A comment about that NYTimes Black List article

CRAFT is a reader-supported email newsletter about the nuts and bolts of fiction writing and the world of publishing.

I don't normally post on Thursdays but I wanted to respond to this New York Times article about The Black List expanding to include novels in addition to screenplays. If you're not familiar with The Black List it is a well-known list of “the best unproduced screenplays in Hollywood.” Screenwriters pay a fee (I think about 100 dollars) to have their screenplay uploaded, and then they can get feedback and ratings. If your screenplay bubbles to the top, it could potentially win within its genre for the year, ostensibly with the idea of getting snatched up by a production company. This has happened in the past, and if you are a budding screenwriter, in addition to reading the screenplays of award winning movies, you will probably find yourself perusing the top of The Black List looking for stuff that is good.

Though, I will note that recently a friend of mine who is a full time screenwriter told me that The Black List has changed over time, and that now the point of doing well on it is not to get your screenplay produced, but to attract an agent or manager who will get IP work for you. Because that’s all there is--other people’s IP, as it is very unlikely you will get an original screenplay produced. (Sad, I know). I have a few concerns about this idea for novels, and the first is fundamental: I don’t know how much time you’ve spent reading screenplays, but over the course of the year that I took screenwriting, I was surprised to find out how ridiculously fast it is to read an entire screenplay. Reading the first 100 pages of a novel and the first 100 of a screenplay are incredibly different and the entire idea seems predicated on the idea that some industry readers will be willing to sit there and read a third of your book for free.

Other concerns: 

Some of the commentary by various people--none of them skeptical--was cited without critical evaluation from the NY Times reporter. The founder of the project stated that the intent was to “create an avenue for authors whose work may have gone overlooked because they lack a literary agent or the right industry connections.” I think this is playing into a particular view of the literary world, and playing a particular tune that works well with generating revenue from people who are upset because they feel they are “industry outsiders.” On the literary agent part: if you do not have an agent it is either because 1) you are not good enough 2) you are good enough, but you need to keep at it. “Keep at it” means “don't give up after 10 queries” or “you’ve written a well written book but the market isn’t right for this right now” ie, you just haven’t written the right book to break out with yet. So the other half of this assumption--that you can’t make it if you don’t have “the right industry connections” is something that is often said by people who aren’t particularly informed or who are trying to sell you something. I’m not saying there are no people who get book deals through industry connections. But I think most people don’t. I sure didn’t. I had zero industry connections. I was signed off the slush pile. My book sold at auction, then at several other foreign auctions, ultimately leading to something like 15 countries and 2 film deals. I’m a nobody. A sharp eyed person who knows me better could argue that I did have industry connections: I had been published in kinda prestigious short story venues and agents contacted me. (All those agents rejected me!) I had paid to attend conferences where I could pitch to agents (I got full requests from this but none of those agents signed me!) I got into prestigious juried conferences where they set up meetings with agents and editors (you can’t pitch a Big 5 editor! and the agents I met with had already rejected my novel so it was awkward! Of the other two who I hadn’t queried yet, one offered me nice, useful feedback, and the other was extremely, inexplicably rude to me). I had friends who had literary agents (I did not ask for a referral to their agents). 

The financial interests of the program seem to be a $30 monthly fee to have your manuscript posted (where ostensibly some “industry insiders” will comment on it and rate it for free…?) and/or to pay $150 for professional feedback from “one of their readers.” What $150 means to you will vary greatly on who you are and your financial situation. In the free market of editors for hire, you can pay more than 150 and get better feedback, or pay that same amount to a shitty editor and get shitty feedback. You can pay less and get better or worse feedback. You can (ideally) pay nothing by joining a writers group and getting feedback in exchange for feedback on their work. So the 150 is neither here nor there. I would suggest if you are going to pay for an edit, go with someone who has high reviews, whose work a friend recommends, or who you have some other reason to know might be good. It’s not clear from this article if the authors will get to pick who does their review or what exactly the review entails.

The 30$ a month, I will be honest, doesn’t strike me as a good idea. It’s based on the notion that people may read your book for free or, are the founder insists, publishing professionals will get free access to the site to browse manuscripts. Books with exceptional evaluations would get “showcased” in an email blast to subscribers.

So, we’re to believe that agents or publishers will actively log on to this site in hopes of finding the next Colleen Hoover… when they already have a pile of queries sitting in their inbox. They also have referrals sitting in their inbox. If you’re thinking about Pitchwars—about how there WAS a showcase where agents would come and read the pitches and make requests, yes Pitchwars worked for many, but it was also a small group of selected people who worked with mentors on revision for a year, and it had a lot of agent support and hype. Are agents interested in an email blast about manuscripts when they already have a hundred or more queries in their inbox..?

The founder says, “the publishing industry... [is] not necessarily finding the best writers and the best books.” This is like a weird counterfactual that can’t be proved or unproved. There are bad books that get published, there are bad books that get published and sell millions, there are good books that get published and no one buys them but they win the Pulitzer, and there are good books that don’t get published because the author gives up. I will die on this hill but if you are good your only job is to keep trying and something will happen.

There is a quote from an independent publisher (and not a small one) that I find puzzling and wondered if the reporter didn’t like.. ask any follow up questions..? or know anything about publishing..? “Publishers and readers everywhere have tried to figure out how to deal with the onslaught of unsolicited material.” Um.. where are readers trying to figure out how to deal with the onslaught of unsolicited material? Normal readers aren’t getting manuscripts in the mail. And publishers—Big 5 publishers and most of the big independent publishers including the one being quoted in the article—only take submissions from agents. So they actually don’t have an onslaught of unsolicited material—at least not in the sense of a slush pile (which is effectively what The Black List is creating—a paid slush pile).

The program is offering a 10K grant to each of the best unpublished books in 7 different genres. That’s pretty decent money in terms of unpublished book grants (James Jones is the only other one I can think of that’s about that big.) They also tout the potential to work with a production company who could option you for 25k. 25k is not a bad deal for an option, but if you went out on the free market, you could hypothetically get more money than that.

A literary agent is quoted as saying that the program could make it easier for her and other agents to find new writers “rather than responding to a stack of queries they have not necessarily asked to see.” First of all.. agents can close to queries. If they are open to queries, yes they are getting unsolicited queries, but these are authors responding to the agents’ specific calls—they are looking for book club fiction about sisters, gay romance, etc. So yes, agents that specifically say “no sci fi” will get some sci fi from idiots. But I find it way, way more believable that agents will continue to sign authors how they sign them right now (referrals and slush pile) than they would actively turn to this other system that happens to involve extra steps and the authors paying to play.

You do not need to pay to play to get an agent or a book deal. If you are going to pay money for something—which you don’t have to—pay to make yourself a better writer, but don’t pay for access. The reason you don’t have a book deal is not that you don’t have industry connections (ie, access). People don’t get into the NBA because they have connections—they get into the NBA because they are really fucking good at basketball. (that does not mean that everyone is Lebron James tho)

Let me close by presenting some weird data to you. Last time I was in NYC, I went to a party at my literary agency and we were talking about signing new clients. They remarked with I think some delight that my agent found me from the slush pile. I was surprised and said, where are you getting most of your clients? They said referrals. Before that disheartens you—that might be true but also contrast this other statistic: I just got back from Bouchercon where I saw a bunch of my friends. All are working writers (ie, people who are being paid money to write professionally, some even full time.) I’d say 60-85% of them got their agents via querying and being in the slush pile, not referrals. So just because there are lots of referrals going on 1) don’t assume the slush pile is being ignored and 2) don’t assume that a referral will necessarily lead to being signed.

And now, without a hint of irony…*

If you read this substack and think that I am smart, I am available for query reviews, first 10 pages review, and consulting. If you are a paid substack subscriber at the $5/ month or $50/year level, you can get a query or 10 pages review, otherwise I do those for $50 ala cart (ie without subscribing). If you are a Founding Member, I do two rounds of review ($75 ala cart). Consulting is $100 an hour and can be a conversation about whatever you want, talking through plot problems, advice on submission strategies, questions about the industry, book coaching etc. *I am not promising you access to agents or editors or saying you will get a book deal. I am promising you my brain. I am good at distilling down queries to their essential components, or pointing out why opening pages may not grab agents. I give detailed feedback that is frank and honest while respecting that your story is yours. I am currently not doing any developmental editing, likely not until 2025.

So, feel free to shoot me a DM.

Photo by Denise Jans on Unsplash