tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35623128.post116054803268829786..comments2023-07-03T07:26:04.780-04:00Comments on The Rejecter: Science-based Fiction and What's PublishableThe Rejecterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09087643296072075641noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35623128.post-1161664333282963602006-10-24T00:32:00.000-04:002006-10-24T00:32:00.000-04:00"There's that famous story of how John Grisham got..."There's that famous story of how John Grisham got rejected everywhere and self-published his first novel or something and it became a huge hit, so some company picked it up."<BR/><BR/>Yep, that's a fmous story alright.<BR/><BR/>It's also pure grade-A unadulterated bullshit propagated by the internet.<BR/><BR/>Grisham's first novel (A Time to Kill) was published by a small press, with a print run of about 5,000, and sold like ice in winter. He tried to prevent it from being heavily remaindered by buying up copies and selling them himself. But it never became a hit until he'd already had a bestselling novel (The Firm), and it was never, ever self-published.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35623128.post-1161560144462755622006-10-22T19:35:00.000-04:002006-10-22T19:35:00.000-04:00Water rights in the Western United States? You'll ...Water rights in the Western United States? You'll have to make VERY clear how your story is not a ripoff of the movie Chinatown. That's what every east coast reader will be thinking...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35623128.post-1161400860807077322006-10-20T23:21:00.000-04:002006-10-20T23:21:00.000-04:00You wrote:But it's hard to say to an author, "Look...You wrote:<BR/><BR/>But it's hard to say to an author, "Look, this is just the right novel at the wrong time."<BR/><BR/>I'm wondering:<BR/><BR/>Is one reason this is hard to say because it's something an author should be aware of without needing to be told? (That one should not try to market a hurricane story while FEMA is still muddling things in the news, for example.) <BR/><BR/>(The tone of this post sounds off to me, but I don't mean it that way. I'm genuinely curious.) <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Here's a scary story:<BR/><BR/>I knew a guy who had written a great disaster-epic screenplay about a big wave that slammed into Hawaii. <BR/><BR/>Then came December 26, 2004.<BR/><BR/>The end.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35623128.post-1160758426143427882006-10-13T12:53:00.000-04:002006-10-13T12:53:00.000-04:00I know Mr. Crichton has come under withering criti...I know Mr. Crichton has come under withering criticism for his latest book from experts in climate science - some of whom he interviewed or spent time with - who believe he misstated his facts to reach previously-chosen conclusions. (He might respond that scientists do the same thing.) I'm not well versed in that field, so I can't say for sure, but I would tend to trust the scientists.<BR/>More to the point, I've read reviews of this book where commentators noted that the use of graphs and charts assurred them that Crichton had done his research and presented the items accuractly. Unfortunately, that doesn't give any assurance at all. It also brings up again the need for more entertaning fiction that provides accurate portrayals of science and technology. We learn a lot through fictional portrayals, whether at the movies or in books. With so many issues affecting all of us riding on sci/tech, it would be very helpful if the perspective and "feel" for sci/tech that our citizens have bears some relation to the genuine article. This would help a lot in sorting out which arguments ring true and seem based on sound science, and which are made based on ideology and politics. I believe the public will embrace such portrays if they are entertaining and don't push the brain TOO hard. I recall when CSI first went on TV, it was thought to be too cerebral - but it seemed the public didn't mind. <BR/>Regarding Richard Powers, he is by all accounts a fine writer who weaves science and philosphy into his stories. I'm not sure how widely read he is, or if he is read by folks who don't already have some solid grounding in these issues. As discussed in the following Rejector commentary on "bad" literature - it's marketing to a wider audience that really makes the money, which has to be an agent's goal at least some of the time. Plus, a book on an important read by the "masses" is more likely to influence society than one read by a select group of thinkers. (Not always true, but on average.)James Aachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08762006792617588325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35623128.post-1160695283807498462006-10-12T19:21:00.000-04:002006-10-12T19:21:00.000-04:00Nah, Crichton is not a terrific writer. Like Thom...Nah, Crichton is not a terrific writer. Like Thomas Harris, he does a lot of research to try to give his material the imprimatur of a writer whose done serous research. But it's all applique. He's not much of a stylist. Structurally, he inevitably has an older, seasoned veteran paired with a younger novice so that long periods of the novel can be spent schooling the novice, i.e., that's his chosen artless way of working in obvious exposition. <BR/><BR/>If you want science within writing, how about Richard Powers? There's someone who actually seems to be expert in a wide field. This, too, may be a veneer, but he seems more authentic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35623128.post-1160589338301881262006-10-11T13:55:00.000-04:002006-10-11T13:55:00.000-04:00Very interesting commentary and very enlightening....Very interesting commentary and very enlightening. It's good of you to take the time to write these things up.<BR/><BR/>I would somewhat disagree that non-scientists don't encounter science on an everyday basis - because they deal with the results of science (the technology) almost every waking moment. (I'm guessing you wrote your column on a computer, for instance, probably took some sort of transportation to work, and your dinner will not consist only of food you've picked or shot. ) However, it’s clear from your discussion that for any non-SF fiction story with science to be interesting, it would have to tie the science back directly to the results that the average Joe is seeing. That makes sense. Fiction is about people in the end (though based on your previous post it’s not a good idea to make them blood-sucking lesbian detectives.)<BR/><BR/>I can see where an agent needs to have some personal motivation in order to do a good job for their client. I understand it's not a field rolling in high salaries, so some other motivation is clearly needed.<BR/><BR/>I can also appreciate that agents and editors must stay on top of current publishing and reading trends even if these are somewhat outside their personal interests. However, I didn't find your contention that agents do not share great simularities to be very compelling. Your basis seems to be that they have various physical and ethnic differences and are widely read. In the last instance, within the fiction realm I suspect they are widely read in what other agents have promoted and sold - - which seems a bit like circular reasoning. Your MFA class anecdote was very interesting - and also tends to weaken your contention to some extent, as I'm guessing some of these MFA students will end up in the publishing side of the business. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps, however, I'm just displaying my own set of prejudices on this topic.<BR/><BR/>A good column, and I hope you continue to provide some inside perspective.<BR/><BR/>James Aach<BR/><BR/>Author of "Rad Decision" - the insider novel of nuclear power. <BR/>RadDecision.blogspot.com www.LabLit.com/article/83James Aachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08762006792617588325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35623128.post-1160573431881332702006-10-11T09:30:00.000-04:002006-10-11T09:30:00.000-04:00Great post. Very accurate.Great post. Very accurate.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com