The following was taken from a guide for aspiring writers.
"New writers usually cannot convince large, prestigious publishers that their work is marketable, so they must first publish with smaller, less well-known presses to establish a sales record. But the editors of Mystery Writers Magazine have good news for aspiring writers: the number of mystery novels published in the last two years has grown significantly, and more people read mysteries than any other type of novel. In addition, almost half of the mystery novels published last year were written by first-time novel writers. Since there is apparently an expanding market for mystery novels, all publishers will want to increase the number of mystery novels they publish. Therefore, new writers should write mystery novels to increase their chances for first-time publication with a larger, prestigious company."
While it might be true that having a successful sales record with smaller publications, might improve changes of being able to enter into publishing with larger companies, the arguments provided are suggestive, but on closer look are misleading and not entirely convicing.
Firstly, the main source of information seems to be the 'editors of Mystery Writers Magazine'. To begin with, is the 'Mystery Writers Magazine' a reliable source of information about the publishing industry as a whole or do they have a self serving end of promoting 'Mystery' writing to readers? Maybe their circulation numbers would benefit from their readers feeling a false sense of optimism regarding their careers. How reliable is their data? The author would have done well to answer some of these questions to establish our trust in this pivotal source of information.
Secondly, it is posited that mystery novels PUBLISHED has grown over the last couple of years. Does this necessarily mean that this translates to the fact that more mystery novels have been SOLD over the last couple of years? Even if the overall number of books sold had increased, this could have been due to the 'me-too' effect of the success of one or two books in the genre, so it is important for the author to clarify why the growing number of mystery novels published translates to the growing success of many of the mystery books both in numbers sold and breadth of sales attributed to the genre.
Thirdly, the author mentions that more people read mysteries than any other type of novel and that this is indicative of the appetite for mystery novels. If however the the overall readership of novels themselves went down, it does not necessarily bode well for mystery novel writers. An explanation using numbers of mystery novels sold and overall number of novels sold over the years would have helped explain why this was something promising to would-be mystery writers.
Lastly just because the number of mystery novels published in the last two years has grown significantly, does not necessarily mean that this trend is projected to increase. Could these be a couple of years that are an anamoly, or a peak? Why does the growth in publishing of mystery novels in the last two years promise a growing trend in the long term for new writers to pursue it as a career? Answering this question or providing longer term data would have lent substance to the exhortive statements made at the end.
Thus, it can be seen that while the arguments look convincing on the face of it, they are fallacious when examined closer. The author could have made his case a little stronger through the user of more reliable information sources, more data and reliable projections to make his case to new writers.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
"People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are the most critical of it."
5. "People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are the most critical of it."
It is true that people who are immersed in and committed to a certain field have a better idea of the drawbacks. In general however, it is not true that such people are also the most critical of it as can be seen in many contexts.
To begin with, people who are deeply committed to an idea or policy might also have know of the pitfalls and problems in it. For example it would take a physicist to see the pitfalls in string theory and be its informed critic. On the other hand, a cowboy would find it hard to know where to start on the subject. It took Joseph Stieglitz, the critical ex-head of the world bank to discern and elucidate the problems in the World Bank, not someone in the communist world opposed to it merely by ideology. Sometimes it requires a person with a microscope to see the germs.
While that is true in some instances, for the most part however, people who are deeply committed to an idea or policy usually have good reason to have done so in the first place. This in turn rules out that they would be the most critical of the ideas themselves. For instance, it would be hard to find an astronaut who would be critical of funding space and scientific research. On the other hand it is quite the norm that people who are far removed from science and technology are its most vocal critics. Most people are averse to the idea of biting the hand that feeds it.
Further, people committed to an idea or a policy are usually deeply entrenched in it, just by virtue of being committed to it. This very fact may preclude them from seeing the world from outside their limited ken. It is common for scientists in one discipline to see the world through those lens, and the same is true for political ideologies. Being 'capitalist' maybe criticized in some islamic and socialist countries, while being 'communist' maybe critized in countries that are democratic. Wearing a burka is critized in the West and wearing a bikini in the Islamic world.
Lastly, people who are committed to an idea or policy have more to lose by being critical of it than those that are not. A music record company is more likely to be critical of the internet medium than a company that has provided its music through the internet since its inception. Monetary and commercial interests may preclude them from being evenhanded critics of an idea or policy.
In summary, while it is true in a few cases that a person's knowledge of an issue can make them more aware of the limitations and in turn make them better critics, like a dog exercising the decision to wag its tail, it is more often than not that reasons relating to money, career and survival, can make people less likely to be critical of the ideas they are committed to. More like the tail wagging the dog.
It is true that people who are immersed in and committed to a certain field have a better idea of the drawbacks. In general however, it is not true that such people are also the most critical of it as can be seen in many contexts.
To begin with, people who are deeply committed to an idea or policy might also have know of the pitfalls and problems in it. For example it would take a physicist to see the pitfalls in string theory and be its informed critic. On the other hand, a cowboy would find it hard to know where to start on the subject. It took Joseph Stieglitz, the critical ex-head of the world bank to discern and elucidate the problems in the World Bank, not someone in the communist world opposed to it merely by ideology. Sometimes it requires a person with a microscope to see the germs.
While that is true in some instances, for the most part however, people who are deeply committed to an idea or policy usually have good reason to have done so in the first place. This in turn rules out that they would be the most critical of the ideas themselves. For instance, it would be hard to find an astronaut who would be critical of funding space and scientific research. On the other hand it is quite the norm that people who are far removed from science and technology are its most vocal critics. Most people are averse to the idea of biting the hand that feeds it.
Further, people committed to an idea or a policy are usually deeply entrenched in it, just by virtue of being committed to it. This very fact may preclude them from seeing the world from outside their limited ken. It is common for scientists in one discipline to see the world through those lens, and the same is true for political ideologies. Being 'capitalist' maybe criticized in some islamic and socialist countries, while being 'communist' maybe critized in countries that are democratic. Wearing a burka is critized in the West and wearing a bikini in the Islamic world.
Lastly, people who are committed to an idea or policy have more to lose by being critical of it than those that are not. A music record company is more likely to be critical of the internet medium than a company that has provided its music through the internet since its inception. Monetary and commercial interests may preclude them from being evenhanded critics of an idea or policy.
In summary, while it is true in a few cases that a person's knowledge of an issue can make them more aware of the limitations and in turn make them better critics, like a dog exercising the decision to wag its tail, it is more often than not that reasons relating to money, career and survival, can make people less likely to be critical of the ideas they are committed to. More like the tail wagging the dog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
