Very well said, Irina. You have a new-age, progressive type of knowledge and forecast that lets me see the other side of the coin. I like your thinking and rationalization. I’m of the dinosaur era of publishing (typewriters and 4th class special book rate) so my outlook and opinions might be tainted. Yet I do adhere to the fact that after observations lasting 28 years, things have not changed too radically, but significantly enough to have an impact on the industry as a whole. When Barnes & Nobel finally takes a headlong dive, then I believe there will be a realization of what is truly wrong with the industry. Not being a crepe hanger here, either. You know what we’ve lost already.

When I was published in 1988 and 1990, I landed in every B. Dalton and Walden’s book store in country. I ended up in every library in the U.S. I hit three major TV networks, including the 6’oclock news, 40 radio station appearances and 50 magazine and newspaper interviews. My two advances were in the thousands and I earned out on both books. I had no agent. These were NOT Big 5 publishers--one was a small press and the other was a medium house.  These books were in no way were bestsellers. This was business as usual--pretty standard fare. Today? You can not get that total package from any of the Big 5, as a new author.

I do believe that established authors that typically have several, if not dozens of books or series with a publisher, stand a much better chance of continuous publication, rather than a new up-and-coming author. Sure, houses are looking for that next breakout from an unknown--they can launch a media parade like no other, even eclipsing the re-launch of a known quantity. But the gamble--the new talent can fold up with the next book, or even fail to follow up with a sequel. The pressures can be enormous. The known quantity can be a stable, sure bet that guarantees income, just like it had in the past. So in case, I think old school hangs tightly in there. (My source on this comes from Publisher’s Market Place."

I’ve heard year after year after year that editors and agents are being more selective. It just means its more difficult--not impossible. I understand that. Publishing has always been competitive. However, I hate to admit it, but I think the "blood pressure" of the publishers is topping out and they are a little on the frantic side.

Okay, Chris, if we’re in such a bleak slide in the publishing industry, and that view is taken with a grain of salt because it is your opinion, what do you recommend as a fix? Are you even concerned about a fix?

Tough question. I think the damage has been done, more to some extent today than ever. I would love to see a ginormous breakout or blockbuster series (in the likes of Harry Potter or equivalent) that takes the reading populace by storm. If we got this injection fix about ever five to seven years, I think this industry would stay afloat for a long time. I don’t think we can reverse the industry operating system. I do think we can raise the readership of the world and we should aim for that type of goal. I do mean, do it like never before.

This is from my Guerrilla Warfare for Writers (special weapons and tactics). I think it adds to the subject matter here. I want to thank all of those comments, which made sense and covered a different ground of thought and process.

Here’s a question I ran across in my writing forum that I thought I could answer. It seemed relevant. There was also a mention about rejection comments from agents and publishers being all over the place and contradictory. So I guess this might be a double-barreled answer of sorts.

I wonder if the closing of YA to debut (somewhat) is part of the diversity problems people were discussing on Twitter. Eg the publishers hiring sensitivity writings on staff to fix the books by their established authors, rather that buying new/debut and actually diverse authors.

This could very well be since a brand name is a pretty difficult position to establish for a new writer. There is an extended time factor too, in getting that author shiny enough to be seen in the crowded marketplace. You know, it’s like keeping the status quo rather than taking a risk, contemplating the financial math between the two--comparing their work ethics and the speed by which they can act on revisions and editing. A ’one in the hand is better than two in the bush’ theory. An old stable mate would be less risky for an agent to introduce to a publisher. The publisher might quietly agree with this.
 
I’m sure we all know how it goes...the editors are very polite and attentive to agents above other submissions. By default, I’m sure that 95% of editors okay the full sub. I can’t remember ever having my agent tell me that she sent a partial out to any of the big houses, unless it was very specific--but that would be a terrible time killer. Now, the short query and synopsis also goes, whether your agent is using yours or they have touched them up, cut them down and made improvements, what have you. 

Here’s the clincher, the editor or agent can cut the book off at the knees by reading the opening query and full synopses. It’s true they asked for the full--that is DEFAULT. It’s really none of your or your agent’s business how a publishing house processes their material. The misunderstanding here is that nearly everyone might believe that they have had their full rejected. Hmmm...?
 
When you get your rejection comments back from your agent (and you should always ask for them), look for phrases like "I don’t think this will sell at this time." "It’s too long." It’s too short. "The plot seems weak." "I couldn’t get a clear picture of the MC." "I don’t think this is commercial enough." "We have something similar." "Sorry, but this is not a good fit." "I wouldn’t know how to sell this." And myriads of other general/stock phrases. We all know we’ve been read (at least partially) when the comments come in about characters, motivation, POV shifts, plot analysis, style and other such specifics. So NEVER blame you or your story because you have stacked up lots of rejections. It’s very likely that under half of your submission fulls have not been read through from page one to the end. In fact, it’s damn near a certainty. 
 
The deluge of manuscripts that a publisher has to weed through is astronomical. I’ve been in several large publishing houses and witnessed the operations dozens of times. If you’ve worked for a publisher as an editor, intern or first reader, you know what kind of pressure you were under to "clean house" because you’ve gotten loaded up. "Reject faster!" cries the publisher. They don’t look for what’s right. They are on the lookout for what’s wrong.
 
There is another kind of rejection, but it’s kind of rare. It’s a skip-through, where the editor flips into three or four different parts of the book and reads a page or two from each section. (matter of fact, they start off this way). They’re generally looking for flat material--nothing is happening--it’s all casual dialogue, etc. Once in a very blue moon it will be because of bad writing (your agent would have caught this). They’ll stop right there--whamo--they won’t break open the first chapter.
 
So take heart. We’ve all had rejections because of economizing. It’s the business. It’s not you. The right editor and the timing is crucial--more important than you think. Of course, you’ll have to have that knockout book! 

Red-shifting outta here,

Chris