than the ivory tower of publishing, I don't know, but it is what it is.

Dee, thanks for saying such kind things about 'Needle'. Hope you like the new one which Snowbooks are publishing next spring. You're very welcome to rub my shoulder but all you're likely to get is a few golden retriever hairs and a whiff of bloody-mindedness. Given you can write a book in the first place, that seems to me to be what you need most of to get published (the bloody mindendess, that is, not the retriever hairs!). It took me six years from first putting pen to paper on 'Needle' to finding a publisher.