I'm largely in sympathy with you here, but I have to demur on one point.
"Calling a style out of date is the most cowardly kind of criticism because it says time is a jury. It isn’t. If Simon’s prose is unreadable now, the implication is that the human brain has evolved backward—that attention has shrunk, and the only legitimate pleasure left is the pleasure of not being challenged."
Every work of art is of its time and culture. It addresses current concerns in a current style. It makes references to current things and to things currently known and studied. Time is not a jury, but it is a veil. The concerns become more distant. The unfamiliar style seems dissonant. The references recall nothing to the mind. A famous name persuades us to put in the effort to pull back the veil, but without that spur to effort, the work will simply seem unreasonably difficult.
Stripped of its reputation, it is hard to think of a single classic that would get published today. They are purchased and read, after all, largely on the strength of their reputations. Deserved reputations, certainly, but reputations won in a different time.
The question to me is, are they missing work of similar calibre written today, or is there nothing of the calibre being written?
Vane I have to agree with your original point. I have just gotten feedback that my high fantasy novel must start with the inciting incident or it will be immediately rejected. No scene setting, no world building, just straight to the action with no context whatsoever, like some poor scripted Hollywood B-list film with flashy graphics and no substance.
If this is what trad publishing is looking for, I will turn to Indie, where the artists soul can remain relatively intact.
I’m not prepared to sacrifice my voice and story to cater to the TikTok adhd mindset.
Will I be a best seller - probably not.
But I hope I reach an audience that appreciates my work all the same, even if just a few willing to give a little more time, and think a little deeper.
If the publishing industry's eye, or AI, reject what doesn't match the current formula, as evidenced by rejecting older styles from the past, then it will also reject innovative or at least different styles from the present, thus preventing growth and expression just as much born of the current zeitgeist and world, not to mention from other cultures.
As a neurodivergent who intentionally allow my different way of experiencing the world to influence style and structure, I object.
We have become too timid to call formula formula, let alone to decry it, or at least defend trying to be novel in a novel.
Perhaps, but I think we have to be careful not to be deceived by the time-dilation effect when we look at the past. Does the past show us a wide variety of styles? Certainly. Does that mean that publishers in the past accepted works in a wide variety of styles *at the same time*? I think the answer to that is probably no. Publishing is still a business, and businesses succeed by meeting consumer demand, not by indulging supplier fancy. Publishers who publish what people don't want to buy quietly go out of business and are forgotten. I suspect that there is actually more variety in what is being published today than at any time in the past, even if that variety does not extend to the kinds of books many of us want to write.
"Meeting consumer demand" also now *defines* consumer demand. That's the problem.
Example: I write sci fi, but *not* in any of the vendors' SFF genres. That means their algorithm will never push my stuff, *and*, guided by Hollywood's bad representation of sci fi, readers only expect it, and by definition can only filter using those categories. Customers then also learn that those categories are all that's possible. And this doesn't even get into a novel's style or structure. Saying it's a business and must respond to consumer demand is completely blind to how the business' methods create and restrict that demand, to a publisher's detriment, let alone the public's detriment.
Yes, publishers do work to shape demand. They always have. Industry needs predictability to reduce investment risk so they work to make their business more predictable by shaping demand. But there are limits to their ability to do this, and where the attempt breaks down, new players enter the market. Blackberry's attempt to shape demand in the cell phone market collapsed and we got iPhone. You could argue that this happens frequently enough in publishing. But it doesn't happen as often as you or I, who are attempting our own disruptions of the market, would like.
Spot on! Having been on the losing end of this battle, I have found that despite whatever agents and small presses say they are looking for (fresh voices, new perspectives...), they really want the same old thing wrapped in a slightly different bow.
On calling a style out of date -- I believe agents and publishers are looking for writing that lacks style. Personal style gets in the way of quick reading. It can be misinterpreted by inexperienced readers. It's something that can turn off a reader...and a sale.
I mean, I agree with the point of your post about how publishers are missing out on good books for a multitude of reasons and generally doing a poor job of gatekeeping. That's very true. But I really disliked Lord of the Flies, and it annoys me how many people think that's actually what would happen.
I agree with you too. I never really cared for it TBH and it could be used as an example of a classic that doesn’t deserve to be one. As it stands though, it is, deservedly or not.
That’s a different kind of post. Undeserved classics!
A bit yes! I'd like to see someone try again. I am surprised he got as many rejections as he did. I think the rate of non-answers would be higher today.
Yeah, I think ‘the style is out of date’ was the publishers doing their job. If I sent a 50 pages of Virginia Woolfe or Dickens and that was the feedback, they would be right brillance notwithstanding.
An important point I want to throw in is that it is rare, very rare for an agent or editor to read past page 50. Even when they are offering on the manuscript, they haven’t read the whole thing. At best they have read to page 50 then skimmed. It is very difficult for complex or subtle work to make it through that process. They also look for plot beats at certain points, so if your plotting isn’t cookie cutter they are likely to lose the thread (bc they are skimming) and reject.
All apt points. Mainstream publishers certainly appear to operate in SEO-first mode. One wonders if the sheer amount of money in IP exploitation has so marginalized l'avant garde that only indies can afford to be artful.
I think that's the only path, unless you're already famous. There's tremendous freedom in being indie. That it's also tremendously hard is part of the deal, unfortunately.
The Volle experiment is worth knowing. The shift from discovery to verification is real—editors buy risk insurance, not manuscripts. Where I'd push back: the old gatekeepers weren't better at recognizing genius; they were just slower at rejecting it. The problem isn't that taste has declined; it's that rejection has been automated. The filter is faster, not dumber.
Volume explains the speed. Whether the filter is dumber or just narrower—maybe both. It's very good at finding what already worked. That's not stupidity; it's a different goal.
Very interesting piece - I was not aware of this experiment and enjoyed your reflections which touched on a number of topics I find fascinating. My observations:
- You lay the blame on modern publishing trends (e.g. narrow categories) squarely on publishers, but of course they are just following the lead of fiction readers, who are themselves a much narrower demographic now
- maybe I'm misreading, but you seem dismissive of the idea that attention spans have shrunk, when there's bountiful evidence that this is indeed the case
- most interestingly, this experiment raises this question: If professionals cannot see the greatness and other qualities in classic works when they are stripped of their context (e.g. Nobel Prize winner), could it be that these attributes aren't actually in the text itself? Could it be rather that they emerge from a combination of the text and the context that surrounds it? I've written about this phenomenon elsewhere, comparing it to the wine connoisseur who cannot pick the expensive wine in a blind test, but suddenly finds its sublime qualities when they read the label.
Sadly, 'quality' in traditional publishing has become defined purely by potential ROI. On the bright side, they no longer gatekeep access to the masses. The optimist in me unquestionably believes that work of the same caliber is being written today. The problem is how we, as humanity, find it in the haystack, and hold it high enough to be recognized for what it is. I'll make you a deal - I'll be the Max Brod to your Kafka, if you'll be mine!
You have to consider whether the people who did not respond may have recognized the work and decided to not engage with a lunatic plagiarist. Likewise the form rejects.
True, that could be the reason. Though, the lack of response is damning by itself. They should respond, regardless. I know many don't. Same situation in Norway. You don't get answers today.
I tried to find the exact rejection letters, but I couldn't find that any of them was published.
Interesting article, and the question by @gmbaker in his comment.
I think the correct question is:
> ...are they missing work of similar calibre written today, or is there nothing of the calibre being written?
My answer would be that the work exists, and agents/publishers are missing it because publishing has replaced aesthetic judgment with procedural judgment. Voice, strangeness, difficulty, moral ambiguity used to be risks worth taking... but now they are 'problems to solve.' Things agents can't justify acquiring.
I believe disruptive, innovative, and unique books exist... but likely not in trad-pub unless the writer was established 20+ years ago.
I'm largely in sympathy with you here, but I have to demur on one point.
"Calling a style out of date is the most cowardly kind of criticism because it says time is a jury. It isn’t. If Simon’s prose is unreadable now, the implication is that the human brain has evolved backward—that attention has shrunk, and the only legitimate pleasure left is the pleasure of not being challenged."
Every work of art is of its time and culture. It addresses current concerns in a current style. It makes references to current things and to things currently known and studied. Time is not a jury, but it is a veil. The concerns become more distant. The unfamiliar style seems dissonant. The references recall nothing to the mind. A famous name persuades us to put in the effort to pull back the veil, but without that spur to effort, the work will simply seem unreasonably difficult.
Stripped of its reputation, it is hard to think of a single classic that would get published today. They are purchased and read, after all, largely on the strength of their reputations. Deserved reputations, certainly, but reputations won in a different time.
The question to me is, are they missing work of similar calibre written today, or is there nothing of the calibre being written?
I’ll concede that.
I guess it became a little muddled with regards to the Nouveau Roman style and the general of a style going out of date.
The interesting and pertinent question, the only one that matters, is the one you ask. And honestly, I just have to believe that there is.
Certainly, I want to follow into this tradition, though my style leans more to Hamsun / Kafka / Bataille.
So what I do is try to find authors in the same register. And I do find some, though they’re few and far between.
And they’re not with big publishers.
Vane I have to agree with your original point. I have just gotten feedback that my high fantasy novel must start with the inciting incident or it will be immediately rejected. No scene setting, no world building, just straight to the action with no context whatsoever, like some poor scripted Hollywood B-list film with flashy graphics and no substance.
If this is what trad publishing is looking for, I will turn to Indie, where the artists soul can remain relatively intact.
I’m not prepared to sacrifice my voice and story to cater to the TikTok adhd mindset.
Will I be a best seller - probably not.
But I hope I reach an audience that appreciates my work all the same, even if just a few willing to give a little more time, and think a little deeper.
If the publishing industry's eye, or AI, reject what doesn't match the current formula, as evidenced by rejecting older styles from the past, then it will also reject innovative or at least different styles from the present, thus preventing growth and expression just as much born of the current zeitgeist and world, not to mention from other cultures.
As a neurodivergent who intentionally allow my different way of experiencing the world to influence style and structure, I object.
We have become too timid to call formula formula, let alone to decry it, or at least defend trying to be novel in a novel.
Perhaps, but I think we have to be careful not to be deceived by the time-dilation effect when we look at the past. Does the past show us a wide variety of styles? Certainly. Does that mean that publishers in the past accepted works in a wide variety of styles *at the same time*? I think the answer to that is probably no. Publishing is still a business, and businesses succeed by meeting consumer demand, not by indulging supplier fancy. Publishers who publish what people don't want to buy quietly go out of business and are forgotten. I suspect that there is actually more variety in what is being published today than at any time in the past, even if that variety does not extend to the kinds of books many of us want to write.
"Meeting consumer demand" also now *defines* consumer demand. That's the problem.
Example: I write sci fi, but *not* in any of the vendors' SFF genres. That means their algorithm will never push my stuff, *and*, guided by Hollywood's bad representation of sci fi, readers only expect it, and by definition can only filter using those categories. Customers then also learn that those categories are all that's possible. And this doesn't even get into a novel's style or structure. Saying it's a business and must respond to consumer demand is completely blind to how the business' methods create and restrict that demand, to a publisher's detriment, let alone the public's detriment.
Yes, publishers do work to shape demand. They always have. Industry needs predictability to reduce investment risk so they work to make their business more predictable by shaping demand. But there are limits to their ability to do this, and where the attempt breaks down, new players enter the market. Blackberry's attempt to shape demand in the cell phone market collapsed and we got iPhone. You could argue that this happens frequently enough in publishing. But it doesn't happen as often as you or I, who are attempting our own disruptions of the market, would like.
Spot on! Having been on the losing end of this battle, I have found that despite whatever agents and small presses say they are looking for (fresh voices, new perspectives...), they really want the same old thing wrapped in a slightly different bow.
On calling a style out of date -- I believe agents and publishers are looking for writing that lacks style. Personal style gets in the way of quick reading. It can be misinterpreted by inexperienced readers. It's something that can turn off a reader...and a sale.
"...William Golding’s Lord of the Flies was 'an absurd and uninteresting fantasy which was rubbish and dull.'"
Okay, so they got one right?
😂 well… kinda
I mean, I agree with the point of your post about how publishers are missing out on good books for a multitude of reasons and generally doing a poor job of gatekeeping. That's very true. But I really disliked Lord of the Flies, and it annoys me how many people think that's actually what would happen.
I agree with you too. I never really cared for it TBH and it could be used as an example of a classic that doesn’t deserve to be one. As it stands though, it is, deservedly or not.
That’s a different kind of post. Undeserved classics!
This is a fascinating experiment, if a bit demoralizing.
A bit yes! I'd like to see someone try again. I am surprised he got as many rejections as he did. I think the rate of non-answers would be higher today.
Yeah, I think ‘the style is out of date’ was the publishers doing their job. If I sent a 50 pages of Virginia Woolfe or Dickens and that was the feedback, they would be right brillance notwithstanding.
Perhaps.
The text is certainly hard to read…
There’s also a huge difference between what the Nobel institute likes and what the general audience likes.
An important point I want to throw in is that it is rare, very rare for an agent or editor to read past page 50. Even when they are offering on the manuscript, they haven’t read the whole thing. At best they have read to page 50 then skimmed. It is very difficult for complex or subtle work to make it through that process. They also look for plot beats at certain points, so if your plotting isn’t cookie cutter they are likely to lose the thread (bc they are skimming) and reject.
All apt points. Mainstream publishers certainly appear to operate in SEO-first mode. One wonders if the sheer amount of money in IP exploitation has so marginalized l'avant garde that only indies can afford to be artful.
I think that's the only path, unless you're already famous. There's tremendous freedom in being indie. That it's also tremendously hard is part of the deal, unfortunately.
The Volle experiment is worth knowing. The shift from discovery to verification is real—editors buy risk insurance, not manuscripts. Where I'd push back: the old gatekeepers weren't better at recognizing genius; they were just slower at rejecting it. The problem isn't that taste has declined; it's that rejection has been automated. The filter is faster, not dumber.
Oh I think it’s dumber. But faster too, and partly because now authors can send a manuscript by mail at no cost, vs printout
Volume explains the speed. Whether the filter is dumber or just narrower—maybe both. It's very good at finding what already worked. That's not stupidity; it's a different goal.
Spot on.
I never submitted to a publisher, but I assume ziprecruiter and job searches on the internet are likely similar. The age of automation.
Very interesting piece - I was not aware of this experiment and enjoyed your reflections which touched on a number of topics I find fascinating. My observations:
- You lay the blame on modern publishing trends (e.g. narrow categories) squarely on publishers, but of course they are just following the lead of fiction readers, who are themselves a much narrower demographic now
- maybe I'm misreading, but you seem dismissive of the idea that attention spans have shrunk, when there's bountiful evidence that this is indeed the case
- most interestingly, this experiment raises this question: If professionals cannot see the greatness and other qualities in classic works when they are stripped of their context (e.g. Nobel Prize winner), could it be that these attributes aren't actually in the text itself? Could it be rather that they emerge from a combination of the text and the context that surrounds it? I've written about this phenomenon elsewhere, comparing it to the wine connoisseur who cannot pick the expensive wine in a blind test, but suddenly finds its sublime qualities when they read the label.
Sadly, 'quality' in traditional publishing has become defined purely by potential ROI. On the bright side, they no longer gatekeep access to the masses. The optimist in me unquestionably believes that work of the same caliber is being written today. The problem is how we, as humanity, find it in the haystack, and hold it high enough to be recognized for what it is. I'll make you a deal - I'll be the Max Brod to your Kafka, if you'll be mine!
There are so many jems in this essay
Disheartening...but thank you 😢
Let's see if I can get in somehow anyway.
You have to consider whether the people who did not respond may have recognized the work and decided to not engage with a lunatic plagiarist. Likewise the form rejects.
True, that could be the reason. Though, the lack of response is damning by itself. They should respond, regardless. I know many don't. Same situation in Norway. You don't get answers today.
I tried to find the exact rejection letters, but I couldn't find that any of them was published.
Interesting article, and the question by @gmbaker in his comment.
I think the correct question is:
> ...are they missing work of similar calibre written today, or is there nothing of the calibre being written?
My answer would be that the work exists, and agents/publishers are missing it because publishing has replaced aesthetic judgment with procedural judgment. Voice, strangeness, difficulty, moral ambiguity used to be risks worth taking... but now they are 'problems to solve.' Things agents can't justify acquiring.
I believe disruptive, innovative, and unique books exist... but likely not in trad-pub unless the writer was established 20+ years ago.